Asymmetrical Information

At the time Kerry was making his Genghis Kahn comparisons, Bush was risking his life flying F-102s. Because; 1. Bush is two years younger, and graduated from Yale two years after, Kerry. 2. Bush complete 5 1/2 years of HIS six year obligation (with an early out when the war ended), while Kerry served only three years of HIS six year obligation.

And, reports of Bush's drinking are greatly exaggerated. You can't fly supersonic fighters if you're a drunk. See:

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/10/colonel-william-campenni-strafes-bush.html

Bush may have been floating around or flying
around but he was NOT accusing his comrades in
arms of inhuman and horrible acts.

I live in a swing state and am inundated by
ads. This cycle is an education in that black
art, and I've been watching them since TV was
invented.

The ads show Kerry doing what he does best -- being a pretentious jerk. Kerry's never done anything of importance, yet he thinks he can run the country.

I love the spin. It's really hilarious how people can be so partisan as to claim W is anything more than affable, connected and lucky.

"risked his life flying F-102s"? The only risk is that HE might crash his OWN plane.

Kerry is a jerk. And he was a jerk about the post Vietnam service. But what is so wrong with a soldier coming back from a brutal war and saying "war is bad, bad things happen during a war, and people do bad things during a war"? Do we really want our soldiers to come back happy to have killed? Proud to have killed? That's what the spin seems to indicate, and that's really sick. Proud to have served and defended? Absolutely. Are we really saying that American soldiers should get a pass for "inhuman and horrible acts" just because they were fighting communism?

It's pretty sad how some people are all about god, freedom and apple pie until someone else accidentally uses their own freedoms in a way that makes the flag-wavers feel bad/angry/uncomfortable. That's when we know who really defends freedom.

How does a man betray his "band of brothers" by accusing them of daily atrocities, claiming to have committed atrocities himself, and in so doing provide psychological ammunition to the Communist captors of his "brothers", all the while undermining the authority of the very same military of which a President is commander-in-chief? To my knowledge no one has accused President Bush of denigrating the military he now leads by throwing away (or pretending to) symbols of honor and gratitude bestowed upon him by his superior officers (apparently at the recipient's own request). Senator Kerry is an opportunist in the worst sense of the word, a man that appears live in a universe consisting of a single superior being - himself.

"W is [no]thing more than affable, connected and lucky."

Ah, Ron, you've come to the wrong place if you want to make that claim. He's President and Republican, and those two facts by themselves prove that he's smart, articulate in private, charming, tough, wise, kind, and probably an excellent dancer. If you haven't already accepted him as your personal political savior...well, you are doomed for life, and maybe thereafter.

Welcome to what the 'Pubs mean when THEY say "meritocracy."

war is bad, bad things happen during a war, and people do bad things during a war" ron@ruidoso that is not what Senator Kerry said during his Congressional testimony in 1971. To paraphrase, he accused the military hierarchy of promoting atrocities among the fighting forces serving in Viet Nam and accused the forces of committing those atrocities on a daily and ongoing basis. Not quite your interpretation of bad things happen in war.

It's pretty sad how some people are all about god, freedom and apple pie until someone else accidentally uses their own freedoms in a way that makes the flag-wavers feel bad/angry/uncomfortable. That's when we know who really defends freedom.

What are you getting at here? What has this got to do with freedom? Did anybody say Kerry shouldn't have been allowed to behave as he did after the war? Of course not, he's free to say whatever he wants. The swift boat vets are simply exercising their own freedom to use the things he said and did as an argument against voting for him.

SomeCallMeTim

I'll bet I can guess what everyone else calls you...

Ron:

Bush was a F102 pilot. The F102 was notoriously unreliable. Two or three pilots were killed a week due to plane failure. It took much more courage to fly a F102 than go into the Navy.

Bush put his life in danger every day he flew his F102. He spent 18 months on active duty flying F102s. He spent another two years flying F102s while in the Air National Guard. He flew border patrols picking up unidentified aircraft. He was considered one of the top pilots in the Air National Guard.

Although Kerry was in the Navy 4 years, he spent most of his time on ship in the Pacific-no where near Vietnam. When he was on a Swift boat, he spent most of his time in training. He actually spent only 6 weeks in combat. Because he falsified two purple heart applications , he was able to bug out early and let his crewman face danger alone.

Kerry is a real war hero. He has had the courage to falsely accuse his fellow soldiers and his nation of war crimes for the greater good. You have to be a real hero to forsake both your fellow soliders and nation for the greater good. Little minds cannot see that the greater good must be served even if you must lie and cheat to get it. Any real hero knows that kerry is a true hero of the highest order. Serving ones ambition is the greatest good. Please vote for Kerry so America can truly be great.

I concur,
it's an oweee.

The Swiftys are such a joke. To take their revisionist history seriously you have to disbelieve the US Navys contemperainious, vetted records. You then have to accept that exactly when mines began going off under boats, while being shot at, all the Swiftys said to themselves, "We're under attack, I better watch Kerry". Further, you have to believe that 11 of 12 vets on Kerrys boat that support Kerrys version of events conspired to lie to the US Navy for Kerrys benefit.

On one hand the Swiftys and now their old ladies want you to believe Kerry had the intelligence and political ambition to manipulate the US Navy into awarding him their highest honors and getting an early trip home. But then the Swiftys want the people to believe that instead of keeping his medals and becoming a huge republican politician, he thought he would better further advance his political career by joining the VVAW thus destroying the credability and admiration he had just won from conservative hawks. If Kerry would have shut his mouth when he got back from Vietnam and carried the republican water on Vietnam, he would have likely already been President. The one thing that does surprise me is people havent realized that its not policy agenda thats winning Kerry points in the debates, its that he has command of the issues in detail, Bush doesnt, and that makes anything Kerrys says sound more convincing than anything Bush says.

BegBee, the Navy's "contemporaneous vetted records" were written by Kerry, or in the case of his Bronze Star, they were written by Jim Rassman, the guy who Kerry fished out of the river. Rassman wasn't exactly in a position to know what was going on with the boats, since he was, you know, in the river.

