Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Sadamn Hussein ….. where Millions Died!

Now EVEN the Washington Post is admitting that Hanoi John Kerry LIED about Cambodia, etc. Such actions RESULTED in the Deaths of Millions of Boat People and led DIRECTLY to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. (2 Million Plus Deaths there) “Johnny, I NEVER KNEW you loved killers Pol Pot”.

I supported War, BEFORE I supported Peace, BEFORE I voted for the $87 Billion BEFORE I Voted AGAINST the $87 Billion Soldiers. (Duh! Now, I am confused)! John Kerry —— 2004)

Hanoi John Kerry’s Evolving Story…. It changes FREQUENTLY! Stayed Tuned!

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 11:48 AM

Drudge report:

Kerry’s campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound…

Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68…
In Kerry’s own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, ‘hadn’t been shot at yet’… Developing…

LMAO! It just keeps getting worse for John F’n Kerry…

Aparently Kerry was trying to call the swift boat guys sunday night as well…

I guess now that it’s clear kerry didn’t deserve his 3 purple hearts and your out leave, he better go back to Nam and finnish his 8 more months, which also means he was supposed to be on active duty when he met with the enemy… which also means a whole list of charges should be comming down on Kerry from JAG…

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 24, 2004 12:11 PM

Well, Bush CAN‘T stop them. It’s a free country, and they’re exercising their rights to free speech. Now, if Kerry’s got a problem with it, he can sue them - but he’d better be damn sure he can

Bring.

It.

On.

before he goes ahead and

Files

His

Suit.

Since, in all honestly, I think his suit is quite wrinkled, badly fitted, and exceedingly smelly, and won’t stand the heat, steam, and pressing it’d get in the legal laundry. It could just get tossed in the incinerator.

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at August 24, 2004 01:06 PM

It is quite clear that the Swift Boat Vets would not pull the ads before the Senator even raised the issue and had his lawyers out there threatening their free speech and trying to bully book stores to not stocking the book. Also, the President will not walk into the trap being set by Edwards and others to “show his leadership, etc.” by having this group stop now. Doing so was a perfect Catch-22 set up by the Dems because it would be proof positive that he indeed controls the vets against Kerry were that to happen.

Why did Kerry stir up this tempest even more by coming unglued and emotional on it? (Using the President’s words directed at our country’s enemies to categorgize political enemies is a far more telling sign of how the left views vets in general and conservative vets in particular… to the Dems these are the real enemies, not AQ or the insurgents in Iraq.)

The Charles Krauthammer article on the Dems and Kerry’s initial response to the troop redeployment plan by the President only further exemplifies how running a campaign on personal hatred results in very poor judgment and poorer responses in the heat of a national campaign.

So far, on every issue of importance, the Dems begin their response with “Because Bush (choose any of the following: “lied”, “misled”, “is stupid”, “is corrupt”, “is not in touch”, “had is Daddy help him”, “let others do his dirty work”) and proceed to denounce him as the culprit and not society, geo-politics, the terrorists, changing demograpics, global fuel demand, changing job markets, etc. It is the Democrats who started early on with Dean to make this a personal attributes contest. Now they are screaming when their main man is being attacked because of … you guessed it… poor personal attributes. Now the mantra is “let’s get back to the issues!”

Meanwhile the MoveOn.org folks and tons of Kerry and Dem supporters/celebs are holding a huge, splashy party to do none other than roll out their lavish and mulitmillion dollar plans to continue to personally attack the President and his closest advisors and staff. This has to be hypocrisy at its most appropriate example… coupled with an example of very poor campaign management, too.

Posted by: steve at August 24, 2004 01:40 PM

Oh, BTW… how come we have not seen any of the Band of Brothers being interviewed or participating in any of this dialogue? Only Rassman has been shown (on tape briefly) repeating his lines from earlier about his rescue. O’Neill and others have come forth, alone and without cover to face O’Reilly, Matthews and others for intense grilling and come away battle scarred but still intact. I am still waiting for Kerry’s BOBs to venture into the same free-fire zones. I think it is because the Dems know that their Vets are not ready for prime time yet nor can they withstand the grilling without letting slip a critical fact or truth that the Kerry camp would prefer left uncovered. (Cambodia? The first purple heart wound?) Instead, Kerry trouts out proven professionals as stand-ins who can slip, slide and spin out of most any sticky situation or trap that may be set. While the SBVT guys can rely on personal experiences gained at the time, most of the folks coming to the Senator’s defense can only infer at some relevant experience to justifiy their expertise.

Posted by: steve at August 24, 2004 01:51 PM

I’m just happy to see the Mainstream Media pick up on this.

