John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[Drake Tungsten]

And you have 'proof' it's a lie?

Duh. Try reading the thread.

The Kerry friendly media like the 'Washington Post' won't touch it?

Yes. They have yet to run a story on the Cambodia issue.

Sorry but that just doesn't make sense- if it's so easy to prove it's a lie, wouldn't the anti-Kerry hacks and media be all over it like flies on dung?

They are on it. That's the only reason this story has stayed alive in the face of the mainstream media blackout. Fox News and some right-wing radio hosts and bloggers don't have the influence of papers like the NYT and WaPo, though.

[Ned]

MtG, I think you miss the point. Most of them have said that they knew nothing of Kerry's exaggerations and lies until his book was published.

[Drake Tungsten]

Given the construction of those boats, I'd also consider a piece of sheet metal or fragment from some part of the boat to be a possibility.

Even if Kerry fired forward and the boat was going full speed, the velocity on the grenade is too great - Kerry still couldn't get himself into the max blast radius of the grenade.

Well, it's obvious that you still haven't read about any of this, MtG. Kerry wasn't on a Swift Boat when he was injured for his first Purple Heart. He hadn't even been assigned to a Swift Boat yet. He was still training at Cam Ranh Bay and volunteered for a patrol mission with two other guys in an small, foam-filled boat.

The Swifties claim that Kerry got his superficial injury when he fired a grenade too close to the boat, near some rocks on the shore. They think that part of the grenade round ricocheted off the rocks and one small piece hit Kerry. According to the doctor who treated Kerry's wound, the fragment was 1 cm long and about 2-3 mm in diameter. Not consistent with a rifle round and barely penetrated, being removed with tweezers and covered with a Band-Aid. Certainly a Purple Heart worthy injury...

BTW, am I the only one who's actually reading about these things? It'd be nice to know who is talking out their asses, so I don't have to waste time.

[Straybow]

mb, I am aware of the overly friendly bank loan made in the Rangers purchase. However, there was no asset fraud committed. Whatever happened with brother Neil is irrelevant.

Cite all the facts you want, Iran-Contra is still irrelevant to this debate.

And yes, Straybow, I both watch and read what conservative pundits do and say- it's called having access to television and newspapers and the internet.

So can you cite a specific example equal to Chris Matthews "meltdown" (as Ned put it)? Who has ejected a guest from a show, or prevented a guest from answering a question asked?

[Drake Tungsten]

Dole!

CRAWFORD, Texas - Former Republican Sen. Bob Dole suggested Sunday that John Kerry (news - web sites) apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War and joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for "superficial wounds."

Dole also called on Kerry to release all the records of his service in Vietnam.

...

Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040822/ap_on_el_pr/war_politics

Maybe Bob Kerrey will come out against Kerry soon, as well. Bob's probably a bit upset that Kerry has been falsely claiming to have occupied the vice-chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence commitee when it was actually him.

[Drake Tungsten]

More Dole!

"As far as I know he never spent one day in the hospital, I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And he's boasting about three Purple Hearts, when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam."

...

"I think Sen. Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin." Dole added. "That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused."

[Drake Tungsten]

We Are Waiting

Campaign '04: John Kerry says he'll fight claims he lied about or exaggerated his service in Vietnam. The best way to fight such charges would be to stop calling people names and start providing some answers.

He'll have to show that the charges by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are false. That's a tall order. The allegations are numerous, well documented and quite serious.

In general, they insist that Kerry has consistently overstated his heroism, that many accounts of his service in Vietnam are not true and that he has slandered his fellow veterans by claiming they were guilty of widespread war crimes and atrocities.

It's too bad Kerry has responded to these charges (and particularly those raised in the book "Unfit for Command" by former Swift boat commander John O'Neill) by vowing to "attack."

So far, his "attack" seems to be of the political and personal kind, with Kerry and his followers claiming that O'Neill, and the 250 or so Swift boat vets who back him, are Republican Party shills.

On Friday, Kerry filed a legal complaint about O'Neill's group.

But that won't do. Only answers will. The presidency of the United States is too important to give to someone with something to hide. Questions about Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief won't go away if he simply stonewalls and makes baseless charges of political bias.

