Legit Reviews

"Swiftees" respond to Kerry


Can you read this and tell any of these 18 men they are wrong about Kerry? Kerry shouldn't even be a Senator ~~ he should be court-martialed.



Swift Boat Quotes about John Kerry


"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book 'Tour of Duty.' We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief." -- John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth



"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command." -- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth


"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families. Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'" -- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)


"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less." -- Andrew Horne


[Unable to display image]"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief." -- Jeffrey Wainscott


"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuingnot lose one major battle. We lost the war at home ... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General." -- Robert Elder

"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened. Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..." -- Joseph Ponder .


"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom. Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties." -- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)


. "Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflictforces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry gave numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violate the law of war by those within the chain of command. Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians." -- Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC ) , retired.


. "We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions." -- Barnard Wolff


"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities." -- David Wallace



"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry. In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it." -- Captain George
Elliott, USN (retired)


"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units. Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened.." -- Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)


"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done. This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight." -- William Shumadine


"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. " -- Richard O'Meara


"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?" -- Steven Gardner


"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best." -- Robert Brant


"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions. I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims." -- James Steffes .


.Please, forward this to everybody on your lists. Voters in the United States of America need to see this article to get a genuine understanding of Kerry. Thanks .... Last Updated Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:16 PM PDT




Semper Fi

God Blessed America

The other side of the story.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/pack ... 1603.shtml

Excerpts:

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.

Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it. ... It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."

Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, `How the hell did we get out of that alive?"' Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing."

Michael Bernique, who was revered as one of the gutsiest swift boat commanders, marveled at Kerry's brazen approach to battle. Bernique recalled how Kerry one day "went ashore in an area that I thought might be mined. I said, `Get the blankety-blank out of there.' John just shrugged his shoulders and left. John just was fearless.

"If you are asking, `Was he foolhardy?' -- he survived," Bernique said. "I don't recall anybody saying they didn't want to serve with him. I would not have worried about my back if John was with me."

Read the whole thing and then decide for yourself. The quotes above are from people who were actually there fighting beside Kerry.

BTW, I went to check out the swiftees site and it's currently down. I'll check back on it later.

Thats actually kinda funny. The best you can drudge up is an excerpt from a hometown liberal paper that quotes two guys that spent less than two weeks with Kerry! Which is actually quite a long time considering he spent 4 months in country.

I never heard all that.. Interesting though.

19 of 23 Officers Who Served with Kerry Sign Open Letter
Navy Vets: Kerry Unfit to Serve

Ouch... I'm sorry that is a few too many people to buy off! I found another good little article here because after reading this post I felt like I had to read up more on the whole situation. Thanks for the post and getting me to take the time to dig into politics for a bit ;)

There is truth and spin to both sides.
I have no doubt many atrocites occured in vietnam, some were well publisized and a few prosecuted.
Kerry was wounded and recieved purple hearts on the recommendation of higher ranking officers, and was sent home after his last wounds.
To blame the soldiers/ sailors for the war was wrong (but very common at the time) only those who can by proven to have committed war crimes should have been blamed for those crimes.
the group in the letter are die-hard republicians and made thir statements based on their own agenda.
However, none of this does anything to show George Bush as a compatent President, capable of leading the US forward not just for 4 more years, but leaving our country in better shape with a brighter future than he found it. To the contrary we are watching him slowly destroy it, through ignorance and incompatance.
Kerry is a chance for change, should he fail to make major improvements throw him out in '08

