Print coverage failed to note Swift Boat Vets' claims have been debunked
A March 29 Washington Times article extensively quoted John O'Neill, co-founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, criticizing the White House's withdrawal of the nomination of Republican donor Sam Fox to be ambassador to Belgium, which the Times attributed to "Democratic pressure," noting that "Fox's $50,000 donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was disclosed by Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee." The Times quoted O'Neill calling the withdrawal of Fox's name "an outrage" and "a tragedy," but did not report that both O'Neill and his group's 2004 campaign against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) have been widely discredited, with many specific claims disproved or rebutted.
Media Matters for America has extensively documented the falsehoods and smears regarding Kerry's military record that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spread in the six months leading up to the 2004 presidential election. For instance, Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004), a book O'Neill co-authored, asserted that "Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War" because "[a]reas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats." However, as Media Matters noted, according to White House recordings, in 1971 O'Neill told President Richard Nixon that he himself had been in Cambodia and answered in the affirmative when Nixon asked if it had been on a swift boat.
Numerous major print outlets that reported on the withdrawal of Fox's nomination, including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, failed to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign has been widely discredited. Three of these outlets described the group as "controversial," but did not offer the details of the "controversy" or note that the group's claims were repeatedly debunked:
- The Washington Post: "the controversial group that ran a campaign questioning Kerry's Vietnam record."
- Los Angeles Times: the "controversial campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential race."
- Associated Press: "a controversial conservative group that undermined Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign."
Two others did not characterize the group in any way:
- The Washington Times: "the group that undermined Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign."
- The New York Times: "When it came his turn, Mr. Kerry pounced, questioning Mr. Fox at length about his $50,000 donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group and pressing him to identify who had asked him to give to it."
Not much damage done. The only people who still believe the Swift Boat Liars are the wackiest of the tinfoil hat-wearing denizens of Far Rightwingnutjobistan.
Actually, Russ, I think the damage is ongoing. It's a case of the MSM self-censoring, because they've either been intimidated by the right wing attack machine, or because their corporate masters are in bed with its financial backers. "Controversial," instead of "discredited?" To borrow a phrase from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, it's journalistic "defining deviancy down." We're all damaged by that, on an ongoing basis.
Not that much different than the wack jobs that still believe farenheit 9/11, I would imagine. I think they wear cellophane on their heads instead of aluminum foil.
Auto-Psychic, what parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 do you consider unbelievable?
Ever watch 'farenhype 9/11'? Get's quite detailed into some of the problems with moore's ideas for "why" things happened.
I've seen both, and FarenHYPE discredits about 0.5% of Farenheit 9/11. It was rather pathetic. And Michael Moore was right, and frankly he went easy on Bush. But of course we live in a world where the people who are constantly wrong are considered relevent and the people who have been proven correct again and again are marginalized.
Ladies and Gentlemen, once again the ravings of Autopsychotic. Direct from Planet Wingnut. AP can be found in his mothers basement posting baseless assertions and basic stupidity on MMFA or hiding under his bed after he gets his mommy to check for Muslims and communists. If you see him please dont engage him as it is speculated if an original thought even entered his head the unfamiliarity of the sensation might bring on an embolism.
don't you hate it when I strike a nerve and the only way you can fight back, since you don't use logic, is to call names. You gotta be so proud of yourself that you are able to carry on a meaningful conversation for over 3 seconds, well...ok, over 2 seconds. You still have a lot of work to do before you reach the milestone of 3 seconds.
One day, you'll realize there is something happening besides schoolyard taunting. Which you're pretty good at, BTW. However, it is still schoolyard! I take it that you highly idolize f-9/11 and michel more? Obviously, since it takes such brilliance to be able to believe people of his intelligence that you would feel slighted when someone actually proves that he, and you are just total morons and no one except a chosen few actually take your rants seriously. But I'm sure everyone enjoys your comedic routine, much like everyone enjoys michel more's paranoid schyzophrenic episodes that he brings every couple years.
If you think Fahrenheit 911 is wrong, then you should pick up the prize the Moore is offering to anyone that can prove it wrong. Amazingly, nobody has claimed it. Strange, that is.
I wouldnt know how I would react if you ever hit a nerve. You have never come within miles of doing so as of yet. As for logic my cat knows more about ancient Sumerian cunieform than you do about logic. You have NEVER once used it in ANY post you have EVER made. You post baseless assertions that denigrate liberals like the one above then snivel like a six year old girl when I come back at you with the same thing aimed at YOU. WAAAAHHHHH how dare you treat me the way I treat you WWWAAAAAHHHHH dont you know only us conservative trolls get to be insulting. Grow up, make a point, THAT will get a logical response. There is no need to waste logic and good rhetoric on the jr High drivel you post thinking with your lack of ability to perform any act that requires higher brain function that it is logic or makes a cogent point.
REPORTING FROM Far Rightwingnutjobistan, Rohrabacher Province, a subdivision of Reagan Country;
Sorry, Rusty, behind the Orange Curtain here, the Swift boat guys are seen as Real American Heroes.I meet people on a regular basis who only know the media's side of the story, that is, the Swift Boat Liars.
Sorry , Worrierking. I never served in the military, but I don't mind calling those guys jackasses. Give me a pass?
Why don't you read the details of Kerry's wounds carefully. There is reason to believe that at least two of these wounds, the first, and the third, are self-inflicted and there not eligible for the Purple Heart.
The first wound, a quote from MMFA: "Kerry's crew members said they thought it was caused when he fired a mortar at close range at some rocks and a fragment ricocheted back from the mortar round and hit him." "
The third Kerry wound: from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39889
"Two injuries – a small bruise on his right arm and a minor injury to his buttocks – won Kerry his Third Purple Heart and a trip home. However, the vets say, the wound to his buttocks was self-inflicted and should never have received Purple Heart consideration.
While Kerry claims the injury came from shrapnel from an underwater mine, Larry Thurlow, an officer on shore with Kerry that day, insists the wound was the result of Kerry's decision to throw a concussion grenade into a rice pile. The "shrapnel," he says, was actually rice pellets. "
requirements for Purple heart: from http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/blpurpleheart.htm
"Awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with an Armed Force of the United States after 5 April 1917, has been killed or wounded.
