Veterans defend Kerry, criticize Dole

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's like talking to a brick wall. No matter how many lies are uncovered, how many times a point or fact is proven the brick wall just stands there and never changes.

Uh-huh.

Kerry has now changed his Cambodia "experience", a memory that was supposedly seared into him, multiple times, both the time and location. He's now changed his story about the encounter where he won his Bronze Star too. He said the other swift boats left after the mine exploded, that is not 100% false. Rood's column from Sunday, that was supposed to back up Kerry, said that the 3 boats turned into the ambush after the mine explosion damaged the 4th which would contradict what Kerry has said. He's said recently he left and came back a short time later to help the others with damage control and pulling the wounded out. Now you might see Kerry's campaign admit that this 1st Purple Heart could have been self-inflicted. Of course the term "self-inflicted' is going to be distorted just as Matthews did the other night insinuating that by using the term self-inflicted Kerry purposely wounded himself even though that has never been the accusation. He was wounded by shrapnel from a round he fired, but it was unintentional on JK's part. In Kerry's own biography written by Brinkley, DB got access to JK's war journal and in that journal, Kerry writes 9 days after the action that he received his first Purple Heart, he had not yet faced hostile fire.

The Swift Boats claimed that Kerry embellished his war record. Kerry's now backed off his Cambodia story, altered his account of what he did when he earned his Bronze Star and there is the possibility he might alter what he says happened when he earned his first Purple Heart. So how are these guys liars if Kerry's own stories today are coming off of what he's said for 35 years and while not completely agreeing with what the SBVTs are saying, moving towards their accounts?

[Raider Bill]

the whole story requires you to buy into the notion that the VC on the banks would be shooting at poor Rassmann, who was completely invisible underwater for most of the time, somewhat apart from the other boats which were laying down heavy suppressive fire, fire which could amount well over 12,000 rounds in two minutes if they had that much ammunition linked up and ready to go. Yet the VC are ignoring the five boats, the people like Thurlow walking around on PCF-3 giving aid, all those rear gunners standing bolt upright, and the infantry on board who were sitting ducks. For some reason they're supposedly shooting at Rassmann, and then of course sitting their waiting for John Kerry to make his appearance on the bow. Strange VC indeed, you might think, but no worries, because obviously they can't hit the side of a barn. Not one bullet hole in Kerry's boat, or any other, aside from three in Thurlow's boat which he said happened the previous day. How can five boats sit still in a narrow canal with heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire coming from both banks and none of them get hit with anything?
Perhaps initially there were some shots, but by the time Kerry's jaunt down the river was over I'd think any enemy must've been silenced, because nobody can sit and shoot at a bunch of sitting fifty foot boats from close range and not hit anything after trying for a couple of minutes. Blind men would accomplish that much by random chance. And Kerry and the official Navy report said it went on for 5,000 meters, or about 3 miles. And this was with PCF-94, damaged prop and all, towing PCF-3, so you know those three miles went very slowly. Yet Kerry, who writes in oozing detail about every bit of angst he can suck from a broken fingernail, doesn't say a thing about the hazards of running the three-mile gauntlet.

[OrangeDoofus]

Can you offer any kind of documentation to support any of these claims? For example, the report that says none of the boats was hit? All I've seen so far is hearsay from a bunch of guys who didn't have anything bad to say about Kerry 35 years ago--or even ten years ago for that matter--but who now, all of a sudden, have vivid recollections of what a liar Kerry is.

As for Thurlow, the fact remains that he has a Bronze Star, the citation for which was signed by Admiral Zumwalt and praises his bravery under fire. The Bronze star is given only for courage under fire. If there was no enemy fire that day, then Thurlow's Bronze Star is just as fraudulent as Kerry's. That means that one of these two things must be true:

• There was no enemy fire that day. In this case, Thurlow has spent the last 35 yeras with a Bronze Star that he knows he doesn't deserve. He's allowed the lies to stand and kept his Bronze Star. Only now, when he has a chance to damage Kerry, does he bother to start telling the truth.
• Or, there was enemy fire that day. In this case, Thurlow deserves his star. But now he's lying in order to damage Kerry.

