PDA

View Full Version : Kerry finally gets around to responding to Swift Boat ads


banyon
05-28-2006, 11:19 AM
With this kind of focus, how did he ever lose?

Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss
Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press


By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: May 28, 2006
John Kerry starts by showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969: "Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia."

"They gave me a hat," Mr. Kerry says. "I have the hat to this day," he declares, rising to pull it from his briefcase. "I have the hat."

Three decades after the Vietnam War and nearly two years after Mr. Kerry's failed presidential bid, most Americans have probably forgotten why it ever mattered whether he went to Cambodia or that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of making it all up, saying he was dishonest and lacked patriotism.

But among those who were on the front lines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to support their case.

The Swift boat group continues to spend money on Washington consultants, according to public records, and last fall it gave $100,000 to a group that promptly sued Mr. Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, for allegedly interfering with the release of a film that was critical of him...

...Mr. Kerry, accused even by Democrats of failing to respond to the charges during the campaign, is now fighting back hard.

"They lied and lied and lied about everything," Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?"

His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat. While it would be easy to see this as part of Mr. Kerry's exploration of another presidential run, his friends say the Swift boat charges struck at an experience so central to his identity that he would want to correct the record even if he were retiring from public life.

Mr. Kerry portrays himself as a wary participant in his own defense, insisting in the two-hour interview that he does not want to dwell on the accusations or the mistakes of his 2004 campaign. "I'm moving on," he says several times.

But he can also barely resist prosecuting a case against the group that his friends now refer to as "the bad guys." "Bill Schachte was not on that skimmer," Mr. Kerry says firmly. "He was not on that skimmer. It is a lie to suggest that he was out there on that skimmer."

He shows a photograph of the skimmer being towed behind his Swift boat, insisting that it could barely fit three people, himself and two others. "The three guys who in fact were in the boat all say he wasn't there and will tell you he wasn't there," he said. "We know he wasn't there, and we have all kinds of ways of proving it."

Mr. Kerry has signed forms authorizing the Navy to release his record — something he resisted during the campaign — and hired a researcher to comb the naval archives in Washington for records that could pinpoint his whereabouts during dates of the incidents in dispute. Another former crew member has spent days at a time interviewing veterans to reconstruct every incident in question.

In February 2005, Mr. Kerry's supporters formed their own group, the Patriot Project, to defend veterans who take unpopular positions, particularly against the Iraq war. One of their first tasks was to visit newspaper editorial boards in defense of Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

The group has sent a letter to Mr. Schachte calling for a meeting with him, Mr. Kerry and two former veterans who maintain — as they did publicly during the campaign — that they were the only other people on the skimmer with Mr. Kerry and that he was wounded in a hail of enemy fire.

Mr. O'Neill said he "would be thrilled to look at anything he wants to send." Still, he added, "I'm sorry he never apologized for his 1971 speech," referring to Mr. Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he told other soldiers' accounts of ravaging Vietnamese villages and citizens. "I think it would have been a very positive thing to do in terms of the many thousands of people who survived Vietnam and felt that was very hurtful."

Mr. Schachte said that he held "no animus," but that "if they crank this thing up again, I'm not going to be quiet." One of the two men who say they were on the boat — he does not recall which — might have been there, Mr. Schachte said, "but I was in that boat with Kerry."...

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?ex=1306468800&en=7158a7f024f0ee5a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

banyon
05-28-2006, 11:21 AM
(part 2)

...So they have returned, for instance, to the question of Cambodia and whether Mr. Kerry was ever ordered to transport Navy Seals across the border, an experience that he said made him view government officials, who had declared that the country was not part of the war, as deceptive.

The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals.

Mr. Kerry's supporters have also frozen frames from his amateur films of his time in Vietnam and have retrieved letters and military citations for other sailors to support his version of how he won the Silver Star — rebutting the Swift boat group's most explosive charge, that he shot an unarmed teenager who was fleeing his fire.

Another photograph provides evidence for Mr. Kerry's version of how he won the Bronze Star. And original reports pulled from the naval archives contradict the charge that he drafted his own accounts of various incidents — which left room, the Swift boat group had argued, to embellish them.

Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record.

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' " Mr. Hayes said this month. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

Mr. Hayes broke with the group, ending a 35-year friendship with Mr. Franke, and voted for Mr. Kerry. He has provided a long interview to Mr. Kerry's supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Mr. Kerry received the Bronze Star.

Of course, plenty of disappointed and angry Democrats would like to know why Mr. Kerry did not defend himself so strenuously before the election. He had posted some military documents on his campaign's Web site and had allowed reporters to view his medical records but resisted open access to them as unnecessarily intrusive.

Mr. Kerry and his defenders say that they did not have the extensive archival material, and that it was too complicated to gather in the rapid pace of a campaign. He was caught off guard, he says; he had been prepared to defend his antiwar activism, but he did not believe that anyone would challenge the facts behind his military awards. "We should have put more money behind it," Mr. Kerry says now. "I take responsibility for it; it was my mistake. They spent something like $30 million, and we didn't. That's just a terrible imbalance when somebody's lying about you."

penchief
05-28-2006, 11:34 AM
In February 2005, Mr. Kerry's supporters formed their own group, the Patriot Project, to defend veterans who take unpopular positions, particularly against the Iraq war. One of their first tasks was to visit newspaper editorial boards in defense of Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

How much more despicable can it get than when Chickenhawks dishonestly portray the wartime records of those who served? Especially when the sole purpose is political power? It makes me want to :Lin:

Ugly Duck
05-29-2006, 02:12 AM
How much more despicable can it get than when Chickenhawks dishonestly portray the wartime records of those who served? Especially when the sole purpose is political power? It makes me want to :Lin:Howzabout outing a CIA operative because her husband dared to tell the truth about their lies?

