Sees says:
"You don't seem to know the definition of the word "proof." Work on that, and then try again."
Well, yeah, I DO know the meaning of "proof"---and I know Kerry never got close to proving anything said about him was false.
He pretty much folded under some of the observations made by the Swifties---admitting that he 'probably' did not really deserve the first Purple Heart, that he was 'probably' never in Cambodia, that he invented the despicable lies he told about the military in Viet Nam. In his book---the one he blocked from being reprinted, partly due to the cover showing the American flag upside-down---he admitted to having gone to North Viet Nam twice, during the period in which he was supposed to be serving out the remainder of his six-year tour of duty.
But not one statement by the Swift Boaters was ever "proved" to be false. Most were simply ignored, or dismissed with a haughty claim of being simply false. The only one addressed at any length was the one about the mined boat incident, when a boat hit a mine and Kerry's was the only one to run for cover, taking off so fast that he threw Rasmussen off the stern. Because of the chaos of the incident, the explosions, the shooting into the jungle along the shoreline by the sailors who thought they might come under fire as they went to the rescue of the sailors on the damaged boat, and because of the embarrassment of Kerry's crew for turning tail and running while the other boats stayed to rescue people from the damaged boat, the incident was confused in many minds.
Rasmussen, disoriented after first hearing explosions and then being thrown in the water, hearing gunfire, could naturally think the shots were coming from the shore instead of being directed toward it. And he was naturally grateful when Kerry returned to fish him out of the water, and naturally inclined to believe the story that Kerry had returned under extensive enemy fire just to rescue him.
But too many of the men on the other boats saw what really happened. This was argued at length, because there were people who actually had differing points of view on what actually happened, and because Rasmussen was such a convincing figure, emotionally embracing Kerry and tearfully thanking him for saving his life.
The alleged "proof" was the fact that one of the Swift Boat guys had gotten a medal in the same engagement. This was claimed to "prove" that he "lied" in his later account of what happened. But he said that when he got the medal, he glanced at it, glanced at the citation, and then put it away and went back to war. He said he never really read the citation until he heard of Kerry's account, and then went back to examine it it detail. That is when he learned of the claim that the engagment was under fire from the enemy.
And he knew better. And unlike Kerry, he said he didn't want a medal he didn't deserve--he had thought it was just for the rescue, not for being under enemy fire.
This doesn't sound reasonable to men who crave glory and seek as many medals as they can get. This type of man will peruse his citations lovingly, over and over again. He will brag about his medals, his heroism. He will simply not get it that to most men, war is about things other than glory--it's about country, and brotherhood with fellow fighters, and doing the best job possible. So those who refuse to believe that Larry What's His Name didn't examine his citation in egotistical detail are probably the kind of people who would find such a citation a really important validation. To those of us who do our jobs without demanding constanct approval and who get our validation from things other than praise and glory, it makes complete sense.
No, Sees Very Little, there has been no "proof" whatsoever that the Swift Boat claims were false. On the contrary, they sparked a lot of interest in Kerry's war record, and one of the things that came out was the fact that his Honorable Discharge was dated in March of 2001. Got an explanation for that?
No one claims to know why, but one theory is that, due to Kerry's shameful actions with the VVAW crowd, his lying under oath to Congress to besmirch the honor of the military serving in Viet Nam, and his even more shameful collusion with the enemy, his discharge was anything BUT honorable---and that he had to pull some strings to get it changed, in time to run for the presidency.
This resonates more regarding Kerry than it might with another man. Remember, this man was married in the Catholic Church for more than a decade, fathering two daughters, and then, instead of getting a divorce, asked for and received an annulment. You may not know what that means. That means that he pulled some strings to get the Vatican to declare that his entire marriage had simply not existed. An annulment is a very difficult thing to get in the Church, and usually depends on serious allegations being proven---allegations of fraud, coercian, or equally serious charges, that could make the marriage invalid. But a lavish wedding and a very high-profile and public marriage of many years, resulting in two offspring, would be nearly impossible to suddenly be found to have never existed at all.
So we know that Kerry is experienced in rewriting history, and in using influence (such as that wielded by his mentor, Teddy Kennedy) to get records changed to make it possible for him to achieve his goals. In the case of his annulment, the goal was to marry an even richer woman, who stated that she would not be the wife of a divorced man. So he simply became a never-married man, in the face of facts.
Still on this subject....sheesh!!
"They are good, honest people, who felt they had to speak out against John Kerry for the good of the country."
And the good,honest readers felt they had to 'speak out' against the Swift Boat Vets for the good of the country.
Goto factcheck.org and get your facts straight please.
http://www.factcheck.org/search/index.php?query=swift+boat+veterans&type=simple
Swiftboat(v), modern american - an inconvenient & unacknowledged truth at variance with public perception. In usage, usually applies to political candidates as in "the lieutenant was swiftboated when his purple hearts were show to have been exaggerated & unearned".
a little taste of their onw medicine and now they are doing the b*tching? serves em right.
