Kerry's whole campaign is Vietnam Service

[Avatar4321]

The NY Times seems to suggest there is a close link between the SBVT and the Bush Campaign. Karl Rove especially. At a minimum, the NY Times certainly raises some serious questions about the credibility of the SBVT. They contradict themselves often, they contradict official Naval Records and their own citations, they lavish praise on Kerry one minute, the next they are accusing him of lying. In my opinion, they have every right to express anger over Kerry's comments when he came home. Though I believe, and I think most Americans believe that the horrible things Kerry described in Vietnam probably happened on more then one occasion. But the elaborate extent to which they go to distort offical naval records and distort Kerry's Service is not right. In my opinion at least, it is simply disgusting to pit Veteran vs. Veteran. I hope this blows up in Bush's face and costs him a second term. I have faith that the vast majority of Americans are not going to fall for this smear campaign and will punish Bush serverly for it.

I could care less about the NY Times attempt to play 6 degrees of seperation with the Swift Boat Vets. Even if you could prove that the swift boat vets all worked for the Bush campaign at some people in their lives or knew people who did, how would that disprove their claims? To assume that just because someone is Republican and has campaigned for republicans in the past is lying without analyzing the merit of the arguments at all is the highest level of Arrogance.

I couldnt care less which way the vets vote. my question is why dont the Democrats challenge what they are saying rather than attack the character of war veterans? Republicans atleast dealt with Michael Moore's baseless accusations. And we did so rather quickly. But there has been no attempt of Kerry or his surrogates of dealing with the substance of what they are saying.

 

[Avatar4321]

A 527 organization operates independently of any candidate or party. What holds true for Moveon.org must hold true for SBVT. There is no "treat Democrats gently" provision in the law. And, if President Bush tried to influence the actions of a 527 organization, one way or the other, he would be in violation of the law. The sword cuts both ways, my friend. You're going to have to deal with it.

I would point out that while there is no evidence of Republican collusion in violating the law here, there is evidence of Democrat collusion in 527s. after all look who the put in prominent places in the convention. Michael Moore is deffinately working with the DNC on this.

 

[musicman]

I would point out that while there is no evidence of Republican collusion in violating the law here, there is evidence of Democrat collusion in 527s. after all look who the put in prominent places in the convention. Michael Moore is deffinately working with the DNC on this.

Good point. The fact that a veteran is outraged at John Kerry's "hero" charade in no way defines him as a Republican.

 

[krisy]

I would concur with your most valid post.

thank you,my dear. This subject is starting to really burn me up!!!!

 

[tim_duncan2000]

They contradict themselves often, they contradict official Naval Records and their own citations, they lavish praise on Kerry one minute, the next they are accusing him of lying.

1) When have they "lavish[ed] praise on Kerry"?

2) What about Kerry's many contradictions (Cambodia, not acting proud of his service and claiming he and many other veterans committed atrocities in the 70s but then saying that he's proud of his service now, etc)

I would point out that while there is no evidence of Republican collusion in violating the law here, there is evidence of Democrat collusion in 527s. after all look who the put in prominent places in the convention. Michael Moore is deffinately working with the DNC on this.

I don't understand why Kerry would even want to go there. The connections between Kerry/DNC and MoveOn.org (as well as other anti-Bush groups) are definitely there (for starters, go here to find a story about the Kerry campaign hiring someone who worked as a special projects director for MoveOn.org's political action committee) whereas Bush's connections to the Swift Boat Vets are much less clear.

 

[insein]

The NY Times seems to suggest there is a close link between the SBVT and the Bush Campaign. Karl Rove especially. At a minimum, the NY Times certainly raises some serious questions about the credibility of the SBVT. They contradict themselves often, they contradict official Naval Records and their own citations, they lavish praise on Kerry one minute, the next they are accusing him of lying. In my opinion, they have every right to express anger over Kerry's comments when he came home. Though I believe, and I think most Americans believe that the horrible things Kerry described in Vietnam probably happened on more then one occasion. But the elaborate extent to which they go to distort offical naval records and distort Kerry's Service is not right.

They seem to suggest? They raise questions? What about the questions raised BY THE FREAKING Vets? NYT used to be the marquee of newspapers back in like the 50's. ITs been a liberal mouthpiece for quite some time now. ITs been well documented on this website and many others to all the innacuricies and hypocracies that the NYT has performed over the years. Yet even with all that the best you can come up with is that they "Raise questions" and "seem to suggest". They have NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLABORATION BETWEEN SBVFT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHATSOEVER. They havent even lied and said they did like they normally do. They merely propose half-assed theories and summise that because its against Kerry and one of the contributors is a Republican, then they are in the GOP's pocket.

With that assinine logic, moveon.org is the DNC. They are funded with over $10 million by 1 contributor, George Soros. Whats Soros you ask? A register democrat and liberal commie bastard through and through.

In my opinion at least, it is simply disgusting to pit Veteran vs. Veteran. I hope this blows up in Bush's face and costs him a second term. I have faith that the vast majority of Americans are not going to fall for this smear campaign and will punish Bush serverly for it.

You see in the real world we have this thing called PROOF to back up our arguements. Without proof, your arguements are worth bullshit. In your world, bullshit must be your currency because your up to your neck in it.

Most Americans can see through the lies of the left. Bush has NOTHING to do with the SBVFT by law. Do yourself a favor. Before you say any more on the subject that you obviously have no clue on, research who these vets are before you go calling them hate-mongering Republicans again. You will see as i have told you before...wait let me turn up the size cause maybe your just blind and i don't wan't to discriminate against blind people.