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2006, 06:52 AM
Kerry is a lying ass. He got busted telling lies during the campaign and that is why he didn't fight back then. There is nothing more despicable than lying about your service. The dude served and I respect that, but he cheapened it by lying about how 'hardcore' he was when it was a complete fabrication.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2006, 07:45 AM
Kerry is a lying ass. He got busted telling lies during the campaign and that is why he didn't fight back then. There is nothing more despicable than lying about your service. The dude served and I respect that, but he cheapened it by lying about how 'hardcore' he was when it was a complete fabrication.

As opposed to claiming that you honorably served your country when in all reality your absence from your assigned duties would have you classified as a deserter were your last name not Bush?? :shrug:

penchief
05-29-2006, 07:48 AM
Kerry is a lying ass. He got busted telling lies during the campaign and that is why he didn't fight back then. There is nothing more despicable than lying about your service. The dude served and I respect that, but he cheapened it by lying about how 'hardcore' he was when it was a complete fabrication.

Of course, they were right to do it. Just like they were right to say that McCain fathered illegitimate vietnamese babies and double-amputee war hero Max Cleland was a piece of shit, too. That is their mode of operation but all those lying unpatriotic war veterans had it coming to them, right?

It doesn't matter that Bush lied about his "service" because baby boy is a patriotic chickenhawk. While Kerry & Cleland were serving their country in combat zones Bush was pretending to be in the National Guard while snorting coke and collecting DUI's.

If dishonest, hypocritical, and despicable is how you like your politicians then I guess your living in the right country at the right time.

Bush is the lyingest ass. He lies about himself and he lies about others.

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2006, 08:23 AM
Wow. 2 straight deflections. That must be a CP record or something. "Yeah, he might be a liar but Bush bla bla bla bla bla thththtppppppthftttt."

penchief
05-29-2006, 08:59 AM
Wow. 2 straight deflections. That must be a CP record or something. "Yeah, he might be a liar but Bush bla bla bla bla bla thththtppppppthftttt."

Wait a minute! I never admitted Kerry was a liar. In fact, the facts are still not straight about that. People are still contradicting each other. My point was that it is difficult to believe one side when they've made it a habit of making accusations for the sole purpose of casting their opponent as a piece of shit. At some point, one has to wonder just how true those accusations are.

That is why I cited the habitual lying of the Bushies. They have clearly shown a pattern of stooping to the lowest depths during campaigns. After those campaigns are over the damage is done. It doesn't matter whether or not they were being dishonest. We've seen it over and over again.

That is the main reason that I have my doubts about their claims. Because it fits their pattern to say despicable things about their opponents in order to make them look like pieces of shit. According to them, all democrats are pieces of shit. All those who dare challenge them are somehow revealed as pieces of shit.

At what point do people stop believing how chaste the cons are and how all of their opponents are pieces of shit? At what point does the light bulb go on? Are you saying this president doesn't suck enough to wonder if we might be better off with a different direction?

Lying is bad enough but lying about someone else is the worst. Anybody that would lie about someone else in order to gain financially or politically at the expense of another person's life or livelihood is the lowest scum on the earth. They are no better than petty thieves.

The Bushies have established a pattern of doing just that. Therefore, I would believe that Kerry's version is a lot closer to the truth than any accusations made by Bush and his gang of liars during the midst of a campaign.

On your point of deflection; considering the sorry state of affairs in this country due to the piss poor performance of this president, any irrelevant bashing of his critics or opponents at this point is deflection on the grandest scale.

stevieray
05-29-2006, 09:12 AM
. My point was that it is difficult to believe one side when they've made it a habit of making accusations for the sole purpose of casting their opponent as a piece of shit. At some point, one has to wonder just how true those accusations are.


That is the main reason that I have my doubts about their claims. Because it fits their pattern to say despicable things about their opponents in order to make them look like pieces of shit. According to them, all democrats are pieces of shit. All those who dare challenge them are somehow revealed as pieces of shit.

At what point do people stop believing how chaste the cons are and how all of their opponents are pieces of shit? At what point does the light bulb go on?

Lying is bad enough but lying about someone else is the worst. Anybody that would lie about someone else in order to gain financially or politically at the expense of another person's life or livelihood is the lowest scum on the earth.

Irony at it's finest.

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2006, 09:20 AM
Wait a minute! I never admitted Kerry was a liar. In fact, the facts are still not straight about that. People are still contradicting each other. My point was that it is difficult to believe one side when they've made it a habit of making accusations for the sole purpose of casting their opponent as a piece of shit. At some point, one has to wonder just how true those accusations are.

That is why I cited the habitual lying of the Bushies. They have clearly shown a pattern of stooping to the lowest depths during campaigns. After those campaigns are over the damage is done. It doesn't matter whether or not they were being dishonest. We've seen it over and over again.

That is the main reason that I have my doubts about their claims. Because it fits their pattern to say despicable things about their opponents in order to make them look like pieces of shit. According to them, all democrats are pieces of shit. All those who dare challenge them are somehow revealed as pieces of shit.

At what point do people stop believing how chaste the cons are and how all of their opponents are pieces of shit? At what point does the light bulb go on? Are you saying this president doesn't suck enough to wonder if we might be better off with a different direction?

Lying is bad enough but lying about someone else is the worst. Anybody that would lie about someone else in order to gain financially or politically at the expense of another person's life or livelihood is the lowest scum on the earth. They are no better than petty thieves.