In action against an enemy of the United States.
In action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.
While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
As the result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed force.
As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.
As the result of friendly weapon fire while actively engaging the enemy.
As the indirect result of enemy action. (example: injuries resulting from parachuting from a plane brought down by enemy or hostile fire.)
As the result of maltreatment inflicted by their captors while a prisoner of war. "
Shooting at a pile of rocks or a pile of rice does not count. Kerry had to be shoting at the enemy, and it seems that he can't even demonstrate the enemy was present at the time.
I wonder if archae or dougreese or worrierking are reading these quotes from those who served WITH Kerry. I wonder if they believe mmfa would say such a thing. Nahh, they'll write it off as bad sources and debunked in some other leftwing print source, probably cbs.
Oh, archae...the links to the mmfa article you used as "proof" of Kerry's worthyness for the PH, do not work. Only a couple actually worked and they do not prove that Kerry earned his medals. So, when requiring actual proof from others you may want to consider providing actual proof yourself.
The only proof I need comes from the US Navy, not from MMFA or especially from The World Net Daily.
You said this was from someone who served with Kerry: "Kerry's crew members said they thought it was caused when he fired a mortar at close range at some rocks and a fragment ricocheted back from the mortar round and hit him."
Sorry, but that is not correct. It is a quote/comment from Dr. Louis Letson, a man with a very selective, and suspect, memory. Anyway, it isn't from Kerry crewmembers. . . . . . . . furthermore, those guys would never call an M-79 a mortar. Plus, they say they didn't even have an M-79 with them that night.
And I don't believe Kerry claimed the minor wound from the grenade/rice early on March 13 in his PH.
Doug Reese
Not only that, Letson cleaned up his story when it became obvious that there was NO WAY a mortar could fit in a Boston Whaler. Subsequent versions...a grenade launcher.
A wound being self-inflicted, in and of itself, does NOT disqualify it for a Purple Heart. That is a fact, and selective quoting and interpreting of regulations does not change that fact.
Just ask Bob Dole, among thousands of others.
Doug Reese
Many replies. Still no sense.
In the case of Bob Dole, you are factually incorrect. In Dole's time, the regulation governing award of the Purple Heart was different. Self inflicted wounds in his day did not qualify at all. Moreover, Dole's wounds were NOT SELF INFLICTED.
"the severe wounds he suffered on a hill near Castel d'Aiano, Italy. In an attempt to pull a wounded man to safety, Dole was hit by German machine-gun fire that shattered his right shoulder and mangled his arm."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4586271
If you care to read the entire regulation on the link I provided, you will see that it has been amended twice over the years. Self inflicted wounds will now [and also in Kerry's time of service] qualify for a Purple Heart provided the enemy was present, combat was occuring, and the self inficted wound was the direct result of an attempt to injure the enemy. i.e., Kerry needed to shoot the M-79 grenade at enemy combatants or throw the concussion grenade at enemy soldiers who had not already been disabled, killed, or captured.
Attempting to destroy contraband [rice] siezed from the enemy with a concussion grenade will not meet the above test nor will bowing up rocks.
I love it. You libs are all full of opinions but not one stick of actual fact among the lot of you.
Sorry, but I was talking about Bob Dole's FIRST Purple Heart, not his well-known second PH.
And sorry again, but the fact is PH's are awarded for self-inflicted and/or friendly fire wounds all the time. Just because you don't like Kerry doesn't change that fact.
Doug Reese
Bob Dole SAYS his first purple heart came from a self inflicted wound. I love it. You are spouting NONSENSE and in true conservative fashion making a fool out of yourself and arent even bright enough to know it. Keep up the good work.
Neither of you provide proof of your statements? I thought when the left is proven incorrect they demand proof. So, provide some proof before you spout off with your personal opinion!
It's pretty easy to Google it.
"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.”
Heh, should have scrolled a little farther down before I answered. Well done.
Gee Psychic, you're big on demanding other people provide backup but you never provide any of your own...besides your own opinon, that is.
But okay. From Bob Dole's 1988 autobiography:
I posted what HE said directly from HIS autobiography exactly what more do you want?
Uhm, why don’t YOU “read the details of Kerry’s wounds carefully”?
First PH: Kerry’s crew members said no such thing about Kerry firing a mortar. And how could they? Any idiot knows such a weapon could never fit in such a tiny boat. The two crew members who were with Kerry state unequivocably that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher as per Schachte/ Letson’s updated claim, for that matter.
Kerry always said he never knew where the shrapnel that wounded him came from. However, even Grant Hibbard believed that Kerry had been shooting at “VC running on the beach.” As you should know if you read all of the criteria to which you link, a wound qualifies for a PH regardless of its source if it is received while trying to inflict damage upon the enemy or enemy equipment.
Third PH: Why don’t you try looking at the actual after action report and casualty report instead of a third-hand account in a right wing website? If you had, you’d know that Kerry’s Bronze Star citation mentions nothing about the shrapnel to his buttocks received earlier in the day (and by the way, if you had read the reports and the first hand accounts you’d know it actually was shrapnel and not just “rice pellets”). The casualty report says nothing about the size of the contusion on Kerry’s arm; the fact that it is described as “minor” simply means he didn’t required medevac’ing. If you look at the reports for that day you will see that every injury that didn’t require medevac’ing was described as “minor.” It was also extensive enough to require an x-ray and the use of a bandage for days or weeks afterwards.
Get back to us when you've actually read the documents.
You are flat out 100% WRONG as you usally are. Check out what Dole said about HIS first purple heart in his own autobiography.
"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. 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
Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
So, you admit that Dole was attacking the enemy when he got his first PH? I love it when you prove yourself wrong, yet are still so delusional that you think you proved yourself right. Didn't every criteria for the PH say that the enemy had to be engaged (back in those days)? Didn't Dole say he was engaging the enemy and the grenade didn't make it there? Thank you for proving the right winger correct, again!