First of all I find it rather ignorant to dismiss all those men as staunch Republicans, it is a group of vets who served in the same service and area as Kerry, who take great offense to the way he portrays them and the service.. Second, i find it more ignorant to bash our President for what is happening in our country, I think you can look at the negative and find just as much blame in the Senate and House. Third. I saw a recent story about Kerry where they added up all his promises and claims, everything that he has promised to all these groups during his campaign would more than quadruple our deficit (as to the deficit, again, its who's stats you care to believe, some people claim there was a surplus, some say no).
Some people like to blame President Bush for 9/11, Michael Moore likes to blame the Pres for 9/11, but as the investigation just pointed out, no one in particular is to blame, it was shortcomings in the system. If there is one group who did drop the ball, it is the Senate Oversight Comittee. They let our intel agencies have free reign and didn't coordinate much of anything. Alot can be traced back to the Clinton Admin and how our knowledge of Usama goes back to 1994, and nothing was done, then you have the first Trade Center attack, the Embassy attacks, and the Cole attack, all went unanswered. I remember getting Intel briefingsin 1996 that talked of Bin Laden and the future problems with terrorism. Nothing was ever done because President Clinton never wanted to do anything, military action is always unpopular, but is sometimes necessary..
As far as the politcal side, I think these guys need to stop pointing fingers because everyone shares a bit of blame, start talking about unity and doing what needs to be done. Our country needs to be alot less polarized.
As to calling Pres Bush, incompetent, that is one of the stupidest things I have seen yet. How is he incompetent? Because John Kerry says he is, because your favorite celebrities are telling you so? Because Michael Moore made a documentary based on theories, alot of which have been proven false, or were pretty outlandish to begin with? I don't think you, or most people for that matter, grasp the affect 9/11 had, or the current terrorism fears, there will be another attack, there will be more blame....this is all leading to another "world war" Christian vs Muslim, don't be fooled, its coming. It wouldn't have nmattered who was in charge, it was going to happen., maybe not on the scale it did, but the war was going to make it to our doorstep sooner or later, think about Israel and how attacks are almost a daily thing for them.
I'm not a politician, I don't put much stock into campaign speeches, or leaks. I see a President who has done a pretty good job considering he is facing a very trying situation. I truly believe we would be in much worse shape if Al Gore was in office, and as to John Kerry, he is willing to forgive Germany, France, and Russia for their double dealing, if it will get him elected. Kinda like Clinton and China.
I really like George Bush, I like a man who does the right thing, even if it isn't the most popular thing. I like a man who speaks from the heart, and who sincerely cares. I don't like a man who goes around telling each group what they want to hear.
I seriously worry about my country and our future if John Kerry is elected.

Kerry made a fuss over the purpleheart and when you have superior officers in the chain of command who are quoting off the fact they never even recieved fire and basically Kerry used his weapon wrong and got flak well that's just sad, you can't dismiss this either way.

Heh, the people who served on his boat are most easily his friends and like they said, opportunism at it's best.

Edwards isn't but so far from where I used to live, the only reason people care are because he's a Carolinian and for that I like him, but he's unfit to be a Vice President, he just can't handle it. Cheney can't really handle it when it comes down to the last-heated moment, but he's very good anyway.

Edwards should have stayed a lawyer, what was that quote from that senator? "We didn't know much about Edwards when he came in...since he's been in the Senate we still haven't seen him."

pwnd.

I am a George Bush fan, mainly because I like him personally. I am not a Dick Cheney fan, I don't think he brings anything to the post, and in fact has been a liability since day one. I would much rather have someone like John McCain as VP.
I got a good laugh at a couple of points Peter Gammons (ESPN baseball analyst and Boston resident) has touched on. first John Kerry changed his middle name so his initials would be JFK. If he had done that early in life, fine, but he did it a couple of years ago...after JFK Jr died. Second, he was doing a local interview and was asked about his favorite baseball players. He said he was a diehard Red Sox fan, but really couldn't name any players, and butchered the names of guys he did try to identify. To me it was just another example of the guy telling people what they wanted to hear.
Everyone has their faults...especially me, but John Kerry comes off as a total ass. HNe just doesn't seem honest to me.

As to Edwards, having spent most of my adult life in N Carolina, you hear lots about him and how he came into his money. I personally don't care, but he has no foreign policy experience at all. I think he is more of a liability than Cheney. I personally think Kerry should have Hilliary as a running mate, she has a bigger peni than anyone else in Washington

capper5016 wrote: .....Peter Gammons (ESPN baseball analyst and Boston resident) has touched on. first John Kerry changed his middle name so his initials would be JFK.......
False! he was born John Forbes Kerry (Forbes was his mothers maiden name)

As to Edwards, having spent most of my adult life in N Carolina, you hear lots about him and how he came into his money. I personally don't care, but he has no foreign policy experience at all. I think he is more of a liability than Cheney.

