Limbaugh joins other media in whitewashing Swift Boat Vets' falsehoods, claims "nobody has disproven anything they claimed"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "were right on the money, and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort." In fact, most of the allegations the Swift Boat Veterans made about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War service during the 2004 presidential campaign have been thoroughly discredited, often by official military records, but also by the Swift Boat accusers themselves, who struggled to keep their stories straight.
On the November 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "were right on the money, and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort." Limbaugh made his comments on the same day reporter Tom Benner of The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, Massachusetts) revived baseless smears by the Swift Boat Veterans directed at Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during the 2004 presidential campaign. Brenner wrote: "During the 2004 campaign, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused Kerry of embellishing his military service to further his political career, a view that seems right to Tom Mustin of Coronada, Calif., a former Navy lieutenant commander who says he has no involvement with the Swift boat group." In fact, most of the allegations the Swift Boat Veterans made about Kerry's Vietnam War service have been thoroughly discredited, often by official military records, but also by the Swift Boat accusers themselves, who struggled to keep their stories straight.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, members of the Swift Boat Veterans published a book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak out Against John Kerry (Regnery, August 2004), and aired television commercials accusing the then-Democratic presidential nominee of being a coward while serving in Vietnam and fabricating events in order to feed his "insatiable appetite for medals." The Swift Boat Veterans made specific allegations regarding battles in Vietnam, claiming Kerry never should have received his medals because he faked injuries and wrote up phony reports in order to win commendations. Only one of the men making the allegations actually served on a Swift Boat captained by Kerry.
Nonetheless, the allegations created widespread media coverage during the month of August. A 2004 poll released by the National Annenberg Election Survey reported that more than half the country had heard about or seen the Swift Boat ads attacking Kerry's war record.
Here are just some of the Swift Boat allegations against Kerry, which Limbaugh suggested were "right on the money":
- In the first Swift Boat ad, then-Clackamas County (Oregon) senior deputy district attorney Alfred J. French announced: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record." In preparation for the ad, French signed a sworn affidavit for the Swift Boat Veterans asserting that Kerry had received his Purple Heart "from negligently self-inflicted wounds in the absence of hostile fire." A fundamental requirement of any affidavit is that the person signing it must have personal knowledge of the matters involved. The affidavit French signed declared, "I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief" (emphasis added).
But in an interview with The Oregonian, French freely admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of the events surrounding Kerry's medals and that his information came secondhand from "friends."
- George Elliott was Kerry's former commanding officer in Vietnam and, in early 2004, told USA Today he had no qualms about Kerry's actions that earned him the Silver Star in Vietnam. "This was an exemplary action," he said. "There's no question about."
Elliott then flip-flopped and claimed in the Swift Boat ad that "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
Elliott then flip-flopped again when, just days after the first Swift Boat ad aired, he confessed to The Boston Globe that his involvement in the Kerry attack was "a terrible mistake" and said, "I'm the one in trouble here. ... I knew it was wrong. ... In a hurry I signed [an affidavit] and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
But Elliott flip-flopped yet again -- days later, he announced that he stood by claims that Kerry "had not been honest" about Vietnam.
- Dr. Louis Letson appeared in the first Swift Boat commercial and announced, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart, because I treated him for that injury." In another affidavit, Letson claimed Kerry's wound was too small to justify a medal.
But Navy guidelines during the Vietnam War for Purple Hearts did not take into account the size of the wound when awarding the honor, which meant Letson's claim was irrelevant. Also, Kerry's medical records indicate Letson did not sign off as the "person administering treatment" on the night of the injury, which raised doubts about whether Letson ever even treated Kerry.
- During the 2004 campaign, retired Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale claimed that Kerry "lacks the capacity to lead." But during Kerry's 1996 Senate race, according to reports from ABC News and the Air Force Times, Lonsdale lauded Kerry's bravery during Vietnam: "It was because of the bravery and the courage of the young officers that ran boats ... the swift boats and the Coast Guard cutters, and Senator Kerry was no exception."
Also in 1996, Lonsdale explained to reporters that Vietnam War medals were only awarded if battle events were corroborated by others. His explanation completely contradicted later claims by the Swift Boat Veterans that Kerry won his awards only because he was able to write up false reports and fool his commanders.
- Navy Lt. Larry Thurlow commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry's in Vietnam. As late as April 2004, Thurlow told USA Today that Kerry "was extremely brave, and I wouldn't argue that point."
By August, though, Thurlow had publicly disputed Kerry's Bronze Star and third Purple Heart, won during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Thurlow claimed Kerry's award was a fraud. Thurlow signed a sworn affidavit for the Swift Boat Veterans stating that Kerry was "not under fire" when he pulled Lt. James Rassmann out of the water that day. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which stated that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated." The Swift Boat Veterans also accused Kerry of "fleeing the scene."
But when The Washington Post got a hold of the citation for a Bronze Star that Thurlow won that very same day for actions on a boat that was right alongside Kerry's, the citation detailed how both his boat and Kerry's boat faced "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire." Asked for a response, Thurlow still insisted there had been no enemy fire that day. If true, that meant Thurlow knowingly accepted a Bronze Star that he did not deserve since he did not face enemy fire.
- Upset by what he was hearing about the Swift Boat allegations regarding Kerry's Bronze Star, and that he did not deserve it because he was not under enemy fire, Jim Russell, a witness to the event, wrote to The Daily Planet of Telluride, Colorado, to dispute the Swift Boat Veterans' claims: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach."
- Like Thurlow, Swift Boat leader and Unfit for Command co-author John O'Neill was emphatic that Kerry didn't deserve his Bronze Star medal for saving Rassmann out of the Bay Hap River because Kerry wasn't under enemy fire. As proof, O'Neill told Fox News, "There's not a bullet hole in any of those three boats, not one." In fact, a report on the battle damage to a boat that motored upriver alongside Kerry's on March 13, 1969, made reference to "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure."
During an August 11, 2004, appearance on CNN, O'Neill insisted, "[T]he people in our organization have no partisan ties." Nine days later, the Swift Boat Veterans unveiled a new commercial featuring Vietnam veteran Ken Cordier, who served at the time as a member of the Bush-Cheney '04 National Veterans Steering Committee. Cordier had also been selected to serve on the Bush administration's POW Advisory Committee.
Five days after that, it was revealed that Benjamin Ginsburg, a legal adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign, had also been advising the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
- Kerry's former commander, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann told The Boston Globe in June 2003 that Kerry's Silver Star was the product of "guts" and that he "admire[d] that." The next year though, Hoffman helped form the Swift Boat Veterans group.
According to a May 6, 2004, article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the former commander "acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." The next month, Hoffmann reiterated, "I did not know Kerry personally. I didn't ride the boat with him."
In August 2004 though, when the first Swift Boat ad began to air, Hoffmann updated his Vietnam memories, telling Fox News, "I knew [Kerry] well, because I operated very closely with him."
From the November 7 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Hi. How are you? This is Rush Limbaugh, and this is the "Excellence In Broadcasting Network," and The Rush Limbaugh program -- a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis: our telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address Rush@EIBNet.com. Your phone calls coming up.
New York Times today: Bill Clinton's suggestion that his wife faced a Republican-style Swift-boat attack during and after the last debate drew a rebuke yesterday from "Barry" Obama, who said, "I was pretty stunned by that statement." This story is all about Clinton trying to stick the attacks on Hillary with Swift boat imagery.
What really killed Kerry -- you know, the Swift Boats were one thing and they were right on the money and nobody has disproven anything they claimed in any of their ads, statements, written commentaries, or anything of the sort.
What really killed Kerry was the flip-flopper thing: "I voted for it before I voted against it." And that's what's got Hillary on this driver's license thing -- that, and the way they're trying to cover it up. You combine the fact that she flip-flopped -- which we're going to show you again here in a minute, let you hear -- and now that they're trying to come out and blame everybody else for piling on her. This is not the stuff of future presidents.
Let's go back. I want to get this on the record one more time -- how this all started. It was October 30th, the day before Halloween, and it happened right here on this program. I said this.
[begin audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: What is amazing to me about this is how Mrs. Clinton gets to be quiet when she wants to be quiet. This is her state. The fact that she's a presidential candidate only adds to the fact she should be asked about this. The fact that she's a senator from the state of New York and is not being peppered by the press -- "What do you think of the governor's plans here for illegal immigrants getting driver's license?" It's amazing how she's able to skate. She's given a pass!
"It's too radioactive for her," writes the AP. Man, oh man, oh man! Would I have loved over several occasions in the last 18 years for you dummkopfs in the media to think certain issues were too radioactive for me to talk about! Good grief! Woman doesn't have to say diddlysquat about anything, and she doesn't!
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Then the next day -- or that night actually, in Philadelphia -- you know, maybe it was the next day. I'm not sure which. It was the next day. Yeah, so it was October 29th then that I made the original statement. On Tuesday, October 30th, in Philadelphia, Drexel University, Tim Russert said, "Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, editorial board. It makes a lot of sense" -- she told that.
"Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license, Mrs. Clinton?"
CLINTON [audio clip]: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know, in New York, we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds -- it's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.
LIMBAUGH: Now, Chris Dodd then disagrees and Hillary jumps in and flip-flops. Russert said, "Does anyone here -- anyone on this panel believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?"
[begin audio clip]
DODD: The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license, I think, is troublesome. ... But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.
[...]
CLINTON: I just want to add: I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.
DODD: Now, wait. Wait.
CLINTON: And we have failed --
DODD: Wait a minute.
CLINTON: We have failed --
DODD: No, no, no. You said -- you said yes.
CLINTON: No --
DODD: You thought it made sense to do it.
CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Yes, she did! So, that's what got all of this started. She was humiliated. She was embarrassed. She flip-flopped. She did a Kerry! Nobody has to Swift-boat her! All Swift-boating is, by the way, is telling the truth about somebody -- generally, telling the truth about a Democrat.
Well, this caused great ramifications in the Clinton household, ladies and gentlemen. Our microphones were there.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Well, we'll see if the rehearsals help out in the next debate. Meanwhile, it's Monday in Las Vegas, Clinton addressing the American Postal Workers' annual conference -- a portion of his remarks.
[begin audio clip]
CLINTON: [T]he point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President [Al] Gore was too stiff.
LIMBAUGH: He is.
CLINTON: When they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator Kerry.
LIMBAUGH: True.
CLINTON: When there was an ad that defeated [former Sen.] Max Cleland [D] in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam. ... So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
LIMBAUGH: They did not!
CLINTON: Why am I saying this? Because I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Yes, Swift-boating. Hillary was Swift-boated. That's what got it all started. That caused Obama to -- that's really strange! Because it was Democrats attacking a Democrat! The other Democrat opponents and the drive-by media guy, Russert. You know, Swift boats are when Republicans lie about Democrats.
So, the left-wing, drive-by media on Hardball -- they had a reaction to the Swift boat comment. We've got Mike Barnacle here, and Lois Romano about the Washington -- from The Washington Post -- about Clinton's Swift boat comment.
Well another example of Rush says its true so it must be true.
I was true. None of the examples that MMFA mentioned above demonstrate anything.
I think you are a moron. I said it, therefor it must be true.
What's that you say? I need to prove you are a moron?
No. According to your logic, you need to prove that you aren't.
Go !
Most of you here seem to take the Clintons at their word.
I don't think you understand who has the burden of proof in most of these situations. It lies with the accusers. I suppose if anyone takes the Clintons' word for it, it is because that burden simply hasn't been met.