Do we admit Bob Dole was attacking the enemy? Of course we do. But that wasn't the point, was it? The point was that it was self-inflicted.
You got the proof you wanted so badly and you still aren't happy :)
Doug Reese
PS. Kerry was attacking the enemy also, by the way.
Hey, Grant Hibbard admitted John Kerry was "attacking the enemy" when he got his first PH. Or didn't you bother to read "Unfit to Print" I mean "Command," where he says he understood that they had "fired on some VC units running on the beach."
It really is getting tiring doing your research for you.
Wow your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.
1945,Washington Post: Hitler was seen as a controversial man that ran a campaign questioning Jewish peoples' acttivities...
Oh, there's that terrible Liberal Media, once again supporting those Swiftboat people (uh, er....). Won't they ever stop!
Could someone explain the SwiftBoaters proof..
They stated that approx. 225 SBer's agreed that Sen. Kerry did not perform the heroic acts as stated by the Navy. Were they all in the same area at the same time? Didn't a SwiftBoat carry 6-8 crewmen? If so, what were 25 0r so boats doing at the same place? Or was the Queen Elizabeth sailing near Cambodia? What a bunch of liars..and they call themselves Truthful.
O'Neill is a little cry baby. He is still angry about Kerry making him show his ignorance on the Cavett Show. C'mon O'Neill, you are not 1% the man that Kerry happens to be. Admit it.
Media Matters implies that John Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" testimony to Congress was true because John O'Neill's statements were questionable.
Kerry himself changed his story after the 2004 election, stating that he was near, not in, Cambodia in February 1969, not Christmas 1968. Those are significant changes to to Congressional testimony.
The basic statments of the Swift Boat Officers who served with Kerry have been misconstrued, misquoted and misanalyzed but have never been refuted. We saw a self-centered person who put his personal interests ahead of the safety of our boats and crews in combat. We were successful in 2004 because we told the truth.
Tom Wright, Officer in Charge, PCF 44
All the Slime Boat Liars For Bush claims were debunked by OFFICIAL US Navy records.
You're full of it.
not quite true, media matters said " with many specific claims disproved or rebutted." They did NOT say ALL, only many. Kerry is still a 'tweeker' and clearly got "wounded" as fast as he could so he could leave Nam. I'll bet many others wish they could have done the same thing. But with Kerry's connections and all, he had no problem getting out within, what was it, 6 months? But, hey, he got 3 Purple Hearts without even missing a day of duty. They must have been some serious wounds! Did he carry his own band-aids? I'll bet if every soldier who scratched himself in the bush had asked for and gotten the Purple Heart there would have been a great demand! And to think that with 3 scratches you've earned your way out of Viet Nam. Did everyone know about this option? Or, only officers?
Please, show a little respect.
As a veteran do you really believe it possible for a JUNIOR officer or an enlisted man to award himself medals? And the policy back then was after being wounded three times, you were sent home.
Everyone who went to Vietnam was aware of this, even the enlisted men.
Anyone who was awarded a purple heart by our government deserves it. EVERYONE.
Believe the SBVTs if you'd like. They weren't there on the day in question. You can read a post from Doug Reese below who was there that day.
What were his wounds?? Is there any public proof of the wounds? For some reason (shame perhaps), I've seen Kerry has not allowed that proof to be known to the public. Was it common to have 3 wounds and not miss any duty time?
"Public proof"?
Perhaps you might read up a little on this topic before making such statements. There were a number of people with him each time -- it isn't like he was alone. It isn't a secret as to what happened in each of the three instances.
Doug Reese
Autopsychic needs to shut off the Fox noise channel, and find a credible source.
He just posted in my LiveJournal complainign about rightwingers getting banned all the time, but left-wingers get to flaunt "da rulz."
As to Autopsychic's claims, those are debunked, also.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001
Last week, you and I discussed whether it is fitting for someone who did not go to war to promote the current war. We both agreed that every American citizen enjoys that right.
But you or anyone else who never served in combat, has no right at all to judge someone who has.
Oh, I most certainly do have that right. Many, if not all, say combat changes you. I have every right to judge someone who is standing before me and lying to my face that he is a liar. No different than those who are current judging John McCain on his current presidential run, I can judge Kerry on his failed attempts. If he's going to use his military record as a way of promoting his worthiness to lead my country, he better be able to back it up! In this case he failed.
And if you are going to make claims about someone, you had better be able to back it up by something besides your uninformed opinion, right?
The only LIAR I see here is YOU. The NAVY backs up Kerry's claims, they even took the unprecedented action of reviewing Kerrys records and said they stand behind all the medals given him. The FACTS, which are indisputable are THESE.Kerry VOLUNTEERED for the Navy, VOLUNTEERED for Vietnam got his wounds in his SECOND TOUR, after VOLUNTEERING for swift boat duty. Kerry was awarded a silver star, a Bronze star with a V for Valor and three purple hearts. To call them into question disrespects EVERY SOLDIER WHO WON A MEDAL IN VIETNAM.
Bush checked the DO NOT VOLUNTEER for Vietnam box in his National Guard application, which he went to because he was TERRIFIED of going to Vietnam. He ADMITTED to a newspaper he went into the Guard to avoid Vietnam. Bush LOST his flying status because he wouldnt take his MANDATORY physical which constituted a deriliction of duty. Bush was a PUNK. Kerry a WAR HERO. YOU are just someone who NEVER knows what they are talking about.
" To call them into question disrespects EVERY SOLDIER WHO WON A MEDAL IN VIETNAM. "
Much like when someone claims to throw their medals away as a way of showing their disrespect for all those who earned them? Kerry got his medals the easiest and quickest he could. Men around him lied for him and he qualified himself for his own medals. I am disrespecting Kerry, not soldiers who honestly earned medals.
" Bush checked the DO NOT VOLUNTEER for Vietnam box in his National Guard application, which he went to because he was TERRIFIED of going to Vietnam. "
Quite a lot like hundreds of thousands of college kids, and those who ran away to Canada and England to avoid military service. Gee, what was the other presidents name who avoided Viet Nam? Don't you idolize that one? Your hypocrosy just oozes from the sides of your mouth every time you try to belittle someones OPINION!