Either way, Thurlow doesn't look like a very credible guy.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by njbil

the whole story requires you to buy into the notion that the VC on the banks would be shooting at poor Rassmann, who was completely invisible underwater for most of the time, somewhat apart from the other boats which were laying down heavy suppressive fire, fire which could amount well over 12,000 rounds in two minutes if they had that much ammunition linked up and ready to go. Yet the VC are ignoring the five boats, the people like Thurlow walking around on PCF-3 giving aid, all those rear gunners standing bolt upright, and the infantry on board who were sitting ducks. For some reason they're supposedly shooting at Rassmann, and then of course sitting their waiting for John Kerry to make his appearance on the bow. Strange VC indeed, you might think, but no worries, because obviously they can't hit the side of a barn. Not one bullet hole in Kerry's boat, or any other, aside from three in Thurlow's boat which he said happened the previous day. How can five boats sit still in a narrow canal with heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire coming from both banks and none of them get hit with anything?
Perhaps initially there were some shots, but by the time Kerry's jaunt down the river was over I'd think any enemy must've been silenced, because nobody can sit and shoot at a bunch of sitting fifty foot boats from close range and not hit anything after trying for a couple of minutes. Blind men would accomplish that much by random chance. And Kerry and the official Navy report said it went on for 5,000 meters, or about 3 miles. And this was with PCF-94, damaged prop and all, towing PCF-3, so you know those three miles went very slowly. Yet Kerry, who writes in oozing detail about every bit of angst he can suck from a broken fingernail, doesn't say a thing about the hazards of running the three-mile gauntlet.

Well, I'm sure you enjoy the intellectual exercise of sitting in your armchair after the fact and imagining all the possibilities - playing detective. All I can offer are the words of Jim Russell, the Navy Leiutenant on the boat directly behind Kerry's on that particular day:

"I saw him grab the guy from the water."

"These guys are lying and saying things that not only minimize Kerry, but makes all of us who were there seem inconsequential and minimal."

"Anyone who says that they remember another boat getting fired on or not when they were under fire is full of it. Anyone who says we weren't being fired upon was on a different river."

Of Kerry he says he was, "...a pretty tough guy and tight with his crew."

On why he came forward after thirty five years to discuss something he's never talked about with anyone, "I couldn't take it anymore - all the lies."

And finally, "What do those kids in Iraq think? They get wounded, honored and recognized, but when they come back here, people in power will question their service?"

And from Rich McCann, another vet who came forward, "If I had to go back up a river and go under fire, I would want John Kerry watching my back."

[Rascal]

Kerry brought all of this criticism on himself by being a jackass by constantly talking about his purple hearts and his service. If he hadn't done that guaranteed this wouldn't even be an issue. Hell Dole didn't mention it when he was running against Clinton and he obviously had more room to talk then Kerry ever did. You reap what you sow.

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by rascal

Kerry brought all of this criticism on himself by being a jackass by constantly talking about his purple hearts and his service. If he hadn't done that guaranteed this wouldn't even be an issue.

I don't buy that for a second. Not after what was done to McCain four years ago. This was in the cards from the moment Kerry became the frontrunner.

[Rascal]

Well I do. It was done to McCain very unfortunately, but it wasn't done to Clinton. I don't think it was in the cards, I think it only became an issue when Kerry kept mentioning it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by OrangeDoofus

I don't buy that for a second. Not after what was done to McCain four years ago. This was in the cards from the moment Kerry became the frontrunner.

No doubt about that. Since Bush doesn't have a record to run on.

[Rascal]

See the same damn thing could be said for Clinton, but it wasn't done. I still believe, and obviously this has no proof on either isle other then our own partisn belief, that Kerry's constant mentioning of it is the main reason for this being an issue.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

No doubt about that. Since Bush doesn't have a record to run on.

Sort of like Kerry right? You'd think a guy would have something out of his 19 years in the Senate to run on.

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by rascal

See the same damn thing could be said for Clinton, but it wasn't done. I still believe, and obviously this has no proof on either isle other then our own partisn belief, that Kerry's constant mentioning of it is the main reason for this being an issue.

I don't know if I'd agree that it "wasn't done" to Clinton; my memory of the '90s is that there was one long continuous effort to "get" Clinton for something or other. Regardless, Clinton never ran against George W. Bush. McCain did, and we saw what happened.

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Sort of like Kerry right? You'd think a guy would have something out of his 19 years in the Senate to run on.