There is no way that Kerry can come out of this situation without taking some sort of hit. How big this hit becomes is a function of the believabilityof the charges (and the people raising the issues) and the manner with which the campaign responds.

so far it seems that kerry’s fumbling this. He’s trying to change the subject, which is OK because Bush still has much to be proud of. I don’t know that the public’s gonna let it go all that easily though.

this is a tough campaign, the stakes are high, makes for interesting times.

Posted by: skip at August 24, 2004 02:13 PM

Roy Hoffman, today: “John Kerry has not been honest.”
Roy Hoffman, 2003: “I am not going to say anything negative about him — he’s a good man.”

Adrian Lonsdale, today: “He lacks the capacity to lead.”
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: “He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers.”

George Elliot, today: “John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.”
George Elliot, 1996: “The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage.”

Larry Thurlow, today: “…there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.”
Larry Thurlow’s Bronze Star citation, 1969: “…all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks.”

Dr. Louis Letson, today: “I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.”
Medical records, 1968: “Dr. Letson’s name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under ‘person administering treatment’ for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago.”

Grant Hibbard, today: “He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate.”
Hibbard’s evaluation of Kerry, 1968: “Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of ‘one of the top few’ in three categories—initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, ‘above the majority,’ in military bearing.”

Steve Gardner: “[I] was not on the boat with Kerry during the incidents for which Kerry got his medals,”

Posted by: Lakhim at August 24, 2004 02:26 PM

Congratulations, Lakhim. You have set a new record for irrelevant non-sequiturs. Also, do you really want to get into a discussion regarding inconsistent prior statements, given that following Mr. Kerry’s positions on issues is akin to watching a ping-pong match?

Posted by: TL at August 24, 2004 02:53 PM

There’s no way to spin this one for Kerry. Some of these guys seem really really angry. O’neil seems beside himself with anger, as does Gardner.

have they made contradictory statements before, It seems so, but as I noted above, the damage, if any this does to Kerry’s chances rests only the accusers believability and the manner that Kerry responds.

let’s look at today’s speech: tactic one: blame Bush for the attacks, tactic two: try to change the topic, tactic three blame bush when tactic two doesn’t work.

The best part of this IMHO is that the alternative media has dragged the big boys kicking and screaming into the fray. This gives me hope!!

Posted by: skip at August 24, 2004 03:05 PM

Washington Times???

Arguably the Least credible newspaper on the East Coast?

And y’all take its reports Seriously?

Oh — it is Too Damned Funny! It really is.

BTW: Hint — if you are in action, and you throw a hand grenade, and a piece of it hits you, that IS justification for a PH. Always was. As is being hit by Friendly Fire during an action as well.

The seriousness of the injury is not and never was an issue for the PH.

Just so’s ya know.

Posted by: Don at August 24, 2004 03:22 PM

Once again Lakhim is lacking in his irrelevant arguments.

SBVT point one - Christmas in Cambodia —> Kerry has backtracked, they are truthful and correct in this point, Kerry lied under oath.

SBVT point two - purple heart #1 —> Kerry campaign has now admitted it was likely self-inflicted, non-battle related, SBVT were truthful and correct, Kerry deceptive and conducting cover-up and damage control. Can we say Form 180 - release the records!!!

Lots more coming from what I have heard and read in the book. I do believe that Senator Kerry has finally found a real battle and there is quite a mine field to negotiate. Report for duty Lakhim, he needs some people out front!

And Lakhim, who is truthful and who is a liar - hint, the liar is running for president and is NOT GEORGE W. BUSH.

Posted by: I collect political items at August 24, 2004 03:29 PM

Don,

The question is of lying and deception - there is no way that Kerry can spin his way out of this - he has screwed himself into the ground trying to spin already.

Did you read the book “Unfit for Command” - if not, you should, maybe you wouldn’t try to spin yourself into corners.

Washington Times???
Arguably the Least credible newspaper on the East Coast?

You are the only one making that argument. How many Post writers have resigned or been fired lately? How many editors are confeesing to mistakes? Which papers have writers that have liberal leanings by a ratio of nearly 12 to 1? Least credible - utter baseless garbage. Least believable by a Kool Aid drinking liberal - I’d buy that!

Posted by: I collect political items at August 24, 2004 03:38 PM

See, don illustrated my point exactly: absent any other argument, he attempts to diminish the credibility of the Washington Times.

next is this blather about the hand grenade. If you throw a hand grenade AT THE ENEMY and get wounded by shrapnel well then it’s PH time. OK so if you throw a hand grenade into a barrel of rice and get injured is that PH time?

The point here really isn’t all the technicalities around the medals, although this does cast a light on the man, the real point is how he broke faith with his fellows. For that they will not forgive him.