When you disrespect a man who the US Government and the US Navy have awarded medals to and continue to question their decision after thirty five years, you do disrespect every soldier who won a medal in Vietnam.
Whatever Bill Clinton did or didn't do has no bearing on this case. Neither does anything George Bush didn't do. Bush's name has been mentioned only because those who call John Kerry, a liar and worse, put Bush on a pedestal and forgive him just about anything because they see him as ideologically pure.
And he is also responsible for leading us into the worst fiasco in our nations military history. We are now involved in a generational war in the Middle East because of his desire to remove the regime in Iraq which had noting to do with attacks on this country.
I'm much more concerned with today. I'm tired of fighting the War in Vietnam. We can let the right divert attention from the current problems with this nonsense that has been settled for a generation or we can try to leave a world where our children and grandchildren can live in peace with the rest of the world.
My choice would be peace for me and my children. If your choice is war, by all means pursue it with the lives of your family, not mine.
Yes like quite a few people of that generation but NOT like Kerry which is the point.
Gee, ya think casualty reports, medical reports, and first-hand accounts might qualify as "public proof" ? Are you really that ignorant or are you just pretending?
Hey, why don't you ask SBVT member Robert Hildreth or some of the dozens of other guys who served with Kerry who received PH's for wounds that didn't require a single day off duty? I'll bet they would agree with you that they are just namby pamby little cowards... ya think?
Wow just how dumb do you have to be to think Kerry took shrapnel to his arm PURPOSELY, how fast do you have to be to accomplish this. Of course shrapnel to his upper arm is a foot or so from his NECK and DEATH. How brainwashed does someone have to be to think this makes sense just because he heard it from a rightwing screechmonkey? Your capacity for self delusion is absolutly astonishing.
Well, I think this guy should just do a little research of the original documents. Specifically, the casualty reports and other documentation for all the other guys in Coastal Division 1 who received shrapnel wounds from unverifiable sources, didn't miss any duty time, and also collected PHs. Hint: there are a LOT. Why, even George Elliott said that was "more the rule than the exception."
Maybe he just thinks he knows all this stuff from being uh, "psychic." Or more likely, just "auto"matically repeats wingnut talking points.
We were successful in 2004 because we told the truth.+++++++++++++++++++++++
You were successful not because you told the truth, but you did a good job in smearing in Rovian style. Of course we all know why you smeared:
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who ran to the haven of the national guard when the guard was a guarantee of not going to Vietnam. That means he was a poltroon.
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who once trained, avoided his obligation to continue flying. His assistant, Kathy Hughes claimed he didn't show up for his flight physical because he was in Alabama and his personal doctor was in Houston. (Flight physicals are only given by USAF flight surgeons. It was also the time the air force started testing for drugs. And, flight physicals are orders, not requests.) He disobeyed an order and abandoned his post. (Cut and run?)
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who said he volunteered for the Nam when a copy of his application clearly shows that he checked off the NO box for volunteering for foreign service.
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who received a direct commission he didn't deserve. He wasn't tested through any officer training program, and he was despised by his fellow pilots in the Texas Air Guard.
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who dresses up in a flight suit he didn't earn. He was air national guard, not a naval aviator.
- to help an AWOL for Vice-Presidency who had five deferments because he had more pressing obligations.
- to help an AWOL for Vice-Presidency who got his wife pregnant just as the law was changing that would only exempt married men with children.
- to help an administration to get re-elected that allowed the services to bill our wounded $6.00 or 8.00 a meal while being treated.
- to help an administration to get re-elected that tried to cut hazardous duty pay by almost half.
- to help an administration to get re-elected that tried to cut dependent housing allowance by almost half.
- to help an administration to get re-elected that refused to raise the death benefit for families of soldiers killed in action.
- to help an administration to get re-elected that does not allow reservists and guardsmen medical care for wounds or injuries received on active duty. The VA cuts them off. Nice!
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who spent 40 million dollars for an inaugural celebration. That amount of money would have uparmored 116 Humvees.
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who forgot his mission - to get Osama bin Laden who's still at large.
- to help an administration to get re-elected that refused to give veterans and dependents tax breaks on housing loans and purchases. The pentagon said the $400 million was too much money. (Yep, but they support our troops!)
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who bashes Ameican values when he states: "the nice thing about being president is that I tell people what to do, people don't tell me." (Uh, yes we do tell you what to do, Mr. President. You serve US; we DON'T serve you!)
- to help an AWOL for Presidency who bashes American values by saying: "A dictatorship would be fine just so long as I'm the dictator."
twright calls kerry: "a self centered person who put his personal interests ahead of the safety of our boats or crews...." number one, it's hard to see that as true when kerry saved a man's life under fire, at risk to his own life. number two, what exactly were his personal interests back then? is this the theory that someway somehow kerry knew he would be running for president in 2004 and every medal he received was a plot between him and his superior officers to build a false record. the fact is much of the right wing is going to lie no matter what. the guy still has a piece of shrapnel in his leg and a bunch of clowns at the gop convention run around with band-aids on to mock him.
They have been utterly destroyed. Your protestations notwithstanding. As for Kerry, it was classified, we werent supposed to BE in Cambodia at the time and there is no neon sign saying you are now entering Cambodia on the river. In fact we KNOW he WAS near the border and may well have been in Cambodia or just near the border most likely he WAS in Cambodia many times there being many incursion into Cambodia while Nixon was denying any such actions which is the point. The Swift Boat Liars for Rent and character assasination have been destroyed. We have been over the fine details many times. You can continue to beat this horse if you want but its not breathing and its starting to smell funny.
Unfortunately you were successful in 2004 by not telling the truth. Smearing, and twisting truth can make you successful in politics, but is not a great leadership example, nor does it bode well for the country.
I'm not sure how "successful" they were, actually. Most polls showed that very few voters were swayed by their claims. I guess the"success" was that so much of the Kerry campaign's time and resources had to be wasted on dealing with these lies. As he said, they had $27 million to spend on their single agenda.