After all, it was Kerry himself (with the smart salute and "reporting for duty" opening of his convention speech) who made his military service the keystone of his campaign. And it is Kerry who has repeatedly compared himself favorably with President Bush on that score.

In so doing, he's all but ignored his undistinguished 20-year career in the U.S. Senate and his decade as an anti-war activist.

Fair enough. Now we have questions about Vietnam. Such as:

EDid Kerry commit war atrocities? This charge would seem unduly harsh to level at someone who fought in a war more than three decades ago Eexcept for the fact that he himself made it.

In a 1971 appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry said: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed . . ."

Earlier that year, Kerry claimed his now-beloved "band of brothers" were broadly guilty of war crimes as well.

During the infamous "Winter Soldier Investigation" by anti-war activists in early 1971, Kerry and his pals described a shocking array of atrocities that U.S. troops routinely committed: arson, rape, torture, murder, burning of villages, all part of official policy.

This, more than anything, explains the still-burning ire of his former comrades in arms.

As O'Neill wrote: "Millions of Vietnam veterans will never forget Kerry's spinning of lies, lies so damaging to his comrades but so profitable to himself."

Kerry never provided evidence that such war crimes were official policy or routine. But he (and O'Neill) have raised questions about his own behavior in Vietnam.

EDid Kerry lie about "Christmas in Cambodia"? This is a story Kerry has repeated over and over as explanation for his later metamorphosis from decorated hero into staunch anti-war activist.

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote in the Boston Herald in October 1979. "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

A couple of problems. Nixon wasn't president on Christmas Eve 1968. Lyndon Johnson was. In fact, official records of his service show Kerry was never in Cambodia, as his campaign now concedes.

Subsequent "clarifications" (saying Kerry in ensuing months served as a kind of ferry master for Green Berets, CIA agents and Navy Seals into Cambodia) likewise have run afoul of the truth. There simply is no evidence for it.

Yet, on the floor of the Senate, Kerry said the experience was "seared - seared" into his memory.

Bad memory, or just a lie? People deserve an explanation.

EKerry's medals. Kerry returned from his 4 1/2 month stint in Vietnam with three Purple Hearts for wounds, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for gallantry.

But some of those who served with him cast doubt on how he earned his medals and whether he deserved them. Harsh charges, to be sure. O'Neill's book, however, raises serious evidence to support the charges. Kerry must respond.

Specifically, O'Neill alleges Kerry got his first and third Purple Hearts for mishandling grenades, in one case, for setting off one too close to his boat, and in the other, throwing a grenade into a rice bin. In neither case was he seriously wounded, says O'Neill.

Questions abound, too, about his Bronze Star, received for pulling special forces Lt. Jim Rassman out of the water under hostile fire, and his Silver Star, given after Kerry beached his boat in the face of an ambush and killed an enemy soldier.

In the first case, O'Neill and others charge, Kerry was fleeing action when he picked up Rassman. In the second case, the soldier was a "skinny kid" who was wounded and running away.

We'd like to know and suspect the American people would, too.

You may be wondering: Why raise these questions now, in the heat of a campaign? Sadly, the major media have all but ignored questions of Kerry's record. They've been too busy looking for scandal in Bush's past and, more recently, attacking O'Neill and anyone else who dares question Kerry's glowing accounts of his service.

The bias is pervasive. As the Media Research Center, a media watchdog, pointed out, ABC, CBS and NBC did 75 stories on charges Bush was "AWOL" from the National Guard. They did nine on claims Kerry fibbed about his war record. Biased might be too kind a description.

The major media in this country are overwhelmingly liberal and refuse to ask the questions that need to be asked. They do their viewers and readers (and Kerry for that matter) a disservice.

If Kerry thinks he's being slandered, he should answer with facts not with insults, threats and lawsuits.

We have questions, senator. We're ready for your answers.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/23

That sums up my feelings on the issue pretty well...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow

So can you cite a specific example equal to Chris Matthews "meltdown" (as Ned put it)? Who has ejected a guest from a show, or prevented a guest from answering a question asked?

Does cutting a caller off count?

'Or for that matter, how [Rush] could disparage a war hero when he himself had dodged the Vietnam Draft by claiming to have a boil on his butt.

