Swift Boat Vets Have No Credibility

. . . Because they used the same tactics to sabotage John McCain’s primary bid. They even ran a calling campaign to tell voters that he had a “black baby” (he has adopted a Bangladeshi child). Why would they go to such lengths to sabotage the careers of fellow vets on both sides of the aisle? My guess: they are hateful, bitter right-wing losers.

Ummm. The advertising agency that designed the Swift Boats ad was the team that worked FOR Sen. McCain, to the best of my knowledge. You may wish to check that.

But can we please stop focusing on Viet Nam? In case you haven’t noticed, we need to pick the best leader for the current conflict… I think that’s Bush, but feel free to disagree, and please build a case for Kerry built on his time in the Senate.

BTW, was it really necessary to start a whole new thread to highlight your keen insights?

[quote]DrS wrote:
My guess: they are hateful, bitter right-wing losers.[/quote]

I’d say that’s a pretty good guess, DrS.

I think that you have the credibility part backwards. Was Kerry in Cambodia, or not? He can’t make up his mind, and his campaign is having a hard time covering his doublespeaking ass.

The swiftboat vets are exercising their right to free speech. No one has attacked the accuracy of their statements. They are, however, making a big deal over their gall to speak out against a liberal liar.

No proof that the term “served with Kerry” means any more than the fact that these men were in Vietnam at the same time.

Dr’s name does not appear on any of Kerry’s medical records.

Its all duplicitous junk.

DrS watch the Daily Show with John Stewart much? LOL

Rainjack,

You are right on. Let me echo your sentiment.

Was Kerry in Cambodia or not?

He used his “presence” in Cambodia in an Anti-Nixon speech. He repeated it in 1986.

If he is lying about this, how many other lies are out there?

Again, what does this guy have to do before the Democratic Partisans begin to second guess their support?

Don’t you see the extreme danger inherent in this? We are in war. Please think about it.

JeffR

Jeff,

Lies? You wanna talk lies? Read Ron Regan Jr’s article.

Split - you got me - but it made me angry enough to post this - and BB - Those guys were most assuredly not working for McCain. And yes, it was necessary to start another thread, because I didn’t want mine to get buried on that massive pro-SBV thread.

BB:

You have nailed it again!

If I want to become President of the United States I should be able to stand up and speak freely about how I voted for the past 19 years as a United States Senator. Why isn’t John Kerry doing this?

This is far more troubling than what he did or did not do in Viet Nam.

[quote]DrS wrote:
and BB - Those guys were most assuredly not working for McCain. And yes, it was necessary to start another thread, because I didn’t want mine to get buried on that massive pro-SBV thread. [/quote]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL&type=printable
Excerpt [note: scroll down about half way if you follow the link above]:

The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain’s ads in 2000.

“I wish they hadn’t done it,” McCain said of his former advisers. “I don’t know if they knew all the facts.”

There are so many things that are now surfacing about John Kerry, that is so hard to keep up with them. Especially when it is in regards to his past. And just like with Vietnam, of his past is starting to haunt him more and more.

Why I do think the Vietnam talk is just as important than his past is becasue, John Kerry is the one that brought it up…And second John Kerrys’ lips are sealed . He is not coming out and disclosing the truth, once and for all.

This editorial I found today says it all
August 11, 2004

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/bkesler_20040811.html

Kerry’s NamGate?
Bruce Kesler

Will the SwiftBoat veterans? affidavits revealing deceptions about John Kerry?s service in Vietnam and after, and the Kerry campaign and supporters? counterattacks, become John Kerry?s ?NamGate?? I?m neither an attorney nor great political prognosticator, but many who are believe it well may be.

First is the issue of truth. The SwiftBoat veterans have signed affidavits about what they witnessed, which are admissible in a court of law. They were in positions to know. They have nothing to personally gain. Indeed, as lawsuits always cost huge sums of money and none are independently wealthy, they have much to lose even when vindicated if the Kerry campaign?s lawyers were to bring a libel suit. The SwiftBoat veterans do not appear fazed, as they chose not to incorporate their 527, SwiftVets For Truth, to immunize themselves from such a lawsuit.