Actually, we don't have any "contemporaneous vetted records" on Kerry's first purple heart, because he still hasn't released them.

So “if you haven't already accepted him as your personal political savior...well, you are doomed for life, and maybe thereafter”, does that mean we should sign up for the self admitted war criminal instead? Kerry was part in parcel of what Gen Giap credited with winning the war against the imperialist Americans, specifically news anchors like Walter Cronkite and peace demonstrators(sound familiar?). By his own word, Giap realized he could still win the war, without winning the battles that cost the American families an additional 40,000 sons, brothers, fathers, friends and family. Most of the war protestors I personally knew “got religion” when they had the right number in the lottery the Dems recently tried to restart, come to think of it they started it during Vietnam, Rumsfield (the hated) signed the ending of it. The group (VVAW) he was a main member of voted for the assassination of 4 Congressmen. When our men, who for the most part, gave their lives to protect the innocent, and they are painted with the broad brush of being Genghis Khan’s, murdering at will, the debate is taken beyond protest. When Kerry went to Paris to deal with the Communists as to how to demonstrate to help their hand at the negotiation table, as I believe he did; you are not a demonstrator, you are a traitor. He proposed then what he proposes now, complete surrender. His cut and run philosophy is the same he espoused until he had the Clinton team show up, first it was 6 mos for a pull out, then 3 years, then what ever you want to hear for him to get elected.

Why does it matter now? Because his core is the same as it was then. He was against the Vietnam War before going, went with an agenda and capitalized on the JFK posturing from the beginning. All this redefining that the Clinton crowd has done doesn’t change the person he has always been.

Frankly the left loves Kerry because he is so “pliable”, and they think he’s on their side, he has only and always been on his own side. You can keep the brave warrior BS, his greatest act of personal courage was to chase a teenage VC, who had shot a rocket grenade at his Swift boat, into a hut after the limping teen had been shot with a machine gun in the legs, and shot him in the back. That sure isn’t my definition of “hero”. Just drink the kool-aid and pull the lever.

Did you know that Kerry was in Vietnam?

“if you haven't already accepted him as your personal political savior...well, you are doomed for life, and maybe thereafter”

As Hillary so eloquently put it, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Oh, no that was one of the Marx brothers, Karl I think.

war is bad, bad things happen during a war, and people do bad things during a war" ron@ruidoso that is not what Senator Kerry said during his Congressional testimony in 1971. To paraphrase, he accused the military hierarchy of promoting atrocities among the fighting forces serving in Viet Nam and accused the forces of committing those atrocities on a daily and ongoing basis. Not quite your interpretation of bad things happen in war.

Which is mostly true. Vietnam was notable for its horrendous civilian atocities. Kerry was very clear when he said this was *not* the fault of the rank and file soldier who served in Vietnam but was a product of the military command & politicians that created the situation to begin with. Kerry has said he was too hot headed back then. So what? Why is it Bush cannot be held accountable for being a drunk, a drunk driver, a womanizer, a coke user etc. but every statement Kerry ever made can be dissected under a microscope?

Although Kerry was in the Navy 4 years, he spent most of his time on ship in the Pacific-no where near Vietnam. When he was on a Swift boat, he spent most of his time in training. He actually spent only 6 weeks in combat. Because he falsified two purple heart applications , he was able to bug out early and let his crewman face danger alone.

The Swifties have already been debunked by those who spent time to actually examine them in detail. Are you aware that a key Swiftie was touted as a Silver Star winner? Know where he won that medal? In the same battle that Kerry supposedly made up. How about the Swifties who wrote that Kerry was a fine officer at the time who now suddenly remembered he made everything up! There's a reason why the Swifitie message has landed on deaf ears.

Bush put his life in danger every day he flew his F102. He spent 18 months on active duty flying F102s. He spent another two years flying F102s while in the Air National Guard. He flew border patrols picking up unidentified aircraft. He was considered one of the top pilots in the Air National Guard.

Yea ok that's really nice. We now are expected to believe that being in Texas was riskier than being in Vietnam in actual combat.

Most of the war protestors I personally knew “got religion” when they had the right number in the lottery the Dems recently tried to restart,

You mean the Draft bill that was brought to a vote by the Republican Congress and got only two yes votes? That counts as 'the Dems' trying to 'restart' the draft? Why should anything else you write be taken seriously when you peddle this crap?

The draft bill was introduced by Charlie Rangel, a Democrat. The only two yes votes were also from Democrats.

The center, I think, is focused on whether it believes that Iraq was worth the death and injury to young Americans that have occurred. Bush and Kerry have each solidified all those who lean for or against them in normal circumstances. I do not think the SwiftVet ads have the benefits to Bush, or harm Kerry, as they did in August.

Two votes in favor out of 402 Representatives doesn't count for any endorsement by any political party. I can name quite a few dubious bills that got more than two votes from Republicans that you would not want labeled as 'a Republican attempt'.

Actually the bill was introduced by the Democrats (Rangel) only to provide sound bits by the Dems that "the republicans were re-instituting the draft so that you (kids) will go and die", the ultimate in sleazy political tactics, par for the course.

One of the key Swifties did get a silver star he actually earned, while Kerry ran away from the scene, knocking Rasmussen off his boat, by diving into the river to help get crew of the boat that hit the mine out of the sinking boat at the true risk of his own life. He was apparently suprised that the out going fire was confused as incoming, although understandable.

What did those who served with Kerry think? I quote,

"My name is Steve Gardner. 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 behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

-- Steven Gardner

Source link
http://www.swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes

Drink the Kool-aid and pull the lever.

This is hilarious. 11 out of 12 guys on Kerrys boats agree with him, so we get a link to the one who didnt. The fact that some of you hold 35 year old slander that not only contradicts the US Navys record, but many of their own previous statements as proof of anything, proves your either incredibly stupid or incredibly partisan. Gee, I wonder why Oneill never attacked Kerrys medals at the time of their first debate. You think it might be because the accusation could go nowhere while it was fresh in peoples minds? Or do you think its maybe because its a story the bitter old prick made up once he saw Kerry was going to run for President? Why didnt Welds opposition research turn up the 'facts' about the Swiftys accusations? Or is it because its SOP of Rove to attack any Vets service who opposes jr in an election?