There is a certain element of fairness that is called the benefit of the doubt.
The Swifties never proved anything. They simply asserted things and those who hate war heroes who do not align in politics with them, believed them.
I am always struck by the hatred that right wingers have towards the military. They are props and not people. The moment they become people, people who may disagree with you, you attack them and despise their military service. The swifties showed that they devalue service, the devalue the military, and they would ruin the military (because they are calling the military liars) for political gain. Right wingers like Rush hate the military and they are not supporters of the military. They like props and care nothing for the actual people in the military. They make me sick.
Wonder why Rush doesn't talk about why he didn't go to Vietnam anyway? I say he can criticize John Kerry on any number of things, but taking him to task for his military service, when guys like Limbaugh stayed safely at home, is ridiculously stupid.
Aside from that, Limbaugh has been "swiftboating" the Clintons (all 3 of them) for years on end anyway, and it's what has essentially made him all of his money, and created his career. He should be thanking the Clintons for making his career. If Bill Clinton hadn't been elected President, we wouldn't have Rush Limbaugh and most of the other bloviating pretentious windbags that we have on the radio today.
Wonder why Rush doesn't talk about why he didn't go to Vietnam anyway?
Pimple right?
Something like that. I'm not sure it was just a pimple, but it wasn't anything that should have kept him out of service. He's a pretty repugnant individual that good old Rush Limbaugh.
I think it was a boil on his A**.Meanwhile him and his ilk smeared John Murtha and smeared Max Cleland and John Kerry people who are war heros who fought in Vietnam. As low as they come that Rush Limbaugh.
it could have been a pilonidal cyst. But that doesn't excuse you from military service either
"it could have been a pilonidal cyst. But that doesn't excuse you from military service either"
It was, and at the time, yes it could. I'm no defender of Rush...but on this one he's taking flack (IF it's true of course!) for something that wasn't his decision.
I had one of those myself and I have the *8* inch scar to prove it. Back then a scar that long was taken as evidence of less than perfect health and yes, it did result in a 4F designation...which exempted the person from the draft AND from volunteering.
I'm sure that he fought it tooth and nail though... Probably not.
The other guy that gets me on this whole rah rah support the Iraq war is Ted Nugent. Now THAT guy is a piece of work, and a nice big ol' lump of fecal matter.
Ted Nugent is awesome (Not just because he is a fellow Detroiter). How can you not appreciate a guy who doesn't sugarcoat it. It's a refreshing change from typical politicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo
Do you appreciate his way out of the Vietnam war too?
Here it is pal, your chickensh_t, chickenhawk hero used probably the most drastic, yet effective way to dodge the draft that I've ever heard of:
[link to web.archive.org]
Ted Nugent is nothing more than a one hit washed up right wing nut job!
I like how none of you actually argue any of his points. Attacking the speaker is a classic liberal method to get out of having to actually debate fairly. Some of the posters here are better than that.
Taking a thread off-topic is a classic right wing-nut tactic to avoid the subject at hand.
The discussion is about Limbaugh, Kerry, The Swiftboat Vets and Vietnam.
Someone mentioned Nugent's lust for the current war and several posters, myself included, pointed out Ted's cowardly evasion of the War in Vietnam.
I'll address the video clip. He did nothing but give his opinion, which was just nonsense. All emotion and no thought whatsoever.
I have no problem with the second amendment. I do have a problem with people like Nugent, who love to parade around with guns and rant about how precious the second amendment is to them, yet refused to pick one up in the service of his country.
Don't wrap yourself in the flag and tell everyone how manly you are if you're nothing but a loud mouthed, draft dodging punk.
Ted Nugent doesn't bother me all that much. I don't really expect mindblowing philosophical wisdom from him. If people are expecting some sort of political guidance from Ted Nugent, they really need more help than anyone can give them
I still listen to a few of his songs occasionally. He is a decent entertainer and I have some respect for that.
I have two issues with his story:
One, I have heard Rush use both the polinoidal cyst and a "football knee" on different occasions to explain the draft dodge. This makes me suspicious of any aspect of his story when you have such wildly different accounts. I will admit, though, that he may have invented the knee because he was embarrassed by the cyst.
Two, I have heard others say that they had these cysts and were in the military. I would imagine that the cyst would have to be in conjunction with a less-than-honest doctor's note to get you out of the draft, but I could be wrong.
If you look at the link I posted below, you'll see that indeed, this type of cyst was very common in soldiers during WWII. I think it said something like 80,000 cases of it in soldiers during WWII. I'm sure that those guys didn't get to go home because of a butt cyst near your coccyx.
See, that makes sense. I can't imagine people during Viet Nam going to extreme lengths like moving to Canada if they could get out by having a minor medical issue such as this.
Rush first had a college deferment, until he dropped out of college in his first term. Then, suddenly he developed a boil on his ass which kept him out. He has said that he had a football knee injury, but that has been disputed by his coach in high school.
Allow me to be the first to say it on this thread--Limbaugh is a CHICKENHAWK ! ! !
His father had the same condition and he served in the military. I am not saying you are wrong
Well...I *did* say IF it's true! But it might also hinge on whether surger was needed or not. My understanding is that the kind of surgery I had *would* have made my draft level 4F if I was male and of draft age at the time.
dbeden,
From what I've looked at, it looks to me like that the pilonidal cyst is indeed a reason to merit a medical deferment.
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.aspHope my link works this time:
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.aspTrue enough, and I do like me some Snopes action. They do a pretty good job. In the link you cited though, there is a Rush quote, where he said that he basically made no move to correct the issue that he was disqualified for, because he didn't want to go to Vietnam, which I can accept. There were lots of people who didn't want to go. I guess the point being, Rush being a cheerleader for all things WAR, as long one of 2 things don't happen:
1. He doesn't have to go.
and
2. As long as it is a republican who enters this country into war, he's OK with it. Anyone else, you can forget him supporting it.
Mag,
I see your point. However one can be against one war and for another.
I missed being drafted out of college by four numbers. My best friend and older brother weren't so lucky. Fortunately my brother survived his Vietnam experience while my friend ended up in Germany.
I was opposed to the war while I was in college and even participated in anti-war demonstrations. (However I never held anything but admiration for those who served.) I went to a MAC school, of which Kent State was one. I can clearly remember defying the National Guard and walking through their baracades.
Looking back and knowing what I know now, I deeply regret my lack of patriotism and not enlisting. It may sound self serving since we all have our own stories. I remember my father's anguish when my older brother's college grades slipped to the point where he was draft eligible and then drafted. I remember the years he was over there and how we didn't talk much about it. My father served in WWII and his brother in Korea. Could I do it again, I would have enlisted.
But what can one do now? Do I have to oppose all military involvement by the U.S. because I wasn't drafted and didn't enlist?
It was a difficult time and at a young age I basically only heard Uncle Walter and my liberal professors who helped shape my opinion.
Not at all. I think you can oppose one war, and support another, and my intent was not to bring your personal stories into this whole discussion. I thank you for your stories though. I, had no chance to be in the Vietnam war, since I was born in 1973, so... I guess I wasn't quite draft age yet. My dad served in Korea, and my grandfather served in WWII. When I was in high school, and Gulf War I was starting up, I was a senior, and I was scared that the war might drag onward, and that there might be a draft, and that I might have to go. I would have gone if that were the case, luckily, it wasn't. I opposed that war as well, but would have gone if called on to go, as my Dad did, and as my grandfather did as well.
My intent is to show that the actual chickenhawks in the media, and how they cheerlead for war, but were so unwilling to go themselves. Know what I mean? Rush is one of them. He could have gone, but didn't want to, at least that's what he said at one point in time, but he seems more than willing to put others on the line when he's not in danger of having to go himself.
As for this war, and now, I still oppose this war, and have from the start of things. If there were a draft today, and for some reason they wanted me, I'd still go, even though I oppose it.
I only brought up my story as I felt it helps explain some of the turmoil during that era. By the time I got to college, the war was very unpopular. Since there was a draft, very few enlisted. Had I been drafted, I too would have served.
but to put it in perspective, if memory serves me, Kerry asked for and got five exemptions. I think he could not get any more. When it became clear he would be drafted he then enlisted in order to choose the Navy. (Which is a fine choice.) I know his hero, whom he knew as a boy, was JFK so this is not surprising.
I don't fault anyone for trying to avoid the draft during those times, even those who left the country. They acted out of conscience.
I do believe Kerry spent his first tour on a freighter of some sort but am not sure.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe he also volunteered for the Swift Boats when they patrolled the coast. Again, that is fine by me. After getting his command, their mission changed.
It doesn't change what actually occurred. It may sound fishy, but I applaud Kerry for the service he gave to our country as a combat veteran in a very hazardous assignment even if I find the SBVT's accusations credible.
Anyway, his time is over. This is all a moot point. Thanks for the discussion!
It is all a moot point. Even though he has stated he didn't want to go to Vietnam, Limbaugh supported the Vietnam War (even blames the defeat on liberals who impeached Nixon - big surprise) and castigated Bill Clinton repeatedly as a "draft dodger".
It is entirely fair to point out Limbaugh's apparent hypocrisy.
LIMBAUGH: On Bill Clinton: "Never trust a draft dodger." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)REALITY: Although a supporter of the Vietnam War, Limbaugh used a minor physical impairment to avoid the draft (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/93).
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Hi AA -
I don't know if Kerry actually applied for a deferment for every year he was in school, but he clearly was exempt while he was a student. I don't think it was "clear he would be drafted" when he decided to join the Navy, but the assumption that he would be draftable evidently underlay his choice to enlist.
He did have a tour on a destroyer that spent a short amount of time off the coast of VN as part of its Pacific cruise. Then he did volunteer for VN, and Swift Boat duty.
Yep, swift boats were doing coastal patrols and interdiction (?) when he volunteered, but his second choice of billet was for PBRs, which had dangerous river duty at the time.
[link to homepage.mac.com] />
AA,
I appreciate your story as well. However, I will disagree with you on your definitions. You said that you had a "lack of patriotism" by not fighting. I think you have the wrong term there. Fighting a war that one doesn't believe your country should not be involved in does not make one a patriot. Fighting for the causes that you think the country ought to fight for makes you a patriot. Picking up a gun and blindly following the orders of someone who you believe is not taking the country in a good direction is not patriotic, but conformist. Fighting for what one believes are the ideals of the country is patriotic.
I am not sure I understand your regret in not fighting though. I believe that you are being genuine, but it is an easy thing to say now and I wonder if a Democratic presidential candidate made the same remark if you would cut him the same slack (My dad, a Vietnam vet, rolls his eyes at Romney's "regret."). I believe you are entitled to the same opinion as anyone else who has an opinion on this war, but I think you should reserve some judgment (as I think you have shown) towards those who are eligible to be in the military who choose not to fight this conflict and I hope you understand their hestitancy to take your opinion as legitimate in this case because, when confronted with a similar situation, you made the choice to sit out. Does that make sense?
I've lost count of the times people have said to me that they regretted not going to Vietnam or that they wished they could have gone.
I've also heard the line about being misguided by professors, etc., and I don't buy it. Take responsibility for yourself.
Live up to what you've done or haven't done. Be a man. A lot of men evaded Vietnam. To them it was a matter of conscience. They should be proud for having the courage of their convictions.
Others went, either because they believed in the war, or had no other way out. They should also be proud for serving their country and for putting their asses on the line .
But please, if someone wanted to go, no one would have stopped them if they were able to meet the physical requirements.