Posted by: skip at August 24, 2004 03:43 PM

Don,

Please cite the section of the regulations that supports your position regarding the grenade/purple heart thing. I don’t think you are correct if there is no combat going on. That’s why Max Cleland never received a PH; he was injured when a mishandled grenade went off outside of a combat setting.

Also, if you could point to a concrete example of the Washington Times being discredited, that would be good, too.

Posted by: TL at August 24, 2004 04:00 PM

Lakhim - you ever been a supervisor?

If so, you’ll know that in any group of men (or women) there’s going to be folks who are better suited for one job or another, and it’s your job to figure out by watching them and reading their files if Ka is suited best for shoving boxes in a warehouse, Rho can do microelectronic repair, Ta can handle Windows XP configuration problems, and Gen is good at overall troubleshooting but ain’t got a clue when it comes to accounting, while Til couldn’t figure out which end of a screwdriver to use with printed instructions and a cheat sheet, but is a wonder with numbers.

In other words, you want the right person in the right job, based on the characteristics you see in them - right?

Based on what these vets have seen, apparently, they decided there’s not much trouble Kerry could have gotten into in the Senate. Therefore, they could (and did) endorse him in the past.

But that was the past. This… is now. The situation changed on 9/11 and the environment of the ’90s where there wasn’t anything pressing in the international arena, nothing was really important domestically, and a President could just sit out 4 or 8 years without making any hard decisions is no longer. Kerry would have probably done adequately in the ’90s. After 9/11? If he were lucky enough to get elected, I think he’d be remembered as fondly as Warren G. Harding.

So when it looks like the DNC wants to put him in as Commander in Chief, these vets didn’t agree. It’d be, in their opinion, a really BAD job fit, verging on disasterous, based on what they saw then, and what they’ve seen since. I won’t gainsay their decision, either. They’ve got a right to it, and a right to express it. Just like Moore and MoveOn are Anti-Bush, these guys are Anti-Kerry.

ANY attempt, whether by Bush or Kerry, to silence them would be downright wrong, and a violation of their First Amendment rights. (And I think Kerry’s skirting dangerously close with his attempts already.)

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at August 24, 2004 04:01 PM

JLL3, that’s a very good analysis, well said.

OK, to the criticism about the vets who supported Kerry in the past and are opposed to him now, let me share a couple of thoughts:

First there’s a norm in the service about protecting the service. This is especially true in the commissioned ranks. So proud officers would be reluctant to speak out against Kerry as that would clearly violate this norm.

Why would they “support” him in the past? Well, in thinking about this it comes down to the bond between men. The vets might very well have felt that Kerry was a problem for Massachuessets but they’d be dammed if someone was going to smear the service of vietnam vets.

Well the stakes are higher and some reconsideration has clearly occured. So these guys have an action plan and they are being very straight forward about it.

good for them, go get ‘em

Posted by: skip at August 24, 2004 04:30 PM

Lakim, the reason they stood behind him in 96 was because he was being charged with war crimes. The Swiftboat Vets came to his rescue. They said, “Even though he admitted to being one, he was not a war criminal. They went along with the fraud Kerry had committed. Now, you’re asking to make him Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. They are doing their duty once again and informing the people of the United States as to what a lying, slease he really is. War criminal, no. Lying sleaze, yes.

Posted by: No Party at August 24, 2004 05:28 PM

BTW, many of them did not know to what extent he had ‘cut himself in’ on the ‘medal program’ until the last 3 or 4 months. This was another reason for them to step up to the podium. There is a limit to the sh-t you can take from a guy that did everything within his power to stab you in the back.

Posted by: No Party at August 24, 2004 05:30 PM

For me it is real easy and always has been. I am a vet. Kerry slimed my service with his actions before Congress. He proved himself to be a self serving, lying opportunist. Case closed. Next!

Posted by: Hungry Valley at August 24, 2004 05:39 PM

Lakhim, so now changing your story is bad? Ok, here is Kerry changing another story.

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040824130358175

KERRY CAMPAIGN BACKTRACKS ON FIRST PURPLE HEART AWARD

Cambodia seared, War crimes in Vietnam, now a purple heart.

Lakhim, are you really supporting this guy?

I wonder if the Navy will take him back for the rest of his hitch?

Posted by: jones at August 24, 2004 05:44 PM

Jones, maybe the N Vietnamse’s Navy might. Hell, he’s a TRUE hero there. No one here OR there will argue with that.

