Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
OK, fair enough. I stand corrected. Apologies to you.bdoughty wrote:And with that I agree, it is bull*hit. I implied that the democrats are crying that you are wasting your vote, helping the republicans.Brent:
That's bullsh*t, with all due respect.
Last I checked I was neither a Liberal or a Democrat.
John:J_Cauthen wrote:Amen to that PK! I've voted Libertarian in the last 5 elections, and I'm more confident in my vote for Badnarik than I have been at any time in the past. I'm sick of getting my face washed with "why are you throwing your vote away on someone who can't possibly win!?" by my fiends. That dog just will not hunt in my book. My guy can't win if I don't vote for him, that's for sure. Badnarik and the Libertarians understand and respect the Constitution, and that's something I honestly can't say for Bush, Kerry, or Nader. Being a Libertarian requires some responsibility on the part of the citizen; something that the Republicans and Democrats are trying to convince you that you can't handle.pk500 wrote:That's bullsh*t, with all due respect. Guys like FatP and I are voting for Badnarik because we honestly believe he's the best man to run the country.
I could care less who my vote for Badnarik helps or hurts as long as it helps Michael Badnarik. My vote for Badnarik isn't a protest vote; it's a vote for the candidate I believe is best-suited to be the President of the United States.
And "hawkish" foreign policy will be the core of Bush's campaign. In other words, the war that he lied and deceived the American public to start.tealboy03 wrote:"The question of John Kerry's valor on a Swift Boat 36 years ago is more important than present, pressing issues like the economy, the Iraq War, abortion, the environment, jobs, education, etc."
If he lied about important events then to get medals, what makes anyone think he won't lie to get the presidency now? 10 million jobs?! I'd like to see how. Empty promises, but I'm sure many of his constituency are fine with just the rhetoric- evidently they don't need to see the hard copy of how he intends to do some of these things he says that he "will do". If the man lied about all of this Vietnam stuff (for political gain) then this is far more of a valid questioning than some of you want to believe. And I say ad nauseum that none of this would have been an issue if not for Kerry insisting that this be the front and center issue of his campaign- go blame him...
Where'd you grab that one?! Kerry REALLY needs to use this in the debates. Hell, even Kerry hasn't flailed about like this... 
Oh, ok... 
I address this on page 10 of the thread.tealboy03 wrote: © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Amid questions about one of John Kerry's combat "V" decorations, unearthed remarks by the senator eight years ago reveal he judged an admiral's allegedly false awards as a serious offense that disqualified him from leadership.
.....
Of Boorda and his apparent violation, Kerry said: "When you are the chief of them all, it has to weigh even more heavily."
As WorldNetDaily reported, two researchers contend Kerry's Silver Star has an unauthorized "V" for valor which "makes it facially false and at variance with official government records." That's because Silver Stars are given for gallantry and never are accompanied with a combat "V," which would be redundant. But Kerry's DD 214, or "Report of Transfer and Separation," displayed on his website, shows the "V."
That's what's frustrating about this. People can either address the counter argument presented to the point...or they can keep repeating the same claims, even when people have presented arguments against it. (And I'm not the only one to talk about the Combat V point....Brando addressed this point as well.)First, none of us have said that the historical evidence is unimpeachable. If you want to attack straw men, go somewhere else. Secondly, this article seems to claim that it was impossible to get a Silver Star w/Combat V in Vietnam. So I did a quick Google search on this. Seems like others have gotten this as well:
http://home.att.net/~jimarmstrong/seabee/Seabee.htm
http://cap139.homestead.com/CAP139Yearbook1970.html
So it was either a fairly common mistake made on official records, or it WAS given during Vietnam, OR these people are lying. Which is it?
True...though he never says that he exaggerated them (although I'm sure it's possible). If the only evidence from this situation was the spot report, then MAYBE. But there are multiple documents regarding things like the Bronze Star battle that all support Kerry's story, as well as testimony from other surviving Swift Vets that support his story.FatPitcher wrote:Kerry admits writing "many" spot reports on which official documentation is based. He also admits that these were often exaggerated. See his 1971 Senate testimony.