Well 4 years on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence may give him some insight into the working of foreign policy, certainly more experience then Bush had.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Official
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards



[/url]

If you actually take the time to read the testimony Kerry gave to THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971 (excerpts here)http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history3 ... imony.html
you would see while shocked, he placed less blame on the soldiers who testified to committing atrocities and more on the system and politics at the time that put them in the position to do so.

.....Peter Gammons (ESPN baseball analyst and Boston resident) has touched on. first John Kerry changed his middle name so his initials would be JFK.......
False! he was born John Forbes Kerry (Forbes was his mothers maiden name)

I have read in two places that he was not in fact born with the name Forbes, but a couple of years ago changed it to that, so his initials would be JFK, like his "hero".
I guess it all comes down to your views and who you wish to believe. as a veteran, I choose to believe tthe vast majority of veterans and veterans groups who do not support the man and who are offended by him. I personally see him as a waffler who will tell everyone what they want to hear.
You seem to be a pretty devout liberal, which is fine, but seriously, you want to quote a paper from his hometown, a very liberal paper at that, which itself quotes two guys, who spent less than three weeks with the guy. A much larger majority of men who served with him didn't find him to be quite the standup guy he wants you to believe.
As to foreign policy, Edwards? big deal, he was on the commitee! Does that really mean anything? Probably didn't evfen attend half the meetings.
I really like the reationalization that we need a change, and that if in 4 yrs things aren't "better" we can get rid of Kerry. I like how you rationalize everything as Pres Bush's fault, no accountabiility for the Senate or House at all.

And I see you really want to believe the name change (just look at the service records included in the links I provided), Bush is perfect, Edwards is probably another inattentive idiot, so there isn't much more I can say.

You might be right. I just related something that I had read, and included where I had read it. I don't just make things up.
As to politicians, i read something I truly believe. That you will never see a good or honest man run for office, mainly because of all the BS involved.
I have said before that I'm not the political sort, but when Kerry and his supporters want to claim support from vets, that bothers me. A few, outspoken vets support him, the vast majority don't trust him and can't stand him.
You want to sit here and say I believe the name change, yet call our president incompetent? Who wants to believe what? Try to say that any other person would have or could have done better under the circumstances. Tell me that all of this is George Bush's fault, that none of the rersponsibility is Bill Clinton's, that Al-Quaeda and like groups just sprang up over the last couple of years.
Tell me that anything would be better, or even different if we had involved the most corrupt orginization in the world (the UN). Tell me that France, Russia, and Germany are worried about Iraq for more than just the oil credits they lost in the invasion.
I'm done debating it, the name change thing is the least of my concern, integrity and leadership are much more important, and as to that, go ask people from Mass. what John Kerry stands for and who he is, they can't tell you because he was never around.

I really don't like getting into the politic thing much, there's just no way of really knowing the true story unless you were there...... What I do know is that ALL of the VETS and active duty military that I know DO NOT like Kerry and what he stands for. I'm not a big fan of Bush either for several reasons (jobs, taxes and all that) But what has been done in the middle east had to be done as far as I'm concerned. I think we my have over stayed our welcome there, but someone needs to help sort things out...... and God forbib the UN gets control of it, things will never be right. Talk about a waste for the air we breath........those guys are worthless............. Anyway.........end of rant.......... :D

I have opted to stay silent on this issue just because at the moment i dont feel that i know enough about kerry, though i can see both sides. I still kinda wish Dean had made it, i think he was a much better choice and would have been a very good prez.

Capper,

I was trying to offer an opposing view while being nice. You want more? Here ya go.

http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504

I like this part of it.