$27 million?? I think that if I had not lied and had proof that I earned 3 PH's then I would not have spent $27 million trying to prove it. But, since he refused to release his medical records, no one will ever know the "truth". We only hear what is spouted off by left wing loonies who spout off whatever they are told to spout off. Kerry obviously did NOT tell the truth or he would simply release the documents that prove what he is saying. But, no, he had to spend $27 million to 'convince' the US public that he did not lie. And to think that is how he would be spending our tax dollars if he'd been elected. Whew! Did we ever luck out!
Kerry didn't have to prove anything. It was already proven. He made a mistake by not calling out the Swift Boat Liars for Bush. That mistake probably cost him the presidency. But it was not his job to prove anything. The truth was on his side.
Good God, you are stupid. You will cut and paste every single wingnut talking point you can find rather than bothering to do a single minute of your own research. Ypu've proven yourself a fool over and over again on these boards and I see no reason to humor you any more. Really, it's exhausting doing your work for you. Back to mom's basement for you, Kyle.
And by the way, stupid, I was talking about the SBVT spending $27 million on their smear campaign. Try reading for comprehension, idiot.
With 2 years of "controversial", the swiftboat liars are prime for promotion to "outspoken". By 2008, they will have regained "mainstream" (at least in the sense that Repugnant liars and thieves are consistently so protrayed in the Corporate Media, truth notwithstanding).
Oh, and a healthy helping of "portrayed", please!
when john oneil is on a show no one ever brings up the untruths of the swift boats
Officer Tom,
I have never done this on this web site but you are full of crap. The charges were refuted but you still want to spread B.S.
I ask for an understand and you give what a SwiftBoater would give, the company lie...you never answered, how did 225 people fit on these boats?
And sir, you are NOT the Officer-in-Charge,PCF666
Did you know the Mr. O'Neill displayed cowardice during fire-fights..you must have been aware of that fact.
PFC PrinceofWheels signing out.
Mr. Wright is good at showing up, making statements. Unfortunately, he tends not to stay around and answer questions.
There were about 190 members of the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" when they first began (May 2004), and about 255 by the time of the election.
Most of the members of SBV"t" never saw Kerry in Vietnam.
One served on Kerry's boat -- Steven Gardner.
A small number of SBV"t" members went out on boats that operated on missions with Kerry's boat.
An even smaller number of SBV"t" members were present for the incidents for which Kerry received an award, and had something negative to say about Kerry's actions in those incidents.
There was just one person (assuming that person was present, as that is disputed) present for the 1st PH incident, and one present for the 2nd PH who dispute what Kerry/the Navy says happened. That's out of about 35 people present for those two incidents.
For the Silver Star incident, these was only one SBV"t" member present out of 25 guys who were there. He had nothing negative to say, and does not disparage Kerry receiving the Silver Star.
And last we have the 3rd PH/Bronze Star incident. Out of about 33 guys present, four initially came forward (there were two more who came forward later) with a different version of events from what Kerry/the Navy says happened. There are 11 other people who were present who disagree with them. . . . . . . and what those who disagree with Kerry/the Navy have to say about that day, doesn't affect why he received the PH. And then there's the fact that one of those four received the same award (Bronze Star) as Kerry, for many of the same reasons.
Doug Reese
Thanx Doug
Yes, thanks Doug.
Most of the members of SBV"t" never saw Kerry in Vietnam.
ALL saw him in action as he smeared a generation of honorable veterans, rose to a leadership position in a radical, subversive organization and consorted with the enemy while still serving as a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Navy. Only through Kerry's political calculus was the country not treated to an exploration (if you can see fit to call media scrutiny of Kerry and "exploration") of that slander and sedition by the media.
One served on Kerry's boat -- Steven Gardner.
Reese, after all this time you still continue to peddle "but they weren't on his boat". It's embarrassing.
Peer officer's who participate in mission-mandated, close support, multi-boat operations are more than qualified to critique one another's performance of duty. In fact it is arguable that, in the heat of battle, they are in a better position to judge a peers performance of duty than individual members of a particular crew.
Even more revelatory of the shallowness of your point, Commanding Officer's (who "didn't serve on his boat") are tasked, regularly, with judging an officer's performance of duty through fitness reports and, contrary to the Kerry-spin, his were average or marginal at best (some analysts see them as career-damning)...at least those which have been made available. We have yet to see Page 1 of LCDR Streuli's fitrep on Kerry which he has buried for reasons unknown.
It is, however, noteworthy that you hold in high esteem your testimony, William Rood's testimony, Larry Lee's testimony and perhaps several others...who didn't serve on Kerry's boat either.
A small number of SBV"t" members went out on boats that operated on missions with Kerry's boat.
An even smaller number of SBV"t" members were present for the incidents for which Kerry received an award, and had something negative to say about Kerry's actions in those incidents.
There was just one person (assuming that person was present, as that is disputed) present for the 1st PH incident, and one present for the 2nd PH who dispute what Kerry/the Navy says happened. That's out of about 35 people present for those two incidents.
Typical Reese-speak...equate non-comment with support.
In a small universe, even a single individual, with courage enough to step forward with the truth and subject himself to the consequence of impeding Kerry's political ambition, is noteworthy.
Admiral Schachte, who DESIGNED the training mission and crew complement has stated with absolute certainty that it was HE who accompanied Kerry on that whaler mission. He has stated that, as the officer responsible for the planning and conduct of those missions, HE PERSONALLY CREWED each and everyone of those missions, up to and including the mission with Kerry.
For the Silver Star incident, these was only one SBV"t" member present out of 25 guys who were there. He had nothing negative to say, and does not disparage Kerry receiving the Silver Star.
The facts and circumstance of that SS award are, by now, known to most who are interested enough to learn them. What is also known is the SVPT contention, developed from KERRY SOURCES, that Kerry's activity that day did not rise to Silver Star levels of gallantry and heroics. Your mileage may vary.
