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

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is still alive? My god, even Profit = unfair tax, part 2 didn't last as long as this

Out of genuine curiosity could you tell me in one post how on earth a thread that makes the premise that any time people make a trade it is somehow unfair could possibly have kept going for any significant length of time? That thread has always sounded totally absurd to me on it's face.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So did Bush screw up when he released his confidential national guard payment records to dispell awol accusations? I certainly remember attaching a lot less credibility to the AWOL accusations that were refuted by those payment records than I had before they were refuted. Supposing you're right and Kerry releases the records that exonerate his record certainly the swiftboat accusers will simply claim that Kerry falsified it from the get go, but as with the Bush controversy all available evidence would then be out and there would no longer be any response that a reasonable person would expect from Kerry. What's more, given the heroism that Kerry would have us believe occured in his stay in vietnam and referred to in his nomination acceptance speech, it would clearly be a good thing for Kerry if releasing it simply generatd more discussion of this time because according to Kerry these events were not sordid in any way and were in fact quite laudible. I think the only instance in which your argument works, and a candidate is best served by ignoring the accusation is those situations where exonerating yourself only draws attention to bad press (the accusations) with no newsworthy good press to accompany the disclosure. If someone is releasing their record of their heroic deeds in service to our country there is just no sane reason to keep that confidential. It still seems really fishy to me.

And what does Kerry have to release on top opf the existing officil records that back his version and not the allegations?

These veterans and the Bush proxies are trying to define the issue as one in which the record as is is not enough, which is absurd, as the proof Kerry has now on his side is as strong as anything Bush showed during his attempt to undo the awol scandal (ie, official military records). BUt the fact is given the proxie's lack of any records backing their assertions, Kerry has enough out there. Those that won't be convinced given the record as is will never be convinced no matter what Kerry gave out.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Don't you think that the office of the President and the Secreatary of the Navy had far more resources available to them on this in the early 70s, when Kerry was initially making his claims. If there was any truth to these rumors, don't you think Nixon would have exposed him? Why did all these guys wait until 2004, to say that Kerry made all this stuff up instead of doing it in 1971, when Nixon was investigating him?

There's a lot of smoke, but only cuz someone threw a stink bomb.

According to the NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/po...swift.html?th, the reason for the sudden resurgence is Rear Adm. Guy Hoffmann:

"It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong..."

...

"Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said."

The balance of the article details how the Vets go together and began to compare notes of their recollection of events against Kerry's biography. They found that their recollection varied from Kerry's and they set about to set the record straight.

So it appears that Kerry brought this on himself by attacking Admiral Hoffmann.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
So did Bush screw up when he released his confidential national guard payment records to dispell awol accusations? I certainly remember attaching a lot less credibility to the AWOL accusations that were refuted by those payment records than I had before they were refuted.

The AWOL accusation was initially credible due to his missing a flight physical and then a gap in the records where it wasn't clear he'd showed up or done anything once he was TDY'd.

So it was official records which led to the question, not just random accusation unsupported, much less contradicted, by those records.

I doubt it moved many voters in either direction. In Kerry's case, these guys already preface their lack of support by claiming Kerry made false statements at the time (though once again, there's no contemporaneous evidence), and the records therefore reflect Kerry's alleged lies. In Gardner's case, he insists that Kerry "must have" used his "powers of persuasion" to convince the rest of his crew to "remember" Kerry's version of events and not Gardner's.

People are going to believe whatever they're going to believe according to their ideological perceptions and/or whether they like or dislike the candidates.

[GePap]

The balance of the article details how the Vets go together and began to compare notes of their recollection of events against Kerry's biography. They found that their recollection varied from Kerry's and they set about to set the record straight.

So it appears that Kerry brought this on himself by attacking Admiral Hoffmann.

Ned wins selective reading prize Way to ignore the rest of the article

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The more I read this thread, the more I realise just how brave Kerry is, not because of what he did in Vietnam, but because of what he did when he came home.

He had the courage to stand and say the war is wrong, the war is pointless, Americans are dying for nothing and more Americans will die for no reason.

To do that, he stood up against a system that he was a part of and many of his "comrades in arms" turned on him. He admitted that he was an active part of the machine that was killing people for no reason. It takes guts to say that I was an ordinary sailor, I did what everyone else did and what I did was wrong.

Look at the hate spewed by some people here 35 years later and imagine how much hate he faced back then.

It takes incredible inner strength to stand up and say "what I did and what we are doing is wrong", especially when you know that so many people will turn against you.

How many of us would have that courage?

That's not exactly what he said, now was it.

Here is a link to the new ad that shows Kerry testifying:

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video2.html

[GePap]

I saw his testimony- back in the day it occured it was praised as a great speech.

Kerry did say the war was pointless and wrong: his main quote that day was "how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"

He also said US forces committed war crimes with regularity- given the definition of war crimes (violations of the laws of war), he was correct, and MtG can get into that.

