Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong
Bush urges Kerry to condemn attack ads: President denounces ads in general
Bush campaign denies 'smear tactics': Kerry campaign compares swift boat ad to 2000 attack on McCain
Texan, GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans group
It's a sham and a travesty that has taken on a life of it's own. Many would dearly love to be able to stop talking about it, but the snowball is moving so fast downhill that NO ONE knows how to stop it.
There should be little doubt that John Kerry served in Vietnam with honor and bravery. That he still carries shrapnel in his body should be proof enough. Unfortunately, there are those out there willing to do George W. Bush's dirty work. Bush knows he cannot hold a candle to Kerry when it comes to having served his country- though Alabama may well be a safer place for it.
Personally, I find it beyond absurd that the events of 30+ years ago are playing such a major role in determinining our leader of today and the next four years. Don't we have enough issues to deal with today without the grossly misnamed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" spreading their perversion of the truth? Of course, it's not as if the Bush campaign can hold their own with John Kerry on the issues of today. That really leaves them with only the character assassination option.
The truly sad thing about this whole sorry episode is the number of Vietnam veterans who have been forced to revisit a part of their lives at a time when most of them would probably prefer to let sleeping dogs life. People like the Chicago Tribune's William Rood, who broke 35 years of silence to come to the defense of John Kerry.
There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.
One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.
For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.
Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service--even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.
But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.
Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.
I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.
Rood does tell his story, and it is one in which Kerry acquitted himself admirably. In defense of the SBVFT veterans who have taken it upon themselves to impugn Kerry's actions, memories of combat can often vary widely from person to person. Throw in 30+ years in between said combat and this Presidential campaign, and those memories can sometimes fade and twist into something almost unrecognizable. Even so, this hardly excuses their transparent attempt at character assassination.
It doesn't need to be this way, and indeed, it shouldn't be this way. We should be discussing the issues that impact this country today, not debating the memories, the grudges, and the vendettas of 30+ years ago. The Bush campaign has been willing to let SBVFT do the dirty work of tarnishing John Kerry. Plausible deniability aside, does anyone really believe that if George W. Bush wanted SBVFT's campaign to end, it wouldn't end IMMEDIATELY? The fact that Bush and his campaign have been so noticeably silent on SBVFT can and should be taken as an indication that they are more than willing to let someone else get their hands dirty while they rise above the fray.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
Ahh, a Plante cartoon. He's the in-house cartoonist for the Chattanooga Times Free Press here in my home town. He's a nice guy - I've met him a few times. He's just a moron, is all.
Yeah -- we really need to focus on the acts of treason he committed after he came back.
Acts of treason? Come on, Greg; you can do better than that. Since when is voicing your opinion an act of treason in a free society?
trea-son, n.
1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2) A betrayal of trust or confidence.
John Kerry betrayed no trust or confidence, nor did he betray his country or work to aid its enemies. His views may not have been popular among those in uniform, but they were hardly treasonous.
Greg, maybe you didn't get the memo.
The borderline-retarded misuse of the word "treason" has officially become passé. People like you have abused it to the point where it has lost all meaning, and it no longer holds any shock value. At this point, it only makes you sound like the kind of person who masturbates to Tom Clancy novels.
Give it a rest, please. It's high time you guys came up with a new ad-hominem attack anyway.
Greg, maybe you didn't get the memo.
The borderline-retarded misuse of the word "treason" has officially become passé. People like you have abused it to the point where it has lost all meaning, and it no longer holds any shock value. At this point, it only makes you sound like the kind of person who masturbates to Tom Clancy novels.
Give it a rest, please. It's high time you guys came up with a new ad-hominem attack anyway.
If the Kerry campaign really believes these guys are lying, why not simply follow through with the lawsuits? By their threats of legal action, they have taken steps that if successful, would seek to deprive these Veterans of their first amendment rights. To me, that's pretty darn serious, and the act warrants serious attention. But now, it seems that those were empty threats. No lawsuits were actually filed. Gee Mr. DNC, exactly what was your motive here, and why go to such extremes to squash a message that you do not believe is true?
Funding for the Swift Boat Vets is a drop in the bucket compared to the MILLIONS that have fueled the likes of moveon.org and other soft money beneficiaries that spew the democrat message. These outfits have been firing mud for the duration of this campaign, but nobody has threatened broadcasters with legal action for airing their ads now have they.