Begbee,

The catalyst was 'Tour of Duty.'

Megan,
Three Purple hearts in six weeks? Don't you think he played the system to get the heck out?

If everything was up and up - don't you think that Kerry would get up there with his band of brothers and do the mother of all press conferences?

The real problem here is that Kerry's anti-military pronouncements back then reflect his record since then. He is arguably the most anti-defense, anti-military individual in the entire Senate and Congress. He even went so far as to sponsor on his own a huge cut back in the intelligence budget, which is the only legislation I have ever heard of the guy sponsoring in his whole twenty years in the Senate. Face it, his career is built on being anti military, except now in the biggest flip flop of his life he has become the war hawk candidate due to his brilliance in reading poll numbers.

However you slice it, this guy is the last person you want leading a war effort. If he bails out on Iraq and the war on terror, which he will be under tremendous pressure to do, Islamofascists will declare a triumphant victory and the rise of these extremists will explode in Europe and rise more on our shores.

Begbee said, "If Kerry would have shut his mouth when he got back from Vietnam and carried the republican water on Vietnam, he would have likely already been President."

In what universe? How soon we forget. Vietnam was a bipartisan war, and one of Nixon's 1968 campaign planks was to pull out of Vietnam.

Jane, read the book.

The only thing we know for sure that's dubious about the swiftvets' claims is what passes for your scholarship. You've obviously not investigated ANY of it -- your just mouthing MSM CW.

C'Mon Jane, you're a smart girl. Either go to school on or get off -- the subject.

Kerry's band of brothers may love him but why do 17 out of 22 fellow officers join SWVFT and come out against him? Imagine a large organization like a bank with lots of clerks and low level managers. One manager is liked by most of his clerks but 17 of the other 22 managers think he's a jerk who screws things up and have no respect for him. Would you hire him? (Please, no bs about the other officers not being on the same boat. They went out on patrol together in convoys of three or more, were in combat together, and were often only 50 to 100 feet from each other. Look at the pictures and read the stories.)

On to other substantive issues that don't depend on he-said he-said. In his Senate testimony Kerry claimed that war atrocities were the policy of the US military. "Commanders up and down the line" knew and approved. Quite the contrary was true. In the most famous case, Lt. Calley was already under investigation and arrest by the Army for the My Lai massacre when Seymor Hersh broke the story in the NYT and created a sensation. If it had been policy the Hersh article would have come first.

In Kerry's Senate testimony he claimed that if the US pulled out of Viet Nam only about three thousand people would run into trouble if the communists took over. It was pointed out to him that something like eight hundred thousand people had to be rescued from North Vietnam after the French pulled. He pooh-pooed this. What actually happened after Saigon fell? A million people fled the South by boat, half a million were placed in concentration camps, and one hundred thousand were murdered outright.

While still a Lt. in the Navy, Kerry went to Paris and privately met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations at the peace talks. He then came back to the US and spouted their negotiating points almost word for word. This act alone is near treason.

None of this shows a young man of good character or judgement. Oh yeah, he then tried to use this record to run for Congress in 1972. He lost.

"W is [no]thing more than affable, connected and lucky."

Absolutely true. Kerry has only got two of the three, but in the place of the one he's missing, he's got shamelessly opportunistic.

Is he FOR gay marriage? Hell, he'd enter INTO one if he thought it would get him elected.

Begbee Fisking:

The Swiftys are such a joke. To take their revisionist history seriously you have to disbelieve the US Navys contemperainious [sic], vetted records.

The contemperaneous record was from Kerry's CO, who threw him out of his office for bringing up the subject of a Purple Heart for his owie.

You then have to accept that exactly when mines began going off under boats, while being shot at, all the Swiftys said to themselves, "We're under attack, I better watch Kerry".

The Navy has no record of Kerry's boat hitting a mine, the testimony of VC the Wonder Dog notwithstanding.

Further, you have to believe that 11 of 12 vets on Kerrys boat that support Kerrys version of events conspired to lie to the US Navy for Kerrys benefit.

And believe, instead, that 250+ vets conspired to lie about him, including the majority of his peers.

On one hand the Swiftys and now their old ladies want you to believe Kerry had the intelligence and political ambition to manipulate the US Navy into awarding him their highest honors and getting an early trip home.

So...now you're saying that Kerry isn't brilliant after all?? Surely it wouldn't take vast intellect to game the system. The only reason others didn't was a small matter that would confuse Kerry: honor.

But then the Swiftys want the people to believe that instead of keeping his medals and becoming a huge republican politician, he thought he would better further advance his political career by joining the VVAW thus destroying the credability and admiration he had just won from conservative hawks.

Yes, Massachusetts is well known for its stalwart Republicans, and by ignoring the wet finger in the breeze as you suggest he would have achieved get admiration from BOTH of Massachusetts' conservative hawks.

The one thing that does surprise me is people havent realized that its not policy agenda thats winning Kerry points in the debates, its that he has command of the issues in detail, Bush doesnt, and that makes anything Kerrys says sound more convincing than anything Bush says.

"I have a plan..." "A plan have I..." "Plans R us"
"When I implement my plan...as soon as I figure out what it is..."

"I'll get our traditional enemies ...er..."allies" (you know, the ones who helped us with WWI and WWII, such as Germany, or the Cold War, such as Russia) to jump with both feet with their nonexistent armies to join the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, which they've already indicated their eagerness to do..."

Yes, a clear stranglehold on policy.

In one of his comments above, Begbee made a grevious error that cries out for correction. Concerning John Kerry's early political ambitions, Begbee writes

the Swiftys want the people to believe that instead of keeping his medals and becoming a huge republican politician

If Kerry would have shut his mouth when he got back from Vietnam and carried the republican water on Vietnam, he would have likely already been President.