2. "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" says "We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam." That's just completely false, or, more diplomatically put, "a ******* lie." "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" also says, "They all signed a letter saying he is unfit to be commander-in-chief."
Hmmm... There are 29 pages of officer evaluation reports on Kerry (scroll down to "Fitness Reports" if you want to download) that were filled out by Kerry's commanding officers while he served in the Navy. How in the world could "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" read the following descriptions from Kerry's C.O.'s as "unfit"?

October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.:
LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech:
... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.

I could continue with more positive evaluations of Kerry's service, but quite frankly all the excellence is boring me a bit.

There aren't any negative descriptions. None.

Funny. 30 years after their service with Kerry they suddenly don't think he's fit to command. Hmmmmmm. Yep, can serve 20 years in the Senate but can't be President. Speaking of which, Capper, if he had not been looking out for the interests of his constituents or had done a poor job of voting in the Senate, don't you think someone would have been able to beat him? I mean, if I thought one of my representatives was performing poorly, as I think our President has, I would vote him out. Wouldn't you? Or is it that you prefer "the devil you know?"

More?

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml? ... _for_Truth

Wow. Funded by the right. How shocking.

BTW, have you spoken with every single veteran to come up with your majority of vets who don't support Kerry? What does it break down to? 54% against Kerry? 75%? 99%? Is that all veterans? Or just Vietnam veterans? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering where you come up with your numbers.

Was Bush the best guy for the job after 9/11? Yes. I firmly believe in the war on terror. I was right there with him when he said we needed to take Afghanistan down. To be honest, even after he started to talk about hitting Iraq, I was still on board. As more information came to light, as the UN weapons instructors failed to find any evidence, and as our freedoms were challenged by the Patriot Act, I changed my stance. By the time we went to war with Iraq, I was completely against it. Not because I thought So-Damn Insane was a good guy. Not because I didn't think he needed to go. No. Because, as an American, I think diplomacy should be given every chance. Not just a couple of shots and you're done. Not only that, but it was a poor tactical move. We had forces in Afghanistan still hunting Bin Laden. Meanwhile, we were in the process of installing a new branch of government, the Department of Homeland Security (plans for which were drawn up by Richard Clarke during the last legs of the Clinton administration) and in the process of securing our borders which was a massive undertaking. The war on Iraq took resources away from all of those efforts and stretched our military so thin that we couldn't react to anything now if we tried. You're a military man. Tell me, is it better to divide your resources between two enemies or to concentrate them all on one?

I applaude the 9/11 commission for not pointing fingers. They said it was the fault of both administrations. Clinton made some mistakes and so did Bush. Clinton didn't hit Al Queda as hard as he should have when the embassy bombings occured. But don't forget, he didn't sit by and let them get away with it either. For each of the incidents you state there was a reaction ranging from missile strikes to a CIA directive for Bin Laden's head. He could have and maybe should have sent troops to Afghanistan but to what end? Yes, terrorism was alive and well but until 9/11 we were a shared target. The rest of the world had already been struck by Al Queda. Bush had received all of the intel that the Clinton administration had and had even been debriefed that terrorism was coming and he brushed it aside. They had both been guilty of not taking the threat seriously enough and more than 3000 Americans paid for it. Hindsight is great ain't it? BTW, how do you fight an enemy that is so widespread? Do you invade every country that might be harboring terrorists? Do you invade every country that has weapons that might fall into the hands of terrorist? Or do you hunt them down one by one until they are all dead? I vote for the hunting. I mean, Iraq didn't have terrorism until we invaded. It's a chicken and egg question. Which came first? Terrorism or the events that pushed those individuals to terrorism?

Also, you like to go off about how it's not just the President's fault that so and so happened. Both the Senate and the House are controlled by the Republicans. The House has been since Clinton's first term and both have been since his second. So get off of trying to make Clinton look more responsible than Bush. You can't have it both ways ya know. Also, do you honestly think that the House and Senate would have given Clinton the green light for military action more than what he did? Don't count on it. But once again, coulda, shoulda, woulda.