He co-sposored 57 bills in the Senate that eventually became the law. That's 55 more than Dick Cheney managed in his 11 years in the House.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by rascal

Well I do. It was done to McCain very unfortunately, but it wasn't done to Clinton. I don't think it was in the cards, I think it only became an issue when Kerry kept mentioning it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

and over and over and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over
and over and over

[Rohirrim]

About as many times as Bush has said, "America is safer."

I be hitnotized!

[Mile High Shack]

I'd say America is safer than we were Sept 11th 2001

unlike Kerry who is basing his whole ability to lead America against terrorists based on 4 months of duty in 'Nam 30 years ago.

at least Bush's experience is relavent now

[Rohirrim]

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. By leaving Afghanis to capture OBL in Tora Bora, then pulling out to go to Iraq, Bush has allowed Al Queda to diversify into a hundred little snake heads, instead of one large serpent. We had them on the ropes, and Bush let them off, instead of going in for the kill. Iraq is a monumental blunder. Then, Rice spills the name of a captured, high level Al Queda operative, right when he is spilling his guts to the Pakis. Not to mention how she ignored pre-9/11 intelligence warnings - the same kind of warnings she now uses to bump up the color code. No, I see Bush's leadership as inept, at best.

Kerry's Vietnam conduct under fire points out his character, not his ability to lead the country. Compared to Bush's life experience, I'd take Kerry's any day of the week. Kerry was not only successful in the military, he was successful protesting that same ill conceived war, successful in all of his educational pursuits, successful as a prosecutor, lieutenant governor and Senator. In Bush, I just see a guy who never succeeded at anything, but always had the backup to enable him to walk away from his failures without a scratch.

IMO, the whole neocon philosophy of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz regime has proved to be a complete failure for this country in ways too numerous to name, but including the areas of economics, international relations, security, environment, energy, education, etc. etc. etc.

[watermock]

What a line of crap.

First, we bombed the hell out of Tora Bora, and have the CIA propping up Musaref in Pakistan or the arrests wouldn't of even happened. What planet are you on. We were supposed to chase him into Pakistan?

Jesus. You strengthen the dictator and kick butt as best you can thru special forces who "are not there" What part of this don't you understand. It's so humorous.

Half the post is defending the lying Kerry. Go go go Gadget Liar. This guy changes his routine faster than a strip club crack hoe.

The whole diatribe had nothing to do with Dole, just the usual Dumocratic Mantra that was old 20 years ago.

[Rohirrim]

Get a clue before you splurt. The special forces operatives pursuing OBL were pulled and sent to Iraq. Another brain-dead move by Rummy.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by rascal

See the same damn thing could be said for Clinton, but it wasn't done. I still believe, and obviously this has no proof on either isle other then our own partisn belief, that Kerry's constant mentioning of it is the main reason for this being an issue.

I daresay Clinton's Vietnam-era activities would have been featured more prominently in the '96 election if Karl Rove had been in charge of the Dole campaign.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It was done to McCain very unfortunately, but it wasn't done to Clinton.



You've gotta be sh*ttin' me.

Does the name "Lee Atwater" mean anything to you?

Before Clinton even announced he was going to run in '92, Atwater's people were calling him on the phone and telling him that they would use every smear tactic availible against him.

That's how afraid of The Big Dog these weasels were.

[watermock]

The NeoCons have assumed control.

Resistance is Futile.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

These are the kind of lowlifes we have to deal with:

Hundreds of Kerry yard signs stolen or vandalized in Pensacola, Fla

Hundreds of yard signs supporting Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have been stolen and vandalized in Pensacola, Fla., a heavily Republican region known as "Bush Country," prompting some Kerry supporters to hang signs from trees to deter burglars.

About 350 signs have been stolen, according to Panhandle for Kerry organizers, who met with Pensacola police Monday. The group has distributed nearly 3,400 signs.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ebrities_ads_2

I didn't think it was possible, but repukes have even less class than Raider fans.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

These are the kind of lowlifes we have to deal with:

Do you know anything about what actually goes on by staffers and volunteers during political campaigns? Stealing and tearing down yardsigns from people's yards by their opponent's supporters happens at single level of politics by both parties. Hell both sides do it to candidates within their own party if there's a primary. This is nothing new.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Stealing and tearing down yardsigns from people's yards by their opponent's supporters happens at single level of politics by both parties.

Show me examples (preferably w/ links) of Kerry/Edwards supporters vandalizing Bush/FYourself signs.

That's what I thought.