Posted on 08/31/2004 12:50:55 PM PDT by rface
This A**hole just doesn't get it. They aren't driven by a desire that Bush get a second term They are driven by a sincere desire to see that Kerry doesn't get a first term.
There's a big difference.
Hey, moron! The issue isn't whether U.S. troops committed "no atrocities." Of course some atrocities were committed. This has always been the case during wars, and always will be. The issue is the veracity of Kerry's testimony: that such atrocities were the rule rather than the exception, and the orders came from high up the chain of command.
This putz uses the cheap liberal trick of creating a straw man and then using it to prove his argument. If I say the Red Sox are a very good baseball team, he could say, sarcastically, "Then I suppose they'll never lose a game." What a limp-wristed ignoramus!
You missed all those Navy records Kerry released privately to the press that categorically supported all his claims. They have Kerry's sacred word of honor--what more do they need?
I heard somebody say it on television.
Oh, and Karl Rove is behind it all. These aren't real swiftvets. These are cardboard cutouts assembled by Karl Rove who may have served with John Kerry, except for that one guy on his boat. But he's a liar. Everything he says is a lie. And the other guys too. Or they were bought by Karl Rove. Or that O'Neill guy. He was brought out by Nixon to trash Kerry in 1971, knowing Kerry would run for president and then brought out by Rove.
I heard somebody say it on television.
Maybe he should have spent the weekend reading "Unfit for Command."
Of course the official records support Kerry because he got the medals. But who was the source of the "official" reports? Why don't they ask that question? Were the reports accurate? Certainly if the media wing of the Democratic Party (the mainline media) can believe that official intelligence reports as well as official UN reports were wrong about WMD in Iraq, then they can conceive of the possibility that those official reports regarding John Kerry's medals might be wrong.
Dear Editor:
Obviously Forrest can't see the forest for the trees. First of all, John O'Neill is co-author of "Unfit for Command," not John O'Neal. Secondly, let's take a look to see whose stories have changed ever since the Swift Veterans for Truth came forward.
Earlier this year, Senator Kerry posted some, but not all of his Naval records on his campaign website. Among those documents was a 20 page Spot Report pertaining to activities of swiftboat PCF94 for the month of January, 1969. Not long afterwards, the 20 pages were removed from the website when Lt. Tedd Peck, who had actually been the boat's Commander at that time, stepped forward and complained. Apparently Senator Kerry was trying to represent himself as Commander of someone else's swiftboat.
Has anyone seen the Rev. David Alston lately? You'll remember him as the black gunner's mate who spoke on several occasions about his extensive service & combat action alongside John Kerry, stating that he and Kerry had "fought and bled together." Recently, journalists checking into Mr. Alston's records have discovered that David Alston's actual time alongside John Kerry more than likely amounted to a week or less. I'd thought he was conspicuously absent at Kerry's side lately.
At the Democrat National Convention in July, it was disclosed that film footage of a young John Kerry, that had initially been touted as live combat action in Vietnam was actually scenes reenacted specifically for the camera. Kerry continually made the claim that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, and at least on one occasion (March 27, 1986), made that claim on the Senate floor. It is part of the official record. It has now been proven that the Cambodia story is a total fabrication on Senator Kerry's part, and in fact, Douglas Brinkley has penned a rewrite of his Kerry biography because of this disclosure.
On December 2, 1968, John Kerry claims he received a wound after he and two of his crew came under enemy fire during a mission they were on. For that injury, John Kerry received his first Purple Heart. But in a diary entry Kerry made on December 11th, 9 days after the alleged December 2nd injury, he wrote:
"A cocky air of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel, because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."
Yesterday, the Kerry campaign stated that it is quite possible that Kerry's first Purple Heart may have actually been as a result of an "unintentional self-inflicted injury." Stay tuned for the ever-changing, ever-evolving story known as...the military record of John Kerry.
The NY Times declared that the charges were debunked. What more do you need?
Considering all the different citations that Kerry has for his military awards, I'd say that the good senator has been in the process of re-writing his service record for many years now.
According to Gridley's operations as listed on Kerry's fitness report (23 March to 20 July 1968), the ship left the Gulf of Tonkin operating area on May 5th for Subic Bay. On the 10th, they departed Subic for New Zealand. That May 27th date was their departure from New Zealand heading to Long Beach.
Two additional Kerry items that have never been explained. First: The alleged 'sampan incident'. If it's true that innocents and NOT the enemy were killed, then it follows that John Fraud Kerry MUST HAVE filed an intentionally erroneous "action report". My question... Is there a statute of limitations on filing papers for a General Courts Martial, which is what should have been done if the truth be known then.
Second: I spent 5 years active duty in the Navy and during that time NEVER saw first hand or heard of, second-hand scuttlebutt, ANY military officer who restaged purported enemy action incidents, complete with firing for effect, for his own film collection. HOWEVER; a GUTLESS PHONY who had a preconceived plan to create a heroic military background to embellish his dossier for a future career in politics MIGHT! He MIGHT also think it cute to testify, with a huge audience, before a Congressional committee to champion a cause...ANY FRIGGIN' CAUSE to gain the spotlight and damn the consequences of his actions.
FINAL COMMENT: Bush is far from the ideal, but we're dealin' with politicians, not statesmen here, and you'll NEVER find the ideal. Bottom line....Reelect Bush, because this bum is a menace to life as we know it and to traditional American values. IGNORE WHAT HE SAYS AND LOOK AT WHAT HE'S DONE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.