Do we really want our soldiers to come back happy to have killed? Proud to have killed? That's what the spin seems to indicate, and that's really sick. Proud to have served and defended? Absolutely.

Ron brings up a little-studied meme. I've noticed that some people believe that if we decide to go to war, we should indulge in endless self-flagellation before, during, and after. I think this is supposed to show our moral bona fides: yeah, we decided to kill a bunch of people, but we feel real bad about it, so it's OK.

W is [no]thing more than affable, connected and lucky.... Welcome to what the 'Pubs mean when THEY say "meritocracy."

If I am correct in assuming the writer supports Kerry, this is truly hilarious as an attempt to distinguish Bush from Kerry. Substitute "pretentious" (or "pretentiously clueless") for "affable" and you've got a pretty good description of Swiss-finishing-school graduate and double-heiress opportunist Kerry. So is Kerry what the Dems mean by "meritocracy"? Or have they given up on "meritocracy" altogether as too pre-postmodernist?

negative opinions of him. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp for just the opposite opinions from Fred Short, David Alston, and James Wasser.

Megan, Three Purple hearts in six weeks? Don't you think he played the system to get the heck out?

Troll, you clearly don't know what a Purple Heart is. Purple Hearts are awarded for any injury in combat with the enemy. It is well known that Purple Hearts are often quite minor (for example, Bob Dole's autobiography has a quip about some minor scratch he got in his first battle that describes the wound as 'something the army patches up with a band-aid and a Purple Hart').

Of course, you can't get a Purple Heart if there isn't any combat going on or if you're not in combat. But for those who are in combat areas the Purple Hearts flow quite quickly.

Two votes in favor out of 402 Representatives doesn't count for any endorsement by any political party.

Right. Bills just sort of pop up in Congress, kind of like virtual particles. Nobody knows how they get there.

Hint: The House draft bill was sponsored by Rangel and something like 7 or 8 co-sponsors, all Democrats. There was also a Senate draft bill, with one sponsor, a Democrat (I think it was Hollings). No Republicans were involved with either of them. Therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that Democrats were trying to restart the draft.

Democrats or 'the Democrats' Angie?

Uh, Angie.....
If Rep. Rangel did have "7 or 8 co-sponsors" for his draft bill, it should give you some indication of the bill's chances if 5 or 6 of them voted "no" in the end.
The final vote (do you have any idea how rare it for 400 Congressmen to vote for or against anything?) should show up the "draft" talk for what it: a quixotic crusade by Charles Rangel to try to gin up opposition to the Adminstration through pushing a draft. Sadly, his method of doing so by reviving antiquated cliches from the Vietnam era (and embarrassments like the 402-2 vote) has obscured any real discussion of potential problems with military manpower needs for the near-future.

“This is hilarious. 11 out of 12 guys on Kerrys boats agree with him, so we get a link to the one who didnt. The fact that some of you hold 35 year old slander that not only contradicts the US Navys record, but many of their own previous statements as proof of anything, proves your either incredibly stupid or incredibly partisan”.

Actually one of 6 on the boat at any one time, and the guy I quoted was with Kerry the longest. He was the gunner on the boat, and personally refuted the “5 enemy VC” incident that Kerry wrote up so eloquently sterile. Gardner’s version was that Kerry was not at his post and allowed a fishing boat with in the required safe area. As a result of Kerry (Gardener’s report) not being at his station on the craft’s detection system, the craft surprised the crew and Gardner shot into the craft, killing the father and a young boy, the 3 “enemy combatants”, captured, were the mother, and, I believe two younger sisters. As has been already stated, 12 of 20 fellow skippers (2 dead, 2 nuetral, 3 support), you know those who slept with him, and 250 fellow Swifties, 60 of whom served directly with Kerry, say that Kerry was unfit for president. Along with “Tour of Duty” was the reality of what office Kerry was running for was a major factor in there response (how much damage could he do to Mass and would it matter?). All of these men have come forward, putting their reputations on the line, for some, to put the record straight.

Jane is right, this doesn’t have much pertinence for most people, but only because Kerry does what he does best, shape shifts. He is the same pretentious, self absorbed, opportunistic person he has always been. In 1991 he said he was a liberal and proud of it, in 2004 he claimed he was a conservative. He now is for tax cuts for the “middle class”, but was for raising the taxes on social security recipients and voted for most, if not all taxes of the 350 increases the Dems have offered up in the last 20 years. He supported Billery’s health care package, the government can’t even run Amtrak without bailing it out every few years, what could they do TO the health care system?

Those who think character does matter are not stupid, nor does thinking a leopard's spots are a leopard's spot make us “incredibly partisan”. I, as have many, served my country for a short 6 years, but I took an oath to “defend my country from enemies both foreign and domestic”. I took that oath seriously then and I take it seriously now. Kerry acted as an enemy when he crossed the line and met with the NVA 32 years ago while his "band of brothers" were still in harms way, he has shown no sign of altering his actions. He has a litmus test of many things, one of which is the security of our nation. In his early career he said that we should take all matters to the UN and if the UN agrees with our actions, act. He says the same thing today, but adds, but not really(how...comforting), anybody able to see his "handlers" hand in an awkward location, or is that Kerry's head?

Why does a 30-year-old record matter? It is the candidate's record of today and the predictor of his action tomorrow. The IAEA gave Iran, one of the wealthiest oil producing countries, atomic energy. The IAEA and the Clinton administration gave N. Korea atomic energy, now they hold the world ransom. Kerry’s/UN’s administration would be more of the same. In the successful Balkans war of the Clintons, the International War Crimes Tribunal indicted Clinton, Albright and the countries involved for war crimes, Milosevic was tried only after he lost re-election and is still on trial, with no end in sight. More of the same?

The most “successful” prosecutions by the Dems through the ATF & FBI in armed conflicts of the Dem’s last regime was in 92 against the evil empire of “religious fanatics”, killing 92 men women and children in Waco, in 93 the ATF waged successful war against a family that ended with a teenage boy being shot in the back and killed, a mother being shot and killed while holding her new baby, a friend wounded and a million dollar wrongful death award against the governments jihad at Ruby Ridge, Oh yea did I say that the Dem’s wouldn’t “arrest” Ossama bin Lauden when he was given up on a platter? More of the same.