A Muslim-Christian world war is inevitable huh? Kinda like that whole Russian-American nuclear war? Wrong, nothing is inevitable except death. Peace is the foundation of all religions. It's just that some extremists seem to think violence is the way to achieve it.

By the way, again, Germany, France and Russia never took part in political double dealing as you put it. They never swayed in their votes or views and neither did we.

Nah, my whole problem with Bush is he's a shoot first, ask questions later type of guy. Great for quick decisive moves in a time of crisis but terrible for diplomacy.

Do I like Kerry? Not really. Do I think he'll do a good job? Not the best but I think he'll do better.



Mr. Chan,

Please refer to the link above. There is also a quote from a Marine that Kerry pulled out of the river. Very interesting for someone who "never even received fire."

Don't assume that I'm done. I'm not. I've read the evidence for both sides of the arguement for both parties and I've reached my decision. Have you?

Well, there is nothing wrong with being nice, but as several people have pointed out, including me, you can go to 10 different websites and get 10 different versions of the same story. First, WMD in Iraq, don't be niave, they were there. They are probably scattered all over the middle east, especially Syria. As to giving diplomacy a chance....what were the previous 11 yrs? Why was there so much opposition to the war within the UN? Because Russia, France, and Germany, among others, had their hands in the cookie jar and were violating the terms of the agreement reached after the first war.
Was the Iraq war fought right? That is a matter of opinion, if our "allies" had helped out, even with security, we would be fine, instead the Frogs and russians have fought us at every turn. Being the serious hypocrites they are, neither want to talk about other situations in the world that they have caused(Russia has Chechnya among others, France is pretty responsible for almost every problem in Africa).
As to "fitness reports", I take it you never served in the military. Unless you did something criminal, it is almost impossible to get a bad fitness report. Like Bio said, none of us can really say, because we weren't there, but funny how 19 of 23 guys they talked to said Kerry was a serious POS. As to where i get my numbers on veterans, it comes from watching the news, and hearing groups like the VFW and American Legion talk.
As to talking heads like Bill O'Reilly, Fat Limbaugh, Gordon Liddy, etc. these guys are worse than the politicians themselves. Nothing like being able to be a monday morning QB, these guys don't do anything to make our country better, they only serve to inflame people, pass on half truths, and make money. I think the whole lot should be banned from the media.
Its all good to sit here and debate stuff, but when people call our president incompetent, that crosses a line with me. The Democrats sit here and blast our Pres for 9/11, yet they were in control for 8 yrs prior, up unitl about 8 months before, and it was already established that the plan was well under way before Bush took office. With the Dems, it is always someone elses fault. People need to stop pointing fingures and do the right thing, regardless of party.
I don't mind talking politics, I do mind arguing and getting pissy, everyone has a right to their opinion.
Lets move on to computer stuff, its alot safer than politics or religion

Just one little thing about officer fittness reports..........Kerry was connected some how during the Vietnam war......that's the only way he couldf have gotten out of country with only doing 4 1/2 months duty.........and to this day, if a senior officer values his of her job or position in the service, they will not bad mouth anyone that has connections, you just don't do it...........I've seen it happen many times. So who's right and who's wrong.........I don't know. I do know, being a 20 year vet and a vet from Vietnam and the first gulf war, that I would trust more of what is said now after the people have left the service than what was written during that time.
Just one other thing, From the vets I know, I know of none that support John Kerry. Are they all happy with Pres. Bush? Nope, not by a long shot. And just so you don't question the numbers I'm talking about, the vets I'm talking to are just local boys from the AL, VFW. DAF, AMVETs. I think that has a bit to say, but what do we know, we're just good old country boys from the heartland of America that fought in many many wars defending everyones right to bitch.

Wow. Funded by the right. How shocking.

Yet, on the website you link it is called "non-partisan"

By the way, again, Germany, France and Russia never took part in political double dealing as you put it. They never swayed in their votes or views and neither did we.

.You can't be that niave

Nah, my whole problem with Bush is he's a shoot first, ask questions later type of guy. Great for quick decisive moves in a time of crisis but terrible for diplomacy.