The Bushies have established a pattern of doing just that. Therefore, I would believe that Kerry's version is a lot closer to the truth than any accusations made by Bush and his gang of liars during the midst of a campaign.

On your point of deflection; considering the sorry state of affairs in this country due to the piss poor performance of this president, any irrelevant bashing of his critics or opponents at this point is deflection on the grandest scale.

We aren't talking about Bush here. We are talking about John 'Rambo' Kerry. Bush never made claims about his war record because there is none. The swift boat veterans refuted Kerry's claims because he was LYING. I am a vet. If I caught a vet lying about his 'achievements' I would call him out too. Believe what you like, but if the others of his unit say he was lying, you might want to take off the Blue colored Dem glasses and listen. I never claimed to be, nor am I a Bush apologist. On the contrary, I agree with some of his policies and not with others.

penchief
05-29-2006, 09:20 AM
Irony at it's finest.

Why don't you ever say anything? All you do is make unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. You may think that your constant use of one-liners may serve to degrade whatever I say but it only makes you look more and more like you don't have anything to say.

It would be so easy for me to read one of Patteeu's posts and simply make one-liners like, "irony," "that's the pot calling the kettle black," or "you're an idiot."

Seems to me you used to be more substantive. Now you seem to be resorting to personal attacks more and more much in the same way Brock and Lattimer used to.

penchief
05-29-2006, 09:26 AM
We aren't talking about Bush here. We are talking about John 'Rambo' Kerry. Bush never made claims about his war record because there is none. The swift boat veterans refuted Kerry's claims because he was LYING. I am a vet. If I caught a vet lying about his 'achievements' I would call him out too. Believe what you like, but if the others of his unit say he was lying, you might want to take off the Blue colored Dem glasses and listen. I never claimed to be, nor am I a Bush apologist. On the contrary, I agree with some of his policies and not with others.

You make it sound like all the swift boat veterans refuted his claims. That's just not true. The organization, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" refuted his claims; an organization that clearly had a political motive. In fact, I believe the guy that set it up is working for George Allen right now.

The hypocricy is that Bush HAS lied about his service, or should I say non-service. If Kerry did exaggerate his service he wouldn't be the first but it still wouldn't be as bad as saying that you served when you really didn't.

It's all about perception and that's what they do. Let's create the perception that Kerry is a bag of shit while Bush is being unfairly maligned by the "liberal media."

Clinton was a liar, Gore was a liar, Kerry was a liar, Wilson was a liar, and so on and so forth. But damnit!! Bush is not a liar!!!!

When does that light bulb go on?

Baby Lee
05-29-2006, 09:39 AM
they were right to say that McCain fathered illegitimate vietnamese babies
Who is 'they?'
and double-amputee war hero Max Cleland was a piece of shit, too.
If Bush or Cheney were a double amputee war hero, would that make their political positions sacrosanct to you?

Baby Lee
05-29-2006, 09:40 AM
Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq.
Citation?

Baby Lee
05-29-2006, 09:43 AM
My point was that it is difficult to believe one side when they've made it a habit of making accusations for the sole purpose of casting their opponent as a piece of shit. At some point, one has to wonder just how true those accusations are.
Is that anything like positing that the admin welcomes terrorism as an opportunity to implement methods to counter it, because they just want the power to collect telephone and internet traffic information.

penchief
05-29-2006, 09:55 AM
Is that anything like positing that the admin welcomes terrorism as an opportunity to implement methods to counter it, because they just want the power to collect telephone and internet traffic information.

Not by itself, no. But when combined with all the other crap they've done and said and how they have gone about it, there is ample reason to challenge their motives or be suspicious.

stevieray
05-29-2006, 10:24 AM
Why don't you ever say anything? All you do is make unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. You may think that your constant use of one-liners may serve to degrade whatever I say but it only makes you look more and more like you don't have anything to say.

It would be so easy for me to read one of Patteeu's posts and simply make one-liners like, "irony," "that's the pot calling the kettle black," or "you're an idiot."

Seems to me you used to be more substantive. Now you seem to be resorting to personal attacks more and more much in the same way Brock and Lattimer used to.

Claiming that calling your post ironic is a personal attack says alot from where you are coming from.

banyon
05-29-2006, 10:29 AM
Claiming that calling your post ironic is a personal attack says alot from where you are coming from.

Ohhh SNAP! penchief PWNED by stevieray! You've been zinged, by the king of zings!




(is this the kind of response you are looking for with your one-line responses?)

Ugly Duck
05-29-2006, 10:32 AM
There is nothing more despicable than lyingYah-hah! This from a neocon apologist! Thats gotta be a Planet classic.....

stevieray
05-29-2006, 10:37 AM
Ohhh SNAP! penchief PWNED by stevieray! You've been zinged, by the king of zings!




(is this the kind of response you are looking for with your one-line responses?)

maybe in your cyber world.

banyon
05-29-2006, 10:43 AM
maybe in your cyber world.

So you are looking for some kind of adulation just not the cyber variety?

I hope one day you get your props then dude.

banyon
05-29-2006, 11:20 AM
22 Posts and not 1 substantive response to the photographic evidence.

banyon
05-29-2006, 11:32 AM
2

patteeu
05-29-2006, 11:39 AM
I don't really care about John Kerry's service history from almost 40 years ago. I'm just happy he's not president now. Especially now that he's embraced the cut and run approach to Iraq.

stevieray
05-29-2006, 11:46 AM
So you are looking for some kind of adulation just not the cyber variety?