Do you have a transcript or link to the tape? And this isn't a challenge...I wasn't sure if this report was taken out of context or not...I've been looking for the transcript/audio file, but haven't found it.O'Neill said in 1971 talking to Nixon "I was in Cambodia--I was on the border." If you listen to the tape, he misspoke and corrected it a second later. How long did it take Kerry to "clear up" his Cambodia tales?
And this is just one example of Swift Vet flip-flops.In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon.
......
In an interview Sunday on ABC's "This Week" O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
The people that said things like "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers" and "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down isThe two people that supported Kerry against charges of war crimes (NOT the validity of his medals) did so before Tour of Duty came out and made them realize that Kerry was stringing everyone along. When everyone got together and discussed it, they put all the pieces of the puzzle together, whereas before they as individuals did not have the full picture.
No evidence that he was denied by the Purple Heart, just 35 year old memories. As for this purple heart, they saw someone and started firing. Kerry said that he wasn't sure if they had shot back or not, or if the shrapnel came from friendly fire or not. Either way, you can get a Purple Heart from friendly fire when engaging with the enemy. Here's a good article that debunks the Swift Vets story about the 1st Purple Heart.Kerry's diary says he had not been shot at yet, 8 days after he wanted a purple heart for being "wounded" by a sliver of grenade fragmentation from his own grenade. The Unfit for Command version of the story is supported by a flag officer who is not part of SBVT and who gave a very credible interview. Kerry was denied this Purple Heart by both the OinC, the medical officer, and his CO.
I agree that he should release his full documents. If he keeps doing this, it seems like he's hiding something. And I can understand how some people will be suspicious about this. (Although Bush also hasn't filled a Standard Form 180, and the people that rail about Kerry and SF180 seem to go silent regarding Bush and SF 180.) However, the burden of proof is on the Swift Vets, and they so far haven't done a good job of providing much evidence for any of their claims.He eventually got it months later; no one knows how and he won't release the relevant documents. It's easy to call people liars when you have the the absolute proof locked away. He has a lot of documents up on his web site; if they supported his version of the story, he would release them. Common sense. Also, the fact that no after-action report on the incident was filed means that there was no enemy contact.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231Third Purple Heart/Bronze Star - Kerry's diary says his butt wound was from blowing up a rice cache with no enemy around. His other "wound" was a bruise on his arm. Neither of those qualify for a Purple Heart.
Bleeding arm from a mine blast, and he's not eligible for a Purple Heart? And his bruise was described with bleeding and a contusion. I have no idea what the bruise actually was, but the official reports make it seem like it was more than just a bruise.And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.
The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.
Do you have links to stuff where he says all the other boats fled and he stayed (and this isn't a challenge....I haven't seen this stuff so I'm curious). Though you're exaggerating the "fled" part, as no one knows how far Kerry went when he "fled"....it seems like he left the ambush zone, turned around and came back while craft were still under fire (consistent with the description in the citations and after action reports).Kerry used to claim (Senate testimony '98, Tour of Duty, No Man Left Behind) that all the other boats fled and he stayed. Now we know from all other crew members' testimony, including all those left from Kerry's boat, that Kerry fled, the other boats stayed and rescued #3 and its crew, and that damage control and setting up for tow took about an hour.
Who says that Kerry went 5000 meters away? Who says that the bullet holes in the ship were from action earlier in the mission? And what primary historical evidence backs these claims up?Did the enemy fire suddenly stop (outgoing fire was between 40sec and 2 min, depending on who you believe, and there was definitely no enemy fire when they stopped) when they realized that the boats were sitting ducks? Doesn't make sense. Was the enemy fire so inaccurate that there were no bullet holes in any of the ships except 3 in Thurlow's from action earlier in the mission? Not likely...but then again, they were all shooting at Rassman, who was a perfect witness to the incident as he dove as deep in the river as he could...right? Did Kerry run away, go 5000 meters, come back and get Rassman within 40sec-2 min? Not physically possible.
I think he should release his records. But I'm going to call someone a liar IF the evidence is against him. You bring up him changing his story; yes, he did on a DATE going to Cambodia. The "tons of evidence" consists almost solely of 35 year old memories. In Kerry's support, he's got witnesses that agree with his account. And the primary historical evidence (multiple after action reports, Bronze Star citations for multiple people) supports Kerry. What we've got is just a bunch of 35-year-old memories from people that are pissed off at Kerry for being part of VVAW. Written by a man who debated Kerry during Vietnam and never questioned his service then (along with everyone else) and another man who is a fringe sexist/racist.Anyway, there is a possibility you are right, Jared. However, if I'm going to call someone a liar, it's going to be the guy hiding his records, who's already changed his story, who's got a ton of evidence and eyewitnesses against him. If he wants to show he's not a liar, he can release his records and he's chosen not to do that except in cases where they support him, which is all the more telling about the records he ISN'T releasing.