Posted by: No Party at August 24, 2004 05:54 PM

It goes a lot deeper than that, Skip. For example, Larry Thurlow was the senior officer present on March 13, 1969. Yet he claims he never saw the after-action report and that Kerry wrote it. He says that the unit was never under fire, even though his own citation contradicts this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

Also the citation of his chief petty officer (who also got a bronze star and is named as a witness on Thurlow’s citation) says “all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks”.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692

Further, there is an battle damage report showing three bullet holes in Thurlow’s boat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

So, if we assume that Thurlow is telling the truth now, it seems that he and Lambert faked up some reports in 1969 in order to get their Bronze Stars. That would pretty well discredit them as witnesses.

For another example, in the (first) ad, George Elliott, Kerry’s former commander, who recommended him for the Silver Star, said Kerry “has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam,” a statement which he later retracted.

“It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I’m the one in trouble here.”

Later, he partially retracted the retraction, calling it an “immaterial clarification.”

“I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.”

http://www.business-journal.com/FactCheckSwiftBoatAd.asp

I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to what goes on in George Elliott’s head, but what comes out of his mouth is pretty strange. I think it’s safe to say that his several changes of story don’t have much to do with anything that occurred on March 13, 1969.

A third vet, Alfred French, said in the ad, “I served with John Kerry. … He is lying about his record.”
French later said that he was not present and was relying on the statements of other veterans. An assistant DA in Portland, Oregon, he now finds himself in hot water for signing a false affadavit.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040824/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_veterans

A fourth vet, Adrian Lonsdale, had previously spoken out for Kerry, saying, “He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers.”

However, in Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty,” he found himself, along with Roy Hoffmann, as a reckless man who caused unnecessary deaths. Adm. Hoffmann was compared to the bloodthirsty colonel in “Apocalypse Now,” who loves the smell of napalm in the morning.

Lonsdale says that it was Hoffmann who was responsible for forming the group and contacting O’Neill: “It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=2&n=Top%2FNews%2FWashington%2FCampaign%202004%2FCandidates%2FJohn%20F%20Kerry

So, at the heart of the matter lies revenge. Some of these men may have a grudge against Kerry, and some may be coming to the aid of their former commander, Adm. Hoffmann. However, ALL are repeating hearsay or have changed their stories or are contradicted by witnesses and written evidence.

There is no reason to believe any of these men.

Posted by: Forrest at August 24, 2004 06:28 PM

Given that Kerry has already changed two parts of his story (Cambodia and the 1st Purple Heart), I don’t see how you can conclude that they are not at all credible. If these guys were nothing but liars, Kerry ought to be able to refute their stories with a simple release of records and a press conference. Instead he hides, whines and depends upon lemmings like you to regurgitate the same tired talking points over and over and over.

Some day you’ll look back at all this, shake your head, and say to yourself “I can’t believe I supported that POS”.

Posted by: TL at August 24, 2004 06:47 PM

Forrest - “There is no reason to believe any of these men.”

And yet You choose to believe a man whose life’s turning point has been seared in his memory - yada, yada, Christmas 1968, yada, yada, Nixon, yada, yada Cambodia…

Also, wasn’t 3/13/69 citation written by Kerry? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Posted by: v at August 24, 2004 06:50 PM

>>Given that Kerry has already changed two parts of his story (Cambodia and the 1st Purple Heart), I don’t see how you can conclude that they are not at all credible.

Links?

Posted by: Forrest at August 24, 2004 06:53 PM

Why reward incompetence?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002320.php

However, just for fun, let’s assume that both candidates have used the 527s deliberately as proxies for running attacks on each other in order to claim some distance from negative campaigning. What can we deduce from the result?

• John Kerry and the Democrats have spent over $60 million dollars in 527 money over eight months or more to derail the Bush re-election bid. The result — Bush, a figure of hatred on the left, has suffered a few points of job-approval erosion, most of which has been regained in the past month.

• George Bush and the Republicans have spent $250,000 in 527 money over the past three weeks in order to attack Kerry. The result — John Kerry has had to retreat from three different assertions of his Viet Nam record, he’s hiding from the press, he’s begging George Bush to stop the ads, and now he’s calling veterans from his unit asking why they despise him.

Heck … just on the basis of wise money management and bang for my buck, I’d have to vote Republican. They’ve gotten far more out of their investment, 0.5% of the Democrats’ bill, than the Kerry campaign has from theirs. Why reward incompetence?

Posted by Captain Ed at August 24, 2004 12:01 PM

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 24, 2004 06:55 PM

I don’t see Kerry’s admission that his first Purple Heart may have been self-inflicted as a change of his story. To my knowledge he never stated anything to the contrary. So long as he was engaging the enemy at the time, he was entitled to the medal, self-inflicted or not. The details of the Cambodia story are not really relevant.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 24, 2004 06:56 PM

V: No, the citation wasn’t written by JFK.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 24, 2004 07:23 PM

We are dealing with fanatics. No matter how much we show, they will lie or dodge.