I hope one day you get your props then dude.

i'm not looking for anything, are you new at this?

stevieray
05-29-2006, 11:48 AM
I don't really care about John Kerry's service history from almost 40 years ago. I'm just happy he's not president now. Especially now that he's embraced the cut and run approach to Iraq.

Interesting that after five years of attacks on Bush, it's Kerry having to prove his detractors wrong.

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2006, 11:54 AM
Yah-hah! This from a neocon apologist! Thats gotta be a Planet classic.....

Very clever. Stupid...uninformed...inaccurate...but clever. :rolleyes:

banyon
05-29-2006, 11:58 AM
Interesting that after five years of attacks on Bush, it's Kerry having to prove his detractors wrong.

At least he doesn't have to do it every single day for his f*** ups.

stevieray
05-29-2006, 12:11 PM
At least he doesn't have to do it every single day for his f*** ups.

ROFL

wazu
05-29-2006, 03:18 PM
Kerry and Bush were both horrible candidates. Kerry could have been Rambo during Vietnam and it still wouldn't change the fact that I don't want him to be President. I never really cared about what the Swiftboat Vets said.

In the case of Bush, it is basically accepted fact that he was unemployed, drunk, and stoned for 8 years of his adult life living off of daddies money. Some employers might consider that a red flag. All this being known, he was able to somehow defeat two Democrats. What will the Dems try next? My guess is they'll go for an even more polarizing figure in 2008 and lose again.

It's time for a legitimate third party to step out of the shadows and offer an alternative. These presidential elections are just depressing.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2006, 03:19 PM
Who is 'they?'

If Bush or Cheney were a double amputee war hero, would that make their political positions sacrosanct to you?

They are the practitioners of Lee Atwater/Karl Rove unsubstantiated smear campaigns ala the Swift Boat Vets, McCains illegitimite Bangladeshian Child, etc.

If Bush or Cheney were a double amputee war hero, I don't think I would challenge their patriotism the way that Saxby Chambliss did, the man left pieces of his f*cking body behind on othe field of battle, but because he isn't a shill for the neocon vision he isn't a true patriot. Interesting world you live in.

patteeu
05-29-2006, 05:53 PM
Does Kerry have any photographs that explain how, as Kerry himself sat in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, he could have had the memory of President Nixon saying we didn't have troops in Cambodia "seared... seared" into his mind even though it was nearly a full month before Nixon even became President?

I would love to see John Kerry run for president on his Vietnam record again.

banyon
05-29-2006, 06:04 PM
Does Kerry have any photographs that explain how, as Kerry himself sat in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, he could have had the memory of President Nixon saying we didn't have troops in Cambodia "seared... seared" into his mind even though it was nearly a full month before Nixon even became President?

I would love to see John Kerry run for president on his Vietnam record again.

Kerry misremembered something someone else said 38 years ago?

Surely you do not want to hold W to this standard.

patteeu
05-29-2006, 06:16 PM
Kerry misremembered something someone else said 38 years ago?

Surely you do not want to hold W to this standard.

I'm not even holding Kerry to that standard:

I don't really care about John Kerry's service history from almost 40 years ago.

Has he acknowledged that his memories of Vietnam are a bit hazy?

banyon
05-29-2006, 06:35 PM
I'm not even holding Kerry to that standard:



Has he acknowledged that his memories of Vietnam are a bit hazy?


Yeah, I saw the post where you said you didn't care, and then I saw the post where you acted like you did...

what gives?

For my part I only care to the extent that his politically inept DLC staffers should've nipped this stuff in the bud at the outset instead of ignoring it, so that we could've been spared 4 more years of the dangerous and inept W administration.

This is exactly why I didn't want him to win the nomination in 2004.

DanT
05-29-2006, 06:55 PM
Here's an article from National Review Online regarding the remarks that John Kerry made about the experience of hearing the President of the United States claim that no American troops were at a place when and where he had been and when and where he had been shot at.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200408180835.asp

Here's one of Mr. Kerry's quotes, according to a thread on Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1187249/posts?page=21


...


Finally, President Nixon, 1970. "In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clear out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border."


Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.

...


Mr. Nixon's claimed the following in a nationally televised speech on 20April1970:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncambodia.html

And for five years neither the United States nor South Vietnam has moved against these enemy sanctuaries because we did not wish to violate the territory of a neutral nation. Even after the Vietnamese Communists began to expand these sanctuaries four weeks ago, we counseled patience to our South Vietnamese allies and imposed restraints on our own commanders.

...

Now faced with these three options, this is the decision I have made. In co-operation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border. A major responsibility for the ground operations is being assumed by South Vietnamese forces.

...


The period that began 5 years before Mr. Nixon's speech includes December, 1968, as well as the subsequent months.

Here's a slate.com article from August, 2004, that also discusses this issue and includes quotes:
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105529&%3Cbr%20/%3E

patteeu
05-29-2006, 06:55 PM
Yeah, I saw the post where you said you didn't care, and then I saw the post where you acted like you did...

what gives?

The Christmas in Cambodia "seared... seared" story just came to mind and I wondered what Kerry has had to say about it. It's really not that big of a deal to me, but I'm not that interested in hearing swift boat vet smears several years after the fact either. I'm torn between my indifference to the subject and my thought that if I don't keep up with it and keep the Kerry side of the argument honest that a few months from now I'll be hearing about how Kerry was completely vindicated and that the Swift Boat Vets were proven to be lying about everything (whether that's true or not).

penchief
05-29-2006, 06:58 PM
Claiming that calling your post ironic is a personal attack says alot from where you are coming from.