Ya know, Kerry was in Vietnam.

PS: Jane:
What station (presumably in the NYC area) did you see the SwiftVets ad on? I'm surprised they would waste money in that media market.

In order to have even a shred of credibility the people attacking Senator Kerry for his actions during and after his service in Vietnam must first demonstrate that the war in Vietnam itself was not a mistake. And anyone saying that the war was not a mistake cannot be taken seriously.

Events have proven beyond the shadow of doubt that Kerry was right to call for an end to the Vietnam war and to criticize those conducting the war. I cannot beleive that any of you Kerry critics seriously want to challenge him on that.

"Of course, you can't get a Purple Heart if there isn't any combat going on or if you're not in combat. But for those who are in combat areas the Purple Hearts flow quite quickly.

Posted by Boonton at October 10, 2004 12:35 PM"

I don't know what military experience you've had, but you can receive Purple Hearts only if you sustained them in enemy action. The first one was from shooting an M-79 too close, the second one from throwing a grenade in a rice pile and standing too close (apparently it almost took out his head with shrapnel as he was wounded in the posterior). His CO dismissed his request for the first “wound” out of hand, and in typical Kerry fashion he waited for that CO to leave and re-submitted his request. What a snake.

In short, yes the Navy was more than willing to give out medals, but you still had to qualify for them, while you get a “theater” medal for just being there, you don’t get purple hearts for shooting yourself, even if you shoot yourself twice. Can you hear me laughing?

Vote for the self-proclaimed war criminal if you want, but quit trying to convince anyone that Kerry’s anything but your ABB candidate.

Drink the Kool-aid and pull the lever. Please go on to another topic, you're embarassing yourself.

TNT, nice bait and switch job there. All Kerry's Purple Hearts were sustained in enemy action. If your gun misfires or if sharpnal from a grenade you threw at the enemy wounds you then you are as qualified for a Purple Heart as if your arm was torn off by an enemy shell.

Democrats or 'the Democrats' Angie?

Your reply to TNT was based on the fact that 1) a Republican Congress brought it to a vote, and 2) it was soundly defeated, and therefore it was "drivel" to suggest that "the Dems" were behind it. There was more to it than that, as I have shown. That was my entire point.

Jay C.:

The final vote...should show up the "draft" talk for what it: a quixotic crusade by Charles Rangel to try to gin up opposition to the Adminstration through pushing a draft.

"Quixotic" is not the word I would have used, but otherwise we agree. So what's your beef? Are you, like Boonton, arguing that it was not "the" Democrats who were trying to re-start the draft? Or are you arguing that the effort was not a very serious one? If the latter, I agree. If the former, see above.

"In order to have even a shred of credibility the people attacking Senator Kerry for his actions during and after his service in Vietnam must first demonstrate that the war in Vietnam itself was not a mistake. And anyone saying that the war was not a mistake cannot be taken seriously."

Not really Ken, things like character, honor, duty, country and putting your life at real risk for your “brother” are not dependent on the popularity or “rightness” of a war, but the character, or lack of character of the man. They are not abstracts, but defining ideals, in war or peace. Your straw man doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Kerry chose over and over to help himself at the cost of others, Kerry doesn’t win hero status because he’s on the NVA wall of fame in a war he helped the enemy win. One of the few great things Jack Kennedy did was to try to help the S. Vietnamese from being overrun by the VC. Johnson perverted it and many other things, but the Gen. Giap admitted he was defeated and gave Kerry and those like him well earned credit for helping wrest defeat from the hands of victory for the US.

Vote for your self proclaimed war criminal, but please quit trying to pass off your ABB candidate as any thing else.

It is indeed drivel to suggest 'the Dems' support a return of the draft either as a policy in itself or as a method of attacking Bush. The Republicans claimed they were bringing the measure to a vote to counter 'Internet rumers'. Indeed one Democrat (Rangel) wrote a bill to restore the draft and two Dems voted for bringing it back. To charge that this was some type of conspiracy by the Dems to either attack Bush or restart the draft is drivel.

"TNT, nice bait and switch job there. All Kerry's Purple Hearts were sustained in enemy action. If your gun misfires or if sharpnal from a grenade you threw at the enemy wounds you then you are as qualified for a Purple Heart as if your arm was torn off by an enemy shell.

Posted by Boonton at October 10, 2004 02:25 PM"

Not according to his CO that was involved. According to him, the first one happened on a training mission at a point that Kerry wanted to see what the ole M-79 would do (it is a facinating weapon).

Please vote for the guy if you want, but quit trying to make him something he will never be.

If he is elected the SS will keep him from shooting himself and you'll be happy. Frankly I have to agree with the point he wasn't trying to get out of Vietnam, I personally think he just wanted the "medals", like the wanna-be JFK he is, of whom Kerry still has a fixation on, for future political gain. In fact one Swiftie reminded him that there was a 3 Heart and your out (after the third one), just so he'd be gone and not endanger everyone else anymore, again according to the Swiftie's interview.

Can you hear me laughing, yet?

"It is indeed drivel to suggest 'the Dems' support a return of the draft either as a policy in itself or as a method of attacking Bush."

Says you, the "Internet Rumors" were reputedly from Children of the Korn, Moveon.org, 527's (these are Dem operatives kids). Suggesting that the Dem's don't have nasty tricks and bad intentions would put you some where between Hansel and Gretel.

Frankly I think the Dems were surprised the Repubs did any thing, at least as quickly as they did.(at least this is a more subjective, therefore more winnable for you, good transition, atta boy)

By the way Rangle said the draft was needed because only the poor were enlisting, let's see where have we heard that before, oh 30 years ago. Truth is that this "persons" army has more college degrees than at any time in our nations history. But he got buzz, that's all that is important.

in 93 the ATF waged successful war against a family that ended with a teenage boy being shot in the back and killed, a mother being shot and killed while holding her new baby, a friend wounded and a million dollar wrongful death award against the governments jihad at Ruby Ridge, Oh yea did I say that the Dem’s wouldn’t “arrest” Ossama bin Lauden when he was given up on a platter? More of the same.