In my comment above, I was agreeing with you and your dad and disagreeing with the people like Romney.
I meant that people like Mitt should take responsibility for their actions or inactions.
Sorry if I confused you Fried. I loved your post.
Thanks for the link, AA.
On the linked page I found another link to the New Hampshire Gazette Chickenhawk database. It's one of my favorite sites and it's been down for most of the year. I'm glad to see it's back up again.
All Ted Nugent fans should check it out.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070204051625/www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/
I believe it was a pilonidal cyst, or as someone called it, a boil gone wrong. He got out of his service due to a boil.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/pilonidal_cyst/article_em.htm
All you want to know about Rush's affliction, you could probably find in the above link.
Let's not forget that they did this in order to get a draft-dodger elected president.
(When 50,000 men die in the jungles of Vietnam while you're fighting communism in the skies over Texas, YOU'RE A DRAFT DODGER.)
Don't buy that? OK... How about Bush's own shoddy service redord? No one's disproven what Rather alledged either. They just discredited one source of the info, whne there were many more.
Actually, unlike Rather's story, the swift boaters were thouroughly debunked. Some examples:
The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.
The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.
The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.
No question about it, they were debunked.
I do not see anybody disputing the charges that Kerry wrote these after action reports himself. From what I've read, these reports were the basis of the official recomendations.
The Kerry Silver Medal was, (as were the others,) based on the after action report. From what I've been able to gather the report was for shooting a wounded Vietnamese while the man was fleeing the scene after Kerry beached his boat in a counter attack and jumped out and pursued him around a hut.
An unexplained mystery is why are there three citations for the same medal, the last 10 years after the war and signed by the then Secretary of Navy.
Kerry's website also showed a document regarding the Silver Star with V citation. The V citation is never used with the Silver Star.
I think (which means I don't know for sure) that most of the time, after action reports are written by the officers who were there at the time, or the enlisted men, if there were no officers. It is my understanding that if it is deemed there might be a medal awarded to someone for action during combat, then this claim is investigated, independently, and then the medal is awarded if the investigation shows that what was claimed was actually the case. And in any case, Kerry could not put himself up for a medal, someone else has to do that. Then the story is verified independently.
I am not sure what the procedure is. From what I've been able to gather, the officers from Zumwalt on down, were very "liberal" in awarding medals.
As for Thurlow, one has to judge for one's self.
"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.
In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.
The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.
Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.
For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.
Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
" 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together."
Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?language=printerhttp://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
JezuzCryst AA, now you're just being partison. Many troops who had nothing to gain by telling their stories have disputed the Swift Boat Liars. Two of them recanted their lies about Kerry.
I'm no huge John Kerry fan (I'd love to see a President Wesley Clark), but these guys are as dirty as it gets. They pop up every time Kerry is campaigning, smear him with their ever-evolving stories about John Kerry the 'war criminal' then move on after cashing their checks from the RNC.
There is not one thing that they have said in public about Kerry that has ever held water. Republicans do this because it works on the weak minded. If you want to believe it, do ahead and display your gullibility. On this issue, I'll take the Navy at it's word.
The Rick,
I've seen your defense before. However saying it has all been disproved is not the same as disproving it.
The argument that I haven't seen disproven is that the after action reports were actually written by Kerry.
Also nobody, as far as I know, has come forward to explain the three citations for the Silver Star. The last being 10 years later except that they were reissued to change some of the facts in those citations. Kerry was in politics by then, (I'm not sure if he was a Senator,) but those citations add to Kerry's credibilty problem.
That, his actions after coming home, and his refusal to release his military records to the general public helped the SBVT's case.
As always, people of good will can disagree.
You are correct.
And in Kerry's case, his former commanding officers - and SBVT members - Elliott and Lonsdale insisted that they thoroughly investigated awards, including getting corroboration from eyewitnesses.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DF163EF933A1575BC0A9629C8B63
Add to say they said so in 1996, before they had an ax to grind.
That was a typo there is no such thing his bronze star got the V. Kerry never claimed otherwise himself.
AA, a few comments if I may . . . .
First of all, there are people who dispute that Kerry was the author of the after action reports. However, when it comes to the Silver Star incident, I could care less who wrote it, as it is detailed and accurate. No one there that day (24 people in addition to Kerry) has disputed anything that is in it.
Kerry received the award for more than just shooting that VC, but even that isn't quite what it seems. Not only were that guy's wounds not serious, he was in a position to do serious damage to Kerry's boat, should he have wished to do so. We will never know, because Kerry killed him before he had the chance.
The fact that he has three citations isn't quite the mystery that it seems to be. The first one, as I said, was detailed and accurate. So much so that it was too long -- way too long -- over one page. It was rewritten and shortened to fit the usual one-page format.
Correct on the "V". That was on Kerry's DD-214. It was nothing more than a typo by the clerk who wrote that document up. Such errors are common. Mine had the incorrect birthdate. Unless people are going to suggest that Kerry was right there directing the clerk to put the "V" there, it's no big deal. Oh, and the DD-214 is something no one would typically see. It's not a document a person would put on his wall, but that doesn't stop the Kerry haters (not sayin' you're one) from going ape***t over this simple typo.
But back to the incident itself . . . . don't you think that if anything was fishy, at least one person out of those 24 -- perhaps the one and only member of the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" -- would have objected to Kerry receiving the Silver Star?
Doug Reese
Doug - I see that you have admirably answered these questions, a lot more succinctly than I did. I should have read yours before posting.
Seems like this info has been repeated a few times around here, yes?
Doug,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
I don't dispute at all the facts of the citation regarding the Silver Star. However, if the original citation was too long, why wasn't it rewritten before the citation was issued? (BTW, do you have a copy of the original?)
Why was the citation reissued, (I don't know if that is the correct word,) ten years later?
Your explanation of the V sound reasonable enough to me.
ps. I know you served as a Swifty, but my memory fails if you served with Kerry.
Just for the sake of discussion, where did you learn that the wounds to Viet Cong(?) were not that serious.
Hope I haven't offended you with my posts on this subject.
AA -- I wasn't a Swifty, but an Army advisor. I was involved in the Silver Star incident, and was on Bill Rood's boat.
I have often said that if I had known it was going to be such a big deal, I would have taken notes, as I saw the body of the VC Kerry killed. Other than a vague recollection of a leg wound when Kerry mentioned it, I couldn't say more than that. At that point I had been in Vietnam almost a year, and taking note where someone had been killed and/or the location of wounds wasn't something I would take all that much notice of.
However, the VC had run some distance from the boat before Kerry killed him, which is to say far enough to be able to say he didn't crawl to where he was killed. And a guy on Kerry's boat that day, life-long republican LtJg Charles Gibson remembers the killing wound well, as that was the first dead body he ever saw. The killing wound, as Kerry had alluded to all these years, entered the left side and went out the right side. Which is to say that the VC was either looking over his left shoulder to see if anyone was coming after him, or he was preparing to fire his B-40 back at the boat.
Kerry's actions prevented us from ever knowing which, something for which is crew is forever grateful.
Doug Reese
AA -- Go to the website EECEE has used as a reference a number of times. The one with "chinesemac" in the address. That will answer a number of your questions. It has a link to the after-action report, and I believe the original citation.
I think I can answer why it was too long. Admiral Zumwalt was in a big hurry to issue the award. Kerry received it something like six days after the incident. All this is to say that it (probably) wasn't issued by the same administrative office that usually handles awards, so it zeroed in on the details (a whole heck of a lot of them), and didn't contain too much of what you could call "citation-speak", typical of what you'd typically find in a valor award write-up. . . . . . anyway, with all this being done in six days, and by people who usually aren't involved in the process, the length of the citation write-up wasn't something they would have noticed.
EECEE has talked about (and I think that comes from the previously mentioned website) about why it was re-issued 10 years later. All I can say about that is it sounds reasonable to me.
Keep in mind that if you read any info that originates from the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth", you should take it with a (big) grain of salt. If they really were for the truth, instead of the "truth", I wouldn't say that. But I know from firsthand experience that when the truth comes from them, it is purely coincidental.
Doug Reese
I do not see anybody disputing the charges that Kerry wrote these after action reports himself. From what I've read, these reports were the basis of the official recomendations.
Actually, there is no evidence that Kerry wrote any of the after action reports upon which any of his medals were based.
In fact, the evidence points the other way on the March 13 incident for which he won the Bronze Star:
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html#bronze
As the OTC for the February 28 mission, he would have been the likely author or coauthor of the after action report upon his Silver Star was based - but only the likely author - but nothing in that report has been disputed by a single eyewitness. In fact, eyewitness Bill Rood wrote much the same information in the press release he authored just a couple of days later.
As a matter of fact, SBVT doesn't even dispute what's in the after action report.
--------------------------------------------------
The Kerry Silver Medal was, (as were the others,) based on the after action report. From what I've been able to gather the report was for shooting a wounded Vietnamese while the man was fleeing the scene after Kerry beached his boat in a counter attack and jumped out and pursued him around a hut.
The report described the entire action, only a small part of which was Kerry's pursuit of the VC. And his medal citation reflects that - that it was based on his leadership throughout the action.
------------------------------------------------
An unexplained mystery is why are there three citations for the same medal, the last 10 years after the war and signed by the then Secretary of Navy.
Not unexplained at all.
The Navy inspector general's report pointed out that the second citation was the "official version, signed by the delegated award authority, ADM Hyland, CINCPACFLT." It was an edited version of the earlier "COMUSNAVFOR Vietnam version, signed by VADM Zumwalt"... and shortened to fit the required one page format.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/jknavydocs.pdf
(screen #10)
That much the Slow Boaters could have figured out by searching the codes and regs.
The third citation? Look at screen #7 of the inspector general's report. It mentions the "duplicate" citations for all medals that were issued in 1985 and points out that they were issued after "considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations" plus the fact that the ones under Lehman's name were signed by machine.
Of course the Slow Boaters could have just called the Navy and found out, like this reporter for the Washington Times did:
"A third charge: Mr. Kerry got his Vietnam War medal citations reissued in the 1980s because he was stripped of them for misconduct.
Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.
He did receive new medal citations in the mid-1980s. Officials say the Navy receives scores, and perhaps hundreds, of such requests each year from veterans who want a second copy or have lost the originals.
The citations are simply put through a machine that implants the signature of the current Navy secretary. John Lehman's signature, via a machine, appears on Mr. Kerry's new citation for his Silver Star.
[link to nl.newsbank.com]
-----------------------------------------------
Kerry's website also showed a document regarding the Silver Star with V citation. The V citation is never used with the Silver Star.
It wasn't Kerry's website. It was his DD214, posted at his website.
It's a clerical error.
Silver Stars are never awarded with a V device because it would be redundant - a Silver Star is only awarded for combat bravery.
So it's not like someone's claiming they were in combat when they weren't.
Not to mention that Kerry's has never claimed he earned a Silver Star with a V device, and his campaign never claimed it on his behalf.
Thanks for taking the time to respond! As I am going back and reading in the order displayed, my questions to Doug above may have been answered here.
I'd be interested to see if there were any further comments from the SBVT's regarding your explanation.
Thanks for your interest AA. You seem willing to do real research, which puts you lightyears ahead of most of the Slow Boaters.
Don't count on any of 'em responding, at least with any substantive point. They are known to run away when confronted.
Has Kerry ever released all of his war time files? If not why?
Yes, he has.
If you don't think he has, why don't you tell us exactly which records SBVT needs to prove its claims or disprove Kerry's record cannot be accessed by submitting a FOIA request or going through the military archives?