It is bad to lie, but if Kerry does it…

It is bad to fake military service, but if Kerry does it…

It is bad to change your story, but if Kerry does it….

Posted by: jones at August 24, 2004 07:36 PM

rdelephant,

I have wondered if you were a Lawyer, as you claim?

Your last post could only be written by someone Totally Incompetent, or Totally unwilling to read what the Kerry campaign has already confessed.

This was the DEFINING MOMENT of John Kerry’s life. He claimed in his 1986 statement from the Congressional record that it was it was “seared, seared” into his memory.

Yet, the Kerry Campaign now admits that the CAMBODIA trip NEVER HAPPENED.

Your guy has lied since 1971, he has been caught and now admits it and you say “it DOES NOT MATTER”.

Cambodia is just part of the Lies that define John Kerry’s lack of honesty and lack of character. It also defines (or eliminates) any clain you have to being a Lawyer. (NO Lawyer would make such a dumb-ass post or statement as you did above).

<a

href=”http://nerepublican.blogspot.com/2004/08/media-hypocrisy-how-medi

a-handled-bush.html”>Why don’t the Media do to Hanoi John Kerry as they

did here?

A Sample of

Major Media Lies for Kerry

Do you want more? Are you even willing to read John Kerry’s own words?
We have them you know!!

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 07:43 PM

Why don’t the Media do to Hanoi John Kerry as they did here?

A Sample of Major Media Lies for Kerry

Do you want more? Are you even willing to read John Kerry’s own words? We have them you know!!

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 07:47 PM

Here you go Forrest:

This one addresses the First Purple Heart
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002317.php

The WaPo story from Sunday pretty much dissects the Cambodia story, and Kerry’s representative admitted to Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday that the only support for Kerry ever having been to Cambodia is John Kerry’s word. That’s after another Kerry Spokesman tried to move the MeKong delta so that it ran between Cambodia and Viet Nam, as opposed to its actual course.

So, of five medals, one has been conceded as questionable and another story, a story told in the Senate and on numerous other occasions turns out to be B.S. That means the SwiftVets are batting .333 even if all their other contentions are wrong — and they aren’t backing down or changing their stories.

On another note, anybody heard from Don? I notice he’s been pretty quiet since we asked him to back up his stuff with facts. Seems to be a pattern with our verbose, vainglorious “veteran.”

Posted by: TL at August 24, 2004 08:03 PM

Cambodia:

Sandusky said he witnessed the battle action for which Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars and two of his three Purple Hearts.

“He deserved every one of his medals,” said Sandusky, a retired computer repairman who drove Kerry’s Navy swift boat for nearly three months.

Sandusky also labeled “ridiculous” a forthcoming ad’s claims that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia on a day when records show he was not.

“So what if he forgot the date? Our boat went up and down the river, and he was in Cambodia. And so was I, a lot,” Sandusky said.

He also noted that only three veterans featured in the ads attacking Kerry were present for any of the disputed events, while many Kerry boat mates, and Navy records, vouch for the version Kerry has told.

The only thing in question is Cambodia, and this dude says it’s a calendar error. Damning. Utterly damning.

Posted by: bananas at August 24, 2004 08:48 PM

What’s that from?

You’d think this would be huge news, as none of the veterans who support Kerry or served on his boat have been willing to corroborate his Cambodia story, according to the Washington Post and a Kerry spokesman on Fox News Sunday.

Posted by: TL at August 24, 2004 09:05 PM

Except the campaign has changed stories and pulled back from Cambodia. Except that it was seared into his memory as a defining moment, except that who confuses Christmas with late January, except no one else backs him up being there, except the Khmer Rogue didn’t exist, except Nixon wasn’t president, it holds water.

Posted by: jones at August 24, 2004 09:06 PM

hehehehe…I don’t think I’ve seen anything approaching this level of rhetorical butt whoopin’ since…well…uh…never.

Don, rdelephant, lahkim, et al -
You guys might want to reconsider your positions…no seriously…continuing to try and support this guy is making me embarrassed for you. This is one of those rare cases for me where I would rather see folks try and change the subject than stick your finger in this leaky dam.

I’m seeing a tactic from the Swiftees that is just beautiful. They launch Ad 1 to bring attention to the various medal citations and strike directly at Kerry’s pride. He responds strongly against the ads…just in time to see Ad 2 that strikes at the REAL issue here. Since he has come out so forcefully against Ad 1, he MUST continue to defend himself or he risks leaving the impression of consent by his silence.

That’s the tactic…here’s the beauty…

Kerry has started to backtrack on his claims against the first ad which causes the media to question him on the second ad for which there is no defense. Absolutely beautiful in a strict strategery sense. ;)

A PROUD contributor to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at August 24, 2004 09:15 PM

Wayne,

best of all is that Kerry, Mr no issue is claiming Bush won’t talk issues.

