Hey ya'll check out this video of Kerry's views on Iraq. Theres a small, 1 minute trailer, then a larger, 12 min one. Even one in Spanish!
Kerry's Views on Iraq (
http://rnc.org/)
tell me if it works or not, cause I got a backup link if it doesnt.
:p hahaha.. Kerry's so funny.. He only says what he thinks people want to hear.
The movie's entirely edited to be republican propaganda and leave out legitimate arguments, but it's still pretty funny. Kerry's an old rich wuss.
There is, however, nothing wrong with changing your opinion.
Originally posted by DieStarWarsGeek
He only says what he thinks people want to hear.
DieStarWarsGeek, meet politics, politics, meet DieStarWarsGeek.
diestarwarsgeek, edited, no. Those are Kerrys exact words. Of course they didnt show the entire interview in each clip, cause thatd take over an hour. and Did u guys see the switftboat interview on nbc yesterday? The jerks at nbc edited out the guys response. The ysay, 'If you say that, that means its your owrd against Kerrys and the records'
and it shows him say, 'yes it does' but he actually went in to detail on how everyone in the other boats saw what really happened, and the guy who actually does agree with Kerry was in the water at the time and was struggling not to drown. Its a great video.
Originally posted by yaebginn
diestarwarsgeek, edited, no. Those are Kerrys exact words. Of course they didnt show the entire interview in each clip, cause thatd take over an hour. and Did u guys see the switftboat interview on nbc yesterday? The jerks at nbc edited out the guys response. The ysay, 'If you say that, that means its your owrd against Kerrys and the records'
and it shows him say, 'yes it does' but he actually went in to detail on how everyone in the other boats saw what really happened, and the guy who actually does agree with Kerry was in the water at the time and was struggling not to drown. Its a great video. can I see proof of this claim? are you certain they cut things out?
Also the swiftboat veterans for truth are full of crap. And everything in their ad was a complete and utter lie.
also those clips most certainly take things out of context. Kinda like his flip-flop ordeal, the reason he votes yes once and no the second time or whatever order is because of underlying proposals that are joined with that bill, you have to vote yes to it all or no to it all, his decisions are affected by what is contained in the entirity of the bill. Politics 101 my friend.
erm... you realise that there is a commercial of bush saying stupid and contradictory things floating around somewhere as well don't you? (and no i don't mean F9/11 :D ). (might be a MoveOn thingy).
Its pretty easy to edit stuff like that together to be contradictory when you don't see the "because..." or the "in the case of..." or the "however...." that surrounds it. Surely that was what you were campaigning so hard about aginast F9/11, the clever, unfair editing? Hmmm boot on other foot... hmm....
----
As for the swiftboat vets, i wouldn't believe one of them if he told me to look out for a car that was about to run me over. Its war, its chaotic. A lot of people get medals when others might have deserved them more, but that isn't even the issue.
You have the campaign of a guy who ran away from his duty against the campaign of a guy who went and risked his life (and was injured) and suddenly (through dirty tactics) the guy who went and did his duty and risked his life is the guy who is under pressure...? How did that happen?
There are far more questions about GW's service record than kerry's, and that is why GW doesn't call him on it directly, cos he knows he'd get crucified, he just lets sneaky "unofficial" people do his dirty work for him, and that is cowardly...
Mr Cheney raised Mr Kerry’s vote against an $87 billion package to fund the Iraq war, ridiculing his attempts to explain why he opposed funding troops in a war he had supported. “Senator Kerry [has] told us his decision to oppose funding for our military personnel was complicated. Funding American troops in combat should never be complicated.”
As the assembled Marines applauded, Mr Cheney said: “We need a president who will back our troops 100 per cent, and that’s exactly what we’ve got in George W. Bush.”
glad to see we have people in power who understand the complexities of the issues....:D
Kerry has since explained he voted against the $87 billion for the troops because he supported a separate measure that would have rolled back tax cuts for the wealthy to help pay for the expense.
While that explanation may make perfect sense to colleagues in Congress, it may not to voters with little time or patience for the legislative process.
``There's no question that comments here or there, taken out of context and thrown together, are intended by Republicans to try to simplify or dumb down a crucial issue of war and peace into a simple yes-no question,'' said James Rubin, a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign.
Rubin said Kerry always believed the way the United States went to war was the critical question - giving inspections in Iraq a chance and building alliances first. ``John Kerry showed he understood the complexities about going to war the right way,'' said Rubin.