Coward more likely. Rush has repeatedly shown his utter contempt for soldiers.
These far right nut jobs will never admit to being wrong about anything.
That's part of the game plan: deny, deny, deny.
All you can do is keep calling them on their bs.
Deny, lie, smear and change the subject that is what they are good at.
So"You know, Swift boats are when Republicans lie about Democrats." but "All Swift-boating is, by the way, is telling the truth about somebody -- generally, telling the truth about a Democrat."
NO, we're fighting Eastasia today! Eurasia has always been our ally.
Might I suggest that scum like Limbaugh, who chose to evade a war they supported, let those who fought that war, guys who live with it every day of their lives, settle this between themselves.
Anyone who would judge someone else's conduct, might do better, examining their own.
Wasn't that the Republican Natl Convention where Republicans wore purple heart bandages in an effort to ridicule and minimize Kerry's military service?
Please tell me what these 'supreme and only supporters of the military' meant by wearing that.
Rush Limbaugh mocked Kerry's military service, with riffs about Kerry hallucinating that he was "General [sic] Kurtz," the insane Green Beret colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now."
Please tell me what this 'troop loving saint of the military" meant by that.
Since what Rush says and what he means are entirely different, according to his supporters, someone who speaks and understands Limboenesse, please tell me what this means.
It was at the Republican convention where they wore Purple Hearts on a background of a band-aid, or something of that nature to make fun of Kerry. while no doubt most, if not all of them (Bush, Cheney, et all) were dodging military service to the best of their ability, while at the same time here talking about being so pro-military that they bleed Army green.
Again, as I've said before, and I'll say again. These folks like Limbaugh, and our President even, are pro-miltiary, as long as you agree with them on everything that they're doing militarily wise. The second you disagree, you're a partisan hack who has been hired by the democratic party to smear George W. Bush and the republican party, and you "deserve" to be attacked personally for it.
This is HOW they operate.
Thanks for sharing your private thoughts. However I do believe you are over generalizing about one of the two major parties.
:-)
Let me re-state:
That is how the republicans at that convention acted towards a purple heart winner. Now, that' being said, I'd say that the republican national convention is a pretty decent reflection of the party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not saying that all republicans were, or are like this, but...
"...In fact, most of the allegations the Swift Boat Veterans made about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War service during the 2004 presidential campaign have been thoroughly discredited..."<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Media Matters is far too generous. In fact, ALL the allegations made by the Swift Boat liars were false, and were known to be false by the "journalists" who uncritically repeated them.
Sourcewatch.
This is what I saw that day.
John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.
John Kerry starts by showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969: "Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia."
That article by Rood was very powerful.
What's interesting is that all of the wingnuts who cite the Swiftboat stooges as reliable sources on completely unrelated topics in order to attack Kerry are strangely absent on these threads directly debunking the SBVT .
Don't worry, they'll be along to claim that MMFA is a Clinton/Soros conglomeration, meant to further Hillary's ambition to be President, and that everything that the SBVT stated, and represented were 100% factually correct, because Rush told them so.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
After reviewing the evidence it has been proven that Rush Limbaugh did indeed have a polonoidal cyst that prevented him from serving in our esteemed army.
It was a close call, but I have to call this one for Rush Limbaugh.
- justicetruthus8276 / Thursday November 8, 2007 07:25:35 PM EST
Umm, hey Truthiness
That was never in question as to how and why Rush got out of his duty.
I fooled ya! It was me!
Darn you!
I have to read the bottom more carefully.
JT, I'd guess you had as close a view of that cyst as anybody, so I'm going to have to call it for the head up Rush's *ss.
Your posts seem to be taking a new direction, as if you're pretending you were doing satire all along.I liked them better when you were serious. Like Rush, much funnier when you're not trying to be in on the joke.
fooled you too! Made it look real, didn't I?
Almost, Snoop. I just needed a dose of the real deal, and thought that might bring out another gem. And there it is!
The Oxymoron hasnt told them what to think about it yet.
Even better:
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html
**THE REAL AND GENUINE**
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
If John Kerry (who spent 6-7 weeks in 'Nam, suffered a few minor scratches, got 'medaled-up, and flew out of 'Nam at the first opportunity he had to scram) believed that the Swiftboat Vets "lied" about him he could have sued them.
Since Kerry decided NOT to bring a lawsuit I can only make one conclusion which is to decide IN FAVOR of Rush & Swiftboat Vets for Truth.
Six or seven weeks in Vietnam could seem like a lifetime.
Who the f__k are you to judge anyone's service?
But it wasn't 6 or 7 weeks, it was 4 months +.
I know. I was just trying to point out to our newest decider that a few weeks is plenty time to be killed, wounded or to have your head permanently rewired.
I tried to keep it simple since I was dealing with a simple minded poster.
Hahahahahahhaha! Republicans now saying that lawsuits prove validity? You guys hate lawyers...
Very good satire from Justus.
It is a very common logical fallacy. Just for the geeks like me that like logic, I am refering to Argumentum ad Ignorantium:
a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
I think JustUs knows this and it is all a part of his gag to make real conservatives look stupid. He is getting a little too convincing lately though.
Fact check for you:
"
If John Kerry (who spent 6-7 weeks in 'Nam, suffered a few minor scratches, got 'medaled-up, and flew out of 'Nam at the first opportunity he had to scram) believed that the Swiftboat Vets "lied" about him he could have sued them.
Since Kerry decided NOT to bring a lawsuit I can only make one conclusion which is to decide IN FAVOR of Rush & Swiftboat Vets for Truth"
This has nothing to do at all with Kerry not bringing a lawsuit against the SBVT, and that doesn't mean that they weren't lying. You see, when you are a public persona, such as Senator Kerry, it is very hard to bring these types of lawsuits against people, because essentially, a lot of the time, they will get thrown out, and only take time and money. It's easier to defeat the lies in the public medium, which Kerry did when these lies were trotted out against him. The fact that he didn't file a lawsuit against them means guess what? Absolutely nothing at all. You keep holding onto that mantra, it just doesn't mean anything.
Point 2. John Kerry went to Vietnam, and served, and was decorated for his service there. You, and others like you, try to make it sound like he gave those medals to himself. There is a process, and reviews that take place before medals are bestowed onto soldiers.
The criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer; the military makes no distinction regarding the severity of the injury. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."
John Kerry also served in the Navy from 1966-1970, with his last tour in Vietnam being 4 months, not the 4-6 weeks you claim, better check your facts.
It may be hard to bring a lawsuit, but it is not impossible as shown when Carol Burnett brought a successful lawsuit against the National Enquirer in 1981.
All I want to know is WHY? Why didn't John Kerry call the Swiftboat Veterans out? There are only two possible reasons.
A. The Swiftboat vets were telling the truth - in which case Kerry did not belong in the White House.
B. The Swiftboat Vets were lying and Kerry was too much of a coward to bring the lawsuit. Again, if this is true, then again, Kerry did not belong in the White House.
So which is it? A or B?
Argumentum ad Ignorantium appetizer, followed by a false dichotomy entrée. What's for dessert?
"A. The Swiftboat vets were telling the truth - in which case Kerry did not belong in the White House.
B. The Swiftboat Vets were lying and Kerry was too much of a coward to bring the lawsuit. Again, if this is true, then again, Kerry did not belong in the White House."--JuTru
There are other reasons Kerry might not have sued:
C. The Swiftboaters were lying, and Kerry may have won a suit, after which, another bogus front group would be started by Rove and Co. spouting the same lies refering to the SVT liars.
D. The Swiftboaters were lying, but a lawsuit would have brought more attention to the BS subject, possibly misinforming more who hadn't heard the BS.
E. The Swiftboaters were lying, but they worried that the right would spin the suit as though Kerry was trying to benefit from Nam war vets.
F. The ... hell, I could fill the rest of the alphabet with reasons not to sue. Your hypothosis is flawed beyond all reason.
Well, actually, there's one very simple answer for this.
Prove that a single claim the Slow Boaters made about Kerry's military service was true.
A single one.
Doles first purple heart was for just such a minor wound which was self inflicted according to his OWN biography. You are also forgetting that was during Kerry's SECOND Naval tour in Vietnam. I have to call this one for you being an idiot
JT,
Since you seem to be an arbiter of some sort, please go through the items of a slander claim and discuss how Kerry would have fought them. Please include how much more difficult it is for a "public person" to win such a claim.
Also, since the Bushes have not sued Kitty Kelly does that prove that Laura Bush was a drug dealer or that "W" was a coke head?
Lack of a lawsuit indicates truth? Cool.
Since he never sued Al Franken I guess that means that Rush really truly is a "big, fat idiot."
Well said, and I'd say Al had a slam dunk case.
Great demonstration of the logical fallacy here.
Well, it's already been pointed out that Kerry served longer than that.
But according to your logic, we should assume George Bush was snorting coke at Camp David because he's never sued Kitty Kelley.
all this pilonidal cyst stuff is irrelevant. If you didn't put your life in harm's way for this country, you can't try to demean the service of those who did. period. their political lives are fair game, but not their military service. that's like me saying mccain's a coward for not fighting his way out of captivity...
Here's Limbaughs Selective Service Classification Record I received thru a FOIA: Rush Hudson Limbuagh,III
Selective Service Record Number. 23-16-51-18
02-24-69 1SH "Student deferred by statue-(H) high school"
11-23-69 2S "Registrant deferred because of activity in study."
This is were Rush's BS stars to rear it's head! When Rush graduated from HS he should have notified the Draft Board he wasn't a high school student anymore. Unless he could have shown that he was enrolled in College, his butt would have been 1-A, which more than likely means he'd have been cannon-fodder in Nam before the year was out! But he waits till Nov 23,1969 to inform the Draft Board he's taking some type of study group, it wasn't college study because if it was he would have received a deferment of; "1-SC- Student deferred by statue- (H) high school; (C) college" where was he, and what was he studying? He couldn't have been in college!
11-24-70 "1-Y Registrant qualified for service in time of war or national emergency" Seems like there's something wrong with Gunga Din Rush, what is it one asks? What's this in the "Remarks Column?" "We have found "no record" (my emphasis) which provides the "specific reason" the registrant was found conditionally acceptable for service." But also note: "The 1-Y classification was abolished Dec 10,1971. Local Boards were subsquently instructed to re-classify all 1-Y registrants, by administrative action. There are no records to be found on any board actions."
Oops, no record can be found to back up Rush's claim for a zit on his arse! No Board records for any actions taken on both the 1-Y and 4-F classifications can be found! How convienant Rush!
02-21-72 4-F Registrant not qualified for military service
So from the time Rush registered as a high school student on 02-24-1969 until 02-21-72, all his deferments seem to be real questiontable! No mentions of zits on his face or arse to be found in any records, but with local boards handing out the deferments, one only has to imagine favoritism shown to the grandson of a Judge? That's just my opinion!
Did anyone ever disprove the allegation that the junkie Limbaugh obtained Viagra for sex parties with children overseas where child prostitution is common? That he is never happier than when molesting a child? That he is a raging queen who only really enjoys little boys - but will settle for little girls in a pinch?
Just wondering.
Why did Kerry try to fight the Viet Nam war again. Clinton showed us that Viet Nam service was not relevent. Kerry shot his self in the foot by trying to make service in Viet Nam relevent again. He lost big time
You can't argue with the Right Wing Morons here, who clearly believe that Kerry was a Coward because he served "only" six months and was "only" wounded a few times, while True Patriots like Limbaugh and Bush and Cheney didn't serve at all. Like Ross Perot criticizing Al Gore for being "stationed way behind the front lines in Vietnam" in 2000 while endorsing GW Bush, who of course was stationed quite a bit further away from the front lines than Gore was.