There were several invasion plans in place starting from about 1992 onward, once we realized we should have kept going the first time. Every time Saddam stonewalled inspectors (I wonder why???!!), elements would go on alert for deployment. WE had 11 yrs for diplomacy to work... it didn't.

A Muslim-Christian world war is inevitable huh? Kinda like that whole Russian-American nuclear war? Wrong, nothing is inevitable except death. Peace is the foundation of all religions.

peace is the foundation of all religions, but we have seen that these people kill in the name of religion. do you think they can be negotiated with? Not me, Their mission is to kill every single one of us, and as long as they can recruit kids and outcasts to fight their battles, it will continue. I sincerely believe that war is coming, and a war based on religion is alot different than one based on political ideology.

So get off of trying to make Clinton look more responsible than Bush.

Yeah, I guess the 8 yrs leading up to 9/11 aren't nearly as important as the 7 months leading up to it. Again, everyone has their opinion, alot of mine is based on the total lack of spine Clinton has while I served...see Haiti, Somalia, N Korea, etc.
I'm not one of those people who dredge o Monica or whitewater, i am one of those people who believes in doing the right thing, Bill Clinton was one of those people who wanted to do the popular thing.... the two are very different.

I mean, Iraq didn't have terrorism until we invaded

Says who. Gee, One of the worlds most famous terrorists was killed in his Baghdad apt less than a year before we invaded, probably by the Mossad. This is another thing you cannot claim with any certainty.

Hindsight is great ain't it? BTW, how do you fight an enemy that is so widespread? Do you invade every country that might be harboring terrorists? Do you invade every country that has weapons that might fall into the hands of terrorist? Or do you hunt them down one by one until they are all dead?

Hindsight? Bud, several people brought up UBL starting in the early 90's. Oliver North even terstified about him in 94. BTW, what were the responses to the Cole, WTC, and embassy bombings? i must have slept through them or something Lobbing a few Tomahawks at Sudan and Afghanistan then calliung it a day doesn't do much besides piss people off. Clinton totally ignored the threat.


We could go round and round on this, but it doesn't make much sense to me. You being a Dean fan tells me you are a very serious liberal, while I am leaning more and more to the conservative side. Thats fine by me, I have alot of friends who I argue with just like this, i still love them dearly, but we have different values and beliefs. I do have to say that I can never remember our country being this divided, and I really don't like it.

Capper, you must have me confused with someone else. For instance, where did I ever say that the sites I linked were non-partisan? I know exactly which side they lean to. You asked for more than a Boston Globe bio and I gave it to you. Simple.

You call me naive and then turn a blind eye to all that has happened since Bush hurried us into a war with a sovereign nation. Do you honestly believe that he can do no wrong? Do you honestly believe that everything he has done has been in the best interest of this country? Is it in the best interest of this country to not hold an open bidding process for the Iraq rebuilding contracts? Is it in the best interest of this country to deny education funding to schools if they don't bother to give a list of their student's addresses and phone numbers to the local recruiting office? Is it in the best interest of this country to allow officials access to your home without your knowledge? I don't get it, how could these things be in the best interest of our country? Tell me. Please.

I fully realize that we have had contingency plans for Iraq since the first war. Why wouldn't we keep tabs on a past aggressor? Hell, we probably still have plans in place for Germany and Japan just in case they get uppity. That doesn't give anybody the right to implement them at a whim.

peace is the foundation of all religions, but we have seen that these people kill in the name of religion. do you think they can be negotiated with? Not me, Their mission is to kill every single one of us, and as long as they can recruit kids and outcasts to fight their battles, it will continue. I sincerely believe that war is coming, and a war based on religion is alot different than one based on political ideology.