And last we have the 3rd PH/Bronze Star incident. Out of about 33 guys present, four initially came forward (there were two more who came forward later) with a different version of events from what Kerry/the Navy says happened. There are 11 other people who were present who disagree with them. . . . . . . and what those who disagree with Kerry/the Navy have to say about that day, doesn't affect why he received the PH. And then there's the fact that one of those four received the same award (Bronze Star) as Kerry, for many of the same reasons.
This is, perhaps, your most shameful distortion of the facts Reese. Kerry's "ass-wound", by his own testimony and the testimony of Rassman, was received earlier in the day and was-self-inflicted in a non-combat activity. This "wound" was falsely incorporated into a medical report (most probably at Kerry's direction) alleging that the "ass-wound" was inflicted during the river action later that day. That bogus submission, along with a "contusion" was used as a basis for the award of a PH.
Well, Bingo, I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, I do not, and never have, made a big deal about being on Kerry’s boat. I leave that to the likes of you.
I have merely made the distinction between those who were on his boat, those who were near his boat – and those those who never saw Kerry out in the field (or in Vietnam, for that matter).
Most of the SBV”t” never saw Kerry in Vietnam. And, as I stated “A small number of SBV"t" members went out on boats that operated on missions with Kerry's boat.”
Those are facts -- distort them as you will, but facts they are.
Thank you for the brief, although grossly inaccurate, comment on the Silver Star incident. As you follow the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” playbook of misrepresentation, spin and omission, perhaps you’d care to point out what was in the after-action report (you have read it, haven’t you?) that caused Kerry’s commanders to give him such an award. The fact is, it was awarded with the full knowledge of what happened that morning. No 38 year (and 32 days, but who’s counting?) after-the-fact bs from the likes of you will change that fact.
And as for distortions, well, you take the cake. Kerry was NOT awarded the PH for the wound suffered earlier in the day March 13. But as for “non-combat activity” earlier that day, well, perhaps you’d like to tell that to the family of the guy we had killed then. They would be interested to hear what you have to say about how he died in “non-combat activity”.
I’ll be seeing a few people who were present for some of these events, later today. I will share you’re observations with them. . . . . . . . . then again, maybe I won’t.
Doug Reese
Well, Bingo, I hardly know where to begin.
Perhaps addressing my first point might be a logical place? First of all, I do not, and never have, made a big deal about being on Kerry’s boat. I leave that to the likes of you.
...and, apparently, to the legions of clueless liberals (most of whom probably never served a day in the military) who want to re-define the scope of "served with" to suit their purpose?
I have merely made the distinction between those who were on his boat, those who were near his boat – and those those who never saw Kerry out in the field (or in Vietnam, for that matter). Most of the SBV”t” never saw Kerry in Vietnam. And, as I stated “A small number of SBV"t" members went out on boats that operated on missions with Kerry's boat.” Those are facts -- distort them as you will, but facts they are.
So is this, as you so studiously choose to ignore...
ALL saw him in action as he smeared a generation of honorable veterans, rose to a leadership position in a radical, subversive organization and consorted with the enemy while still serving as a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Navy. Only through Kerry's political calculus was the country not treated to an exploration by the media of that defamation, slander and sedition.
Thank you for the brief, although grossly inaccurate, comment on the Silver Star incident. As you follow the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” playbook of misrepresentation, spin and omission, perhaps you’d care to point out what was in the after-action report (you have read it, haven’t you?) that caused Kerry’s commanders to give him such an award. The fact is, it was awarded with the full knowledge of what happened that morning. No 38 year (and 32 days, but who’s counting?) after-the-fact bs from the likes of you will change that fact.
Yes, I read it...and your point is? Perhaps you'd also care to point out that as the tactical OIC of that mission, Kerry probably WROTE the AAR? And as for distortions, well, you take the cake. Kerry was NOT awarded the PH for the wound suffered earlier in the day March 13.
Interesting assertion given that neither the award itself nor the accompanying order are specific as to the nature of the "wounds received" and both the "spot report" AND the "report of casualty" specify Kerry's ass wound as having been inflicted during the river action later that day.
On just WHAT do YOU base your above conclusion?
But as for “non-combat activity” earlier that day, well, perhaps you’d like to tell that to the family of the guy we had killed then.
"We" had killed? Were you also involved in the activities of 13 Mar '69? Are you referring to the Vietnamese killed by a booby trap?
They would be interested to hear what you have to say about how he died in “non-combat activity”.
Nice strawman Reese, but we're talking about Kerry's ass-wound...
You versus someone who was actually there (not just in theater). I'll take his word. Sorry.
Doug no doubt will blow the rest of your comments out of the water, so to speak, but I will address two:
Perhaps you'd also care to point out that as the tactical OIC of that mission, Kerry probably WROTE the AAR?
Tell us exactly what was false or incorrect about that AAR. Be specific, plese.
In addition, feel free to reference the subsequent press release written by eyewitness William Rood.
Interesting assertion given that neither the award itself nor the accompanying order are specific as to the nature of the "wounds received" and both the "spot report" AND the "report of casualty" specify Kerry's ass wound as having been inflicted during the river action later that day.
Interesting that his Bronze Star citation, written and approved by the same command officers who would have approved his PH, mentions nothing at all about the shrapnel wound to his buttocks, only his arm wound. Why do you think that is?
And by the way, the wound to his buttocks was from shrapnel, not rice.
Interesting that his Bronze Star citation, written and approved by the same command officers who would have approved his PH, mentions nothing at all about the shrapnel wound to his buttocks, only his arm wound. Why do you think that is?
Gosh...could it be because RASSMAN is the one who submitted him for the award? Nah...
Typically, you ignore the crux of the issue. The same officers who would be submitting the paperwork for the PH were the ones writing the recommendation for the Bronze Star. Yet in writing that recommendation, they mentioned nothing about a fanny wound. Nor, evidently, did Kerry when they interviewed him...or any of the other eyewitnesses when they interviewed them. You do realize that all awards must be verified by eyewitnesses, don't you?
The same officers who would be submitting the paperwork for the PH were the ones writing the recommendation for the Bronze Star.
