It's Kerry's antiwar acts they resent

Boston Globe ^ | Aug. 26, 2004 | JEFF JACOBY

[FairOpinion]

He was the one who made his long-ago stint in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for president. He's the one whose running mate urges voters to take Kerry's measure by spending "three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago." He's the one whose campaign ads dwell on his combat heroics. He's the one who has repeatedly played the Vietnam card against critics and opponents. And he's the one who challenged anyone "who wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam to bring it on."

So the Swifties brought it on.

On April 22, 1971, Kerry went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to indict the American war effort in Vietnam for horrendous war crimes. These were "not isolated incidents," he testified, "but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

"The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield," says Paul Galanti, who appears in the second -- and far more devastating -- Swift Boat Veterans ad, "because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington."

Galanti has good reason to remember Kerry's testimony. He first learned of it in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton," where he spent nearly seven years as a POW.

[FairOpinion]

It is starting to appear in the MSM.

Kerry is toast!

[HamiltonJay]

Yep, Kerry's actions against the war are his undoing. MSM will not relent on this one.. blood is in the water. Kerry can't play attack the messenger or nuance game.. his own words before the Senate show him to either be a Liar or a War Criminal or both... either way he is unfit for the Presidency.

Hope you are happy now rabid leftists, you made your bed, now have fun lying in it. You turned your back on rational canidates and bet your paychecks on this loser... now you have to live with the consequences. You should have looked this gift horse in the mouth.

[lowercoloradoriver]

As much as I hate to say it, I don't see this getting much traction with the swing voters. I would love to be wrong here.


Kerry has put his testifying before Congress in 1971 in his campaign videos, etc. Most Americans relunctantly accept the fact that there were some pretty ugly things done in Vietnam.


Unfortunately, I think this issue of Komunist Ketchup Kerry as a leader of the antiwar movement will have as much traction with most American voters as hippy Clinton in Moscow.

[flashbunny]

Jeff Jacoby isn't exactly part of the MSM - in fact it's probably time the globe suspend him again for the duration of the election season. They wouldn't want him hurting kerry's chances!

[FairOpinion]

Polls starting to show Bush up a few points, and Kerry down.

And this is just the beginning.

Kerry voters are not very loyal to Kerry.

There were some polls of independents, which found they were less likely to vote for Kerry after seeing the ads.

A recent LAT poll also showed Bush actually ahead of Kerry.

IT's making a difference.

[Bobibutu]

Now - now the BP has gone after Kerry before - that does not mean the rest will pick up.

However, let me take this opportunity to express myself - John Kerry - F*ck you - Just F*ck you -

I have been waiting for over 30 years to say that and now I feel better. ";^)

VN - '66 - '69

[dwaynestomp]

It is somewhat significant to have an editorial this negative appear in the Boston Globe. It means the story is starting to get traction among MSM.

[arkfreepdom]

That would be true except there are POW's that will be in an upcoming documentary talking about it. Powerful stuff. Besides it doesn't have to convince many people.

[luv2ski]

I disagree. It is made much more personal by the appearance of the POWs themselves. We didn't see the victims of Clinton's overseas protests. 'Taking a page out of Edwards book...show the victim and his/her suffering...

[narby]

Wow. That's powerful.

[Bogey78O]

I posted this to a liberal Kerry supporter who said that Kerry's story is backed by the facts. Can anyone add anything or point out a factual flaw?

---

See that's what I don't understand. Because several things in the record clearly contradict Kerry even though Kerry is the source for most of the records. First when dealing with Kerry's first purple heart the SBV claimed that it was friendly fire caused by Kerry firing grenades too close to the shore at what he thought was VC soldiers. Kerry claimed it was an enemy firefight even though his own diary said he hadn't been fired upon by the enemy yet a whole week later. It would be naive to believe that he would forget an enemy firefight where he was wounded. So what's the explanation?

Then when dealing with his third purple heart and bronze star the inconsistancies abound. First the Kerry/Rassman claim was 2 mines went off disabling PCF-3 and tossing PCF-94 (Kerry's boat) which threw Rassman overboard. Kerry and Rassman then claimed they all gunned the throttle for over a mile or so until Kerry realized he lost Rassman and he swung his boat around to pick Rassman up. Rassman claims during this time he kept diving and surfacing all alone hoping to survive. Then according to Kerry's bronze star citation he was bleeding profusely on his arm as he pulled Rassman up as enemy fire was occuring. However his medical report only indicates a contusion/bruise on his arm and not a single mention of any laceration a story that Rasman confirms.

