Replies

The guy's name is Jim Rassman, and I wrote O'Reilly last night:

Dear Bill:

I totally disagree with you regarding the ad by the Swiftboat Vets. First of all, John Kerry has made the lousy 4 months he spent in Vietnam the focal point of his Presidential campaign, and is using that four months as proof that he is qualified to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of this country. He isn't running on his 19 year Senate record; he's running away from it...all the way back to 1968 and Vietnam. He can't even bring himself to talk about his anti-war activities. If he brazenly flaunts his medals and so-called heroics to the American people and the press, then those same medals and heroics are fair-game in the Presidential political arena. And remember Bill, it was the Democrats themselves who dragged up George Bush's National Guard record in 2000, and again last year during the Bush-bashing hate fests disguised as debates.

John Kerry turned his back on his fellow soldiers when he came home from Vietnam. In 1971, he arbitrarily decided to actively campaign against the war and the military service of thousands of men who fought and died for this country. Now he chooses to run solely on the same military service he so denigrated all those years before. With that in mind, why shouldn't his military record be challenged? Afterall, he spent a good deal of time crucifying and demeaning every soldier who had served in Vietnam. Why shouldn't his fellow Swiftboat Vets be allowed to speak out against him, and question his claims of heroism? Why shouldn't those men who were at the same incidents with John Kerry, and observed first-hand the events that John Kerry received medals for, be able to tell their side of the story, especially if it differs from what Kerry himself is saying? Frankly Bill, if Kerry lied, I want to know. I have a personal reason for this. While my brother was being shot at by the VC in the jungles of South Vietnam (66-67), John Kerry was spewing his anti-war rhetoric in his 1966 Yale graduation speech. And later when he came home, John Kerry called my brother and every other brother in America, a murderer, rapist, and baby-killer. My brother's gone now, having died at the young age of 51. And loving him as I do, I feel it is my responsibility to speak out for him.

Nobody seems to be worried about where all those Left-wing 527 groups are getting their money from for their anti-Bush ads, so why should I give a rat's ass where these Swiftboat Vets got their lousy half-million dollars...a mere pittance when compared to the millions in the coffers of Moveon.org. I think it's about time the Veterans spoke out. They've certainly earned the right to. With all the wailing coming from the Kerry camp about the upcoming book (Unfit to Command) and the present Swiftboat Vets ad, the one thing I've yet to hear from John Kerry himself, is a denial of any of the allegations they've made.

I know it will never make his show as it's not pithy, but as I told him in a P.S., I'm not a pithy person.

I know it will never make his show as it's not pithy, but as I told him in a P.S., I'm not a pithy person.

Pith on O'Reilly and Kerry's helmet he's riding in on and he still wouldn't air comments that have the truth to counter his statements, they would bring the balance he touts as being so prevalent on his show.

B O'R is so full of himself lately, his popularity has gone to his head. That Number One Cable Show stuff he thinks is permanent.

Mud b Slim:

Dick Morrris can take the sock off, and Hay Dick, put a toe in it! (Sucker...) Har, that will always be Morris's legacy.

I also sent an e-mail to O'Reilly:

I apologize in advance for not being brief, but have striven to make this pithy.

I was a little disappointed at your response to the Vets who were disputing Kerry's version of his war service (4 months). Of the nineteen officers who served with Kerry, only one supports his version, the other eighteen do not. It is possible to serve with Kerry without actually being a crewmember of his particular boat. (The Democrat spin on this issue is childish.)

You choose to believe the testimony of the rescued S.F. soldier, who was knocked into the water by the explosion of a mine and was thusly under severe stress and shock, over the testimony of officers from another boat in close proximity to the action. You choose to believe the few over the many.

It is also classic Dem spin to accuse the accusers of being politically motivated (like those who support Kerry are not?). How much are they being paid to do this, as compared to what the Kerry vets are being paid by the Kerry campaign. Also Kerry "wisely" secured medals for his entire crew, in the process of obtaining his own.

How anyone could seriously believe that an officer, in any branch of the service, could collect three Purple Hearts in the space of four months, is beyond me. Ask any combat veteran if they think such a thing is likely. Those three medals were John Kerry's early ticket home. There were not many in Vietnam who would not have loved to go home after only four months.

Any questions about this issue could be cleared-up by Kerry releasing the documentation that would prove his assertions, but so far he has been unwilling. Kerry, himself, has made his service record a central point in the campaign and he should be willing to deal with questions about that service.

One particular person is at the bottom of a lot of this baloney about purely partisan political attacks and conspiracies to undermine certain political figures. The damage done to legitimate debate has been tremendous.

Main question: Why should the views of a few vets be given more credence than the views of a much larger group of vets? Let us hear all of the sides, before the spin starts.

Dave Isaac

I probably will not quit watching the show, however. Overall, hescores above average.