Guess what Bush is going to do next week? And Kerry will still be ducking issues.

Posted by: jones at August 24, 2004 09:22 PM

Kerry’s going to appear on the Daily Show tonight. This guy’s first unscripted appearance, and it’s to get a BJ from a liberal comedian?

Who is advising this guy? Hillary?

Posted by: TL at August 24, 2004 09:33 PM

Forrest,

If the medal reports are accurate then I’d have to agree with you.

Now I got a mine for your keel:

Who wrote the reports? If Kerry would release ALL his records we could find out. Forrest: its Form 180.

—==—

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Posted by: M. Simon at August 24, 2004 09:33 PM

Kerry DID WITE his own reports and the records will reveal that.

In addition, the “V” for valor has NEVER BEEN ISSUED to anyone else in the history of the Silver Star.

So, who fucked up?

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 09:42 PM

Wayne,

I got hip to what was going on a few days before AD# 2. You could just see the next step if you just thought: what will damage Kerry most based on his last position.

This is intended to whipsaw him. Notice that with “Winter Soldier” now on the table all he wants to talk about is medals. Even giving them up rather than discuss Winter Soldier.

My next move:

The meeting with the NV and Cong in Paris. Once Winter Soldier gets hot . Say around the end of the R convention or possibly a week later.

So at that point he would rather discuss “war crimes” than traitor.

I havent figured out #4 yet. Maybe a document dump.

—==—

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Posted by: M. Simon at August 24, 2004 09:43 PM

Well, Never possibly may be untrue. However, 4 of us have NOT YET FOUND another one like that of Kerry’s.

3-9. Silver Star

a. The Silver Star, section 3746, title 10, United States Code (10 USC 3746), was established by Act of Congress 9 July 1918 (amended by act of 25 July 1963).

b. The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.

c. It is awarded upon letter application to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471, to those individuals who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, received a citation for gallantry in action in World War I published in orders issued by a headquarters commanded by a general officer.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 09:47 PM

Forrest: Congrats on finding the data about Mr French’s evidence being hearsay. If the Oregonian is reporting it straight - and even though they’re very pro-DNC, there’s no reason to think otherwise, then French’s testimony is worthless, other than to corroborate that the SwiftVets haven’t changed their stories over time. Certainly the original SwiftVet ad should be edited to remove his claim.

About your other points:
Thurlow claims he never saw the citation until long after the award, he wasn’t sure exactly what it was for. That fits the timeline of his discharge. Who wrote up the citation, one that glorified Kerry’s actions? None of the SwiftVets have admitted to it, but after 35 years, that’s not surprising. Was it Kerry? Until the records are released, we can’t totally dismiss the possibility, though IMHO there’s no evidence for that either.

As for the 3 bullet holes, you didn’t quote the article :

A report on “battle damage” to Thurlow’s boat mentions “three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure.” According to Thurlow, at least one of the bullet holes was the result of action the previous day, when he ran into another Vietcong ambush.

…which rather puts a different spin on things. BTW ‘30 cal’ doesn’t imply much, the VC were using AK-47s (7.92mm) but also old Japanese WW2 weapons, French ones, and many others that could be described as ‘.30 cal’. Yes, the US standard LMGs were truly .30 cal (7.62mm), but we’re talking about a bullet hole here, not something measured with a micrometer.

Elliot claims he was misquoted - and since the source is Kerry’s UNofficial biographer, who has written puff pieces in the past, I don’t give great credence to his alleged ‘retraction’.

Anyway, although I disagree strongly with your analysis and conclusions, may I give you some sincere thanks for providing URLs and source data. You’re providing Light rather than Heat (unlike some others who I agree with… no names). Please continue.

leaddog2: Re ‘V’ on Silver Star : it’s not authorised. A ‘V’ can be awarded for a Bronze Star and a number of others specified in military regulations, but not the Silver Star.

But I’d need really, really, REALLY strong evidence before I’d put this down to anything other than a typical bureaucratic SNAFU. “Extraordinary Claims” of faked documents etc require “Extraordinary Evidence”, and frankly, I’ve seen Zip so far.

Posted by: aebrain at August 24, 2004 10:09 PM

The SBVs aren’t pulling their ads. Maybe their lawyer advised them to stay firm. Problem: their lawyer works for the Bush-Cheney election campaign.

Posted by: bananas at August 24, 2004 11:06 PM

Bananas,

So what ….. Moveon.org’s Lawyer works for the Democratic National Committee.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 11:24 PM

It is in the last part of the Artucle you posted! That is typical of the Kerry Leaning media who hope people only read the first paragraph as you did.