Now in an attempt to debunk the SBV they released Thurlow's citation. The focus was on the claim of small arms fire however the thing to notice is it claims Thurlow didn't run after the mine went off but instead charged towards PCF-3 and attempted rescue and salvage operations as the boat was stuck going in circles from a jammed prop going 500 RPM on one side and a prop frozen on the other side.

All the while this is occuring there is supposedly small arms fire even though it took Thurlow several minutes to successfully halt PCF-3 and bring her under control. As this is going on the other 3 boats are fishing the crewmen who went overboard out of the water.

If as Kerry had originally claimed all the boats ran then for several minutes this disabled boat and the men on the boat as well as in the water were sitting ducks and should have been easily dispatched by the VC on the shore. Not to mention Rassman should have seen them as Kerry clearly stated he was to the right of PCF-3 when it was hit by the mine with a simultaneous detonation of another mine supposedly throwing Rassman overboard. If that was the case then Rassman should have been within 50-70 yards of PCF-3 and the disabled crew AKA visible range. So why didn't he see anyone?

Where did Kerry's bloody arm come from? Why did he originally state all the boats ran when they didn't?

How come even though PCF-94 came through this incident with almost no indication of small arms fire (note PCF-94 and PCF-3 damage reports for this day were apparently accidentally swapped as PCF-94 towed PCF-3 in and the subsequent damage report for PCF-94 shows a boat that clearly is disabled with injuries consistant with that of PCF-3s).

What's the response to Steve Gardner's (Kerry's gunner from Nov to Jan)claims about some of Kerry's combat reports being falsified? He was on Kerry's boat.

It's not so much they've been debunked by any logical research it's that the newsmedia has simply wrote them off and pointed to records that Kerry had a hand in writing in order to prove Kerry is telling the truth. Using a source that is being called into question as evidence against a challenge is a poor practice.

If the media wanted to prove or disprove the claism they'd simply stack up the stories against each other and see who has the most logically consistant story. And when the known facts are added against the disputed facts they clearly break towards the SBV.

If you want to check this out go ahead. Read the citations then compare them to what Kerry and Rassman have claimed. Then add them against the known facts not mentioned by either that are not in dispute. The answer will appear.

As to the Rood statement just take what he's said. Outline it against Kerry. Pick out the main points. Then detail it against the citation. Log the conflicts then compare it against the SBV side of it. Note which ones match and which ones disagree. You'll notice that, for instance Rood claims that the VC was wearing typical VC garb and not a loincloth. However that contradicts both sides which have both maintained the VC was indeed wearing a loincloth. Then note regarding enemy fire what Kerry claims, what the citation claims, then what Rood claims. If a dispute arises (which it does) then reference the SBV. If as the SBVs maintain the record is wrong and the records account only agrees with Kerry and not Rood's then that supports the charge the record is wrong.

Well that's enough for now. Go research some of this. Check it all out for yourself.

[lowercoloradoriver]

As much as I hate to say it, I don't see this getting much traction with the swing voters. I would love to be wrong here.


Kerry has put his testifying before Congress in 1971 in his campaign videos, etc. Most Americans relunctantly accept the fact that there were some pretty ugly things done in Vietnam.


Unfortunately, I think this issue of Komunist Ketchup Kerry as a leader of the antiwar movement will have as much traction with most American voters as hippy Clinton in Moscow.

[Chaguito]

Jeff Jacoby isn't typical Boston Globe. You just can't read much into this. But it is certainly better than nothing.

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for your service. The worm is turning, hopefully Kerry is going to live to regret his activities trashing our troops fighting in Vietnam for God and country.

You will feel even better, if you donate to the Swifties, if you can. ( Not just you, everyone)

David bringing down Goliath. 256 SWiftVets bringing down the huge, well-oiled Democrat Juggernaut.

http://www.swiftvets.com

I sent them a contribution, but plan to give more. I ask myself, how much is it worth to me to keep Kerry out of the White House.

[lowercoloradoriver]

oops... sorry for the double post. I hit "back" and went to the preview screen and was doing searches in another wind and then went back to this window and hit post.

sorry.

[doug from upland]

You have your wish. You are wrong here. :)

[sissyjane]

Please go and read the entire article if you haven't .

Devastating

[Ruth A.]

The Globe has been relentless in hitting sKerry.

[NYCVirago]

As much as I hate to say it, I don't see this getting much traction with the swing voters. I would love to be wrong here. Kerry has put his testifying before Congress in 1971 in his campaign videos, etc. Most Americans relunctantly accept the fact that there were some pretty ugly things done in Vietnam.

But the Genghis Khan/ear cutting remarks aren't well-known to the average person, although they've probably heard the clip of Kerry saying about being the last man to die quote.

[PhilDragoo]