"He tried to lie [his way] out of this but I explained that his 4-F form listing a 'pilonidal cyst' was printed in books for all to see [i.e., "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, in Chapter 2: Beating the Draft]. At that point, I was cut off the air and as Rush stuttered and stumbled around like I have never heard him before, his screener came back online and told me, 'You're out of here, buddy -- we've got you pegged and you'll never call again.' '

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/rushbusted1.htm

Of course you or Ned have yet to show what a talk show host's behaviour has to do with John Kerry- is John Kerry his employer?

His floor manager?

His sponsor?

Or was it just part of Ned's hysterical attempt to link Kerry with everything under the sun?

Note yet again, that Ned has only said what happened, not provided us with an actual transcript, nor has he said how it is actually meant to be linked with Kerry, just somehow, nebulously, it is.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

That sums up my feelings on the issue pretty well...

Mine too.

[chequita guevara]

As to Kerry accusing all Vets of committing war crimes, the quotes we cutoff quotes, a journalistic no-no. Kerry said that Vets told him that they had personally seen or had done ". . ." but they cut that part off, and make it look like Kerry was saying something else. You can get fired for that if you do it in the news . . . unless you work for Fox.

As for the rest of the issues, don't know, don't care, not voting for him in any event. Even if he lied though, he's still better than Bush, he used political connections to avoid being drafted into combat, getting himself into a unit he was unqualified to be in and which wasn't going to be deployed overseas, then refusing to take a physical after the government spent a million dollars training him. Maybe he should have to pay us back.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted in the "We are waiting" article posted by Drake
The presidency of the United States is too important to give to someone with something to hide.

:tears:

[Spiffor]

And BTW, can anybody explain me why the heck the military records of the candidates seems to be the only thing that gets debated in this campaign? Doesn't anybody speak about their platform? Even in vague, general terms?

[Drake Tungsten]

Doesn't anybody speak about their platform? Even in vague, general terms?

:tears:

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Given the construction of those boats, I'd also consider a piece of sheet metal or fragment from some part of the boat to be a possibility.

Even if Kerry fired forward and the boat was going full speed, the velocity on the grenade is too great - Kerry still couldn't get himself into the max blast radius of the grenade.

Well, it's obvious that you still haven't read about any of this, MtG. Kerry wasn't on a Swift Boat when he was injured for his first Purple Heart. He hadn't even been assigned to a Swift Boat yet. He was still training at Cam Ranh Bay and volunteered for a patrol mission with two other guys in an small, foam-filled boat.

Did I say he was on a swiftboat specifically, numbnuts? Yeah, the entire thing was made of foam, weapons, engine and all. They fired nerf grenades, even.

The Swifties claim that Kerry got his superficial injury when he fired a grenade too close to the boat, near some rocks on the shore. They think that part of the grenade round ricocheted off the rocks and one small piece hit Kerry.

I know you're just a teenager, honey, so you've never "fired" one of the ****ing things. To arm, it has to go 18 meters minimum. The blast radius is 15 meters max. Nothing richochets back (i.e. hits an object, loses forward velocity, reverses direction) as far as it would travel directly without decellerating. In other words, it won't go far enough to arm, richochet off anything, and come all the way back to the launcher. It won't even come back as far as the basic blast radius, nor will pieces of it. It just doesn't ****ing happen that way.

So what the swifties think is irrelevant, unless they've got some sort of mind control that alters the physics of the ****ing weapon.

According to the doctor who treated Kerry's wound, the fragment was 1 cm long and about 2-3 mm in diameter. Not consistent with a rifle round and barely penetrated, being removed with tweezers and covered with a Band-Aid.

According to the doctor? I supposed those details were "seared in his memory" too?

BTW, am I the only one who's actually reading about these things? It'd be nice to know who is talking out their asses, so I don't have to waste time.

Well, you're doing a good job of talking out your ass because you swallow whatever you read that supports what you want to believe, and you don't know enough to even spot bull**** like the richochet off the rock story.

You'd be the kind who'd strip the entire base clean looking for batteries for a sound-powered telephone.

[Straybow]

MtG, I think you are mathematically challenged. A fragment can have serious wounding potential at a distance of 15 m but can't penetrate the skin at 18+ m?

A ricochet event can translate angular KE into linear KE, effectively increasing the range at which a fragment could penetrate the skin.

And we are talking about a fragment that barely penetrated the skin.