Of course, you won't need to see the rest of the article for context :D
for starters, I heard the whole swiftboat interview on the radio, and the nbc people cut parts of it. for two, whats wrong with Bushes military record? He didnt do much, but he did what he signed up for. National Guard. Whats so dishonest about the swiftboat vets? and F911 is way different. MM adds new things all together. He takes footage, then makes his won and claims they are the same. got a link to the moveon vids of Bush, I am interested in seeing them. and Bush didnt get them to do that. The people even said that if Bush told them to stop, like everyone says he should, theyd say no. They arent doing it for politics, the yare doing it so the country can see the truth.
Why is what Kerry did or did not do in Viet Nam so damned important? Does it reveal, in minute detail, how he would serve as president?
I don't care much for Bush's military record, but it's pretty plain to me that he's not fit to run USA for 4 more years.
hmmm. why was he in the national guard in the first place? why are his records all missing? why no medical checks for a whole period of years? what was up with his discharge? There are way more questions about everything surrounding his "holiday" than kerry's service.
None of those guys in the add saw what happened. None were on his boat. All are just guessing (educated or not) based on the information they have been given (by the guys paying them to do the add) At least one has already said he was wrong and shouldn't have said or signed what he did.
One of geaorge bush's campaign lawyers has had to resign as he gave the swiftvets campaign legal advice. Of course Bush isn't claiming responsibility (because it is so dodgy that he wouldn't want to be linked to it) but his people are linked to their people, and he is happy to let it sit out there and influence people without saying that he doesn't support it. At least one republican who WAS in vietnam has said it is disgraceful.
It's like in those courtroom dramas where the lawyer says something derogatory about someone KNOWING that the opposition will object and it will probably get withdrawn... but by that time it is too late because the implication has already been put out there.
It is politics at it's most despicable and cowardly and one of the reasons many people no longer respect politics.
but, as C'Jais said, vietnam really has nothing to do with anything.... it's just mud slinging. (but if kerry keeps quiet he is damned, if he defends himself he gives the allegations credibility)
-------------------------------------------------------
I seem to remember a section of F9/11 where they edited together the responses of Condoleza Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush and others from before and after 9/11. Where before they all said Saddam was not a threat, was contained, had no weapons... and after they all said the opposite.
9/11 changed everything in the way politics and public opinion saw terrorism, privacy, defence, war and so on. All the politicians got dragged along on a "be tougher than the other guys on terrorism" bandwagon and basically passed a load of rushed, dodgy laws. At least some of them have had the common sense to realise they made a mistake and try and reign in a few of those laws.
bush of course doesn't really have a record to question, as he wasn't doing anything (except making businesses go bust and drinking and partying) while kerry was voting on al these issues.
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't have alink for that video... try searching for MoveOn.
and cjais, it has alot to do with things, because Kerry has made with service in Nam the selling point of his campaign. He drew first blood by saying, 'Spend three minutes with the men who served with me' or John Edwards, whoever said it. They got themselves into this. And Bush didnt fund these guys. They pooled their own money together and got their word out a bit from their site. and if they really say that in F911, toms, then thats hilarious. First its, 'Hes just going after Saddam to finish what his daddy started' then its 'he didnt even think saddam was a threat' dont be fooled by Michale Moore's lies, please, it demeans you. and the swiftvets did see it. they were a couple feet away from Kerrys boat, the ysaw what happened. one even treated kerrys wound.
edit- and heres one from Kerrys boat.
http://www.swiftvets.com/)
They pooled their own money together and got their word out a bit from their site.
Ha ha. No. they are funded by one of the biggest backers of the republican party. Do you think they could pool their money and afford airtime? They recieved legal advice from lawyers on bush's campaign. Open your eyes. please.
and if they really say that in F911, toms, then thats hilarious. First its, 'Hes just going after Saddam to finish what his daddy started' then its 'he didnt even think saddam was a threat' dont be fooled by Michale Moore's lies, please, it demeans you.
Odd, it just goes to show how editing can be used to change people's meaning... anyone would think that was the point i was trying to make...
I don't believe everythign that MM says, and i know it isnt impartial, he even admits as much himself, but you seem to believe anything swiftvets or rnc.org say and don't admit they aren't impartial.
since there are all these websites attacking F911, how about some defence of it... (
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16)
and the swiftvets did see it. they were a couple feet away from Kerrys boat, the saw what happened. one even treated kerrys wound.
yeah, riiiight....:rolleyes:
So he volunteered to go to a dangerous place like vietnam, then spent all his time trying to injure himself so that he could get a medal and one day become president. In fact he even chose to try and injure himself with an explosive grenade as that would be the safest and most controllable way to make sure you didn't hurt yourself too bad. And then he pushed that guy in the water just so he could rescue him and it would look good when he ran for office... he sure has a lot of foresight...