That's an assumption you can't make. You don't have a clue who submitted Kerry for ANY of his PH's. Witness the award of PH #1, 3 MONTHS AFTER the alleged qualifying event for which he PERSONALLY SOLICITED a PH and was turned down by his Commanding Officer. Kerry, to this day, isn't telling how he got that one submitted and approved (I suspect political influence was applied). That's evidence enough that the award of a Purple Heart isn't, of necessity, initiated only by immediate superiors. Nor, to my knowledge, has paperwork soliciting any of his PH awards been documented.
Yet in writing that recommendation, they mentioned nothing about a fanny wound. Nor, evidently, did Kerry when they interviewed him...or any of the other eyewitnesses when they interviewed them.
You do realize that all awards must be verified by eyewitnesses, don't you?
Actually, I believe, only awards for "V" devices or Silver Star or higher require witness testimony.
However, as RASSMAN has stated that he, personally, recommended Kerry for a Silver Star and a "Valor" award was being solicited, as well as the fact that he was a participant in the action upon which the award was being solicited, I think it's fair to assume he may have had some input and influence into the composition of the narrative. It's hardly surprising that Kerry's non-specific arm "wound" was so noted, were that the case.
Nor can it be inferred that a failure to mention Kerry's ass wound in the Bronze Star narrative proves ANYTHING about what was used as justification for the PH award. The PH process could easily have been initiated at another unit or level of command. (see PH#1)
I notice you also fail to answer my first question...what, specifically, is inaccurate about the AAR for the Silver Star incident? Specifically.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the recommendation for Kerry's Bronze Star, signed by George Elliott and Charles Horne, which also mentions only the arm injury. Why is that, do you think?
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/PDFs/Bronze_Star_recommendation.pdf
Well, I see that Doug Reese has per usual handily dispatched your SBVT talking point cut and paste. However, I'll make a quick note about a couple of your sillier claims:
"We have yet to see Page 1 of LCDR Streuli's fitrep on Kerry which he has buried for reasons unknown."
Why would he bury a document that, according to the news organizations that obtained it, recommended him for accelerated promotion?
"Admiral Schachte, who DESIGNED the training mission and crew complement has stated with absolute certainty that it was HE who accompanied Kerry on that whaler mission. He has stated that, as the officer responsible for the planning and conduct of those missions, HE PERSONALLY CREWED each and everyone of those missions, up to and including the mission with Kerry."
And he was disproven in that absolute certainty by none other than SBVT member Tedd Peck, who said that HE, not Schachte, was in charge of a mission just after that. Capital letters and bold font won't change that memory problem.
Do you know who wrote the after action reports which form the basis of the Navy's opinion of a these events?
John Kerry wrote them.
Do you know who initiated the citation paperwork for Kerry's Purple Heart awards?
John Kerry did.
How do I know this? He was the commanding officer of his boat. This is who files all after action reports and writes up all crew member citations in the Navy. These have to be endorsed and forwarded by Kerry's commanding officer, who was never present when any of these events occurred. Once that has happened, they become the 'official' navy version of events.
Therefore, the Navy's version of events IS Kerry's version of events and YOU can't cite them to bolster Kerry's case because they are NOT AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNT.
Which brings me to Kerry's mlitary record. Why has he not released is entire military record to public inspection if all is as he says it is? Bush, whom most of the posters here at MMFA roundly condemn as a draft dodger, released HIS entire file. Kerry's private "release" to the friendly editors of the Boston Globe doesn't count. Those scoundrels stood by silently in the aftermath of Ted kennedy's DUI killing of Mary Jo Kopechnie. Their successors are going to expose Kerry's service record against his wishes? Not bloody likely!
"How do I know this? He was the commanding officer of his boat. This is who files all after action reports . . . "
Actually, being commander of a Swift Boat does NOT in and of itself mean that one writes the after-action report.
"These have to be endorsed and forwarded by Kerry's commanding officer, who was never present when any of these events occurred."
This may come as a shock to you, but for probably 99% of the awards earned by the Swift Boat guys, the commanding officer was not present.
"Therefore, the Navy's version of events IS Kerry's version of events and YOU can't cite them to bolster Kerry's case because they are NOT AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNT."
Gee, then how about my independent account? How about the independent account of any of the other 23 guys with me that day? How about the fact that none of us have a problem with what was in that report -- allowing for the fact that no one was present for each and everything that happened in the course of that morning.
But, no, go ahead, don't let actual eyewitness testimony get in the way of your dislike for Kerry, or, you know, the facts . . . .
Doug Reese
PS. You have read the after-action report, haven't you?
Which brings me to Kerry's mlitary record. Why has he not released is entire military record to public inspection if all is as he says it is? Bush, whom most of the posters here at MMFA roundly condemn as a draft dodger, released HIS entire file.
-----------------------------------
Ba-loney. GWB did NOT release his entire file...or can you give us an account of any news organization gaining complete unrestricted and independent access to his military files? And I'm not talking about FOIA requests, by the way.
You KNOW no such thing actually I belive the SENIOR officer of the mission writes the reports so for the Bronze star incident I think that would have been Droz who was senior to Kerry. For the first purple heart there were TWO soldiers with him Zaldonis and Runyon both of whom back up HIS version of events. You guys have got NOTHING but lies, rumors and inuendo. ALL hard evidence backs up Kerry. You guys trying to smear a war hero are pathetic. I have READ what the guy whose life Kerry saved wrote about that day. You ought to. It MIGHT, if you have a shred of integrity stop you from repeating this slandrous nonsense.
Actually, it would have been Thurlow, who was OITC of the mission. He just says he doesn't remember writing it...of course he didn't remember what his own citation said, either.
I think I am mixing up the silver star and bronze star incident.
Oh, I see. However, Kerry was Officer in Tactical Command of that mission, so he may have been responsible for the report. As I recall it contained information that would have had to be the result of collaboration with the other officers and witnesses.
I see that none of the "critics" have gotten back to us with any inaccuracies in the after-action report for the Silver Star incident. Cue the chirping crickets.
I would have thought Roods Tribune article about his EYE WITNESS accounts of that day would end the argument once and for all.