I'm not referring to just that. Your last several responses have been such. The "ironic" comment can be made about nearly any post on this board and it doesn't even have to be relevent. People play the "ironic" card all the time and you seem to be playing a lot of those cards lately rather than actually responding to the post. It's the easy way out. You can criticize another person without really saying anything.

Besides, if you read the post you would recognize that I was referring to more than just your most recent response. It was just a couple days ago that you said I was full of shit without any explanaition. That sounds like a personal attack to me.

In fact, if you look at what you said in the above quote, you didn't hesitate to take another cheap shot without explaining yourself. You seem to be making an insinuation about where I'm coming from by twisting what I said to suit your insinuation.

penchief
05-29-2006, 07:18 PM
Ohhh SNAP! penchief PWNED by stevieray! You've been zinged, by the king of zings!




(is this the kind of response you are looking for with your one-line responses?)

So I'm not the only one that has noticed this lately?

Taco John
05-29-2006, 07:22 PM
I don't know why anybody believes that the folks who were propagating this stuff then are going to do anything but deny it even mattered to them now.

I, for one, knew the swift boat veterans were acting without honor then, and said as much. Despite knowing that they were liars, it didn't make me want to vote for him.

patteeu
05-31-2006, 01:01 AM
Thanks DanT. I looked into some of the things Kerry said about that incident and I think you're right. His statements don't necessarily mean he was saying that Richard Nixon was making statements on that Christmas Even in 1968. He never explicitly says when he heard Nixon speaking. He only says that he was struck by Nixon's statements (whenever they were made) because his own alleged experience was being denied by the President. It remains curious that so many Kennedy campaign agents offered alternative stories to counteract the criticism about Nixon not being president on Christmas Eve 1968 (e.g. that Kerry had actually been in Cambodia in late January 1969 instead of late December 1968 as he had claimed, etc.), but I don't think the fact that Nixon wasn't president in 1968 is evidence of a Kerry lie.

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 11:13 AM
22 Posts and not 1 substantive response to the photographic evidence.
This is evidence? Boy, I can't wait to figure out a way to sue you. It would be like money in the bank.

banyon
05-31-2006, 11:20 AM
This is evidence? Boy, I can't wait to figure out a way to sue you. It would be like money in the bank.

Hey, Velvet, did you ever find those fines in the Kyoto Protocol?


ROFL ROFL ROFL

banyon
05-31-2006, 11:27 AM
This is evidence? Boy, I can't wait to figure out a way to sue you. It would be like money in the bank.

1. Is his hand bandaged or not?

2. Does it appear to be a fleeing boy, or a man laying face up?

I just said it was evidence, not that it was definitive proof. It simply makes Kerry's case stronger and the Swift Boaters weaker, along with the testimony of those who witnessed the events of the photos backing up what the photos appear to show. In what other way would you propose that the Swift Boaters allegations be disproved other than with photographic evidence and corroborating testimony? Maybe the Swift Boaters could all sign a confession that they were full of s***? Give me a break.

DanT
05-31-2006, 12:09 PM
Thanks DanT. I looked into some of the things Kerry said about that incident and I think you're right. His statements don't necessarily mean he was saying that Richard Nixon was making statements on that Christmas Even in 1968. He never explicitly says when he heard Nixon speaking. He only says that he was struck by Nixon's statements (whenever they were made) because his own alleged experience was being denied by the President. It remains curious that so many Kennedy campaign agents offered alternative stories to counteract the criticism about Nixon not being president on Christmas Eve 1968 (e.g. that Kerry had actually been in Cambodia in late January 1969 instead of late December 1968 as he had claimed, etc.), but I don't think the fact that Nixon wasn't president in 1968 is evidence of a Kerry lie.

I agree. As my post shows, the paragraph immediately preceeding the "seared in me" quote faithfully quotes President Nixon's 1970 speech. Not only does the "seared in me" quote taken out of context not imply that Senator Kerry claimed that Richard Nixon was President in 1968, but when the quote is placed in context it makes it pretty clear that Senator Kerry's quote doesn't necessarily have anything to do with who was President in 1968, it has to do with him having personal knowledge of the truth and then hearing a President of the United States later claim something contradicting that truth.

Thanks for reading my posts, patteeu!

Eye Patch
05-31-2006, 12:22 PM
I believe Kerry received one silver star, one bronze star, and three purple hearts in a span of six months. I don’t’ believe and other military veteran has received so many medals in so short of time…. Especially swift boat veterans.

DanT
05-31-2006, 12:40 PM
Here's an excerpt from the Urban Legends page regarding Senator Kerry's medals:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp


It was not at all unusual that a Swift boat crew member might be wounded more than once in a relatively short period of time, or that injuries meriting the award of a Purple Heart might not be serious enough to require time off from duty. According to a Boston Globe overview of John Kerry's Vietnam experience:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.

"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."

Donger
05-31-2006, 12:48 PM
22 Posts and not 1 substantive response to the photographic evidence.

By his own words, Kerry admitted that all three of his wounds were minor; I believe he used the term "walking wounded" to describe them.

He used the system to get out of Vietnam. That's fine. But to suggest that Kerry was a combat-seeking sailor is assinine, again, by his own words.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 12:59 PM
But to suggest that Kerry was a combat-seeking sailor is assinine...
Interesting, what's prompting you to suggest that?

Donger
05-31-2006, 12:59 PM
Interesting, what's prompting you to suggest that?