My favorite quote, on the passing of the patriot act, which shows how much a voting record can reveal about a senator's opinions (and how stupid the patriot act is)...
"Many lawmakers were outraged that a bipartisan bill, which had passed the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote, was set aside for legislation negotiated at the last minute by a very small group. Members rose to say that almost no one had read the new bill, and pleaded for more time and more deliberation.... Asked about complaints that lawmakers were being asked to vote on a bill that they had not read, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Representative David Dreier, Republican of California, replied, ‘It's not unprecedented.’" Robin Toner & Neil A. Lewis, "House Passes Terrorism Bill Much Like Senate's, but With 5-Year Limit," The New York Times, October 13, 2001.
he went to aid his campaign for senate, or congress, I forget which. and it was self inflicted, no one siad he did it on purpose. and I beleive I showed a link from a guy who actually was on Kerrys boat.
Originally posted by yaebginn
BUMP (come on, democrats, what have you got?)
What we've got has already been demonstrated, you skirt the issues by ignoring all evidence we've directed you to.
I honestly don't care WHY John Kerry went to Vietnam. He WENT. What did Bush do? Got a nice cozy job in the National Guard where he wouldn't have to worry about *gasp* getting shot at :eek:
John Kerry was shot twice, how many times was G.W. shot? I dont care if the bullets just grazed his shoulder or foot or whatever, he was in the line of enemy fire, if one of the enemy had been a slightly better shot or a little more lucky John Kerry would have died.
The people even said that if Bush told them to stop, like everyone says he should, theyd say no.
But Bush didn't ask them to stop, did he? He's perfectly content to let them spread their lies, it helps his campaign without him having to get his hands dirty. That's cowardly politics at it's finest.
Edit - and don't bump threads in the senate. If nobody is posting in it anymore it means either A)the subject no longer holds interest to those posting in it, or B) They've realized that debating is futile with someone who refuses to even THINK reasonably.
Edit edit - Thanks to Skin for fixing my error :D
Originally posted by yaebginn
he went to aid his campaign for senate, or congress, I forget which.
An opinion. One that is not substantiated with evidence and therefore discarded as an arguable point.
Originally posted by yaebginn
and it was self inflicted,
Empirical evidence? You have some secret source that no one else has? You posted this nonsense before, but failed to demonstrate how his wound was self inflicted. This is simply an opinion, and not worthy of discussion. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so.
Originally posted by yaebginn
And I beleive I showed a link from a guy who actually was on Kerrys boat.
Not to my recollection. The only critics of Kerry were on another boat on the other side of the river. And one of these has gone back and recanted his criticism (see the John Kerry thread for sources).
You've presented no meaningful criticisms based on any empirical data... only opinions and fascist rhetoric from those that seek to distort truth and even outright lie to bring question to Kerry's character. This is a dishonorable practice and one utilized by true cowards in life: those afraid to face someone with empirical information, leaving opinion out of debate (I'm refering to the Swiftboat for "truth" idiots).
I'd also like to point out the same thing happened to John McCain during the republican candidate decision.
For one, I bumped it because I felt you guys had known you lost, and I wasnt going to let you get away unscathed.
1. John Edwards said in a Kerry ad 'If you have any question about the kind of man Kerry is, spend three minutes with the men who served with him.' The swiftboat vets simply answered that.
2. edit- and heres one from Kerrys boat.
http://www.swiftvets.com/) I did post a link to a guy from Kerrys boat. I posted it a few days ago.
3. But Bush didn't ask them to stop, did he? He's perfectly content to let them spread their lies, it helps his campaign without him having to get his hands dirty. That's cowardly politics at it's finest. what'd be the point of asking? they already said that they would say no. Its obvious that Bush isnt displeased that they are doing this, but its not like he has any say in it. It'd just be a waste of breath.
4. Empirical evidence? You have some secret source that no one else has? You posted this nonsense before, but failed to demonstrate how his wound was self inflicted. This is simply an opinion, and not worthy of discussion. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. There was witnesses from boat a few feet away, several of them. Plus a guy who treated Kerry's wound. It was just a little splinter thing, and when the guy who treated his wound denied him a purple heart for it, he just waited for that guys shift to end.