What is controversal is that the Times supports these smear merchants. Dougreese laid it out pretty clearly above, the facts do not come close to supporting the SBV claims and smears. The controversy was fabricated and the media is once again complicit.
BINGO...hold your cards..What radical , subversive organization are you speaking about, VietNam Veterans Against the WAR??? I am confused. Have served in 'Nam 70-71 as a grunt..that's Infantry to you, I must admit that this subversive group helped end that stupid bloodbath. Nothing was gained...I forgot, which DOMINO THEORY do you subscribe to!!
Your rant about Sen. Kerry includes many reasons why the SwiftBee's are doing the right thing but you continually point out that they WERE NOT there. You attack Reese on this point but his is correct. As far as other Peer Officers having a "better position" to judge a fellow officers performance that is pure garbage. When the shooting starts, no one is in a good position to JUDGE anything about anyone else.
Bingo, what action do you feel should be taken anytime a soldier, sailor or airman is nominated for a medal? Do we vote ala American Idol or just allow the few self-anointed ones decide?
The Swiftee's won their battle...to disgrace Sen. Kerry..Congrats to them all. But who is their next victim...Our President. No one believes anything said negative about his "service" to our country but then, according to your ilk, no one was present that can recall him performing his duties in Alabama which makes it okay. But one or two people witness Sen. Kerry's reasons for his PH's and you dispute them. Pick one was Bush there or not?
I agree Prince. Having served as a grunt from '69 to '70 I believe that it was the veterans who turned against the war when they returned who did more to end it than any other group. if they had not turned against it, we might still be there.
And it sickens me that others are so selective with their judgement of guys who did go. No one is allowed to question Bush, Cheney or the others but we can destroy the reputations of guys like John Kerry and Max Cleland.
I wish I could say that I'm proud to be an American, but I can't take pride in a nation that turns it's back on those who were sent to war
DITTO
Having served as a grunt from '69 to '70 I believe that it was the veterans who turned against the war when they returned who did more to end it than any other group.
I wish I could say that I'm proud to be an American, but I can't take pride in a nation that turns it's back on those who were sent to war
You mean like YOU are claiming to do right now? You admit that you turned your back on those who were sent to war. My uncle may have flown you into/out of any given area and you claim to be proud of turning your back on him. My brother may have been right there with you, nah, he was in after '70, and you're proud you turned you back on him. Thanks for your service to your country, now get on with turning your back on it!
That comment is a stretch, even for you.
You're right, it's all my fault. I tuned my back on your brother, your uncle or whoever. Believe what you will. Whatever helps you get through your delusions.
Treated again to the inane rantings of Autopsychotic. Most people, that is those with an actual functioning cerebral cortex understand that ending a war we didnt need to be in from the beggining and STOPPING the soldiers from dying there is a far cry from turning your back on them. YOU would have supported another several thousand into their graves. Committed to the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy warmongers so covet, if you guys had YOUR way the soldiers would STILL be dying in Vietnam.
Well, I think they have smeared Kerry, but they have not disgraced him. They have only disgraced themselves.
i find it utterly fantastic and unbelievable that o'neill and the rest of the swiftboat drunks still get any publicity. o'neill's book has been discredited time after time. that the whole controversy was simply a paid for hoax is no longer even refuted by anyone not in on the scam. these dredges, charlatans and frauds should be given the same credence as someone like oj simpson. these people made up stories refuted by official u.s. naval records, belittled a fellow u.s. naval enlistee, and smeared the reputation of a man the u.s. navy saw fit to give the silver star and 3 purple hearts to. as far as fox goes, who do ya guess gave o'neill and his pirates funding for that disgraceful hoax?
please add my heartfelt thanks to mr. doug reese also.
Media Matters implies that John Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" testimony to Congress was true because John O'Neill's statements were questionable.
Kerry himself changed his story after the 2004 election, stating that he was near, not in, Cambodia in February 1969, not Christmas 1968. Those are significant changes to to Congressional testimony.
The basic statments of the Swift Boat Officers who served with Kerry have been misconstrued, misquoted and misanalyzed but have never been refuted. We saw a self-centered person who put his personal interests ahead of the safety of our boats and crews in combat. We were successful in 2004 because we told the truth.
Tom Wright, Officer in Charge, PCF 44
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello Tom -
Maybe you should do a little more research before you make these kinds of claims.
Kerry did not "change his story" to say he had been "near, not in, Cambodia in February 1969, not Christmas 1968."
He stated that he had been patrolling at or near the border on Christmas Eve 1968 and ambushed the same night; he believed he crossed the border during this patrol. Two of his crew members agree. George Elliot documented this ambush in his fitness report.
He stated that he entered Cambodia in February 1969.
The claims of the Swift Boat vets have been refuted in just about every respect, more than once. You hitched your wagon to a smear campaign, so live with it Tom.
To clarify: at least two of his crewmen agree that they were patrolling at or near the border on Christmas Eve. His crewmen have also said they think it's pretty easy to cross over inadvertently.
The WashTimes article is typically full of bad information.
First, Fox's contributions to SBVT weren't "disclosed by the Democrats" on the committee. They were public information made available through FEC filings published on the Internet.
That's another reason the White House spokeswoman's comment about GWB not knowing about Fox's contribution is so ludicrous. Did they honestly not vet this guy enough to check the public records for his various political contributions? If so, doesn't say much for them, does it?
And as to John O'Neill's desperate attempt to add a couple of minutes to his undeserved 15 minutes of fame, yes, it is just "outrageous" that a nominee for a diplomatic post be questioned about participating in a smear campaign. I guess if any of those thousands of other donors he brags about were nominated for such a high-profile position, they would be asked about it too...if they donated FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, that is. Maybe they would be able to offer a more reasonable explanation than "I don't know who asked, I don't remember giving it, I just give ...oh, and did I mention that you are a true American hero, Senator?"
I notice O'Neill doesn't talk much about how quick Fox was to throw him and his lying group under the bus.
Any chance he'll just crawl back under his rock now?
Wow, was my first post prescient or what?
That it was Rusty. You started this thread, It won't be long before you're blamed for starting the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the Galactic Civil War.