The factual counterattack from Kerry supporters is comprised of only a few points:

  1. Except for one, the SwiftBoat vets were not in the same boat as Kerry: However, they were very nearby and involved, the fellow officers whose duty is to closely protect each other?s flanks, and with the unit duty to correct each other?s mistakes. These were small patrol boats that operated in groups.
  2. The SwiftBoat doctor did not sign a Kerry injury report: However, he was the sole medical officer for the unit, swore an affidavit that he treated Kerry for a veritable scratch from what looked like a match-size piece of what looked like a US grenade, and his corpsman routinely signed paperwork.
  3. The soldier who fell overboard from a mine explosion, whom Kerry pulled out of the water, repeats that there was enemy fire: However, Rassman also says ?I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath?, while the SwiftBoat officers involved who were above water swear there was no enemy fire. One of those SwiftBoat officers was about to pull Rassman out of the water, when Kerry returned to the area of the explosion that his boat had fled from, leaving the other boats to deal with the situation.

Several Kerry assertions have been indisputably disproven. For example by Kerry?s own later changing of his tales as to his claim to have breached international law by patrolling into Cambodia. Kerry has also admitted that his words back in 1971 were a bit excessive.
The facts of many other witnessed affidavits by the SwiftBoat veterans have not been seriously challenged.

Second is the matter of who is libeling and slandering. Kerry partisans have launched ad hominem personal attacks against the Swiftees. For example, the Clinton White House legal counsel (hardly a recommendation for representing truth-telling), flat-out called the Swiftees ?liars?. The Chief Counsels of the Kerry Campaign and Democratic National Committee have written similar words in a transparently thin thuggish letter of threats. However, words are cheap. They have not dared bring legal suit, as they would have to back up their slanders. Being political lawyers themselves, they probably have faith in hiding behind the confusing court system and its huge costs to pursue justice against them. However, it is these Democrat lawyers who have committed slander, as will increasingly be revealed. OJ Simpson may have escaped a court with sharp attorneys, but not the court of public opinion.

Third, in the Watergate scandal, President Nixon committed a public coverup of his role in the break-in, his shaming and revealment leading to his resignation. John Kerry has always refused to swear an oath to his own charges or provide evidence, has publicly repeated his charges against his fellow Vietnam veterans and about his own role in Vietnam, and refuses to sign a Form 180 to release his full records that may clear up some matters. As during Watergate when some Nixon partisans did, Kerry?s surrogate partisans ? maybe too quickly and faithfully – repeat Kerry?s disclaimers and defenses.

Fourth, then, is the court of public opinion. It has been well-documented many times that the overwhelming majority of the ?mainstream? press are liberal and support liberal candidates like Kerry. It can be seen from anyone?s newspaper that local papers all over the country depend upon the wireservice from the liberal New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press. Still, through the minority press that has remained less knee-jerk to defend Kerry or repeat his campaign?s spin, and through the facts struggling through, much progress has been made in turning this slanted tide. And, the majority of the American people have usually shown their ability to think for themselves. It seems that most veterans, 25-million, have already done so according to the latest poll, from Rasmussen, 58-35% against Kerry for election.

What both sides agree upon is two things: First, we wish for a higher level of discourse. The Swiftees have exerted themselves to act legally and responsibly, with sworn evidence. The Kerry partisans have responed with invective. Second, John Kerry has centerpieced his short Vietnam service as a junior officer 35-years ago as his major qualification to lead the US and the world in these dangerous times. The Kerry campaign has avoided discussing his 20-years in the Senate. The SwiftBoat veterans discuss Kerry?s central campaign claim. Now, it?s up to the press to be fair, and the American people to use the several months until election day to decide the issues.

(For full disclosure, I am partisan in this debate, although not a direct participant. In 1971, I organized the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, which I will swear on a stack of bibles in court was not created by the Nixon White House. Several responsible news organizations have investigated this false charge, made by Kerry partisans to smear John O?Neill ? a leader of the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth, and not found it true. I have not had contact with any of the SwiftBoat veterans between 1972 and 2004.)

Joe

Joe/ Chucksmanjoe,

Is your private messaging working? I sent you a question earlier.

I was wondering if you heard anything new about the nuclear weapons in Iraq? If you would like, my private messaging is working.

JeffR