5. I'd also like to point out the same thing happened to John McCain during the republican candidate decision.
Incorrectamundo. Some people accused McCain of being a hothead, which he is, there's almost no mistaking that. No one accused him of fabricating his war record, and there was no dispute of whether of not he was an honorable soldier. I believe they said like, in Vietnam he was a hothead or something along those lines, and he was. He is. And thats what makes him who he is.
Originally posted by yaebginn
1. John Edwards said in a Kerry ad 'If you have any question about the kind of man Kerry is, spend three minutes with the men who served with him.' The swiftboat vets simply answered that.
The only thing they answered was the question of whether or not there are fascist idealogues among the veterns of the Viet Nam War. The documentation supports the version of whomever put Kerry in for the award. There is no documentation to support any other version and has been no objection until a bunch of idealogue veterns were apparently offered the opportunity to speak out. There is no evidence beyond anecdote to suggest that they are telling the truth.
Originally posted by yaebginn
I did post a link to a guy from Kerrys boat. I posted it a few days ago.
We are still talking about a guy who is expecting his word to be the evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. If he had a video or photographs or even a sound recording of the incident... if he had a written statement written in the year the injury ocurred... but he doesn't. The only things this guy has is a grudge and an agenda. He's an idealogue.
Originally posted by yaebginn
what'd be the point of asking? they already said that they would say no. Its obvious that Bush isnt displeased that they are doing this, but its not like he has any say in it. It'd just be a waste of breath.
He denounced 527 organizations, but not the swiftboat ad itself. Making a public display of displeasure is the only politically strategic move Bush could make. The dishonorable damage was done by his cowardly friends, but this group, funded by a Dallas-based benefactor, has likely ties to Karl Rove, a Dallasite from way back. No, Bush did well to distance himself from the group and Rove is no doubt laughing it up. The move was slick, but effective -you have to give them that.
Originally posted by yaebginn
There was witnesses from boat a few feet away, several of them. Plus a guy who treated Kerry's wound. It was just a little splinter thing, and when the guy who treated his wound denied him a purple heart for it, he just waited for that guys shift to end.
One does not request nor put onesself in for a purple heart. That is done by others that have knowlege of the injury. Also, a purple heart only indicates that the awardee was injured in combat, not to what extent. But you saying that there were "witnesses" etc., doesn't provide evidence. It only demonstrates what your belief is.
That's the problem with extremist politics and ideological rhetoric. Your beliefs become the only evidence that is needed and all other data is useless unless it supports the beliefs. All others that disagree or question or have skeptical reservations are instantly extremist idealogues from the other end of the spectrum. You perceive me as a liberal and have stated as much in more than one post/thread in spite of your apparent ignorance to the definition of the word until now. "Liberal" is used by right-wing extremists in an attempt to characterize and slur those that are "left" of their views. The problem is most people aren't extremist, so everyone that doesn't hold the same core values as them is "liberal."
**** it. Call me liberal if you want. I accept it. Change, reform, and revision in light of new evidence and data are the core values of "liberal" ideology. Without these attributes, progress is doomed and a nation is likewise doomed. But I also hold conservative values, particularly with regard to economic matters and juvenile justice (I think that any juvenile caught with illicit weapons should get adult jail time -do the adult crime, get the adult time).
Originally posted by yaebginn
No one accused him of fabricating his war record, and there was no dispute of whether of not he was an honorable soldier.
And yet, Bush had some very disparaging comments about and to McCain during the Republican primaries of 2000. When McCain objected, Bush said, "it's just politics, John," to which McCain responded, "not everything is politics, George."
"John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," says George Elliott, Mr. Kerry's former commanding officer. But it was then-Lt. Cmdr. Elliott who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver and Bronze stars, commending him as "calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire." In a 1969 evaluation Mr. Elliott had this to say: "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed."
"I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," says Dr. Louis Letson. Dr. Letson isn't listed on Mr. Kerry's medical record at the time. That doesn't disprove his claim to have treated Mr. Kerry, who received a superficial shrapnel injury to his arm. But neither does the account of Dr. Letson or others about the incident indicate that Mr. Kerry was lying. Mr. Kerry's wound doesn't seem to have amounted to much, but he didn't claim it did -- nor does that make him ineligible for a Purple Heart.
It should be noted that
(a) Dr Letson doesn't appear on kerry's record.
(b) his afidavit is very short and gives no backup info and facts
(c) he claims the shrapnel came from US munitions but doesn't say how he knows this (maybe it had a flag on it, as i would have thought it would take an expert to identify a fragment of twisted metal as coming from a particular grenade type)
(d) he did not mention it at the time
(e) he doesn't claim to have witnessed the events, only that Kerry's crewmen told him they weren't under enemy fire... making his account 3rd hand.
