Posted on 06/10/2005 6:34:31 PM PDT by bitt
DESPITE THE continuing gripes of his critics, records released this week show that Senator John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. The documents should put to rest claims that Kerry misrepresented his military record in the presidential race. But Kerry's failure to respond to the smear campaign launched against him last summer lent credibility to its real objective: to impugn his equally honorable opposition to the war.
John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer and Kerry's adversary on the war since 1971, acknowledged as much in a telephone interview Wednesday. ''We produced seven commercials," he said of his anti-Kerry group, now called Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. ''Only one dealt with Vietnam activities." O'Neill was incensed by Kerry's memorable testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, in which the young veteran, clad in a combat shirt, criticized the war.
Kerry has said that he may have used a poor choice of words when he cited other veterans' reports of atrocities as being ''in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." But his basic analysis was sound: Vietnamese and Americans were dying needlessly because the war was a mistake, and US policymakers allowed it to continue even though they were aware that their strategy for victory was failing.
The Swift Boat ads ....snip
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Wow. Hadn't seen that one before. It really says it all. Thanks, I think? :)
Been keeping track of ol Hanoi Jane....I wanna be first in line to piss on her grave.....
Guess I'll have to add Hanoi John to the list......Got a beermeister...plenty of ammo....
Semper Fi
JF'nK is a lying traitor ~ Bump!
They don't realize what they are missing.
"Anyone who believes what Kerry's kneepad-wearing, NYT-owned, hometown newspaper said about a document release, without an actual complete publication of *the* signed 180 and the released documents (pdfs on a web page, originals available for view), probably doesn't have the critical thinking skills to "know" much of anything."
I guess you didn't read my posts where I said the Globe should explain the discrepencies in their own account and produce the form 180--or at the least say exactly how Kerry filled it out.
I also noted Kranish is a Kerry sycophant. Though, to be fair, Kranish and the Globe got out a lot of information about Kerry long before anyone else in the mainstream media. Even his trip to Paris to meet with the enemy:
http://tinyurl.com/2bces
I have not said anyting like curtisgardner's posts. I think Kerry's service record if very important and absolutely a topic for discussion.
My complaint is that there have been extremely far-fetched claims made, that now seem to be becoming received as facts, when there is not one scintilla of evidence that they are true. Such as Kerry having been dishonorably discharged.
Kerry was the most famous ex-military leader of the anti-war movement. Kerry, during this period was constantly running for political office, using his service records as his main selling point. Kerry was loathed by most of the military, especially the Navy.
You have to be smoking crack to believe he would have gotten a less than honorable discharge and that fact wouldn't have leaked out at the time. Also, you have to be crazy to think that discharge would be changed by Carter or anybody, and that fact wouldn't have been leaked out.
All of this conjecture is based on two thin reeds. The dates of his discharge--which were thoroughly explained by many a ex-Navy officer on this very board. And the fact Kerry couldn't get into a better law school than Boston College.
Well, truth to tell, BC is a pretty good law school. And it is a slight miracle he even got into there with his grades at Yale. Besides, do you think BC would have let him in with a dishonorable dischange for protesting the war (and betraying his country) when Harvard Law--the home of the most commie lawyers in the world (Critical Legal Studies) wouldn't?
Again, just preposterous.
As for his actual service inconsistencies, that are too many to enumerate. I read "Unfit for Command" and believe using the word "inconsistency" understates the differences. Falsification, fabrication, and outright lies are a better description of his so-called "heroics". Again, I served alongside the Swiftboat crews for just shy of a full year and I tend to believe their version of events rather than his. Regarding the Purple Hearts, most of the men I served with, all volunteers by the way, had integrity and would not claim a Purple Heart for scratches, especially when their fellow crewmen were being maimed or killed by enemy fire.
So did I! (Grin)
But constantly talking about a coverup about a dishonorable discharge is counter-productive. And makes the everybody look like whackjobs, because it is so out there. It just gives Kerry and company an excuse. "You can never please people like that," etc.
"I guess I missed the part about gunboat johnnie's Boston College admittance being a cornerstone of the case against him."
It is a lynchpin in all of Lipscomb's articles about the alleged dishonorable discharge. Starting with his first article on the subject November 1 of last year:
"A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar."
http://tinyurl.com/b4bmk
O.K. We're on the same page now. Have a good afternoon.
"You sneer at the allegation as "far-fetched" but you offer only your opinion to counter it. There is no evidence that what you say is true because kerry continues to play games with his records."
You need to read more closely. One of the things this charge is based upon is the so-called Carter amnesty. That executive order had to do with the people who broke the Selective Service (Draft) laws exclusively.
For some reason Sullivan and Lipscomb and others have gotten it into their heads that it could have been used to change Kerry's discharge status. Not true.
This is just one example. The law school conundrum is another. But you and others seem determined to believe what you want to believe, facts be damned. Which is a hallmark of the left.
>>>>Remember, Kerry went into politics immediately after leaving the service. He used it as an excuse for his premature separation--to run for Congress.
It is a federal offense to lie about your military service, with regard to gaining position or advancement.
Yeah, I sorta figured that might be the case, from your tag line. ;-)
Having read Unfit for Command, and a lot of news stories on the general subject, O'Neil and crew seem entirely credible to me. The Leftie attacks on them are the kind of mealy-mouthed hairsplitting, mincing of words, and definition of "is" nonsense we have come to expect, and they are unwilling to and don't face the core issues raised about Kerry's history, both in Vietnam and immediately afterwards. Unfit for Command and The New Soldier pretty much tell the story there.
My father was in his early 30s in 65-66, when he flew Caribou out of Can Tho. I know the kind of man he was, and what his peers were like. What I see in O'Neill and the Swiftvets, are very similar men. So when I see these low-life scum, who have largely never served their country, attacking O'Neill, I also see it as an indirect attack on my father and the rest of the military, a military we have every right to be extremely pround of.
Kerry cannot be run out of the Senate on a rail too soon. The fact that Mass continues to be represented by this clown is just an enormously poor reflection on them.
They had cleaned him up enough to get within about 100,000 votes (in Ohio) from the presidency. Awfully skerry when you think about it.
Perhaps but how many were just anti-Bush votes and/or voter fraud?
LOL I agree, 'awful skerry'!
True, but there's always a big batch of 'Rat vote fraud that has to be overcome. It just worked to put our former attorney general into the governor's mansion out here--a 133-vote win amidst a sea of 1,673 proven but unallocated illegal votes. And remember, 'twas probably mostly anti-Bush votes that put The 'Toon into office in '92. It's frightful to see what kind of trash the 'Rats routinely nominate--Hillary will be next (unless sKerry can have his way).
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.