His own words, like I said.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 01:06 PM
His own words, like I said.
Can you link to his use of the term "combat-seeking sailor"? That's pretty freaking strange choice of words, but if you've read him say it... I'd agree that if nothing else it's a poor description of the facts.

He did say "combat-seeking sailor" right? That's not just you making shit up, right?

Donger
05-31-2006, 01:09 PM
Can you link to his use of the term "combat-seeking sailor"? That's pretty freaking strange choice of words, but if you've read him say it... I'd agree that if nothing else it's a poor description of the facts.

He did say "combat-seeking sailor" right? That's not just you making shit up, right?

Those are my words. IIRC, he stated once that he didn't really want to "get involved" in the war, and that when he signed up for swift boats, they were performing littoral operations, not riverine. That changed once he got back in-country.

Here, I found it:

Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.

DanT
05-31-2006, 01:18 PM
Can you link to his use of the term "combat-seeking sailor"? That's pretty freaking strange choice of words, but if you've read him say it... I'd agree that if nothing else it's a poor description of the facts.

He did say "combat-seeking sailor" right? That's not just you making shit up, right?


If I understand Donger's post correctly, Donger is not saying that Kerry ever used the phrase "combat-seeking sailor". Donger is saying that to suggest that Kerry was a combat-seeking sailor is asinine and that Kerry's own words can be used to show how asinine it is.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 01:27 PM
Those are my words. IIRC, he stated once that he didn't really want to "get involved" in the war, and that when he signed up for swift boats, they were performing littoral operations, not riverine. That changed once he got back in-country.

So Kerry didn't suggest he was a "combat-seeking sailor", in fact he said explicitly that he wasn't. Ok.

As long as we are clear on the facts.

So if not you, and not Kerry, then who exactly was it that was "suggest(ing) that Kerry was a combat-seeking sailor" again?

Donger
05-31-2006, 01:40 PM
So Kerry didn't suggest he was a "combat-seeking sailor", in fact he said explicitly that he wasn't. Ok.

As long as we are clear on the facts.

So if not you, and not Kerry, then who exactly was it that was "suggest(ing) that Kerry was a combat-seeking sailor" again?

Do you remember the campaign? What else did he run on other than his combat tour in Vietnam?

Anyway, here: "On his second tour, he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. His leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts."

Actually, he didn't. He volunteered for one of the safest jobs in Vietnam.

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 01:47 PM
Hey, Velvet, did you ever find those fines in the Kyoto Protocol?
Listen. You know and I know that what I was interpreting as an implementation issue, you were interpreting as demands of the accord. I thought we were done with this. Apparently, you have a short-term memory issue. You have at least a minimum two issues that you need to come to terms with. You refuse to understand sound economics and you have little knowledge of how a new standardization is implemented within an entire industry. Especially one that will cost millions. Have another drawl of that Bong and things will get better.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 01:52 PM
Do you remember the campaign? What else did he run on other than his combat tour in Vietnam?

Anyway, here: "On his second tour, he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. His leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts."

Actually, he didn't. He volunteered for one of the safest jobs in Vietnam.
Actually, he "volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat". The rest is horrible wording given the facts. Who's the source for your quote?

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 01:58 PM
1. Is his hand bandaged or not?

I got a bandage on my johnson from whapping your Mom on the forehead with it. Does that make me a war hero? No. But I did have to roll over twice just to get off of her.


2. Does it appear to be a fleeing boy, or a man laying face up?

A man is laying on the ground and a man standing behind him. Is that Kerry? What, do you have intimate knowledge of Kerry’s azz shape? Your guess is as good as mine.


I just said it was evidence, not that it was definitive proof. It simply makes Kerry's case stronger and the Swift Boaters weaker, along with the testimony of those who witnessed the events of the photos backing up what the photos appear to show. In what other way would you propose that the Swift Boaters allegations be disproved other than with photographic evidence and corroborating testimony? Maybe the Swift Boaters could all sign a confession that they were full of s***? Give me a break.
You took me to task because I wasn’t clear on an issue. You just did the same thing. You are attempting to clarify your statement, which, you don’t allow others to do. Basically, that is the definition of a uneducated, self-centered azzhole.

Kerry is nothing more than a JR Senator and a lightweight politician. I’m not sure he even deserves to have the title he currently has.

DanT
05-31-2006, 02:08 PM
Here's an interesting Boston Globe article from June, 2003, on John Kerry's career in the U.S. Navy:

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

Donger
05-31-2006, 02:10 PM
Actually, he "volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat". The rest is horrible wording given the facts. Who's the source for your quote?

That quote states that he volunteered to serve on Swift boats in the delta. He did not. He volunteered to serve on Swift boats in coastal operations.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 02:23 PM
That quote states that he volunteered to serve on Swift boats in the delta. He did not. He volunteered to serve on Swift boats in coastal operations.
I agree. That's why I said that "rest is horrible wording given the facts". It's twice now that you've avoided posting a link to your source. Why is that?

banyon
05-31-2006, 02:26 PM
Listen. You know and I know that what I was interpreting as an implementation issue, you were interpreting as demands of the accord. I thought we were done with this. Apparently, I have a short-term memory issue.

Fixed your post. Fortunately the board is not deleted as rapidly as your shifting stances.



Have you ever read the Kyoto Protocol? Here is where you’re off base. It has requirements that cannot be attained by any industrialized nations. Your own post shows the sixty some odd years that the US took to establish sound environmental policy. Kyoto gave us until 2008 to comply with an approximately 18-25% drop in emissions. The US would certainly not been able to meet that goal. Oh, and there are punitive fines for not meeting the goals.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141171&page=2&pp=15

So "There are punitive fines"; not "there could be implemented later", or "there may be". And I must be an idiot for not having read the Treaty.