Agreed. By engaging in a political smear campaign against a decorated veteran they have opened themselves up to the backlash of voters who now have buyer's remorse.
They are whining about being "attacked"? Poor lying babies!
For exercising their constitutional rights of free speech these DECORATED WAR HEROES are being harassed by moonbat neorads, who are defended by the leftists on this site.
Proud of yourselves moonbats?
If Lt. Kerry's heroic deeds are as he claims, why doesn't he just sign the SF 180 authorizing the release of his military records so we can examine them? Why does he have three different Silver Star citations each signed by a higher ranking naval offical? How did he manage to be awarded three Purple Hearts without missing a single day of duty? How can he justify the receipt of two Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds? How was he awarded one of his Purple Hearts after his Commanding Officer refused to issue the award as it was self-inflicted?
This 27 year military veteran would like the answers to these questions. If Lt Kerry's claims are true, he has nothing to lose by signing the SF 180 and everything to gain.
I totally agree with your post A-10, as I have been wondering about Kerry signing that SF 180
"He promised he would do, as he had nothing to hide"???? Stilllllll Waitingggggg.
As for the harrassment of the Swift Boat Men, did
you think they would NOT be the recipients of a continued Smear Campaigne by the 'bitter losers'
who have done the very same thing on a 'daily basis to President Bush as well'? They are very
bitter, whiners, with no ideas, except to smear
truthful people who came forward in dismanteling
Kerry's dubious career, and 'distinguished medals
that cannot be proven to be honestly gotten'.
KERRY, NEEDS TO CLEAR THE AIR, AND STOP BACK PEDDLING ON THE SB180, AND AVOIDING THE QUESTIONS
SURROUNDING THESE MEDALS, (the ones he supposedly
tossed over the fence?) Liars like him, will do
whatever they can, to deflect the 'light of truth'
by 'changing the gameplan, so he doesn't have to answer'.....Those here, "looking for payback to the Swiftboat Men, should be thanking them for coming forward, telling the truth"
Jo,
514 days and we're still waiting for the release as Kerry promised. But who's counting. :-)
Liberals note: harassing phone calls is a crime and could be considered violence. Once again, your response to violence against someone YOU don't like is "they deserve it."
I have always pointed out that openly publishing negative information about a man known to be both peevish and vindictive, who had unlimted funds to finance extensive legal actions against anyone he could prove had misspoken about him, was proof that the allegations against Kerry were true.
Note that these men did not speak anonymously. They put themselves out there. And they were willing and able to back up their claims. Their accounts of what happened in Viet Nam were detailed, convincing, and backed for the most part by many witnesses.
They were not politically motivated. Many did not even want Bush to be President, and many had voted for Gore. They simply did not want Kerry to get away with lying, especially for lying so extravagantly.
They did not profit from their efforts. This was a very expensive and difficult task for many of them, but one which they thought inportant. (On the contrary, most of the men who had served on Kerry's boat did benefit. In Viet Nam, Kerry wrote THEM up for citations, and afterwards they were taken on European trips with the Kerrys, flown to the Kerry private mansions, and generally wined and dined.)
And as time went on, Kerry admitted to the truth of some of what the Swifties had said---a little here, a little there, but enough to show that he had lied. He finally admitted that the first Purple Heart was not earned, and that MAYBE he had not been in Cambodia.
The ONLY way anyone can continue to defend Kerry is to simply refuse to look into the alternate accounts of his medals and his experiences. Once anyone has actually read the Swifties' accounts, and looked up Kerry's record, and read the accounts of his superior officers, it is impossible to buy into the Kerry PR flack about him.
I hope that the people doing the harassment of the Swiftboat Vets are caught and prosecuted. And the people who posted the information should be subject to some legal consequences as well. This was uncalled for during the election, and is even more outrageous now.
Once again, the left shows the depth of their hypocrisy in harrassing the Swiftvets. They came forward on their own and exposed one of their own as a fraud. It cost sKerry and ilk dearly. They were exercising their freedom of speech and contrary to the left's opinion, were never shown to be lying.
They are guilty of exercising thier Constituioanl freedoms and rights. Twice in their lives, they stood up to be counted and acted bravely.
The left can bray all they wish about their "war hero," (we used to call them PX Heroes) and no one should ever attack a "decorated veteran. What do they do next? Attack over 250 well decorated and brave American Veterans who all served with honor and distinction, unlike you know who.
ExPOWs joined in with them and the left went after them unmercifully, including a Medal of Honor winner. So much for "we support the troops."
If they were either lying or a Repoublican front group, sKerry could have defused and neutered them immediately by allowing a public viewing of his COMPLETE and FULL military jacket, not just the 30 odd pages he allowed 3 friendly reporters to view. We are still waiting for a FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE that I doubt will ever come.
During the campaign and afterwards, it has been a pure honor to me to be active in their discussion forum. As a Viet Nam Veteran, I consider each and ever SVPT member my brother.
sKerry, I will never consider a "Brother in Arms," just a lying nuisance.