<blockquote>The affidavit French signed declared, "I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief" (emphasis added).</blockquote>
<blockquote>The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.</blockquote>
Nonsense. He wasn't compelled to qualify his affidavit at all. Suggesting that he did so is a sham being offered either in malice or in ignorance.
Perhaps it's a futile attempt to derail this runaway train of disinformation, but FRENCH'S AFFIDAVIT IS BEING MISQUOTED.
His http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf reads...
"I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge OR belief" (emphasis added).
Now, for those of you in Rio Linda, that pulls the rhetorical carpet out from underneath the "Al French" balderdash.
You really must be more careful when using Boehlert as a source as he is woefully ignorant of the facts and does very little fact-checking himself.
While you're here, Bingo, how about impressing the folks with how Larry Lee didn't really support Kerry receiving the Silver Star.
Doug Reese
Mr. Reese, I'll take the subject change as an acknowledgement of the mendacity of the "Al French" BS.
As to my "Larry Lee" comments, I dunno about impressing anyone, but they apparently linger in YOUR memory. As they address your misrepresentations of Larry Lee's position, I'd be happy to act on your kind invitation and reproduce them here...Thanks !
Gerth's reportage, "Lee said Kerry earned his Silver Star..." and "...(Lee) says the Democratic presidential nominee deserved the award..." are arguably overstated or mis-representative given Lee's supplied "quote" and the following paraphrase which serve to qualify both Lee's position and the reporter's verbiage...
Both you (rather habitually) and Mr. Gerth ascribe a meaning or interpretation to "no problems" that is, in my opinion, arguable if not unsupportable. YMMV
Mr. Lee's comment, in fact, may well be a reflection of the natural reluctance of most veterans to examine the subject of anyone's military awards, a reticence upon which Kerry relied mightily throughout his career in constructing and selling his public persona. Seeking the Presidency, Kerry's track record of calumny and slander was motivation enough for legions of veterans to overcome it...nor will historians feel so constrained.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/04/19/the-proper-definition-of-swift.php#comment-544504
Bingo, I'll leave it up to those here to decide. They can read the actual article, rather than your take on it -- or mine, for that matter.
http://orig.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/08/26ky/A1-swift0826-9879.html
And with that blog link -- thanks for the trip down (bad) memory lane. I also recommend that folks click on that blog link you supplied, as it will allow them to gain a little insight into your logic, and that of some of your buddies.
Notice how I didn't take you up on the offer of having the last word. I decided to leave that to you, and (a real piece of work) Kim.
Doug Reese
Well, as some of the other direct quotes say things like he thought Kerry's action in turning into the enemy was "great," and that there actually were VC shooting at them at the second ambush, I'd say Mr. Lee doesn't sound too interested in supporting the Slow Boaters' version of things.
"...I'd say Mr. Lee doesn't sound too interested in supporting the Slow Boaters' version of things."
And I'd say his remarks might be fairly characterized as ambivalent on the point.
However, he is considerably less ambivalent on the following point...
Oh of course you would, Bingo. But then you'd also say that monkeys actually do sing opera if it suited your purpose.
Why don't you show us where Lee has said anything he said to that reporter - anything - was misrepresented.
Mr. Reese, just for the record...
In your opinion, did John Kerry's actions that day rise to your own standard for Silver Star levels of valor?
Bingo -- "Just for the record", yeah, right.You have asked this question before. I've had all kinds of questions asked me by anti-Kerry types such as you, in an attempt to disparage his service -- in particular, in regards to this incident.You guys don't have all that much to go on, do you? I mean, none of you were there, so all you can do is try and twist the words of those of us who were there. It began back in October 1996 with a Boston Globe article by David Warsh in which Tommy B. was grossly misquoted, according to Tommy himself immediately afterwards.In the years since then, more of the same, ending up with the smear job by the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” and their fellow travelers in 2004, and continuing until today, evidenced by your comments/questions. Responses to questions put to many of Kerry’s crew have been twisted, misrepresented and they were made to appear less than honest. I have gone through much of the same myself, but not on a national stage, just on some blogs, newsgroups and websites.You have stated in the past that you didn’t care for my long answers (or words to that effect), but since I don’t operate in sound bites, and prefer to give complete and detailed answers, you’ll just have to suffer through them. You also said in the past that you felt this was about my ego (“ya know Mr. Reese, I’m developing a sense that this is more ado about YOU and your EGO than Kerry OR the Swiftvets . . . . but I digress”), but I think most reasonable people – certainly people who know me -- know that is not true.As to your question about whether or not Kerry’s actions that day rose to my own standard for Silver Star levels of valor. First of all, I don’t have standards for Silver Star levels of valor – nor do I have them for Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star or Army Commendation medals. I leave that to the respective branches of service, and certainly not to the likes of you, John O’Neill, Jon Christian Ryter, Jerome Corsi, or any other of a host of Kerry-bashers.I can say that what I did that day wasn’t remotely close to what Kerry did when it comes to bravery under fire. I know the particulars of what I did, as does the private investigator hired by the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth”, as I shared them with him back in June 2004. Not surprisingly, those particulars are not in Unfit for Command.I know what Kerry did that day, in detail above and beyond what you are aware of. I support Kerry receiving the Silver Star. I do not have a problem with Kerry receiving the Silver Star. I am pleased that he received the Silver Star. I think it’s great that he received the Silver Star.So take that and spin it, misrepresent it, or whatever you feel like. Doug Reese
Thank you Doug. We appreciate your posting here to set the record straight.
You're welcome, Mary . . . . . it was in paragraphs when I previewed it!
Doug Reese
Non-response #1 Bingo -- "Just for the record", yeah, right.You have asked this question before.
...and you have declined to answer before.
Non-response #2 I've had all kinds of questions asked me by anti-Kerry types such as you, in an attempt to disparage his service -- in particular, in regards to this incident.
As you are ubiquitous on the internet regarding discussions on this subject, this surprises you?
Non-response #3 You guys don't have all that much to go on, do you? I mean, none of you were there, so all you can do is try and twist the words of those of us who were there.
Mr. Reese, your "victim" pandering is embarrassing.
Non-response #4 It began back in October 1996 with a Boston Globe article by David Warsh in which Tommy B. was grossly misquoted, according to Tommy himself immediately afterwards.
Did it rival Boehlert's misrepresentation of Al French's affidavit or Gerth and your misrepresentation of Larry Lee's comments?
Non-response #5 In the years since then, more of the same, ending up with the smear job by the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” and their fellow travelers in 2004, and continuing until today, evidenced by your comments/questions. Responses to questions put to many of Kerry’s crew have been twisted, misrepresented and they were made to appear less than honest.
A rather ironical observation in a hit piece that uses a falsified affidavit as evidence in support of its opening argument...
Non-response #6 I have gone through much of the same myself, but not on a national stage, just on some blogs, newsgroups and websites.
Awwww....perhaps you'd prefer a more reverential reaction to your pontifications Mr. Reese. Start a closed-to-comments blog...it'll be REAL quiet in there.
Non-response #7 You have stated in the past that you didn’t care for my long answers (or words to that effect), but since I don’t operate in sound bites, and prefer to give complete and detailed answers, you’ll just have to suffer through them.
Actually my reaction to your observations would be more fairly characterized as "long on wind and spin and short on breadth and substance"...
Non-response #8 You also said in the past that you felt this was about my ego (“ya know Mr. Reese, I’m developing a sense that this is more ado about YOU and your EGO than Kerry OR the Swiftvets . . . . but I digress”), but I think most reasonable people – certainly people who know me -- know that is not true.
"Developing a sense" implies a work in progress Mr. Reese, not a conclusion. Frankly, your motivations are of little interest or concern to me...anymore...but we digress...again...
Heart-of-the-Matter (at last) As to your question about whether or not Kerry’s actions that day rose to my own standard for Silver Star levels of valor. First of all, I don’t have standards for Silver Star levels of valor – nor do I have them for Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star or Army Commendation medals. I leave that to the respective branches of service, and certainly not to the likes of you, John O’Neill, Jon Christian Ryter, Jerome Corsi, or any other of a host of Kerry-bashers.I can say that what I did that day wasn’t remotely close to what Kerry did when it comes to bravery under fire. I know the particulars of what I did, as does the private investigator hired by the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth”, as I shared them with him back in June 2004. Not surprisingly, those particulars are not in Unfit for Command.I know what Kerry did that day, in detail above and beyond what you are aware of. I support Kerry receiving the Silver Star. I do not have a problem with Kerry receiving the Silver Star. I am pleased that he received the Silver Star. I think it’s great that he received the Silver Star.So take that and spin it, misrepresent it, or whatever you feel like. Doug Reese
Very well...you have no personal standard for a level of valor that might justify the award of a Silver Star. I'd venture a guess that your position is in the distinct minority of veterans as a whole. However, as a combat veteran you're opinion warrants particular consideration I'll respect it.
Your claim of respect rings pretty hollow considering what you've written here.
Tell us about your military service and if you were ever in combat. If you were, perhaps a group can start up to investigate you.
Tell us about your military service and if you were ever in combat. If you were, perhaps a group can start up to investigate you.
Perhaps when I run for President of the United States I'll entertain your curiousity. Until that time you're free to assume I'm a non-veteran...just as I'm free to relegate your contributions to this dialogue to cheerleader banter, worthless filler and uninformed snark.
Of course, your demonstration of a rather typical liberal penchant for "investigating" private citizens who express a different opinion is greatly appreciated.
Good projection going there, bingo. Your cheerleading is of a different sort; supporting right wing nastiness and general mud-slinging.
You seem to think it's ok to lie about people if they run for public office. It's not.
Thanks for your detailed reply, Bingo.
I think it pretty much shows people where you and I stand. They can make up their own minds as to which one of us is full of it on this issue.
Doug Reese
Thanks Doug.
Whenever people come here to distort John Kerry's record, we can count on you to give us your first hand account.
And I think this Bingo character is some kind of virtual stalker. I've seen that he follows you onto other sites and argues with you there as well.
It wouldn't surprise me if he were being paid to argue with you.
Sometimes he follows me, sometimes I follow him :)
Doug Reese
Doug - Excellent response. Thanks for taking the time and care to post such an intelligent piece.
One of the things I find so amazing about the Slow Boaters arrogance in UFC, is that as much as you deserved your commendation medal (and possibly more), they claim that Kerry deserved no more than a commendation medal for his actions that day.
That means that not a single soldier or sailor who received Bronze Stars for doing no more than Kerry did that day deserved their medals either.
According to the Slow Boaters, anyway.
No, EECEE, not more. Definitely not more.
Doug Reese
Thanking you for your service on this Veterans' Day, Doug.
Bingo, I hate to question you when it seems you've pulled out your big guns, but I'm a little confused. French admitted that he had no firsthand knowledge of what he swore to, and your refutation of that is that French swore to those things that he later admitted to having no knowledge of?
If I misunderstood your point, please help me out.
French "admitted" no such thing in the sense that he wasn't somehow compelled by subsequent probing or revelations to acknowledge some willful mis-statement of fact in his affidavit. The word "admitted" as used by anyone who relates this nonsense implies that French had lied about something in his affidavit and is probably based upon the erroneously quoted text of French's affidavit.