Which people are you talking about here Capper? Are you talking about the minority of Muslims who join a terrorist faction? Or are you talking about the KKK who regularly killed in the name of religion? Or are you talking about our own President who sent our military out on a crusade, his word, not mine? Do you honestly think it's right to punish the majority for the actions of a few? War didn't have to come, now it has and it has put in motion a series of events which could very well lead to what you fear. As I stated before, I am all for a war on terrorism but that is not what Iraq is about. Read what I said before. I'm all for hunting the terrorists. I think the war in Iraq was a very poor tactic for that hunt. It swayed more people towards the extreme. If a person was merely angry at the US we pushed them to action.

Yeah, I guess the 8 yrs leading up to 9/11 aren't nearly as important as the 7 months leading up to it. Again, everyone has their opinion, alot of mine is based on the total lack of spine Clinton has while I served...see Haiti, Somalia, N Korea, etc.
I'm not one of those people who dredge o Monica or whitewater, i am one of those people who believes in doing the right thing, Bill Clinton was one of those people who wanted to do the popular thing.... the two are very different.

What the hell man? I gave credit that it was both administrations that caused the right circumstances for 9/11. Why can't you? I wasn't defending clinton, I was countering you who said that both were responsible and then turned around and did a "But Clinton....." No. I wasn't a fan of Clinton either. Let's just come out and say it. All politicians are liars. They may not start out that way but that's how they end up. While we're on the subject, popular is another word for majority. So if Clinton did what was thought of by the majority of the people as right then how can popular and right be that far apart? And who's opinion of right do we take? Yours? Mine? They are obviously different so which one do we take. Again, along the same lines, the majority of the populace thought going into Iraq was right, at the beginning. Now, not so much. The majority has swayed. So do we take the right from then or now?

Quote:
I mean, Iraq didn't have terrorism until we invaded

Says who. Gee, One of the worlds most famous terrorists was killed in his Baghdad apt less than a year before we invaded, probably by the Mossad. This is another thing you cannot claim with any certainty.

When I said that before, I was not speaking of terrorists but of terrorist acts. The defense for this may be that Iraq was harboring terrorists so our actions are justified. I'll use your sentence for this

This is another thing you cannot claim with any certainty.

. Add to that Bush never made that claim as a reason to go to war and that arguement just doesn't hold up.

Hindsight? Bud, several people brought up UBL starting in the early 90's. Oliver North even terstified about him in 94. BTW, what were the responses to the Cole, WTC, and embassy bombings? i must have slept through them or something Lobbing a few Tomahawks at Sudan and Afghanistan then calliung it a day doesn't do much besides piss people off. Clinton totally ignored the threat.

Give me a break would ya? If North was testifying about Bin Laden then that means it was known about long before Clinton took office. In regards to the Tomahawk strikes, what did you want? A full scale invasion?

Here were the responses to the attacks in Africa.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/in ... tories.htm

In Yemen they are having a trial.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... n_qaeda_dc

As for the first WTC attack.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/Conte ... cache12=12

We could go round and round on this, but it doesn't make much sense to me. You being a Dean fan tells me you are a very serious liberal, while I am leaning more and more to the conservative side. Thats fine by me, I have alot of friends who I argue with just like this, i still love them dearly, but we have different values and beliefs. I do have to say that I can never remember our country being this divided, and I really don't like it.

Again, where did I ever say I like Dean? Another assumption. I was actually hoping General Clark would win it.

Bio,

I would agree with you that none of us actually know what happened with Kerry while in Vietnam. And yes, he probably did use his political pull to help get out of Vietnam early but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it true that soldiers got sent home after three purple hearts? And wasn't that his second tour of duty? Also, doesn't it make more sense to believe the writings of the time rather than things that are written 30 years after the fact? Did you know he kept a diary of events while there?

I don't have any problem with you saying that the majority of the vets you know don't support Kerry but to make a blanket statement that the majority of all vets feel the same way without backup is what I object to. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true but that's beside the point.

One last point and please don't take this the wrong way because I truely do have great respect and pride in our armed services. Please don't use the "I fought for your right to bitch and moan" defense. I hear it all the time and each time I do a little more respect is lost. It's like the veteran's trump card. Play it and everyone is supposed to shut up.