Pot to kettleP.S. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know...
It doesn't support the SBVT; it simply removes the argument that the "official Navy documents" support Kerry, as his spot reports were likely the source of those documents. (Other characteristics of the reports point to Kerry as well, such as the use of metric measurements, the focus on Kerry's actions, the style and diction used, etc.)Jared wrote:True...though he never says that he exaggerated them (although I'm sure it's possible). If the only evidence from this situation was the spot report, then MAYBE. But there are multiple documents regarding things like the Bronze Star battle that all support Kerry's story, as well as testimony from other surviving Swift Vets that support his story.FatPitcher wrote:Kerry admits writing "many" spot reports on which official documentation is based. He also admits that these were often exaggerated. See his 1971 Senate testimony.
And anyways, this only supports the Swift Vets if you assume that Kerry is a liar. From browsing the Swift Vet forums, it seems like that's what people are operating on.
I don't. I heard it on TV...someone was giving O'Neill a hard time about it until he made them play the rest of it.Do you have a transcript or link to the tape? And this isn't a challenge...I wasn't sure if this report was taken out of context or not...I've been looking for the transcript/audio file, but haven't found it.O'Neill said in 1971 talking to Nixon "I was in Cambodia--I was on the border." If you listen to the tape, he misspoke and corrected it a second later. How long did it take Kerry to "clear up" his Cambodia tales?
But regardless, what I referred to regarding O'Neill wasn't him talking to Nixon but his self-contradiction within the same week (this was originally on page 9 of the thread:
The first quote is referring to his second duty station (something Creek?), where Kerry was NOT stationed.In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon.
......
In an interview Sunday on ABC's "This Week" O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
That's a bit off. These guys hadn't actually been on the river with Kerry. They were further up the chain of command--they knew about his medals only from the citations they signed (which were based on the after-action reports) and other second-hand knowledge. So when they were defending him, all they had to go on was those citations and reports and such. Now they're pissed at him because of falsifications in Tour of Duty and whatnot.The people that said things like "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers" and "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down isThe two people that supported Kerry against charges of war crimes (NOT the validity of his medals) did so before Tour of Duty came out and made them realize that Kerry was stringing everyone along. When everyone got together and discussed it, they put all the pieces of the puzzle together, whereas before they as individuals did not have the full picture.
something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage." did this based on their own experience (I'm assuming) in 1996. Then others told them things, and they changed their minds. So basically, they heard stories from others about things they didn't experience, and then changed their minds. So how worthwhile is their testimony about Kerry's behavior if it be changed that easily?
There was no enemy and no enemy fire. No after action report. No enemy spotted. Just some outbound fire at nothing. Kerry knew it and that's why he said he hadn't been fired at for the first 9 days in his journal. Same reason Cleland doesn't have a purple heart--non-combat accident. Everyone who could have recommended him for a Purple Heart declined = Hibbard (CO), Schachte (OinC), and Letson (Doc). Somehow he got one anyway. Who let it through? We don't know, because Kerry won't release that information. We do know from the 3 eyewitness accounts that it was treated with a band-aid. Would be nice to have his medical record available, too.No evidence that he was denied by the Purple Heart, just 35 year old memories. As for this purple heart, they saw someone and started firing. Kerry said that he wasn't sure if they had shot back or not, or if the shrapnel came from friendly fire or not. Either way, you can get a Purple Heart from friendly fire when engaging with the enemy. Here's a good article that debunks the Swift Vets story about the 1st Purple Heart.Kerry's diary says he had not been shot at yet, 8 days after he wanted a purple heart for being "wounded" by a sliver of grenade fragmentation from his own grenade. The Unfit for Command version of the story is supported by a flag officer who is not part of SBVT and who gave a very credible interview. Kerry was denied this Purple Heart by both the OinC, the medical officer, and his CO.