If you can't see that the use of "or" as opposed to the use of the erroneously reported "and" TOTALLY undermines the premise of this silly allegation, I'll not waste further time explaining it to you.
Did he or did he not swear that all facts and statements contained in his affidavit were true and correct?
I'll not waste further time explaining it to you.- bingo /
Best idea you've had in a while, Bingo.
Uhm, did you notice he cut and pasted something he posted at a Boehlert thread - and didn't even bother to edit out the references to Boehlert's article?
It seems to be all he's got, and he'll insert it in any thread at any chance. Raggedy as it's lookin'.
His whole idea is that French can't be accused of lying because he weasled the wording of his affidavit, to invent a new phrase "to the best of my knowledge OR [not the usual AND] belief."
You see, French knew that the only thing in his affidavit he could honestly say he knew about was his own name and military service. Every other claim was based on what he heard from the Slow Boaters.
But that didn't stop him from using his affidavit to support his appearance in a nationally televised ad, where he said, "I served with John Kerry...He is lying about his record.”
See, this is what passes for truthtelling in Bingo's world.
Here's the actual excerpt from his affidavit:
"I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge OR [not the usual AND] belief"
You notice where he swore that ALL facts and statements contained in the affidavit were true and correct? Oops.
His whole idea is that French can't be accused of lying because he weasled the wording of his affidavit, to invent a new phrase "to the best of my knowledge OR [not the usual AND] belief."
No, my WHOLE idea is that French's affidavit withstands the malarkey that Boehlert (and you with your Google School of Law degree) either maliciously or ignorantly throws at it.
Pretty nice bit of lawyering I'd say.
Well except that you typically attribute Boehlert's claim to anyone else who points out Al French's basic dishonesty. And you know very well I have never made the same claim Boehlert does. That's, why that's .... sophistry!
Now you tell me Bingo, laying aside all other issues, did Al French swear that the contents of his affidavit were true and correct or not?
Uhm, did you notice he cut and pasted something he posted at a Boehlert thread - and didn't even bother to edit out the references to Boehlert's article?
Uhm...as you will note in the bottom right corner, this IS, apparently, a "Boehlert" article Hortense (which I actually didn't realize until you brought the subject up due to a lack of a "byline" )...and my copy/paste was from THIS article. Not surprising that you are confused since Beohlert apparently lifted this from his earlier piece. Apparently Mr. Boehlert likes the idea of peddling falsified versions of affidavits to make his points.
Or perhaps there's another MMFA "E.B." who is just as ignorant of facts as the "E.B." who penned this exercise in disinformation?
Oh Bingo, you're not pretending you're not dragging around the same raggedy cut and paste from thread to thread, are you?
And it's Bingo ! Recylcing his nonsequiturs!
Really, do you have a single original point that anybody cares about?
This one's been dragged around so much even the html tags are ragged.
Bingo, Bingo, Bingo.
You need to at least re-read the things you cut and paste from other threads.
You start off with a <blockquote> of an excerpt from Al French's affidavit and then say the affidavit is being misquoted. Yet it is the exact same wording as the excerpt you offer as the correct version.
Tch tch. I'm tempted to say that approaches...sophistry. But then I'd be an unoriginal hack.
ROFL...4 (count 'em, FOUR) EECEE frenzied "responses" trying to obfuscate the simple fact that the ENTIRE Boehlert premise on the "Al French" hoopla is based on a BOGUS (and emphasized) "cite" from French's affidavit. I love this place.
P.S. That's TWICE now that Boehlert has peddled his bogus Al French affidavit in these pages.
Have the acknowledgement and corrections been posted to the MMFA "Corrections" page yet?
Correction...
The first <blockquote> above was meant to contain the quote from this article, not my corrected version. That quote reads...
Your defense of what French did is as sleazy as what he did. I like in the county where he was asst. district attorney, and read the coverage about the t.v. ad and his affidavit. His defense of it was pathetic.
Another man who was willing to mislead people about Kerry, whom he never met.
Actually, he did meet Kerry in VN.
But he had zero firsthand knowledge of any of the actions for which Kerry won his awards. Zero.
(who spent 6-7 weeks in 'Nam, suffered a few minor scratches, got 'medaled-up, and flew out of 'Nam at the first opportunity he had to scram)
Pure Nonsense.
Kerry actually served his first tour onboard the U.S.S. Gridley, a missile cruiser which did patrol duty for almost a year and then VOLUNTEERED for a second tour of duty. He then did four months of his second tour as a swift boat commander.Funny how the liars for the Swiftboat Liars For Bush always lie about that claiming he was only involved in the Vietnam war for 6 or 7 weeks.
I've always wondered why the neo clowns and those who support them, who claim to be the party of honor, dignity, and so called family values always resort to lies, smears, sliming and plain old everyday dishonesty.
Remember how John O'Neill used to disparage the description of the time Kerry spent on a destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin as a "tour" of Vietnam?
Well, O'Neill turned his six weeks or so in a destroyer off the coast of VN into "much" of a two year period, and his total 15 months of service (including swift boat duty) into "almost three years" in VN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Neill_%28Vietnam_veteran%29
He did that a lot.
Correction. O'Neill served on a minesweeper off the coast of VN.
Of course their claims have been disproven, many times over. For instance:
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html
More to the point, neither Limbo nor anyone else can point to a single claim SBVT made about Kerry's military service that has been proven to be true.
Three reasons why Mr. Limbaugh should recuse himself of __any commentary__ regarding the military or the service of others in the military: 1. never served in the military. 2. is an admitted drug addict 3. keeping consistant with his own _espoused_ standards of conduct and morality.
Thus, to stay true to his own stated values he should humbly resign from broadcasting ...fat chance ...to bad Mr. Limbaugh cannot live by his own creed
oh, I forgot, like Mr. O, Mr. L is the type that can deny having made any sort of statement even when presented with an _exac_t quote, _fully_ in context and without question or ambiguous quality
not to mention that "flipflops" are over mis-under-rated
John Kerry spokesman David Wade issued the following statement in response to Rush Limbaughs comments: "At first i thought, that's not Rush, that's just the OxyContin talking. Nonetheless, this is a despicable but unsurprising new lie from a man whose closest brush with combat came when customs officials tried to take away his Viagra." I think he hit the nail on the head.
Oh God, really? I love it.
Snark city.
Here's another interesting tidbit about John (Puffy) O'Neil. In a Sept 20,2004 Article in Navy Times entitled; Lieutenants Bush and Kerry, What the records really show John Ellis O'Neils military record with Service dates/Assignments, Awards and Decorations are printed up for all to read.
O'Neil has a decoration that was not given to one live military person from the Cuban Missile Crsis '61/62, till service off the coast of Yemen, Oman, and Somalia in the Indian Ocean in Spring of 1979. This decoration is called the "Navy Expedtionary Medal." He was commissioned on 7 June 67, and discharged 4 June 71, so there was no way he could have earned this medal!
Why don't the SBVFT jump all over O'Neil's fat arse, for wearing a medal he doesn't rate? Anyone care to comment, especially the Kerry haters?
If any of you are interested, John Kerry lost the presidential election in 2004 to George W. Bush. I wish he would run again. He's almost as good for the GOP as Dukakis or MvGovern!
Yep, Bush won his first Prez election in 2004, Leading me and many others to wonder, how could that many American voters be that stupid?
Telling all one needs to know about the liberal attitude: those rubes out there are too dumb to know a good thing when they see it (Sen John F Kerry). They’re so dumb they believed the Swift Boat vets and Swift-boated poor old John.
And then, Mary59, maybe it’s the Kerry supporters who are too dumb to smell a liar.Well then, I'll ask you the same question I asked before.
Please name a single claim SBVT made about Kerry's military service that has been proven true.
Be specific.
EECE, I wouldn't hold my breath. Unless you're waiting for more links to FreeRepublic,
;0)
That would be a surprise.
For a long time I've been reading your posts and one thing that's always clear is your love and respect for the US Marine Corps/ US Navy.
I'm surprised that you accuse Senator Kerry of being a liar. Since the US Navy supports his record and since they agree that he was deserving of his medals, aren't you also accusing the US Navy of lying?
Worrier King,
The US Navy is not going to say that their record keeping was flawed. (C'mon, its bureacracy). It's who saw what and told the truth about it that counts.
As noted below, we can argue about it 'till Christmas and never agree on whose "facts" are correct. Please see what I consider the acid historical test below.
Caio for now. Have a good weekend.
Old Marine -- As I have said again and again, the overwhelming majority (or, in the case of the Silver Star, everyone) of those WHO WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT at the medal incidents either support Kerry receiving the award, and/or disagree with what the SBV"t" claims for that particular incident.
That's the reason he received the awards in the first place. I mean, this bit about the Navy not keeping good records, please, is that the best you can do?
Doug Reese
PS. The weekend is done over here. It's 4:45am Monday.
OldMarine -- Does that mean you are calling Kerry's crew liars? Just asking, because they were the ones who were with him, up-close-and-personal for all of the incidents for which he received a medal, and 100% of them back him (support him, whatever term one wishes to use) when it comes to him receiving those medals.
With very few exceptions, the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" were not there.
Doug Reese
OldMarine -- Does that mean you are calling Kerry's crew liars? Just asking,...
Just asking? Nice try Mr. Reese. While there are no absolutes, and, perhaps, much to your dismay, you'll be hard-pressed to support a case that the word "liar" has been or ever will be "liberally" directed towards anyone but Kerry...and that includes yourself. In fact, and as you are well aware, most anti-Kerry voices, to include my own, would concede a point before resorting to attacking the character and honor of Kerry-supporting fellow veterans which would be, almost invariably, the by-product of such an approach (and quite Phyrric anyway in the final analysis). In fact, the case against Kerry has depth and substance enough to support many such concessions should they be required...which they haven't. But you know that already Mr. Reese...so spare us the rhetorical gamesmanship.
Oh, and just in case you've been missing Coulter of late, she's recently identified the tactic as advancing the "unassailable victim" ploy. It's quite transparent Mr. Reese (though quite in vogue these days), rather cheap and tawdry. I had thought better of you.
With very few exceptions, the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" were not there.
ALL Vietnam Veterans, to include the Swift Vets and POWs for TRUTH, were "there" for and recipients of Kerry's post-Vietnam calumny, slander, sedition and treason. You remember that as well, don't you Mr. Reese? Rather unremarkably, Kerry seems to have neglected to remind us of it during his last campaign. In fact, his own VVAW brethren were quite critical of him in that regard. I wonder just why that was, don't you Mr. Reese?
By the way, on this Veteran's Day, let me take the opportunity to, again, thank you for your service to our Country. I am particularly grateful for the service of those veterans who served in the combat arms, which certainly includes you Mr. Reese...AND John Kerry.
This is dishonest. The Swift boaters were claiming to have first hand knowledge of his Vietnam service. Their attack ads were lies and distortions.
Now you are switching to the real reason that they attacked Kerry. They are angry that he spoke out against the war and quoted the winter soldiers who reported atrocities committed by soldiers while there.
If you want an honest debate about Vietnam, stick to his testimony and statements when he returned from Vietnam.
Further, there are many Vietnam Vets (I know many) who turned against the Vietnam war and are against the Iraq debacle.
This is dishonest. The Swift boaters were claiming to have first hand knowledge of his Vietnam service.
What universe are you living in Mary? Are you actually THAT uninformed on the issues relating to this dispute?
I seem to be more informed about this than you. All the swift boat claims about his medals and his actions in Vienam have been thoroughly debunked.