(f) those crewmen now support Kerry's version of events, as they did when he went for his star/heart and as his commanding officer did.
This makes him a guy who may have seen kerry after the event and may have infered some facts from things he may have been told by other guys who now say something different. Hardly a star witness.
The most potentially damning accusation in the ad concerns the the best-known episode of Mr. Kerry's service, in which he saved the life of Jim Rassmann after the Special Forces officer was blown off Mr. Kerry's Swift boat by a mine explosion. Three people quoted in the ad, all of whom say they were present that day, March 13, 1969, assert that Mr. Kerry ordered his craft to flee the danger and turned around to rescue Mr. Rassmann only after the shooting stopped. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star . . . I know, I was there, I saw what happened," says Van O'Dell, a retired Navy enlisted man. "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day," says Jack Chenoweth, who commanded a different Swift boat. "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," says Larry Thurlow, another Swift boat commander.
If accurate, this would demolish a central part of the picture of Mr. Kerry as Vietnam hero. But the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Kerry. Mr. Rassmann, having had no contact with Mr. Kerry for the previous 35 years, came forward during the primaries to tell the story of how Mr. Kerry, braving enemy fire and with an injured arm, pulled him back on board. "John came up to the bow, and I thought he was going to get killed because he was so exposed," Mr. Rassmann recalled. Other surviving crew mates corroborate that account. "I was there," crew mate Del Sandusky told CNN. "I saw the bullets skimming across the water. I saw the firefight gun flashes from the jungle. I know the firefight and the ambush we were in." Another crew mate, James Wasser, told ABC: "What boat were you riding on? Because you weren't there -- we were."
So, it is the word of some guys against some other guys who were a bit further away and said nothing at the time. Hardly damning.
It's also relevant to know who's underwriting this advertising campaign. The biggest single donor so far to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth isn't a Swift boat veteran but one of the leading Republican donors in Texas. Houston builder Bob J. Perry gave the group $100,000, accounting for the bulk of the $158,000 in receipts it has reported.
Unfortunately i ca't find anywhere that has dones a reasonable analysis of the swiftvets claims and the evidence to back them up, so it is impossible to get to the bottom of the matter. BUt i'd say at the moment that the evidence looks very shakey...
When Kerry pulled the other guy back into the boat, he was not under enemy fire. I dont know exactly why the ydidnt mention it before, because I am not them. But it'd make sense for them not to before, because Kerry wasnt trying to run for president before. and Bush didnt diss McCain some other vets said he didnt help in the veterans group things. Like, he didnt stick with them after he war, he went on with his life and all. and if Bush did something bd to McCain, why are they still cool with each other. skin, dont try to cover it up, you are obviously a democrat. and define illicit weapon. I belive you said that statement to get at me, since you had previous knowldge that I carry some weapons.
(a) Dr Letson doesn't appear on kerry's record.
Got a link?
(b) his afidavit is very short and gives no backup info and facts
its expensive to run a commercial, they didnt have a whole lot of time to go into every little thing.
(c) he claims the shrapnel came from US munitions but doesn't say how he knows this (maybe it had a flag on it, as i would have thought it would take an expert to identify a fragment of twisted metal as coming from a particular grenade type)
now you must be joking. this statement demans you, toms. If people can tell what gun a bullet came from, they can tell what kind of grenade a fragment came from. You just gotta look at the type of metal, how it's done, its pretty simple.
(d) he did not mention it at the time
why should he have? it didnt affect him any then. Now, it may be the deciding factor on who controls his country for four years.
(e) he doesn't claim to have witnessed the events, only that Kerry's crewmen told him they weren't under enemy fire... making his account 3rd hand.
an invalid point. most of our info is at least 3rd hand.
(f) those crewmen now support Kerry's version of events, as they did when he went for his star/heart and as his commanding officer did.
some do, but the only guy I know of who supports him was busy trying not to drown at the time. I showed you a vid of a guy from his boat who said he was lying.
I g2g to work, I'll address skins stuff when I get back.
(a) Dr Letson doesn't appear on kerry's record.
Is it possible his records were altered?
Originally posted by yaebginn
now you must be joking. this statement demans you, toms. If people can tell what gun a bullet came from, they can tell what kind of grenade a fragment came from. You just gotta look at the type of metal, how it's done, its pretty simple. .