But there's something about these swift boat dudes that seems to strike fear into the Kerry campaign. Their fear is evident in their response. "Trust only what you hear from people who were in John Kerry's boat, everyone else MUST be lying." "John Kerry's actions in Viet Nam are more important than his Senate voting record."
I don't know about you, but when some one wants my buy in, be it for a product or a cause, but urges me to consider only thier proposal, I'm automatically skeptical. "Let the buyer beware" is good advice in this election. I again urge you to seek credible information and decide for yourself.
Mr. Kerry: If these folks are telling blatent lies, as you have publicly alleged, take them to court for it. (Or better yet, release your medical and military records and the book you wrote a few years ago that you'd rather we not see!) Otherwise, shut up and play the game YOU helped invent by allowing Congress to stick thier sticky fingers in campaign finance "reform". (It's like letting the foxes guard the chicken coop, but that's a different comment for a different day!)
BTW, I was WITH John Kerry when he piloted his swift boat into CAMBODIA... Of course, I was only 9 years old then, but the event changed my life!
Anybody can get on the internet and say anything they like. I'm certainly not willing to sign an affidavit affirming the above, but there's a "boatfull" of Veterans that HAVE signed affidavits and are taking a stand for something they obviously believe in.
THEY deserve your objective attention.
YOU deserve better than John Kerry.
Actually, friends, you might want to consider these before thinking I am just slinging around the word treason for shock value or mere political value. I am dead serious.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778
" rel="nofollow">http://precinct333.blogspot.com/2004/08/united-states-code-title-10-chapter-47.html
As aiding the enemy is part of the constitutional definition of treason, I am being quite precise in my statements. It has nothing to do with whether or not his speech sat well with anyone or not. It fits very well with definition one as so conveniently provided by Jack, though the only one that really matters is the one in Article III of the US Constitution.
And F R E Q, your ad hominem attacks are noted. You really should engage in your hypocrisy in private, where we don't have to watch.
Gee Greg, you're right. I assume we'll be seeing treason charges brought against Kerry by a military tribunal any day now, seeing as how there is such a convincing case for it and all. Sometimes I forget that war veterans aren't valid without a little (R) in front of their names on CNN. In fact, I'm so glad that great crusaders like you are here to keep Ann Coulter's logic alive and well. After all, if people read her body of work and didn't have the benefit if people like you to parrot such absurd claims, they would probably dismiss it as nonsense right off the bat!
Just imagine, you would be forced to live in a country where you couldn't accuse someone of being unpatriotic or treasonous simply because they didn't subscribe to the same sociopolitical nutshell as you! Perish the thought, Greg!
I'm all for free speech, free thought, etc -- but when one goes and meets with the enemy during time of war and comes back to promote his program, that is aiding the enemy. And I have no problem with Democrats, given that I am happily married to one. And as the son of a Vietnam vet who served four tours in Vietnam rather than four months, I'll gladly accept the legitimacy of veterans of all parties who haven't sullied their service with treasonous activity.
What would Roosevelt have done to someone who went to meet with Hitler's representatives and then returned to promote that plan for peace in the US? I suspect it would have involved a treason trial. I merely suggest the same standard is appropriate here.
And by the way, I don't have much use for Ann Coulter, so you can quit throwing her my direction.
Horse. Shit.
You use the word "treason" for it's applied severity, and little else. We've all seen the tactic a thousand times, and have had to put up with the loudest and most vocally obnoxious proponents of America's political right who use the word like it's going out of style. As is the case with words like "liberal", "communist", or "socialist", the word has been rendered meaningless. George Orwell even argued that the same was true for the word "fascism" so many years ago. A word gets tossed around so much by the punditry that people have little clue as to it's meaning other than that it supposedly means "something undesirable".
Let's reclaim the word, shall we?
The Constitution not only clearly defines treason, but it lays out strict conditions under which one may be convicted of it, namely, two witnesses or a confession in open court. "Treason" consists of one of the two constitutional definitions of the crime, both of them being intentional acts of betrayal: "levying war," or "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort."
Madison even saw fit to further elaborate these points in The Federalist #43 by saying:
"...new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other..."
Sound at all familiar?