The rest of their statements are just opinion. And opinions vary.
Well, let's just pose this question to Slow Boat apologist Bingo:
Bingo, please name a single claim SBVT has made about Kerry's military service that has been proven true.
Be specific.
Bingo -- You know quite well that when I say "there", I was talking about the four incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals. Not "there" as in An Thoi, the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, the Pacific region, etc. "There" as in physically present at the site where the incident(s) occured.
Only about 3% of the SBV"t" total membership (7-8 out of 255) were "there", and had some sort of a problem with Kerry receiving the award(s). Of course none of the POWs were "there".
And yes, despite what you say, when someone calls Kerry a liar when referring to Kerry's service in Vietnam, in particular the medals -- they most certainly are calling his crew liars also. I can tell you that is certainly how his crew feels.
Doug Reese
Reese: I have just read this entire thread and want to thank you for all your posts. Your input is detailed, insightful, a very much-appreciated.
Bingo: You should be embarrassed. You seem to take special pride in the fact that no matter how many facts directly contradict your "opinion" that your opinion will never change. As Steven Colbert says "no amount of facts will ever change my opinion." Of course, when Colbert says it he is being facetious. By the way, your defense of the French affidavit was really ridiculous. If he had no personal knowledge of what he was testifying about, but only a "belief" as to its truth, then his affidavit is worthless. At least Another American cared about getting to learn the truth. You could care less. All you care about is spouting talking points. As I said, you should be embarrassed,
If he had no personal knowledge of what he was testifying about, but only a "belief" as to its truth, then his affidavit is worthless.
Tableing for a moment addressing the relative worth of "beliefs" expressed in an affidavit, your apparent belief that Mr. French expressed nothing based on personal knowledge is based upon...what?
Here's a link to Mr. French's affidavit...(see exhibit 2)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf
Take a look at it and get back to me...k?
How about you take a look at it and get back to me with an answer to the question I have posed to you more than once:
Did or did not Al French swear that all facts and statements contained in his affidavit were true and correct?
And that he was "able to swear" to that statement?
Bingo: French testified in his affidavit that Kerry obtained a purple heart under false pretenses from negligently self-inflicted grenade wounds in the absence of enemy fire. If he wasn't there, he would have no knowledge as to whether that was true. And the people who were there, the people on Kerry's boat, support him. Bottom line--French's affidavit would be thrown out in a court of law since he has no foundation for his testimony on how Kerry was hurt. And why do you have such disregard for the men who served with Kerry? They are the ones that are really being smeared here. Why do you and Rush Limbaugh hate the troops so much Bingo?
You are right. The French had no personal knowledge of anything to do with Kerry's combat experience that appears in his affidavit, and he said so.
Bingo is prevaricating as usual.
All very nice grounds for further debate and I'll be happy to engage. Unfortunately, however, unresponsive and irrelevant to the question I asked you. I'll try again.
You are, apparently, under the impression that that French's affidavit was devoid of facts based on personal knowledge. What is your basis for that determination?
Here is a link to Mr. French's affidavit...(see exhibit 2)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf
Get back to me after you've tried actually reading it this time...k?
If you're responding to me, you know perfectly well that I know what's in French's affidavit.
So let's try again with a straight answer to a very simple, straightforward question:
Did he or did he not swear that all facts and statements contained in his affidavit were true and correct?
PS, and if you're accusing me of claiming that the affidavit is "devoid" of information within his personal knowledge, you know perfectly well I have made no such claim, and have in fact pointed out the opposite.
...and you know perfectly well that I wasn't addressing you so take your strawmen elsewhere and stop insulting the intelligence of forum readers.
Way to avoid answering, again, and again, Bingo.
I wonder why?
Doug Reese
<i>By the way, your defense of the French affidavit was really ridiculous. If he had no personal knowledge of what he was testifying about, but only a "belief" as to its truth, then his affidavit is worthless.</i>
That was French's weasle room. However, he stated that he was "able to swear" and did swear, that "all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct."
Not true and correct according to his belief. But true and correct period. And that he was "able" to swear to that.
Of course the only thing in the affidavit he was "able" to swear as being true and correct was his personal information.
As to being "worthless" in addition to being false, you are correct in the legal sense. More important, those affidavits were waved to the world as supporting the truthfulness of the comments SBVT members made in the first anti-Kerry ad. (Otherwise, why have affidavits?)
Al French stood in front of the cameras and said "I served with John Kerry" and then "He is lying about his record."
Now why would they have someone stand up and say that if he had no personal knowledge of that "fact"? And why the implication that he could say it because he "served with John Kerry"?
And why support it with an affidavit that is, as you say, worthless in supporting a statement that Kerry lied about his record?
Good questions, wouldn't you say?
Of course the only thing in the affidavit he was "able" to swear as being true and correct was his personal information.
Let me preface my response with an acknowledgement that we both hold LLB degress from that noted, oft-cited and mis-cited institution, The Google School of Law.
It is a given, by definition, that an affiant is swearing to the "truth" of the contents of an affidavit...AS HE KNOWS THAT TRUTH TO BE...
While how an affiant arrives at a determination of "truth" expressed in an affidavit might be based on personal knowledge (which, I'd venture, has the highest legal weight and standing), a determination of "truth" can be legitimately expressed as a "belief" in the truth of something when based upon knowledge of the credible testimony of others in possession of relevant "personal knowledge".
An affiant knowingly and willingly places him/herself in legal jeopardy of perjury if the "personal knowledge" he attests to can be proven, judicially, to be unsupportable or if an expressed "belief" in an attested to "truth" can be proven to be without judicially determined and supportable foundation.
In short, you can carp all you want to in this or any other medium as to the relative merit of Mr. French's affidavit, but the ultimate challenge to Mr. French's affidavit (and CREDIBILITY) is a COURT OF LAW...of which neither John Kerry nor ANY of his representatives had the cajones to avail themselves. We know why.
And while we're on the subject of AFFIDAVITS, please direct me to the SWORN AFFIDAVIT of ANY of Kerry's supporters. Good luck in finding ONE. Unlike you, they understand the legal ramifications...and, apparently, wanted no part of it.
Bingo,
I enjoyed your response to the Kerry supporters. As one who gave generously to the Swift Boat Veterans it was refreshing to see the recitation of the case for Kerry being a liar and an opportunist.
Thank you for your service here on this left-wing blog - which is sinking slowly into the disrepute it deserves. Never again, after the Rush Limbaugh “troop hater” debacle, will Dingy Harry take what MMFA says on face value and run with it at his podium in the U.S., Senate.
On this day after the 232nd anniversary birthday party of the toughest, most dedicated fighting force fighting for love of country and liberty (via regime change), let me say to you, Sir:
Semper Fideles!
Oldmarine -
Thank you for your service.
Now, as a supporter of the SBVT, would you please answer a question I posed to you earlier, but which you may not have seen:
Please name a single claim SBVT has made about Kerry's military service that has been proven to be true.
EdCee,
Please see the response to Congero a few posts below.
Cheers! Have a good weekend.
OldMarine -
Thanks for your response. However, I see nothing in your response to the other poster that shows that a single claim SBVT made about Kerry's military service was proven true.
I see where you mentioned that Kerry did not sue the SBVT, but of course that is not proof of anything at all, much less that any of their claims are true.
So in case I missed it, could you please answer here?
What SBVT claims about Kerry's military record were actually proven to be true?
Thanks?
I meant "Thanks." not "Thanks?" -heh.
Well here you are, Bingo, responding to someone who didn't post to you. Yet you've not responded to my question to you, which I posted more than once, and will repeat here on the chance you missed it:
Did or did not Al French swear that all facts and statements contained in his affidavit were true and correct?
ALL Vietnam Veterans, to include the Swift Vets and POWs for TRUTH, were "there" for and recipients of Kerry's post-Vietnam calumny, slander, sedition and treason.
Tommy Franks said that Kerry was correct.
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/03/franks-on-kerry.html
Dougreese,
Please see replies to WarriorKing above and Congero below.
Take care and have a good weekend.
Same to you on the weekend . . . . .
But, well, you haven't really answered their questions. . . . nor a few others posed to you. Perhaps on Monday?
Doug Reese
Telling all one needs to know about the liberal attitude: those rubes out there are too dumb to know a good thing when they see it (Sen John F Kerry). They’re so dumb they believed the Swift Boat vets and Swift-boated poor old John.
And then, Mary59, maybe it’s the Kerry supporters who are too dumb to smell a liar. - oldmarine
Oooh, I smell one right now!
Maybe it's less that Kerry was so wonderful than that even by then W had been shown to be a complete and utter failure? I'm just saying...
AussieBob,
(Are you in the great country of Australia as we write? Got to get down there and see what’s going on before I kick. Love the Aussies; and those Aussies who remember the Pacific War in 1942 and ’43 love the U.S. Marine Corp and the U.S. Navy).
But, to the point of your post: "Bush an “utter failure”? Let’s see, under his leadership we’ve (a) kicked Al Queda’s butt from Afghanistan to the Phillipines to Iraq, (b) thwarted (so far) dozens of Islamist terror plots on both U.S. soil and in the EU, (c) thanks to the surge under his command and the heroic sacrifices of our gallant troops, are very close to handing over the policing of Iraq completely to the Iraqis (in spite of a continuous effort by the Democrats in congress to get us defeated), (d) defeated the SCHIP ‘stealth’ national health care bill, and (e) got his attorney general nominee appointed in spite of McKasey’s obvious desire, unlike Democrat supporters in the government, to keep interrogation methods out of the pages of the NYT.
Hey, even Feinstein who has apparently known Bush for a long time, said publicly that she [had just last week while flying on Air Force One discovered] that she very much liked him, and liked what he had to say about Iraq and a lot of other subjects. (Of course, Feinstein is up for reelection this year and, like many Democrats, is a bit worried about the consistently terrible polling on the Democrat controlled congress). I’d call that pretty successful.
Bush’s one big failing IMHO is that he tried too hard on too many occasions to reach bi-partisan consensus with Democrats. I hope the next Republican president doesn’t make that mistake.I need some help out there from the legions of SBVFT supporters: can any of you direct me where on the WWW, I can find a picture of W, "The Hero of Firebase Montgomery, Ala" in a picture with his "Band of Brothers", the other servicemen Bush served with during "The Siege of Firebase Montgomery?"
Mercado,
Happy to help.
Ever here of an F-102? This was a high altitude interceptor built in the 50’s, followed by the F-106. It had a pretty good (for those days) on-board radar and climbed pretty fast. Its purpose was to shoot down Soviet bombers should they attack the U.S. mainland or Europe. Bush flew one of these as an AF National Guard pilot. Bush didn’t see any action because, well, the USSR never mounted a bomber attack on us or our European allies.
Ronald Reagan said of a question from a reporter about the possible outcome of Cold War tensions between us and the Soviet Union “Easy. We win. They lose.” If you want to see what life was like in East Germany as the wall came down, check out last year’s award winning German film: “The Lives of Others”.
Those of us who did not serve in combat have the greatest respect and admiration AND LOVE for our buddies who did. I’ve often wondered how many of my 1952 Camp Pendleton combat training buddies did not survive the Korean campaign.
We joined to preserve liberty and, in spite of mush-headed liberals trying to re-write history, it has worked pretty well so far.Bush saw no action because at the time, no one, I repeat, no one, joined the NG with the expectation that they'd be sent to Vietnam.
It's the supporters of GWB who are re-writing history. You're purposely avoiding the posts by a man who lived that history.