No, it doesn't demean him atall. Theres a difference between an intact bullet fired form a gun and a tiny piece of shrapnel pulled out of a body. Not only that, but the analysis was made bya doctor, and doctors in general are no munitions experts capable of making that kind of distinction.
Originally posted by yaebginn
Got a link?
Nope. It was stated in the washington post i think, which i assume actually checked the record.
Is it possible his records were altered?
Anythings possible, but that sounds very unlikely. Why? When? Who? How? It is possible he treated him but wasn't put on the record, but it doesn't exactly add to his credibility.
Originally posted by yaebginn
its expensive to run a commercial, they didnt have a whole lot of time to go into every little thing.
Convenient. ;-) Actually I was talking about his signed affidavit which says only "I treated john f kerry in cam ranh bay in connection with the slight injury for which he later claimed and recieved his first purple heart. The crewmen with kerry told me that there was no hostile fire, and that kerry had inadvertantly injured himself with an M-79 grenade. This was barely lodged in kerry's arm."
So lets analyse this. (a) "in connection with" implies he wasn't the main medic involved. (b) you don't claim a PH, but are nominated by a superior officer (c) he claims he was told that it was an M-79 with no hostile fire, but he didn't identify the fragment or anything (d) how can a fragment be "barely lodged", it is either lodged or not. This shows he is hardly writing from an unbiased point of view.
Originally posted by yaebginn
now you must be joking. this statement demans you, toms. If people can tell what gun a bullet came from, they can tell what kind of grenade a fragment came from. You just gotta look at the type of metal, how it's done, its pretty simple.
All a grenade is is a case of metal DESIGNED to fragment into lots of little bits of metal. One grenade fragment is much like another... a tiny bit of chewed up metal. It would probably be possible for a balistics expert to test the metal to identify it's orign, but a doctor??? Not that he even claims he identified it, only that he was told what it was. I'll igone the "demeans" comment as you obviously don't know much about the subject...
Originally posted by yaebginn
why should he have? it didnt affect him any then. Now, it may be the deciding factor on who controls his country for four years.
Well, if there was a guy in your unit who was getting a purple heart he didn't deserve (and you weren't) then you would think ONE of the people complaining now would have mentioned it at the time. I don't know how thoroughly they check the facts in wartime, but you would have thought they would have checked with his officer, doctor and records. (and none of them objected at the time). As i pointed out, the commanding officer had nothing but good things to say about Kerry and supported his award (at the time.)
PS/ It shouldn't be the deciding factor at all, it isn't even worth talking about, excpet to try and cut through the spin.
Originally posted by yaebginn
an invalid point. most of our info is at least 3rd hand.
Kerry's is first hand. The "guy in the water" is first hand. Even the guys on the other boats could be considered first or second hand. The doctor is only relaying what someone told him about what they saw. I expect that if you look closely at other statement you will see that a lot of them are also based on things they are assuming from thigs they were told.
Originally posted by yaebginn
some do, but the only guy I know of who supports him was busy trying not to drown at the time. I showed you a vid of a guy from his boat who said he was lying.
I thought the guy from his boat was the guy who withdrew his account and said it was made up? The other guys on his boat support kerry's version.
other interesting facts and stuff:
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
the silver star
One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.
Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star. What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.
In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:
Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.
Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)
Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.
The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation .The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.
Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:
Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.
On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
swift boats
Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.
The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.
purple heart
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."
The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.
Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.
And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury. The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise. Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.
In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.
Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.
dr letson
Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.
On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)
other ad
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" announced a second anti-Kerry ad Aug. 20, using Kerry's own words against him. It features the 27-year-old Kerry in 1971 telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stories about American troops cutting off heads and ears, razing villages "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" and committing "crimes . . . on a day-to-day basis."
The Kerry campaign called it a smear and said his words were "edited" out of context. The ad does indeed fail to mention that Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge. But Kerry passed them on as true stories.
The ad characterizes Kerry as making "accusations . . . against the verterans who served in Vietnam." The Kerry campaign denies that, saying Kerry was placing blame on the country's leaders, not the veterans. But Kerry himself said earlier this year that his words were those of "an angry young man . . . inappropriate . . . a little bit excessive . . . a little bit over the top."
Kerry's critics point to a 1978 history of Vietnam that challenged some of the witnesses Kerry quoted. But other published accounts provide ample evidence that atrocities such as those Kerry described actually were committed.
Ok, in the following bol shows the actual quotes in the ads, showing how leaving out the context (by either side) can change the meaning.
Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
The record gives no sign that Kerry doubted the stories he was relating. In fact, he said earlier this year that he still stands by much of what he said 33 years earlier (see below) and that "a lot of them (the atrocity stories) have been documented."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244)
phew... ok, i'm tired now. That should give everyone something to digest for a while. Seems to be an entirely impartial site that has done some decent research into the facts and shows how flimsy these accusations are... i'll leave the last word to john mccain and the investigators though:
McCain
Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)
for starters, I dont think the guy withdrew his words. for secondersness, dont assume, I've read an article about a guy talking bad about the Republican convention before it even started. saying how the speeches were bad, and madehim recall other events. I'll see if I can find a link later.
for thirders- the guy in the water was drowing, I dont think he had a good idea of what was going on.
fourthers- we are off topic. this is about Kerry in iraq, we got off topic a few posts from the start. I didnt read the last two posts b4 this one, cause they were all smeared up. you guys still havent commented on kerry on iraq which I am very curious to see you guys deny.
Originally posted by yaebginn
You guys still havent commented on kerry on iraq which I am very curious to see you guys deny.
His position on Iraq is clear. Kerry supported the invasion and has stated that he would do so again, even knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction. I happen to take issue with Kerry on this point and disagree with his position. War in Iraq was an illogical endeavor at the time it was conducted, primarily because it sacrificed the so-called War on Terror and detracted from the so-called Homeland Security Agency's development and implementation.
Kerry voted "No" in 1991 in regards to the original Persian Gulf War, citing his reason as not being willing to get involved in a conflict that didn't have sufficient public support. At this point in time, few Americans knew or understood the value of Kuwait, the politics of the region, or the reasons for going to war. Many Americans were aware that at one point, the U.S. supported Hussein/Iraq, which was aligned with us agains Iran (who took hostages at the U.S. Embassy in the 1970's).
During the Clinton administration, Kerry voted to involve the United States in conflict with Iraq, which was not complying with the U.N. Sanctions or the weapons inspectors.
In the most recent invasion of Iraq, Kerry voted "Yes," as did the vast majority of congress who were told by the Bush Administration "officials" (Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al) that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened the safety and security of United States soil. Cheney even made implications that Saddam had nuclear weapons poised to detonate on U.S. targets.
Kerry has since made it clear that he believes the removal of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and would do so again.
There has been no additional votes on whether or not the U.S. should go to war with Iraq.
What don't you understand about Kerry's position?
During the Democrats Conference (BTW if i get details wrong, its because i live in the UK) Kerry made a speech. In this speech he said something, or implied that America was all on its own against the War on Terror. Again please correct me if i am wrong. The News Channels over here were furious. Britain has staked her security and no doubt the Labour Government will not get re-elected because of the fact that we allied ourself with America. Kerry maybe did not mean to imply this, and im sure he didnt - Angering Britain is NOT a good idea if you want to become the President. America and Britain are too closely related.
If Kerry wants to be elected, he has to tread carefully and not offend America's allys. We could pull out of Iraq if America doesnt want us there!
Just out of interest, did the news channels in America report on the fact that Kerry ignored Britain (and other ally's of America)?
edit: I feel sorry for voters in America! The political system seems far too complex to me, but maybe it has to be in a nation as large as the US.
cyber, thats why I want Bush to stay here. I like the way we are allies with other countries, and I dont want Kerry to screw it up.
Skin- did u even watch the video? his position changed very often. He siad himself that Iraq was a threat and needed to be dealt with at all costs.
Originally posted by yaebginn
Skin- did you even watch the video? his position changed very often. He said himself that Iraq was a threat and needed to be dealt with at all costs.
I think he still says that. At least he did last week. I disagree with him on that point. Iraq needed to be dealt with, but not at the cost of sacrificing resources that could have went to the so-called war on terror.
Originally posted by yaebginn
cyber, thats why I want Bush to stay here. I like the way we are allies with other countries, and I dont want Kerry to screw it up.
:eyeraise: WHAT?!? You want Bush in office because you want Allies? Do you not realize that almos the entire WORLD HATES us because of how we handled the Iraq situation? Not just the middle east either, we stepped on a LOT of toes when we told the UN that they could shove their decision. Bush has tarnished our name in the world community.
The only opponents that seem to have done anything are Germany, Russia, and France.