Those such as David Horowitz, the New York Sun, Don Imus, Tom Marsland, Adam Sparks, Guy Milliere, Sen. Jim Bunning, Micheal Reagan, Jeremy Robb, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Jerry Falwell, Sen. Tim Burchett, and shitloads of others are practically in love with the Madison's "new-fangled treasons". Newsmax uses the word as though they were getting royalties from it.
In the past, a great deal of those who have had to listen to people yammer endlessly about those they consider "un-American" or "treacherous" have chosen not to dignify these attacks with a response. Unfortunately, well-funded fortifications at the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation just keep 'em coming. Former Senator Max Cleland, who was defeated by a draft-dodger who accused him of being "unpatriotic", is a shining example of this. The fact that Senator John McCain was nudged out of the 2000 republican primary by Karl Rove's dirty politics in a similar manner suggests that the political right's use of these tactics amounts to nothing more than a baseless game for grabbing power and diverting attention away from real issues that they can't possibly win on.
As for claims that Kerry is guilty of treason? You'll find that most of them are grossly exaggerated. The source of most of these claims appears to be a photograph of Jane Fonda at an anti-war Rally in 1970 where Kerry is in the background. The connection apparently being that they happened to be in the same place at the same time on one occasion.
If you really don't subscribe to Coulter's work, then you should really stop using such low tactics that she so readily uses. We're sick of hearing it.
F R E Q, if you are sick of hearing the "low tactics" why don't you check out the information that the Kerry campaign is is most afraid of you reading...
That Kerry's post war actions constitute treason may be debatable. That he has exploited his military service, prior to his political career, on the floor of the Senate and most recently in his bid for the presidency is a matter of fact.
Bob - and the reason we don't see George W. Bush campaigning on his military record is because...? If Kerry committed treason, then George W. Bush certainly was AWOL. The facts clearly support the AWOL charge...not a shred of evidence says the Bush served in Alabama. But its a reach to say that engaging in legitimate political dialog, which is exactly what Kerry did (not to mention that the country long ago decided he was right and that Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger et al were wrong).
FREQ & Dennis -- did you even go to the sites I linked? Did you even look at the information out there. The case that is made is very clear and simple -- that while still a reservist, Kerry went and had unauthorized meetings with representatives of the North Vietnamese & VietCong. That is in his Senate testimony, so he is on the record admitting to it. He then came back and promoted the peace plan promoted by those two delegations and worked to formet US opinion against the war. That at least makes for a prima facie case of "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort", as per Article III.
Now I realize that it is easier for you to throw accusations and try to associate me with all the folks you despise rather than look at the evidence in question (a good chunk of which comes from Kerry sources), but it really would be useful for you to do so if you wish to refute my position. On the other hand, if you simply want me to wilt under a barage of puerile insults, it ain't going to happen.
And Bob -- if we have to accept every military record on Kerry as divine writ, then you need to do so with the records that show Bush completed his required service time and was not AWOL. Repeating the demonstrably false charge is dishonest and hypocritical. Kerry having done so is pathetic and shows his unfitness for the office to which he aspires.
Kerry's military service and Bush's military service are two different subjects. That the phrase, "Yea, But BUSH was AWOL" is a frequent WHINE of Kerry supporters when faced with some pretty serious truths about their candidate of last resort is indicative of how important shielding Kerry's true nature is to the success of his presidential bid.
The value of alleging Bush to be AWOL played out much earlier in this campaign. It's been revived to divert attention away from the facts about the candidate that are being revealed by the Swift Boat Vets.
The DNC is really scared of theses folks. They'd like to take legal action, but (a) They don't have a case, and (b) The discovery portion of the proceedings would accurately define who John Kerry really is! (Something that must be avoided at all costs!)
I said it here first, at TPRS last week: The Kerry camp is very afraid of what the SBV's have to say. Their actions support this notion.
Not only that, but even the liberal dominated, 85% Kerry supporting mainstream media is demonstrably weary of shielding the candidate from the real issues. Pretty soon they're going to run out of diversions and acuatlly have to address what the SBV's are saying!
I belive this could very well be the turning point in this presidential race, and Kerry did it to himself by making Viet Nam such a predominant topic in his campaign.
You reap what you sow, comrade Kerry. Enjoy!