Hey TNT, Ruby Ridge was in August of 1992. Who was the President then? Are you ever able to tell the truth or did you get a transfusion of Bush's DNA?

I don't doubt that rumers go around the Internet all the time. Anyone can post to MoveOn just like you can post nonsense on Free Republic. Around the year 2000 I remember more than a few stories going around that Clinton was going to use Y2K as an excuse to declare martial law and stay in office forever.

Rangle said he supported a draft. So what? Ever since they got rid of the draft some people have said its a good idea to have some type of mandatory service.

I don't buy his theory about only the poor being in the military. On my blog I wrote about the observation that military casualities really started to fall when we got rid of the draft. Why? Because manpower wasn't cheap anymore for military planners they put their effort into finding ways to substitute tech. for people. But that's a side issue, restoring the draft has never been more than a botique issue.

Not according to his CO that was involved. According to him, the first one happened on a training mission at a point that Kerry wanted to see what the ole M-79 would do (it is a facinating weapon).

Actually Kerry's first Purple Heart came from a firefight that happened at 2 AM in the morning. The three people on the boat said they had no idea where the shrapnal came from, it could have come from incoming fire or as a by-product of any of the three mens' weapons on board the boat.

Kerry's CO, Grant Hibbard, has been exposed in a mess of fuzzy memories and contradictory statements. In fact, he wasn't even in the boat! In fact, he didn't even see Kerry's wound...only the shrapnal that was removed from Kerry's arm.

Boonton,

Each command decides how to implement the criteria for a Purple Heart. In the Marine units I was in, if your wound didn't have to be treated at the BAS (battalion aid station), you didn't rate a Purple Heart. None of Kerry's wounds rose to that level of severity. Although technically he was eligible for Purple Hearts, in most military units he never would have gotten the awards. So don't expect us to be impressed, because we know people who actually earned, the hard way, as earning a real Purple Heart is always done the hard way, their Purple Hearts.

Angie Schultz:
Some trouble with the placement of posts, but: since you asked:
YES, I agree with Boonton, viz. post of 2.47 -
The latest draft push has come not from "the Democrats" (who, just like "the Republicans" have been fleeing vigorously from the renewal-of-the-draft issue at high speed) - but from, AFAICT, the obsession of ONE Democrat (Charles Rangel) - who, as we have seen, has gotten something like zero traction on the issue.
So far.
Also, so far, as I have noted, the problem of military manpower shortages (if any) has been a very under-the-radar issue: Both Bush and Kerry seem mainly anxious to scotch "draft-renewal"
rumors - if we DO run seriously short of bodies to fill boots, the next President (whoever he is) is going to have a major headache.

Rex writes:

Although technically he was eligible for Purple Hearts, in most military units he never would have gotten the awards. So don't expect us to be impressed, because we know people who actually earned, the hard way, as earning a real Purple Heart is always done the hard way, their Purple Hearts.

Hmmm, you have a beef with Bob Dole too:

In his autobiography that came out in 1988, Dole recalled receiving a Purple Heart for a similar shrapnel wound.

He wrote, quote, “As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire”—this was, of course, in the mountains of Italy- “and I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn‘t a very good pitch. (Remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them.) In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg, the sort of injury the Army patched up with mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.”

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/6942.html

Getting a Purple Heart is hard only because you have to be in combat. That's not an easy thing even if you only get a minor wound. No one asked you to be impressed that Kerry earned a Purple Heart beyond the fact that you should respect the fact that he served his country in combat. That isn't a slight against those who served in other ways (such as Bush) but no one who earned a Purple Heart should be attacked because their wounds were minor.

In order to have even a shred of credibility the people attacking Senator Kerry for his actions during and after his service in Vietnam must first demonstrate that the war in Vietnam itself was not a mistake.

Rubbish.

It's Kerry who wants us to be impressed that he served in Vietnam but overlook his VVAW actions. Sorry, no go. I still haven't forgiven Hanoi Jane, who actually finally did apologize, which is an action Kerry hasn't taken yet.

I really really would like to see the military records that Kerry hasn't authorized for release.

Really? Kerry has mentioned his activism against the Vietnam war quite often, I see no evidence that he wants you to ignore it. Kerry has also stated that he sometimes went to far in those old days. So be it. What Kerry didn't say was that it was a mistake to oppose the war and it wasn't and those who wanted to prolong it were no friend to those serving there.

risked his life flying F-102s"? The only risk is that HE might crash his OWN plane.

He was so good that regular USAF pilots invited him to fly mock combat exercises with them.

People who don't fly well in mock combat exercises kill themselves and others -- especially in the F-102, which was a fighter interceptor plane. It gets close to the other fighters in the air, at high speeds, and is hard to handle.

Boonton wrote: "Vietnam was notable for
its horrendous civilian atocities."

Were these atrocities committed by American
soldiers or the Viet Cong/NVA?

I understand you are pro-Kerry. I'd like
to think you are pro-Truth.

It is all moot anyway as the President is
going to cruise to re-election with 55% of
the popular vote and at least 350 electoral
votes.

The interesting thing to watch is how the
democrat party will respond to Kerry's
massive loss.

If it moves more leftward it will become
the minority party for the next 50 years.

If it moves rightward many of its most
ardent supporters will bolt for the Greens
but at least it could stay a viable
opposition party.