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 24, 2004 11:27 PM

I’ve noticed the leaddog2 always gets to the point and hits hard with great facts. And then he gets no response from those he has defeated!! Just like those liberals; go and cower in a hole. When is the last time you heard the liberals complaining that the President can’t even find Saddam Hussein!!?? Old GW sure shut them up on that one.

Posted by: dickmr at August 24, 2004 11:36 PM

Meanwhile, in a related development:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/24/politics2106EDT0183.DTL

Posted by: Don at August 24, 2004 11:38 PM

I just hope enough of people see these articles debunking Kerry’s claims. Most of the regular media sure doesn’t. Even on the cable news networks all they talk about is Bush behind the ads. What makes them think that these vets are some kind of sheep that will follow what someone tells them. I read that Kerry did call someone that was on the boat with him. The man was polite to him but told him he wanted no part of his politics.

Posted by: fuzzy at August 24, 2004 11:44 PM

John O’Neill took a holiday in Cambodia:

(apologies to various deceased kennedys)

It appears that we have a debunking of the argument that Swift Boats couldn’t get into Cambodia - from the horse’s mouth itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon Tapes
CNN’s Newsnight just played the O’Neill-Nixon tape, with text graphic on screen:

O’NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O’NEILL: Yes, sir.

So, would all the people who said that no swift boat was ever in Cambodia note this correction? I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to extrapolate from this hole in O’Neill’s credibility.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 25, 2004 12:01 AM

No way… O’Neill corrected himself in that same conversation by saying he was more correctly on the water on the border in a different part of Cambodia… the western shore area where several small creeks weave in an out along the border. Kerry claimed his incursion happened along the Mekong River border where navigation aids, landmarks and anti-intrusion patrols make it very difficult to opearate across the river border.

Oneill was not claiming to recall a life changing event with exact date and time of day as Kerry has claimed. O’Neill is not running to be the next Commander-in-Chief either.

Still, this counter charge dug by Kerry’s hordes of lawyers does nothing to explain or make up for Kerry’s blatant statement about a mind searing event that will forever cause him to be wary of Repbulican presidents such as Nixon. He made this statement not once but several times on an event that even the DNC now says never happened.

I have heard that the various news outlets are getting a virtual blizzard of talking points and position papers on points and counter points on the SBVT charges coming in from the DNC and Kerry’s campaign.

If they want to move to the issues, why don’t they just do so?

Posted by: steve at August 25, 2004 01:19 AM

“If they want to move to the issues, why don’t they just do so?”

Zing!

Posted by: bananas at August 25, 2004 02:20 AM

I find myself losing interest in this story. No one seems to want to defend the Swift Boat guys anymore. The conversation has shifted to where Kerry was on Dec. 24, 1968. I have a hard time getting stirred up about it. Or whether his first Purple Heart was from a self-inflicted wound. No law says you can’t get a Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound; Bob Dole got one.

I thank everyone who took the trouble to give me a courteous reply, whether or not you agreed with me.

Posted by: Forrest at August 25, 2004 02:56 AM

Kerry claims that he was in Cambodia shortly after Christmas 1968. But even if he was only near the Cambodian border and was taking a little poetic license, who cares ? This election is far too important to turn on the details of an event occuring 30 years ago.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 25, 2004 07:32 AM

No, RDE,

It is too important to trust to someone who lies. Cambodia was the turning point of his life. Only he made it up. Then he lied about PH #1.

In addition to that he is a flip flopper. Why won’t he talk issues. Because he has none?

Posted by: jones at August 25, 2004 07:41 AM

wait, Forrest can you tell us more about Bob Dole’s self inflicted wounds?

And RDE, if it were simple poetic license I doubt anybody would much care. Alas, Kerry has some real enemies among the Vietnam Vets and they are going to publicize every inconsistency they can get their hands on.

Posted by: skip at August 25, 2004 11:07 AM

THis is just too rich.

Forrest - tired of the story, already? Suck it up, big fella, because Kerry has yet to respond to any of this himself or authorize the release of his records and now that the media are on it, somebody’s going to ask him about this stuff (besides Jon Stewart). He can’t hide from the media forever. Apparently, he’s counting on letting the Democratic fertilizer distribution system to wear out public interest in it, but I don’t think guys like O’Neill, Gardner and the guy who spent seven years as a POW (can’t recall the name) don’t seem to be the running type.

Oh, and as for your canard about “nobody want[ing] to defend” them, in case you haven’t noticed, they’ve been defending themselves. They have faced every interview they can get and endured utterly shameful treatment from colostomy bags like Carville, Podesta, Blumenthal and others. All Kerry’s done is whine, have surrogates attack his “brothers” and try and suppress their message. A real profile in courage.