Hey Ned, why don't you read the rest of the times article and educate yourself?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

In Kerry's case, there's no evidence except often-contradicted testimony by guys who mostly openly admit they didn't like Kerry once he got vocal in VVAW.

According to the Times, Adm. Hoffmann and others were generally supportive of Kerry until they saw his biography realized just how much he was lying about what happened during his "Tour of Duty."

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


And what does Kerry have to release on top opf the existing officil records that back his version and not the allegations?

These veterans and the Bush proxies are trying to define the issue as one in which the record as is is not enough, which is absurd, as the proof Kerry has now on his side is as strong as anything Bush showed during his attempt to undo the awol scandal (ie, official military records). BUt the fact is given the proxie's lack of any records backing their assertions, Kerry has enough out there. Those that won't be convinced given the record as is will never be convinced no matter what Kerry gave out.

Proxies

If twenty eye witnesses had turned up at OJ's trial, I think the verdict would have been different. Thats what we have here.

There are 20 eyewitnesses of Kerrys actions, some of whom lived with him daily for 3 months in a war zone. They dont all say the same thing about details, but as a group they disagree with what kerry says happened. Add that to the known facts i.e. that two of the purple hearts were scratches and that kerry (a volunteer for that hazardous duty) took a runner out of country (based on those 'injuries' and a technicality) and you've got a story of kerrys time in country that vets (at least) recognize as false. Some vets may vote for kerry cos they still dislike Bush more, but on CNN they were just discussing a large polling shift by veterans from Kerry to Bush in light of the inconsistencies of Kerrys vietnam record. Its gonna hurt him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Nobody gives a **** about Vietnam.

You would be surprised, Sava. There are a lot of people who lived through that era. Vietnam was gut wrenching to the core. Kerry was central to smearing our troops while the war still rages and the outcome was in doubt.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


According to the Times, Adm. Hoffmann and others were generally supportive of Kerry until they saw his biography realized just how much he was lying about what happened during his "Tour of Duty."

NO

If you read the words of the article without putting them through the "Nedaverse filter", Admiral Hoffman was angered by the way HE was portrayed in the book, which was in a very negative light.

As MtG said, official documents basically conform completely with Kerry's accounts, not those of these individuals.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Proxies

If twenty eye witnesses had turned up at OJ's trial, I think the verdict would have been different. Thats what we have here.

There are 20 eyewitnesses of Kerrys actions, some of whom lived with him daily for 3 months in a war zone. They dont all say the same thing about details, but as a group they disagree with what kerry says happened. Add that to the known facts i.e. that two of the purple hearts were scratches and that kerry (a volunteer for that hazardous duty) took a runner out of country (based on those 'injuries' and a technicality) and you've got a story of kerrys time in country that vets (at least) recognize as false. Some vets may vote for kerry cos they still dislike Bush more, but on CNN they were just discussing a large polling shift by veterans from Kerry to Bush in light of the inconsistencies of Kerrys vietnam record. Its gonna hurt him.

And the funny thing is, if you read the NYTimes piece:

1. Many of those gentlemen have made totally contradictory statements in the last few years about Kerry's record

2. All official statements on record about the actions back Kerry's assertions.

So the simple issue is that these men, 35 years after the fact, can't show ANY CONTEMPORARY documentation of their claims. This means their credibility is, well, at BEST very low.

Now, is it going to hurt him? For now, yes, but come the debates it will be forgotten. And Kerry can always use it against Bush (as he started doing) by linkking Bsuh to a bunch of allegations lacking in any proof being made, allegations Bush himself does not repeat in any way.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is still alive? My god, even Profit = unfair tax, part 2 didn't last as long as this

K, I think this is going to STAY alive for the duration of the campaign. Get used to it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
I saw his testimony- back in the day it occured it was praised as a great speech.

Kerry did say the war was pointless and wrong: his main quote that day was "how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"

He also said US forces committed war crimes with regularity- given the definition of war crimes (violations of the laws of war), he was correct, and MtG can get into that.

Hey Ned, why don't you read the rest of the times article and educate yourself?

I did read it GePap. It is clear that Kerry himself brought this down on his own head by attacking Admiral Hoffman in his biography. No doubt, the group he formed was helped along by certain "Texans" that had an interest in the matter. But that doesn't change the reality that Kerry smeared Hoffmann and is the primary reason for Hoffman organizing the Swiftboat Veterans.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


NO

If you read the words of the article without putting them through the "Nedaverse filter", Admiral Hoffman was angered by the way HE was portrayed in the book, which was in a very negative light.

As MtG said, official documents basically conform completely with Kerry's accounts, not those of these individuals.

I am sorry, GePap, but the article actually quotes supportive comments by Hoffmann and others who later turned against Kerry. As I said, Hoffmann, who once supported Kerry, turned against him because Kerry smeared him. On this we agree.