All other countries do not hate America, sure they regret (and we in the UK regret) what happened with the UN, and i'm sure everyone in America regretted it as well, but after it, a lot of the world united to help Iraq. Soldiers from many places of the world, and contractor from even more countries all helped to rebuild Iraq.
errmmmmm.. noone (or at least germany) HATES the us. and even if someone says he does, the most dont do really.. (they are all so emotional) .. it's more that we (as some americans do) put some actions of "america" in question.
i'm well aware of the fact that the actions of the bush administration are not necessarily those of every single american.
hate is such a powerful word, but most of the people who use it dont even know what 'hate' is. they hate it to miss the bus, hate commercial breaks, hate if it rains, hate it if something doesnt runs like they want to. and so they hate bluescreens, microsoft, the government in duty, the parking ticket lady, the speed limit, if it's too hot, if it's too cold, fanatics, muslims, bush, america, kerry, terrorists, children playing in the backyard. :rolleyes:
[edit]btw.. germany has soldiers in afghanistan, we just don't take an "active" part in the war in iraq.
I got carried away, as it was late and I was in a hurry to get to bed.
MANY of our allies are upset with us. We told them all to take a flying leap when they said that there was no justification in attacking Iraq. We didn't care what the international community thought about it, and we did it anyway.
Originally posted by yaebginn
for thirders- the guy in the water was drowing, I dont think he had a good idea of what was going on.
That isn't what he said. He said there were bullets flying about. But he was only there, why should we believe him. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by yaebginn
fourthers- we are off topic. this is about Kerry in iraq, we got off topic a few posts from the start.
You mean where YOU started bringing the SWIFVETS into this, but now you are loosing you don't want to talk about them. Flame Removed.
Originally posted by yaebginn
I didnt read the last two posts b4 this one, cause they were all smeared up.
Well, i'm so glad that i spent all that time finding an IMPARTIAL SOURCE that had ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED the allegations you so happily support. And i spent all that time posting them in so that you MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING.
But then you don't happen to like what they say so you dismiss them out of hand. Well, there is the mark of a rational, deductive mind. :rolleyes:
If you actually BOTHER to look on that site you will find that it analyses the ads of both campaigns, and points out the lies and truth behind BOTH of them. You might actually find out some REAL FACTS. If you wanted that, which it is clear you do not.
Originally posted by yaebginn
you guys still havent commented on kerry on iraq which I am very curious to see you guys deny.
Yes we have, lots of us. Skin especially. The fact you ignore or don't (or won't or can't) understand the complexities of the issue isn't our problem.
There are currently about 4 threads in which people have politely bothered to post the information you asked for, and in every single one you have either ignored it, dismissed it out of hand, changed the subject or simply run away from it.
So in weeks of debates on many subjects you have learned nothing, re-evaluated your opinion on nothing and annoyed everyone by refusing to actually debate in a sensible manner. Nicely done.
i'm so glad i wasted my time on you...:rolleyes: :mad:
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I got carried away, as it was late and I was in a hurry to get to bed.
MANY of our allies are upset with us. We told them all to take a flying leap when they said that there was no justification in attacking Iraq. We didn't care what the international community thought about it, and we did it anyway.
even Japan sent help.
toms- he was drowning, what are you on about? Kerry siad he saved his drowning friend from the water.
coward. resorting to flames already? I am dissapointed in you. and I mentioned the swiftvets and how nbc edited out their response. I believe it was InsaneSith who got on about them and how full of crap they are.
Um, or I didnt have the time cause I had to go to church, either one.
I ddint make you waste your time. and in whta 4 threads? I can count 2. The pipe one, and this one. whta others? and in a sensible matter? How come I am like, the only one (maybe besides skin,) to not flame? Maybe the worst I said was 'thats dumb' or 'that response makes no sense' when all you guys who supposedly are super mature resort to calling me a coward, and in other threads, a f-ing moron, and an ignorant b-stard, I mena, I've been called alot by many others who supposedly are more mature then me. You guys sure arent proving it.
I wouldn't call anyone immature if I were you. You've completely ignore every single sensible argument anyone put up in your face, especially in the Pipe Smoking thread.
We debate against people who are ready to admit when they're in the wrong. We do the same when we are.
Back on Topic:
I wouldn't brag about Japan sending help. After their journalists(or was it diplomats I can't remember) japanese public opinion of the war has gone down. I can't say if it was ever up. Same in Spain and Australia.
Originally posted by yaebginn
I believe it was InsaneSith who got on about them and how full of crap they are. 2 small sentences. Then I went back on topic, way to take things out of context.
And we've all given our opinion on this.
luke, at leats they sent help, and I'm giving them alot of credit tiven my opinion on them.
And your opinion on them is?
Don't answer, I feel like I know it.