Finally, Kerry and his supporters started this crap. Not just by promoting Kerry as Viet Nam’s waterborne Audie Murphy, but by deriding Bush’s National Guard service repeatedly. It’s amazing Bush hasn’t responded to this more forcefully. Don’t believe me? Here you go (courtesy of NRO/Team Bush):

Kerry Said President Bush “Didn’t Learn The Lessons” Of Vietnam And Is Putting Soldiers “At Greater Risk.” (Pete Yost, “Bush, Kerry Honor Veterans On Memorial Day,” The Associated Press, 5/31/04)

Kerry: The President “Can’t Even Answer Whether Or Not He Showed Up For Duty In The National Guard.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 4/26/04)

Kerry: “This Comes From A President Who Can’t Even Show Or Prove That He Showed Up For Duty In The National Guard.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 4/26/04)

Kerry: “George Bush Has Yet To Explain To America Whether Or Not, And Tell The Truth, About Whether He Showed Up For Duty.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 4/26/04)

Kerry Compared President Bush’s Guard Service To Draft-Dodging. “‘If people went to Canada, if people opposed the war, if people chose to be in the Guard, that’s their choice, and I’ve never raised that in an issue,’ he said.” (Noelle Straub, “Kerry Presents Himself As GOP’s Worst Nightmare,” Boston Herald, 2/3/04)

Kerry Questioned If President Served In Alabama National Guard. “‘I don’t have the answer to that question. And just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.’” (Patrick Healy, “Kerry Casts Doubt On Bush Credibility On Iraq,” The Boston Globe, 2/9/04)

Kerry Even Attacked President’s Service In 2000: “‘Those Of Us Who Were In The Military Wonder How It Is That Someone Who Is Supposedly Serving On Active Duty, Having Taken That Oath, Can Miss A Whole Year Of Service Without Even Explaining Where It Went,’ Said Kerry.” (Mike Glover, “Gore Defends Home Turf As Bush Concedes ‘Mistakes,’” The Associated Press, 11/4/00)

Oh, and Don, anytime you want to respond to our earlier questions/requests, feel free.

Posted by: TL at August 25, 2004 11:12 AM

Yes, yes, Kerry’s raised the issue and guess what, people are bringing it on. Just a shame Kerry can’t seem to handle this situation with grace and aplomb.

The left can’t take a hit, too bad, they’ve used hate and smear and condescension and now it’s coming back on them in spades.

I for one am glad to see it.

Posted by: skip at August 25, 2004 01:41 PM

Take this John Kerry pattern even further. Read the articles below in relation to Kerry’s actions and think of NORTH KOREA if Kerry is President, let alone Iran.

Why do Kerry’s Cambodia Lies Matter for America in 2004! Read this article.

Vietnam & Authenticity…… The SwiftVets are Kerry’s…“I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman” moment.

How the main stream media is trying their best to COVER-UP Hanoi John Kerry’s Web of Lies. Such cover-ups appear to be the same types of things used by Pravada and other Cold War enemies of freedom.

These Main Stream Media represent COVER-UPS just like al-Jazeera’s style of propaganda today is BLANTANTLY supporting all Islamofascist Killers.

Enemies are enemies! Both kinds of media can kill Americans.

Democrat Double Standards AS USUAL

Captain Ed has done invaluable work on his blog. Among other things he and several others have revealed the Truth about David Alston’s time in Vietnam during the January 30, 1969 to March 1st, 1969 time period when the Kerry campaign claimed that David Alston was fighting with John Kerry. (At the Democratic convention, on the Kerry We Site, etc. etc)

This fiction about David Alston was revealed to me on Captain Ed’s blog in this article.

David Alston, he WAS NOT WITH John Kerry as they stated… NOT from January 30, 1969 to March 1st, 1969

Pass all of these links on to all loyal Americans. We are in another fight for survival!!! The next article talks about what John Kerry is STILL DOING in support of America’s enemies. It is VERY SCARY because it reveals the Kerry mind-set of NOW ….. NOT 30 years ago.

Still Sacrificing the Vietnamese…how many more will die because of Hanoi John Kerry?

Combine this present day activity with John Kerry’s VOTES AGAINST EVERY major military and intelligence program of the last 20 years and you have the man America’s enemies like North Korea and Iran love.

Our Military Programs for Survival….. John Kerry VOTED, HELL NO! Watch his Defense Record video

The first Google Links about John Kerry and North Korea are as follows.

North Korea cites John Kerry in a Positive Light

What you don’t know about John Kerry!

Another North Korea Link with Rich Lowry..John Kerry’s North Korea lie

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 25, 2004 04:21 PM