http://diodon349.com/Politics_2004/john ... _heart.htm
They have a ton of eyewitness accounts, which combined with the absence of documentation (Cambodia, after action report on 1st PH, etc.) and contradictions in Kerry's own statements/biography are very compelling to me. You should also understand that officers (and enlisted, but not as much) in the military take pride in being men of their word and that there are extremely harsh penalties in the UCMJ for the various forms of lying. I find it amusing that the press thinks that a flag officer (admiral, in the Navy) would lie because he's a registered Republican trying to help Bush. You just don't make it that far without being straight as a ruler. (Boorda's suicide when a minor embellishment to his medals was discovered reflects how much these guys value their integrity.) Again, if Kerry's records supported his claims, they'd be out already. My suspicion is that not only do they not support his claims, but they contain damaging info that no one has brought up. Maybe a psych evaluation for his sleepwalking or something like that, or negative comments on the FITREP pages that are missing from his web site.
I agree that he should release his full documents. If he keeps doing this, it seems like he's hiding something. And I can understand how some people will be suspicious about this. (Although Bush also hasn't filled a Standard Form 180, and the people that rail about Kerry and SF180 seem to go silent regarding Bush and SF 180.) However, the burden of proof is on the Swift Vets, and they so far haven't done a good job of providing much evidence for any of their claims.
[http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231Third Purple Heart/Bronze Star - Kerry's diary says his butt wound was from blowing up a rice cache with no enemy around. His other "wound" was a bruise on his arm. Neither of those qualify for a Purple Heart.
I don't think a rice bin qualifies as "enemy equipment." From UfC's description of the incident (Thurlow was present), Kerry was just screwing around and blowing up food supplies wasn't something they were supposed to do.And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.
The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.
Contusions don't bleed-blunt trauma. Note that the Purple Heart writeup says bruise and is taken from medical evaluation, and the Bronze Star citations says bleed and is taken from a much less credible source medically (either Kerry or Rassman). The underwater mines used by the VC didn't fragment (waterproofed C4 remotely detonated). And Kerry's story on whether his boat was hit by a mine doesn't hold water--in his 1998 eulogy for a crewmate in the Senate, he claimed his boat went up 2 feet in the air when a mine went off under it. Oops, that was PCF-3. His boat would have been in no condition to tow the disabled PCF-3 (which was definitely hit by a mine, and went several feet in the air), especially since there were 3 other boats in fine condition that could do the towing. Kerry changed his story to being hit by a rocket, but the damage report on his boat (it might still be on Kerry's site) doesn't bear that out. The general consensus among bloggers is that he hit something in the water, like a log, or simply made a fast turn, and Rassman fell out (and Kerry hit his arm on something).Bleeding arm from a mine blast, and he's not eligible for a Purple Heart? And his bruise was described with bleeding and a contusion. I have no idea what the bruise actually was, but the official reports make it seem like it was more than just a bruise.
Do you have links to stuff where he says all the other boats fled and he stayed (and this isn't a challenge....I haven't seen this stuff so I'm curious). Though you're exaggerating the "fled" part, as no one knows how far Kerry went when he "fled"....it seems like he left the ambush zone, turned around and came back while craft were still under fire (consistent with the description in the citations and after action reports).Kerry used to claim (Senate testimony '98, Tour of Duty, No Man Left Behind) that all the other boats fled and he stayed. Now we know from all other crew members' testimony, including all those left from Kerry's boat, that Kerry fled, the other boats stayed and rescued #3 and its crew, and that damage control and setting up for tow took about an hour.
It's in Tour of Duty. Kerry says in his report "boats rcv'd heavy A/W and S/A from both banks. Fire continued for about 5000 meters." Since everyone else stayed put, it seems logical that Kerry was the only one who braved this gauntlet of death, turned around, and braved it again, all in the space of 2 minutes and without any bullet holes in his boat.Who says that Kerry went 5000 meters away? Who says that the bullet holes in the ship were from action earlier in the mission? And what primary historical evidence backs these claims up?Did the enemy fire suddenly stop (outgoing fire was between 40sec and 2 min, depending on who you believe, and there was definitely no enemy fire when they stopped) when they realized that the boats were sitting ducks? Doesn't make sense. Was the enemy fire so inaccurate that there were no bullet holes in any of the ships except 3 in Thurlow's from action earlier in the mission? Not likely...but then again, they were all shooting at Rassman, who was a perfect witness to the incident as he dove as deep in the river as he could...right? Did Kerry run away, go 5000 meters, come back and get Rassman within 40sec-2 min? Not physically possible.