There is so many lies here it makes me sick. First, Kerry didnt write the reports his medals were awarded on, there are initials of JK on one of the reports, but there is absolutely no credible evidence that Kerry violated Navy policy in order to write his own reports. Second, at the time the first Purple Heart was awarded to Kerry the only evidence it came from his grenade is new Swifty BS, there is no contemperainious accusation. Third, many of the Swiftys current statements contradict the statements they made at the time. Fourth, you need to believe that the 11 US soldiers on Kerrys boat conspired with Kerry on multiple lies that had no real benefit for them. Fifth, you have to ignore the fact that in the incident that Kerry was awarded the bronze star for, that somehow 2 Swiftys were also awarded the bronze star in this incident, yet they now claim they were never fired on. Sixth, you have to ignore the .30 caliber bullet holes in Kerrys boat despite the Swiftys stating he was never fired on.

With Kerrys war heroics he would have been loved by all in Mass. I mean, they elected Weld as Governor despite being a pretty unremarkable rep.

Its ridiculous to consider a Politicians willingness to go to war should be based on his support of government spending for the military. I mean, 911 changed everything, right? So it stands to reason 911 changed Kerry to a more aggressive posture.

pragmatist asks:

Boonton wrote: "Vietnam was notable for its horrendous civilian atocities."

Were these atrocities committed by American
soldiers or the Viet Cong/NVA?

They were caused by both:

For those who have studied the historical record of the U.S. prosecution of the war in Southeast Asia, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have confronted the full measure of those atrocities and what their legacy is, especially in the war on Iraq. While most studies of the war in Southeast Asia acknowledge that four times the tonnage of bombs was dropped on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos than that used by the U.S. in all theaters of operation during World War II, only a few, such as James William Gibson’s The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam, analyze the full extent of such bombing. Not only were thousands of villages in Vietnam destroyed, but massive civilian deaths, numbering close to 3 million, resulted in large part from such indiscriminate bombing. Integral to the bombing strategy was the use of weapons that violated international law, such as napalm and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. As a result of establishing free-fire zones where anything and everything could be attacked, including hospitals, U.S. military operations led to the deliberate murder of mostly civilians.

Or take this from FactCheck.org, recently endorsed by the Vice President

Winter Soldier Event Discredited?

Kerry critics have long disputed that atrocities by US forces were as prevalent as Kerry suggested. And at least some of the testimony at the "Winter Soldier" event was called into question by historian Guenter Lewy in a 1978 book, America in Vietnam. Lewy noted that the event had been staged with financial help from Jane Fonda. He stated that many of the Winter Soldier participants later refused to speak to investigators for the Naval Investigative Service even though they were assured that they wouldn't be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally. Lewy also suggested that some of the witnesses were imposters:

Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (1978): But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name.

Kerry's critics point to that as evidence that he was irresponsibly passing on false atrocity stories. However, there's no question that events such as Kerry described did happen, as Lewy himself stated:

Lewy: Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated.

Some atrocities by US forces have been documented beyond question. Kerry's 1971 testimony came less than one month after Army Lt. William Calley had been convicted in a highly publicized military trial of the murder of the murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai hamlet on March 16 1968, when upwards of 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed by the inexperienced soldiers of the Americal Division's Charley Company.

And since Kerry testified, ample evidence of other atrocities has come to light:

Son Thang: In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book Son Thang: An American War Crime describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted.
Tiger Force: The Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army "Tiger Force" unit that the Blade said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings," the Blade reported. "Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged."
"Hundreds" of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. "I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported," Turse was quoted as saying. "I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn't stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That's the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds."
"Exact Same Stories": Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he's interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."

Hey, the interesting thing here isn't the ad itself, it's merits or anything related to the other ads or Vietnam. What's interesting is that it's running in New York. I would suggest that that isn't good news for JFK. Maybe it's just a spoiler attack, but you would think that the Swift Vets would try to maximize the effectiveness of their attack by hitting in more closely contested states. Does your cable company operate in NJ? Was the ad on a broadcast channel?

I haven't been following the polls state by state, but there are plenty of Republicans in New York state. Many of them are extremely liberal Republicans by national standards, but I doubt Kerry can count on an easy victory there yet.

There must be hundreds of thousands of veterans in range of NYC broadcasts. It's hard for me to see how any veteran, regardless of other political positions, can knowingly vote for a man who has said the things Kerry did about his fellow servicemen. I suspect that most veterans remember the VVAW and the Winter Soldier "hearings", but didn't take particular note of Kerry at the time. And I suspect that the NY Times and the local TV news have been careful not to remind them that Kerry was part of that group. Once they know, a swing of over 100,000 votes is quite likely even in NYC. If the same ad works as well upstate, it might well make the difference.

There's another reason for showing the ads in NYC; it makes it very difficult for the MSM to ignore the issue. Get NYC-based network news doing a story about the ads, and it is spread across the whole country for free. And since Kerry's own words were clear and are on record, there's no way the MSM can twist this one that doesn't hurt Kerry with veterans.

A lot of us younger folk could really care less about what happened when we were in pampers. The vietnam era was divisive, and a lot of us don't know what we would have done in Bush and/or Kerry's shoes. We care more about the next 30 years than the last 30.

"Events have proven beyond the shadow of doubt that Kerry was right to call for an end to the Vietnam war...."

Exactly backwards. Nixon won the Vietnam War. But after Watergate weakened him, Congress threw that victory away with the Case-Church Act that prohibited any American funds being used by South Vietnam for its defense.

The result being the North's victory in a renewal of the war in 1975. Absent the legislation, Ford could have supported the South with arms, and possibly air power, just as we did in 1972 when the South repelled a far bigger invasion force.

Here's a retired USAF General on how dangerous flying an F-102 was:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041010-094332-2659r.htm

------------quote------------
My 1952 West Point class sent approximately 100 graduates to the Air Force jet pilot training program. We experienced five fatalities (5 percent) in the first 20 months due to air crashes. By 1964 our numbers fell to 70 due to fatalities and resignations. From then until 1968, the year Lt. Bush joined the Air National Guard, we lost 10 more Air Force classmates, a 14 percent fatality rate. One was due to hostile action; eight were due to accidents. In total, we lost 18 classmates (18 percent) during our flying careers.
In contrast, of our 397 West Point classmates commissioned in the Army, 11 were killed in action or died in training accidents during their military careers, which included Korea and Vietnam. This is a fatality rate of 2.77 percent, versus the 18 percent fatality rate of the class of 1952 flyers in the Air Force.
--------endquote------------

P Sullivan what relevance does the percentage of Air Force fatalities in 1952 compared to WP graduate attrition rate in Korea or Vietnam have to do with jrs "service"? The only stats relevant to domestic war hero Bushs service time would be concerning the time when jr was "flying" in the NG, and that seems to be excluded. Your attempt to equivicate jrs NG flying to Kerrys 2 in country tours would make even Rove blush.

