| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/8/12 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32854 Activity:very high |
8/12 For those trying to get to the bottom of the Swift Boat Vets vs. John
Kerry issue, here's a good link which collects some info:
http://centerfeud.blogs.com/centerfeud/2004/05/kerry_dissed_by.html
The May 4 2004 press conference of the veterans is here (Real format):
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04050404_antikerry.rm
\_ Here's also Kerry's 1971 testimony:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/1535232
If you ask me, this is what's happened:
#1: They're pissed that John came down on the hippie, flower-power
side when they're the ones volunteering their lives for their
side when they were the ones volunteering their lives for their
country.
\_ He did alot more than just come down on the hippie side. He
was effectively allied with the Vietcong, fighting domestically.
\_ Hehahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahahhahhahhahahahahahhahaha.
Oh wow. Thanks for the laugh. That was a good one.
Next you'll be accusing him of appearing at rallies alongside
Jane Fonda.
\_ Haven't you heard of the secret meetings with the Gen.
Giap where he promised the other side better negotiating
terms if they would hold out on signing a peace treaty
until after he was elected president???
#2: The hippie, flower-power side is right, insofar as what Kerry
said in his speech. (I doubt they can deny the substance of what
he said -- if they really read major parts of the testimony, instead
of isolated quotes.)
#3: Kerry genuinely laid blame on the Administration rather than
the soldiers.
#4: Kerry wishes he could have made this distinction clearer,
perhaps by talking more about the soldier's plight -- it's not
a soldier's place to question where their President sends them --
and regrets missing the chance back then.
#5: The talk about Kerry wavering in combat is garbage. This is
just stuff made up to justify point #1, and just not liking the man
because of it. Most of his crewmembers support him, and that's
what says it all as far as combat.
Here's your homework: Quotes from the swift vets for truth
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes
Compare to Kerry's 1971 testimony from the previous URL. Judge
for yourself.
\_ Nice effort, but it will go ignored. The only people that
care about these Swift Boat turds are some Freeper nuts on the
Internet, and they won't listen to a word you're saying.
\_ it was a weak effort. i'll reply later. its lunch time now.
\_ You're right. People will make their choice between
re-electing president McCain and Kerry based on their
*merrits* not on the basis of some rightwing smear
campaign...Oh, wait a minute...There *is* no President
McCain because those fuckers' tactics actually work.
\_ no, McCain had my vote until he turned into a big crybaby
during the primaries. i don't want some unstable whack
job as president. if ya can't take the heat during a
primary, you're not fit for command.
\_ I didn't ask you. I just posted the link. I think your #'d
items are assertions without basis. |
| 5/24 |
|
| centerfeud.blogs.com/centerfeud/2004/05/kerry_dissed_by.html letter calling for Kerry to authorize the complete release of his military records, and have so far collected over 189 signatures, mostly from people who, like Kerry, served on Swift Boats. makes a pretty strong statement in an editorial in OpinionJournal: Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience. From a Kerry PR standpoint it was a disaster: one after another, men who had served with Kerry got up and declared him unfit to be Commander in Chief, using words like "devious", "reckless", and "contemptuous of authority". Boston Globe both raised the question of whether Swift Boat Vets for Truth is part of a smear campaign against Kerry. The Globe points out the O'Neill has longstanding ties to the Republican party, going back to the Nixon White House: One organizer of the news conference is John O'Neill, a Navy veteran who in 1971 held a series of debates about the atrocity issue with Kerry. In 1972, O'Neill, who had the enthusiastic support of President Nixon and his staff, spoke on Nixon's behalf at the Republican National Convention. O'Neill said that he has since become politically independent and was not now acting in concert with GOP officials. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan dismissed the veterans' news conference as politically motivated: "First O'Neill was part of the Nixon White House attacks, and 33 years later he resurfaced to be part of the Bush attack machine," Meehan said in an e-mail. "It failed 33 years ago, and it will fail in this political campaign year, too." Smear Boat Veterans for Bush": "The 'swift boat' veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the same vicious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago." well, you get the idea, it's all apparently very incestuous. He goes on to link Spaeth to 2000 smear campaigns against John McCain's environmental record. Having watched the press conference, I strongly doubt any of these career Naval officers would identify as liberal Democrats, but party identification alone should not automatically lead to charges of partisan motivation. For his part, O'Neill appeared as the most polished and media-savvy in his designated role as spokesperson and moderator (or lead attack dog, if you prefer); the others came across as fellow veterans who were visibly agitated at the prospect of Kerry in the role of Commander-in-Chief, and bluntly said so. They urged the Democratic party to find a different candidate. At face value, the event was a devastating blow to the Kerry bid for the Presidency, and I had expected that the charges would be front page news. A quick (and admittedly superficial) perusal of the major news sites following the conference yielded very little in the way of coverage, other than the aforementioned articles in the LA Times and Boston Globe. The New York Times did cover it, though not on their home page and certainly not one of their lead stories. From this lack of interest, I must conclude that the press widely views O'Neill and his group as political hatchet men with an agenda, and does not want to give them much of a spotlight. Let me be clear - it is not a problem that either group has an agenda, but why is one group spotlighted while its politcal agenda is ignored, and the other is swept under the rug while its agenda is highlighted? CSPAN link to the May 4 press conference by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You make the call: Impassioned veterans who served with Kerry and have deep concerns about his conduct and record? Or partisan political attack machine bent on destroying Kerry's record as a war hero? Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry is #1 on Amazon 10 days ahead of its release, there is even more controversy swirling around the credibility of this group, especially its leader John O'Neill. post by an attorney who had to cross-examine O'Neill, who was serving as an expert witness for the opposition, and who considers him highly honest and conscientious. His summation: "I had every incentive to discredit O'Neill, but I couldn't. He had every incentive to fudge his testimony in order to sink my client, but he didn't." Swift Boat Vets: Kerry Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief: Comments I am new to this venue. I have wonderful situation of being pretty solid in my conservative beliefs yet being in pretty constant contact with many who are not. What makes me better than most is my unwillingness to comprimise my principles to fit the situation at hand. My brother in law, (who cried for 3 days when the messiah Paul Wellstone died) learned of his neighbors impending divorce. Seems the neighbor fellow was having multiple affairs while his wife was supporting his habit of not working very hard. He did do doggie day care and was quite active in many activist causes, niether of which paid very much but were his passions. Since this neighbor shared a string of Tibetian peace flags (no kidding) strung between their two homes, his little indecresions are overlooked. In fact, understandable in his case as his wife was always working and he was in need of love after a long day of protesting the immorality of the neo-cons. When asked (in front of his wife) if he partakes in the same behavior of course he answers no. He would never think of doing such a terrible thing to his wife. But let us not judge, since the neighbor agrees with him on a political level, all other aspects of life are overlooked. There are two things you should never call me in public or I will lay you out on the pavement. Bewarned in the coming months with the election nearing. Left or right, dem or repub, all hypocrites will hang by their balls from the same hook. Roger | July 27, 2004 11:46 PM Roger, So what's your take on the Swift Boat Vets? Are they political hatchet men sent by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, as Conasan charges, or are they just scared out of their wits at the thought of Kerry as CinC? PurpleStater | July 28, 2004 12:27 AM Running for President is an industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by the candidates and those who support him and his party for one specific purpose. Basically, it is unlimited funds to spend in a limited amount of time to create an image. The candidate sits with his advisors before a white board and the brainstorm begins. Account for every action, contact, vote, illness and word (written or spoken) for your entire life. A second group within the same party is doing the same for the opposing candidate, exposing his potential weekness and strengths they must exploit or counter. The braintrusts then divide the life up into assets and liabilities. One group works to profit from the assets and another to minimize the liabilities. In a world of near instant access to limitless information and the ability to distribute your own information instantly, the war room has become the epicenter of a campaign. There is no question in my mind that each of the parties dug deep into the records for these people and identified each of the Vets as friend or foe. In the case of the swift boat vets, Kerry found more of an asset than liability and brought it to the forefront. They had done their homework too and had the names, numbers and desire to counter the Democrat blitz. That is modern politics, not Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It was early in the information explosion and they were early, effective adopters of the tool. His defeat was not an upset, it was stupidity on his part. However, here is some food for thought on "Vast Conspiracy." A man who by circumstance is willing to use his leadership skills and be thrust into the White House. Go back and they are countless, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Ike, Carter and Reagan. Some started earlier and find the mountain easier to climb. The parties have taken note and without a doubt are searchi... |
| www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/1535232 Purchase Video/CD After returning from the Vietnam War, John Kerry became a prominent critic of the war. He testified before the Senate in 1971 and told of atrocities being committed by US troops. And he asked: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" We broadcast a rare recording of this historic address from the Pacifica Radio Archives. On October 9, 2002, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry stood on the Senate floor and spoke in favor of the invasion of Iraq. The next day he voted to authorize President Bush to go to war. Thirty years earlier, Kerry became a leading voice against the war in Vietnam. Kerry returned from Vietnam in April 1969, having won early transfer out of the conflict because of his three Purple Hearts. When Kerry returned home, over 540,000 US troops were deployed in Vietnam. Some 33,400 had been killed, and the number of protests in the US was surging. After working behind the scenes and making a few little-noticed appearances at rallies, he joined a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In January 1971, the organization held a series of hearings in Detroit called the "Winter Soldier Investigation." Kerry did not speak at the event, which received only modest press coverage. This is an excerpt of a veteran testifying at the hearings. Three months after the hearings, Kerry took his case to congress and spoke before a jammed Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Television cameras lined the walls, and veterans packed the seats. Kerry was 27 years old and dressed in his green fatigues and Silver Star and Purple Heart ribbons. On April 22, 1971, he sat at a witness table and delivered the most famous speech of his life. It was to become the speech that defined him and make possible his political career. Overnight, he emerged as one of the most recognized veterans in America. From the Pacifica Radio Archives, this is John Kerry in 1971. Pacifica Radio Archives PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT JOHN KERRY: Several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough. We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out. I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped. As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country. In 1970, at West Point, Vice President Agnew said, "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse," and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we cannot consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart. We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but, also, we found that the Vietnamese, whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image, were hard-put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from. We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American. We found also that, all too often, American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism, - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong. We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai, and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum. We learned the meaning of free-fire zones--shooting anything that moves--and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals. We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "orie... |
| swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes Click the photo for streaming video of the press conference . Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was launched on May 4, 2004 at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington. Eighteen Navy combat veterans and commanders went on the record opposing John Kerry's bid for the Presidency, including the entire chain of command above Lt. "We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief." "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families. "Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less." "In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief." "I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing. It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. I do not believe the things that are described happened. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. "While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties." Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Kerry gave numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command. after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions." "In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities." I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. "During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units. Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. "I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done. "In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and... |