Kerry contradicts himself, his crew contradicts him, his biography contradicts him, his journals contradict him. He's already backpedaled on several accounts, the former SECNAV Lehman says that one of Kerry's Silver Star citations with Lehman's signature is a phony, and far more eyewitness accounts disagree with Kerry than agree with him. I can't say he's guilty of everything he's accused of, but he's guilty of what he's admitted so far, and I'm willing to give SBVT the benefit of the doubt on the rest as long as Kerry is hiding his records. He could make it all go away very easily, but instead he commits political suicide by bringing up the charges against him in the press, having his surrogates do the same thing (both of which are no-no's when it comes to political scandals), and then not even addressing the charges. If he's willing to take that lump instead of releasing his records, he's hiding something big. As I said before, there's probably more harmful stuff in there than what's been talked about thus far.I think he should release his records. But I'm going to call someone a liar IF the evidence is against him. You bring up him changing his story; yes, he did on a DATE going to Cambodia. The "tons of evidence" consists almost solely of 35 year old memories. In Kerry's support, he's got witnesses that agree with his account. And the primary historical evidence (multiple after action reports, Bronze Star citations for multiple people) supports Kerry. What we've got is just a bunch of 35-year-old memories from people that are pissed off at Kerry for being part of VVAW. Written by a man who debated Kerry during Vietnam and never questioned his service then (along with everyone else) and another man who is a fringe sexist/racist.Anyway, there is a possibility you are right, Jared. However, if I'm going to call someone a liar, it's going to be the guy hiding his records, who's already changed his story, who's got a ton of evidence and eyewitnesses against him. If he wants to show he's not a liar, he can release his records and he's chosen not to do that except in cases where they support him, which is all the more telling about the records he ISN'T releasing.
If the Swift Vets had any substantial primary evidence on their side, then I'd be more likely to take their claims seriously. But they don't. The burden of proof here is on the accusers, not the accusee.
Teddy Roosevelt running for the "Bull Moose" party in 1912 had the best showing of any third-party candidate since 1900. He actually finished second, losing to Woodrow Wilson but beating the Republican incumbent William Howard Taft. Perot got 19% in 1992, about half that in 1996. John Anderson only received just under 7% in 1980, despite having a fairly high profile in that election (I can still remember ads for him). George Wallace had 12.9% in 1968 and won 46 electoral votes, which is always the greatest challenge for the independents.wco81 wrote:Anyone know what is the highest percentage vote that an independent party has drawn in the last century? Was Nader the highest? John Anderson? Perot?
Is there any sign that a third party is building support each successive election or over time? Is there any progress at any level of govt. or at least at the grass roots level?
It seems the third-party vote spikes when a "name" figure like Nader or Perot runs and draws enough coverage to get into the electoral consciousness. Also costly enough traveling the country campaigning, building up even the most basic grass-roots organizations. Never mind advertising to at least attempt to compete for attention. Because the sad thing is, just getting your name known to as many voters may be enough to capture a certain percentage of the vote.
The only way a third party may become big enough to threaten the two major parties is to so compromise itself and whore for contributions that whatever virtue it had to distinguish itself from the two major parties may no longer exist.
The ironic thing is that people who consider themselves independents are now almost at parity with the Republicans and Democrats. So if these are truly independents, there is a market for a third party. Of course the indepent electorate is fragmented but still big enough maybe to support a base of politicians to run for office. There certainly are a lot of people who have "pox on both your houses" attitude like that displayed here towards both major parties.
It might be at the legislative level that a third party could wield some significant influence, kind of like the parliamentary systems in Europe and Israel. But somehow, the two major parties would find a way to muscle out any new player. If you think about it, the two major parties are coalitions in a way. They each have various constituencies spanning a relatively broad portion of the ideological spectrum.
Sour grapes over what? Seriously, I don't understand what you mean by that.tealboy03 wrote:"This election is simply a case of Tweedle-Dee vs. Tweedle-Dum -- insert either candidate in either spot."
...Sour grapes...