"2 in country tours"

Nice try, but Kerry himself admitted he only spent a few hours in Vietnam itself on his first tour of duty, and a few weeks off the coast assisting aircraft carriers. Mostly he sailed the Pacific giving history lessons over the ship's loudspeakers. Calling at Hawaii, The Philippines, New Zealand.

The second tour was cut short because he received three scratches that anyone else would have been ashamed to claim medals for. The war hero is no hero. But he's a damn fine liar.

Btw, from the Boston Globe book, his commanding officer in Vietnam had this to say:

"It was loud and clear he did not like anyone who had authority over him...Whatever the task was, it was 'bungled' or a 'dumb damn idea'"

Just like today.

P Sullivan dont present that Swifty garbage as fact. The fact is the US Navy agrees with Kerry. There was never any question about Kerrys heroics at the time the events occurred. The idea that all CO eyes in the other Swift Boats were on Kerrys boat when these events took place is ridiculous. Why didnt any of these Swifty give up these "memories" to Welds opposition research? The Swiftys were recruited in Roves mind.

Hey Patty, why don't you tell us who that commanding officer was?

"Unfit for Command" makes a series of fact-specific allegations by eye-witnesses to the events. I don't think they can be so easily dismissed as "dubious," given that Kerry has never publicly discussed or refuted them in any detail. Other than Rassman (whose testimony is relevant to only one disputed incident), I don't know who else on his boat was an eyewitness to anything and I certainly haven't seen any of them on TV discussing what they saw. If you're going to claim that they were all "disproven by Navy records", then you should give the same weight to the records of Bush's honorable discharge.

I have read both "Unfit for Command" and Douglas Brinkley's Kerry bio "Tour of Duty." What I do know is that Brinkley's book contains far more falsifications than the Swift Boat book.

Let's start with the inconsistency between Kerry's 1971 taped admission that he personally committed numerous atrocities, including the burning of villages, and Brinkley's complete failure to detail any such incidents in Tour of Duty. Kerry stood by the factual substance of his comments when confronted with the clip of his admission on Meet the Press earlier this year. Although Brinkley dumps the atrocity quote, without explanation, on p. 263 of ToD, in the actual description of Kerry's service the lieutenant is essentially portrayed as a humanitarian incapable of such conduct.

Brinkley devotes nearly 200 pages (129-328) to a microscopic dissection of Kerry's actual service in Vietnam - nearly two pages per day. The alleged heroism is all there, in minute detail, but there are only two very general paragraphs (pp. 285-86) describing any sort of alleged misfeasance (apparently sometime between January 20 and February 28, 1969). There, Kerry talks about shooting up the shore and randomly knocking down hooches and sampans, all the while wondering whether the people could be "approached by friendlier means." The worst of it comes when "the crews watched in shock at the contradictory nature of what they were doing as a woman ran for shelter with a child in her arms or an old man in a field ducked behind a stump."

But there is no massacre, death, or the burning of villages, and certainly no village names or dates. Given his allegations about how widespread they were and his own personal participation, you'd think that at least 90 or so of his 120 days (and 150 pages of the Brinkley book) would be devoted to them. Instead, on p. 271, Kerry makes it seem like he was working for the Red Cross, specifically contrasts his own conduct with that of Bob Kerrey, and complains that the atrocities were overstated:

And while Bob Kerrey came under fire in 2001 . . .for his role in a Navy SEAL unit's alleged joy-torching of the village of Thanh Phong, no such attention has been paid to the other side of the story of what American servicemen did in South Vietnam, such as the rescue of forty-two civilian detainees from starvation by Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew.

This goes on for six full paragraphs. ("Instead of burning the hooches, Kerry was set on saving the half-starved civilians lives, and the other men on the mission quickly got into the spirit of what he was trying to do." "Tears dried; hopeful smiles began to appear." "'That one felt good,' Kerry summed up the effort. 'It's always good to help.'"). On page 79 Brinkley also recounts PCF-94 coming across a sampan: "It was a free fire zone and we could have shot at it . . . But Kerry didn't want us to."

I think that it's a little bit relevant that a candidate for President of the United States either (1) committed an unending string of atrocities in the space of four months (somehow earning five medals in the same short span) or (2) lied about his conduct to Congress and the public.

Unfit for Command is nearly completely rebutted by the US Navys official record, and is best used to paper train puppies.

"Unfit for Command" makes a series of fact-specific allegations by eye-witnesses to the events. I don't think they can be so easily dismissed as "dubious,"

Bullshit. It has been refuted several times in several manners, not simply dismissed as dubious. In fact, the Swifities were given too much of the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of their campaign, now that their campaign has fallen apart (except for the true blievers) it isn't surprising that their defenders are falling back on cheap tricks like the above.

Unfit for Command hasn't been "refuted" by anyone; simply making conclusory statements that it has doesn't advance your argument. As I noted (1) Kerry has never denied the specific allegations of the book, (2) none of Kerry's crew-mates, other than Rassman, have discussed the allegations on TV or submitted sworn affidavits, and (3) the numerous eyewitnesses mentioned in the book have submitted affidavits and subjected themselves to cross-examination on TV.

Unfit for Command has the burden of proof because it contradicts the US Navys record. Kerry doesnt need to deny the Swifty allegations, the US Navys record has already made it clear that these allegations are revisionist history from some bitter old men. The Swiftys have nothing to lose in signing those affadavets, they are meaningless because this isnt court, and they cannot perjure themselves. Kerry, on the otherhand has much to lose by keeping this story alive.

Comments are Closed.