If only we could somehow harness the power of the hot air that you blow as a means of alternative energy, we might not even have to implement the Protocol.

Donger
05-31-2006, 02:37 PM
I agree. That's why I said that "rest is horrible wording given the facts". It's twice now that you've avoided posting a link to your source. Why is that?

Obviously because I'm wary of the truthfullness and accuracy of the source.

Donger
05-31-2006, 02:39 PM
I agree. That's why I said that "rest is horrible wording given the facts".

Funny. I wonder if you'd be so generous with a source that you didn't support? I wonder if you'd consider such a blatant lie from the Bush administration to be just "horrible wording"?

banyon
05-31-2006, 02:46 PM
I got a bandage on my johnson from whapping your Mom on the forehead with it. Does that make me a war hero? No. But I did have to roll over twice just to get off of her.


A man is laying on the ground and a man standing behind him. Is that Kerry? What, do you have intimate knowledge of Kerry’s azz shape? Your guess is as good as mine.

this is all said without factoring in for the people corrobating the appearance of the photos and what is going on in them.


You took me to task because I wasn’t clear on an issue. You just did the same thing. You are attempting to clarify your statement, which, you don’t allow others to do. Basically, that is the definition of a uneducated, self-centered azzhole.

Kerry is nothing more than a JR Senator and a lightweight politician. I’m not sure he even deserves to have the title he currently has.

Yeah, but I didn't accuse you of "not reading the article" or being a moron in general as I did so. I allow people clarifications all of the time, but when they come with this name-calling 2nd grade garbage, I'll call them on it.

Donger
05-31-2006, 02:50 PM
this is all said without factoring in for the people corrobating the appearance of the photos and what is going on in them.


Forgive me for jumping in, but what point exactly are you trying to get across? That Kerry was wounded three times? If so, is anyone denying that?

Velvet_Jones
05-31-2006, 02:53 PM
Forgive me for jumping in, but what point exactly are you trying to get across? That Kerry was wounded three times? If so, is anyone denying that?
Apparently he got three wounds but only one Band Aide. That’s one tough SOB if you ask me.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 02:55 PM
Obviously because I'm wary of the truthfullness and accuracy of the source.
Then why are we even discussing this quote. Why are we even discussing this subject. It seems you are the only one to bring up such claims.

Donger
05-31-2006, 02:56 PM
Then why are we even discussing this quote. Why are we even discussing this subject. It seems you are the only one to bring up such claims.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/

banyon
05-31-2006, 02:57 PM
Forgive me for jumping in, but what point exactly are you trying to get across? That Kerry was wounded three times? If so, is anyone denying that?

Yes, the swift boaters denied that his hand was injured.


And jump right in. The water is a cool 68 degrees.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 02:58 PM
Funny. I wonder if you'd be so generous with a source that you didn't support? I wonder if you'd consider such a blatant lie from the Bush administration to be just "horrible wording"?
Why do you think I want to know the source. If Kerry himself said the quote you provided, or his campaign provided that language, you'd have every reason to point out that it's bull shit.

Certainly not on the scale of bullshitting a nation into a war of choice that ends up killing tens of thousands of people... but certainly bullshit none-the-less.

Donger
05-31-2006, 02:59 PM
Yes, the swift boaters denied that his hand was injured.

Oh, that? Honestly, I didn't really pay much attention to what they specifically said during the campaign, so I didn't know.

Anyway, Kerry himself admits that all three of his woundings were minor.

Donger
05-31-2006, 03:00 PM
Why do you think I want to know the source. If Kerry himself said the quote you provided, or his campaign provided that language, you'd have every reason to point out that it's bull shit.

Certainly not on the scale of bullshitting a nation into a war of choice that ends up killing tens of thousands of people... but certainly bullshit none-the-less.

See post 70.

banyon
05-31-2006, 03:02 PM
Oh, that? Honestly, I didn't really pay much attention to what they specifically said during the campaign, so I didn't know.

Anyway, Kerry himself admits that all three of his woundings were minor.


Me neither, but it convinced some people that Kerry was a total liar.

My only gripe is that he was too big of a p***y to deal with this stuff at the outset.

I don't want Hilary to win and will not vote for her if she gets the nomination, but this is one area where she'd be an improvement over Kerry. She at least would have the sack to respond to this kind of s*** when it came up.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 03:02 PM
See post 70.
Got it...

See post 72.

Donger
05-31-2006, 03:08 PM
Got it...

See post 72.

So, you'll admit that that claim is "bullshit"?

As to your bizarre tactic of bringing up George Bush in this thread, I've said from the beginning that if it can be proven that Bush intentionally mislead the country into war by intentionally misleading us (lying) about WMDs in Iraq (e.g., he knew that they no longer had any and said the opposite), I'll call for his impeachment.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 03:14 PM
So, you'll admit that that claim is "bullshit"?
Yep, that's what I just finished doing. The distinction is subtle and the context is (and was at the time) effectively irrelevant, but it is definately bullshit.
As to your bizarre tactic of bringing up George Bush in this thread, I've said from the beginning that if it can be proven that Bush intentionally mislead the country into war by intentionally misleading us (lying) about WMDs in Iraq (e.g., he knew that they no longer had any and said the opposite), I'll call for his impeachment.
It can't be proven until we actually get a real investigation into the issue. Something that should have happened prior to the 2004 election, but something that has to this day been put off and apparently canceled entirely thanks to a Congress that refuses to conduct any oversight of the WH.