We're not interested in the abilities of the F-106. That has no bearing on the subject at hand.
If you want to go off topic, let's discuss Mr. Bush's, Mr. Cheney's, Mr. Limbaugh's and the rest of those who were of age but chose not to serve, reasons for supporting a war that they chose to avoid.
GWB actually checked the "no" box in the part of his application that asked if he wanted overseas duty.
I was going to put that in my post, but couldn't find the link.
I had it bookmarked but I think it was on my old computer. I'd appreciate it if anyone has the link to this.
Thanks.
Well, you can probably find a few by running a Google image search. Here's just one I pulled up:
http://www.smithersmpls.com/graphics/bushfile.gif
Thanks EECEE. That's what I was looking for.
I don't remember them offering me something like that to sign when I was drafted back in 1969.
Oh, to anybody who actually is defending Al French in this...
He swore under oath what amounts to hearsay. He has no first-hand knowledge of this, and being a lawyer, he even knows that it's hearsay. "I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but someone told me this, so it must be true."
For those who don't know, Hearsay is an out of court statement, offered in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is never admitted except in certain circumstances. Al French offered an out-of-court scuttlebutt in a legally binding document to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That is nothing but hearsay.
You're defending a prosecutor (former now) who signed a legally binding statement that he knows that he'd never be allowed to testify to in a court of law. Yeah, that's real strong evidence.
Former prosecutor? He finally signed off?
Good news for the citizens of Clackamas County if so.
Bingo it amazes me how you can be so outraged at JK Viet Nam service yet not apply the same scrutiny to GWB. John Kerry was in Viet Nam on a swift boat and saw action,that is irrefutable! Where was GWB? Your allegations about JK have been wonderfully debunked by DougReese and others on this site and by MM yet you continue to spew your filth and innuendo's proving the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The lieboaters were a distraction,"Ignore the man behind the curtain," while Jk was in Viet Nam our President was protecting us from the Viet Cong in Houston in the Texas Air National Guard. He got that position jumping over 1000's of more qualified canidates with help from his father. He got in the guard because then unlike now, being in the guard meant getting out of Viet Nam. The best that can be said about GWB's military record is that he was a zero,zip no show in Alabama. He didn't even fulfill his National Guard Service. Greg Palast in Armed Madhouse debunks this whole sordid episode,so I point you there and won't go into more detail other than to say you fell for the diversion. They (Karl Rove et.al.,)knew they couldn't compete with John Kerry's military record, and they knew their were some anger about his testimony concerning U.S. military attrocities(he was right)that they could use to try to at least cast doubt on his service. You swallowed it. I won't say it worked totally because I think that John Kerry actually won(Voting irregularities in Ohio)as did Al Gore before him. We have had had two stolen presidential elections in the last 7 years; a coup de tat. But that doesn't faze you at all! Instead you call a decorated war hero a "coward" and celebrate a man who dodged military service, I find that irrational, and absurd!
Demonstrating once again the love of liberals for history shaped and fashioned for their comfort.
Ever ask yourself why Kerry hasn’t successfully sued the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth given that, as liberals and Democrats (an oxy moron?) claim “they lied”?First off. Let's see a few things. You're stating that people are telling the truth if they aren't sued by the people that they lie about. So, if I go out and publicly say that you're an alien from Jupiter (who is actually more stupider), and you don't sue me, does that make you an alien from Jupiter?
See the fundamental flaw with your argument? He may have thought that it wasn't worth his time, or spending the millions of dollars in court costs that this would have brought. That doesn't mean that the SBVT are actually telling the truth.
FACT - None of the SBVT could even testify in court to what actually happened at those events, as none of them were actually there.
FACT - People who were actually there (such as Doug Reese, and Jim Rasmuesenn) have stood up and said that the SBVT are lying.
And using your own argument. Notice how the SBVT didn't sue either Doug Reese or Jim Rassmann. Therefore, both Doug Reese and Jim Rassmann are telling the truth. See the fundamental flaw in your argument?
Actually, they (the SBV"t") had a few people at one of the medal incidents, and one at another, who disagreed with what Kerry, his crew, others present, and/or the Navy said happened.
As I stated earlier, they were either a minority of those present, or they had no one . . . depending on the incident.
Doug Reese
PS. Hey, Bingo, do I have to ask the Al French question for you to answer it :)
Old Marine: That is a terrible argument. As was very artuculately pointed out above in response to this same argument, there are many good reasons not to sue--the first being that Kerry was immersed in an election and a lawsuit would make the story bigger, and it could never have gone to trial in time to make a difference. But to suggest that no lawsuit means something is true is just silly. Has George W. sued anyone who claims he deliberately lied about WMDs? Oh, it must be true then. Thank you for finally clearing that up.
What history am I shaping old marine? Since Kerry didn't sue that means their correct? What kind of logic is that? Sounds more to me like lazy reasoning! Show me where they were right! This site has debunked their lies and so has DougReese. The burden of proff is on the accuser. Be specific and point out it out for me! PLEASE! Otherwise it si you that is trying to rewrite history. GWB hasn't sued either but thats because he doesn't have a case. Facts my firend are stubborn things,show me some!GB waiting for a Soviet attack--is that why he didn't take his physical in Alabama! Hilarious if not insane! I'll be waiting for although not holding my breath for your proof. Happy veterans day!
Congero…,
Logic: I’m John Kerry and the Swift Boaters have lied about my service in Viet Nam. They’ve gone on TV, published advertisements in newspapers, and even written a book [or two for all I know]. I’ve got the bucks (or at least my wife does) and I can afford to take these lying sob’s to court, get a settlement, and, more importantly, clear my name with the voting public. But I don’t do it.
You can argue your facts against mine ‘till we’re both blue in the face. It’s what has happened or not happened that is THE historical indicator of who is lying. Think about it.
As for Bush, it’s your liberal-version-of-history “facts” against mine. You probably still believe Bill Burkette’s claim about Bush’s National Guard service just as did Dan Rather until they canned him for going way over the line in taking the word of an idiot Democrat party political hack without checking out the story.
You people have lost it. You’re beyond misinformed. You’re pathetic.
OldMarine, sorry to say, what you are writing is b.s. As many other people have pointed out previously, the weak rebuttal that Kerry could have sued the swift boat people doesn't prove anything. As professional Kerry smearer Bingo bounces from blog to blog, he is careful not to say anything that is technically grounds for libel. The Swift boaties did the same. If that is your standard for good conduct, I feel sorry for you.
Mr. Burkett was probably set up (my guess; I can't prove it) with false documents, which he brought to CBS (their bad for not authenticating) Considering how Drudge had the "fake documents" story up before the 60 minutes program aired, I think there was some Karl Rove involved. The secretary said she didn't type the documents, but that they were similar in content to others; meaning it is 99% likely that Bush was awol for national guard service.
You have an opinion but no facts. We have the facts to back up our opinion.
My poor friend, your argument really is foolish as others have pointed out. Oldmarine facts are not democratic or republican their objective. I won't go into all the facts about GB's national guard service or lack of, but Dan Rather story was true he used a document that couldn't be authenticated,in oother word could not be proven true or false and still hasn't but thats another story. The truth is that they didn't even need that document to prove that GW got preferential treatment to get in the guard and while in the guard and that he didn't take a flight physical in Alabama, which grounded him, and that their is no record of him performing his duties in Alabama. I think their is a $10,000 reward for someone that can verify his service there, as of yet no-one has claimed it. Isn't that curious! You would think one person would come forward to help him out ,as of yet zippo! By your own logic(if thats what you can call it) that alone makes him guiltty since he hasn't sued! But again that document did not go to the heart of the matter and the story hasn't been debunked. That my old marine friend is not republican or democratic fact but just the plain truth.
Congero,
Okay. I take it we're now through discussing the Swift Boat Veterans and are back to Bill Burkett's totally refuted claim about Bush's National Gurad service. Bush missed a physical in Alabama. No question about it. Other than that, his record of attendance was excellent according to his commander.
Did he pull strings to get in the Air National Guard? Maybe and maybe not. I've never really seen any good (non-partisan) research on that.
We may have to wait for either his memoirs or some insider "tell all" book.
BINGO,
If you're still out there and not watching a football game or the NASCAR race in Phoenix, please set us straight on this.
(I know it's a very long shot but Go, San Diego!)
Old Marine,
As one who served in the Corps from March '66 - July '69, and am rated 100% by the VA, and was Medically Retired from the Corps, on 22 July '69 don't try and blow smoke up my arse! What's the big deal about a picture you have of a F-102, the jet Bush trained in and flew in ! Any honor and respect was lost for Bush when he deserted his fellow Guardsmen in time of war!
You and nobody else can produce a single airman he served with after he deserted the Texas National Guard, for there are no pictures of Bush with "His Band Of Brothers" in Montgomery, because he wasn't there, period end of story!
Quit living a lie Old Marine, didn't the Corps teach you anything about Respect, Honor and Duty?
If you are a former Marine: From one Old Marine to a Older Marine, Happy Birthday and Semper Fi!
Mercado,
Happy Birthday and Semper Fi! Thank you for your service. I’m sorry to hear of your disability which makes your service especially honorable to the rest of us.
Tell you what, I won’t blow smoke up “your arse” and you don’t blow smoke up mine. Bush missed a physical. Anything beyond that is liberal smoke. His commander said he served honorably. If you believe Bill Burkett, then you’re ignoring the truth about Burkett: he’s a proven liar. You take your version and I’ll take mine.
As for your comments regarding “respect, honor, and duty”, I do respect your service and I honor it. I’ve given a lot more to the Wounded Marines Charity (San Diego – Camp Pendleton) and the Veterans of Foreign Wars than I gave to the Swift Boaters, so I put my money where my mouth is and do my duty.
How about you? I’m curious as to how you became a Democrat supporter.
Old Marine,
Never said I was a Dem Supporter. Bush missed more than a physical and you know it , the Country knows it, and the world knows it.
How many Marines under you, would you have allowed to miss a physical and then disappear, until it's about time to get out the Corps? How long would you have covered for Bush, in your Corps, like you are today? It's okay to back the wrong man, but it takes a bigger man to own up to it and quit covering his arse, like you do!
Semper Fi again, Old Marine
oldmarine you know there is more to this Bush story than missing a physical! Yes he got preferential treatment to get into the guard. He jumped over 1000's of canidates ahead of him and with flight experience of which he had none.. He scored 1 point above the lowest score needed to qualify 26 out of 100 and then he didn't even fulfill his obligation. Why did he chose the guard? To get out of going to Viet Nam! Others not so well off or connected went in his place alot of them came back maimed or not at all,! Tell me if you skip a physical and you are grounded but your a pilot how is that then serving your country? While your brothers are fighting and dying for their country you skip out on them and don't show up for duty,others take the spot you should have and they don't come back,or come back injured physically,mentally or both and you an oldmarine(of all people)think that that is admirable,and instead get whacked out over someone who did show up, fought and was commended for his actions. I'am no big Kerry supporter but right is right! He stood by his brothers under fire, where was GWB? A pilot that misses a flight physical in time of war and becomes grounded is not serving his country, and I think that speaks more about his character than all the lies the slowboaters have tried to peddle about JK. How you as a former serviceman could accept this is beyond reason! Go Chargers and take the Padres with you. Happy veterans day!
oh and oldmarine Diane Fienstein is not up for re-election until 2012 when she will be 80 yrs old! You must be pretty frustrated being a Charger and I assume Padre fan. Wow how many combined championships .None! Opps! Anyway again happy Veterans Day to all!