I hope the swifties track these people down....
I have always pointed out that openly publishing negative information about a man known to be both peevish and vindictive, who had unlimted funds to finance extensive legal actions against anyone he could prove had misspoken about him, was proof that the allegations against Kerry were true.
You don't seem to know the definition of the word "proof." Work on that, and then try again.
Sees says:
"You don't seem to know the definition of the word "proof." Work on that, and then try again."
Well, yeah, I DO know the meaning of "proof"---and I know Kerry never got close to proving anything said about him was false.
He pretty much folded under some of the observations made by the Swifties---admitting that he 'probably' did not really deserve the first Purple Heart, that he was 'probably' never in Cambodia, that he invented the despicable lies he told about the military in Viet Nam. In his book---the one he blocked from being reprinted, partly due to the cover showing the American flag upside-down---he admitted to having gone to North Viet Nam twice, during the period in which he was supposed to be serving out the remainder of his six-year tour of duty.
But not one statement by the Swift Boaters was ever "proved" to be false. Most were simply ignored, or dismissed with a haughty claim of being simply false. The only one addressed at any length was the one about the mined boat incident, when a boat hit a mine and Kerry's was the only one to run for cover, taking off so fast that he threw Rasmussen off the stern. Because of the chaos of the incident, the explosions, the shooting into the jungle along the shoreline by the sailors who thought they might come under fire as they went to the rescue of the sailors on the damaged boat, and because of the embarrassment of Kerry's crew for turning tail and running while the other boats stayed to rescue people from the damaged boat, the incident was confused in many minds.
Rasmussen, disoriented after first hearing explosions and then being thrown in the water, hearing gunfire, could naturally think the shots were coming from the shore instead of being directed toward it. And he was naturally grateful when Kerry returned to fish him out of the water, and naturally inclined to believe the story that Kerry had returned under extensive enemy fire just to rescue him.
But too many of the men on the other boats saw what really happened. This was argued at length, because there were people who actually had differing points of view on what actually happened, and because Rasmussen was such a convincing figure, emotionally embracing Kerry and tearfully thanking him for saving his life.
The alleged "proof" was the fact that one of the Swift Boat guys had gotten a medal in the same engagement. This was claimed to "prove" that he "lied" in his later account of what happened. But he said that when he got the medal, he glanced at it, glanced at the citation, and then put it away and went back to war. He said he never really read the citation until he heard of Kerry's account, and then went back to examine it it detail. That is when he learned of the claim that the engagment was under fire from the enemy.
And he knew better. And unlike Kerry, he said he didn't want a medal he didn't deserve--he had thought it was just for the rescue, not for being under enemy fire.
This doesn't sound reasonable to men who crave glory and seek as many medals as they can get. This type of man will peruse his citations lovingly, over and over again. He will brag about his medals, his heroism. He will simply not get it that to most men, war is about things other than glory--it's about country, and brotherhood with fellow fighters, and doing the best job possible. So those who refuse to believe that Larry What's His Name didn't examine his citation in egotistical detail are probably the kind of people who would find such a citation a really important validation. To those of us who do our jobs without demanding constanct approval and who get our validation from things other than praise and glory, it makes complete sense.
No, Sees Very Little, there has been no "proof" whatsoever that the Swift Boat claims were false. On the contrary, they sparked a lot of interest in Kerry's war record, and one of the things that came out was the fact that his Honorable Discharge was dated in March of 2001. Got an explanation for that?
No one claims to know why, but one theory is that, due to Kerry's shameful actions with the VVAW crowd, his lying under oath to Congress to besmirch the honor of the military serving in Viet Nam, and his even more shameful collusion with the enemy, his discharge was anything BUT honorable---and that he had to pull some strings to get it changed, in time to run for the presidency.
This resonates more regarding Kerry than it might with another man. Remember, this man was married in the Catholic Church for more than a decade, fathering two daughters, and then, instead of getting a divorce, asked for and received an annulment. You may not know what that means. That means that he pulled some strings to get the Vatican to declare that his entire marriage had simply not existed. An annulment is a very difficult thing to get in the Church, and usually depends on serious allegations being proven---allegations of fraud, coercian, or equally serious charges, that could make the marriage invalid. But a lavish wedding and a very high-profile and public marriage of many years, resulting in two offspring, would be nearly impossible to suddenly be found to have never existed at all.
So we know that Kerry is experienced in rewriting history, and in using influence (such as that wielded by his mentor, Teddy Kennedy) to get records changed to make it possible for him to achieve his goals. In the case of his annulment, the goal was to marry an even richer woman, who stated that she would not be the wife of a divorced man. So he simply became a never-married man, in the face of facts.
Huffington Post has sunk to the level of Democratic Underground and Indymedia - and that, my friends, is sinking V-E-R-Y low, indeed. Arianna should be ashamed of herself.