Donger
05-31-2006, 03:22 PM
Yep, that's what I just finished doing. The distinction is subtle and the context is (and was at the time) effectively irrelevant, but it is definately bullshit.

You're welcome. Wouldn't have been a big deal to me if the Kerry campaign, and Kerry himself, hadn't made his bravery the central part of his platform.

It can't be proven until we actually get a real investigation into the issue. Something that should have happened prior to the 2004 election, but something that has to this day been put off and apparently canceled entirely thanks to a Congress that refuses to conduct any oversight of the WH.

So, in the interim, what evidence do you have that Bush was/is "full of shit" with regards to Iraq? We've established and agree that Kerry was/is full of shit. Do you have anything that backs up your claim?

jAZ
05-31-2006, 04:17 PM
So, in the interim, what evidence do you have that Bush was/is "full of shit" with regards to Iraq? We've established and agree that Kerry was/is full of shit. Do you have anything that backs up your claim?
I'm not going to repost the hundreds upon hundreds of threads dedicated to this topic. I'll just say that all of the rhetoric prior to the war didn't match any of the results after invasion.

That is well more than enough to ask the question what did they know and when did they know it.

That investigation of the WH itself has never happened. And it should have been completed 2 years ago.

Donger
05-31-2006, 04:24 PM
I'm not going to repost the hundreds upon hundreds of threads dedicated to this topic. I'll just say that all of the rhetoric prior to the war didn't match any of the results after invasion.

That is well more than enough to ask the question what did they know and when did they know it.

That investigation of the WH itself has never happened. And it should have been completed 2 years ago.

So, I'll take that as a "no." That being said, would it be accurate to say that it would inappropriate for you to assert that the Bush administration and Bush in particular lied to the American people about the existence of Iraq's WMDs?

jAZ
05-31-2006, 04:35 PM
So, I'll take that as a "no." That being said, would it be accurate to say that it would inappropriate for you to assert that the Bush administration and Bush in particular lied to the American people about the existence of Iraq's WMDs?
You'd be taking it inaccurately, but that's not suprising given your track record around here.

Donger
05-31-2006, 04:39 PM
You'd be taking it inaccurately, but that's not suprising given your track record around here.

Okay. So what evidence do you have supports that assertion?

When I make claims, as so evidenced on this very thread, I back them up with facts.

If you can't or won't, and still claim that Bush lied about pre-war intel regarding Iraq's WMDs, I'm forced to conclude that you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 06:58 PM
Okay. So what evidence do you have supports that assertion?

When I make claims, as so evidenced on this very thread, I back them up with facts.

If you can't or won't, and still claim that Bush lied about pre-war intel regarding Iraq's WMDs, I'm forced to conclude that you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest.
I've described generaly my assertion. And I've provided the facts to go along with it already.

I'm not going to provide facts to back up any other assertions you wish to make. That's for you to do.

To recap, the question before us is: did Bush lie us into war? I think he did, but I don't have impeachable proof of any kind.

There are, however, plenty of facts to justify further investigation. The only facts needed are the following:

1) They claims of WMD in Iraq prior to invasion, and
2) After invasion the lack of any WMD.

Do we know based on these two facts that Bush (or more importantly his administration as a whole) lied? Not yet.

Do we know enough to demand further investgation? Hell yes.

Have I ever asked for anything more? No.

Do I need more evidence than the two elements provided (twice now) above to demand investigation? Not in the least.

In lieu of an actual investigation, am I willing to debate with you all of the (limited due to an absence of any real investigation) facts that we have before us as to whether Bush lied us into war? Not at all.

Bootlegged
06-02-2006, 08:03 AM
Why don't you ever say anything? All you do is make unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. You may think that your constant use of one-liners may serve to degrade whatever I say but it only makes you look more and more like you don't have anything to say.

It would be so easy for me to read one of Patteeu's posts and simply make one-liners like, "irony," "that's the pot calling the kettle black," or "you're an idiot."

Seems to me you used to be more substantive. Now you seem to be resorting to personal attacks more and more much in the same way Brock and Lattimer used to.

penissucker.

penchief
06-02-2006, 05:50 PM
penissucker.

One of the two time that I recall citing your past behavior for the sake of comparison and you decide to show up and read it. Sorry if you were offended but if you were to review a lot of discussions that have taken place since you've been gone you'll find that I'm not the only one (from both sides of the aisle) that has used both you and Brock as examples of how not to behave.

I apologize for using your name behind your back. Won't happen again. Come back a little more often and partake in a few debates if you think you can do so without blowing a fuse.

go bowe
06-04-2006, 12:12 PM
You make it sound like all the swift boat veterans refuted his claims. That's just not true. The organization, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" refuted his claims; an organization that clearly had a political motive. In fact, I believe the guy that set it up is working for George Allen right now.

The hypocricy is that Bush HAS lied about his service, or should I say non-service. If Kerry did exaggerate his service he wouldn't be the first but it still wouldn't be as bad as saying that you served when you really didn't.

It's all about perception and that's what they do. Let's create the perception that Kerry is a bag of shit while Bush is being unfairly maligned by the "liberal media."

Clinton was a liar, Gore was a liar, Kerry was a liar, Wilson was a liar, and so on and so forth. But damnit!! Bush is not a liar!!!!

When does that light bulb go on?if you're gonna list the liars, shouldn't you include former bush administration types who have criticizied bush's policies...

they're liars too, despite having been appointed by bush in the first place and being republicans...

this administration is an equal opportunity basher...

disagree, and you are a liar and a pos, regardless of party...