The sift boat vets have been trying to correct the record that Kerry put forth for over 30 years. Some are Republican. Some are Democrat. Some are independent. All Care nothing about the politics of the matter. they want the TRUTH to be told about what happened in Vietnam. To disparage 250 vets that contributed in some way to this book not to mention the 60 plus personal affidavits all because you claim they are Republican is assinine. Wake up and see what you are.

you--->

<---DNC

 

[busch2008]

They seem to suggest? They raise questions? What about the questions raised BY THE FREAKING Vets? NYT used to be the marquee of newspapers back in like the 50's. ITs been a liberal mouthpiece for quite some time now. ITs been well documented on this website and many others to all the innacuricies and hypocracies that the NYT has performed over the years. Yet even with all that the best you can come up with is that they "Raise questions" and "seem to suggest". They have NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLABORATION BETWEEN SBVFT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHATSOEVER. They havent even lied and said they did like they normally do. They merely propose half-assed theories and summise that because its against Kerry and one of the contributors is a Republican, then they are in the GOP's pocket.

With that assinine logic, moveon.org is the DNC. They are funded with over $10 million by 1 contributor, George Soros. Whats Soros you ask? A register democrat and liberal commie bastard through and through.



You see in the real world we have this thing called PROOF to back up our arguements. Without proof, your arguements are worth bullshit. In your world, bullshit must be your currency because your up to your neck in it.

Most Americans can see through the lies of the left. Bush has NOTHING to do with the SBVFT by law. Do yourself a favor. Before you say any more on the subject that you obviously have no clue on, research who these vets are before you go calling them hate-mongering Republicans again. You will see as i have told you before...wait let me turn up the size cause maybe your just blind and i don't wan't to discriminate against blind people.

The sift boat vets have been trying to correct the record that Kerry put forth for over 30 years. Some are Republican. Some are Democrat. Some are independent. All Care nothing about the politics of the matter. they want the TRUTH to be told about what happened in Vietnam. To disparage 250 vets that contributed in some way to this book not to mention the 60 plus personal affidavits all because you claim they are Republican is assinine. Wake up and see what you are.

you--->

<---DNC

Let's see, insein vs NY Times....hhhhhmmmmmmmmm....that's a tough one.
The most important newspaper of record in the nation is printing "half-assed theories"? Do you say this because you've done your own research and you know more then the NY Times?

I've done my homework, have you done yours? By the desperate tone of your "arguement" it sure doesn't come accross that way.

As I've said before about moveon.org, they don't claim to be nonpartisan, SBVFT say they are.

You say, "They have NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLABORATION BETWEEN SBVFT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHATSOEVER." Did you even bother to read the article?

"A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election,"

That's what I mean by they seem to suggest. In fact, I'd say its pretty clear there's a GOP connection.

When did I say "hatemongering republicans"? Now you're putting words in my mouth.

I've given you proof in the form of the NY Times, you don't want to hear what they have to say, that's fine by me. But millions of Americans do read the NY Times.

I'll take the NY Times and the offical Naval Records over the changing stories of some GOP funded Veteran group thank you very much.

 

[insein]

Let's see, insein vs NY Times....hhhhhmmmmmmmmm....that's a tough one.
The most important newspaper of record in the nation is printing "half-assed theories"? Do you say this because you've done your own research and you know more then the NY Times?

Where is the evidence of the NYT? All they have are opinions and hearsay. "There might be some connection..", "There is a possibility of George Bush funding them...", "It very well could be..." . Those are not FACTS. If NYT is all you have, you arguement holds no water.

I've done my homework, have you done yours? By the desperate tone of your "arguement" it sure doesn't come accross that way.

As I've said before about moveon.org, they don't claim to be nonpartisan, SBVFT say they are.

Apparently you havent. because you've missed the posts ive made on this very thread showing that Moveon claims to be NON-PARTISAN. SBVFT are non-partisan in that they don't comprise a group of entirely one political party bent on attacking the opposing parties every move. They are a group thats signleminded goal is to reveal the Truth to the American public of what really happened during Kerry's command in Vietnam.

You say, "They have NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLABORATION BETWEEN SBVFT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHATSOEVER." Did you even bother to read the article?

"A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election,"

That's what I mean by they seem to suggest. In fact, I'd say its pretty clear there's a GOP connection.

AGAIN, by this logic, Moveon.org is a part of the DNC. George Soros is a long time political advocate of many Democratic candidates. He has pledged millions into Moveon.org. Moveon.org is in theory a 527 and an independent group but according to your logic they work for the DNC. Which BTW is highly illegal. Individual patrons and their past aquaintances do not neccessarily mean that a group is directly related to one political party or another.

Once again you failed to address the fact that NOT all of the Vets are Republicans. Some are Democrats and some are independants. when you get a group as big as them, they are bound to have many different party affiliations. Are all of them working for the GOP then? Your such a useful idiot.

When did I say "hatemongering republicans"? Now you're putting words in my mouth.

I've given you proof in the form of the NY Times, you don't want to hear what they have to say, that's fine by me. But millions of Americans do read the NY Times.

I'll take the NY Times and the offical Naval Records over the changing stories of some GOP funded Veteran group thank you very much.

How about the changing stories of one man. The stories of the Vets has been pretty consistent for 30 years. Nit picking at words like i served on Kerry's boat and serving with Kerry as entirely different are assinine.

Why is it that when a Republican is accused of something its the seriousness of the charge that deems it neccessary to be investigated. Yet when a Democrat such as Sandy Berger, Bill clinton or John Kerry are accused of serious charges, its the timing or the motives of the accusor that are the main focus.

You want to question everything, but your are happily regurgitating what is fed to you by Left wing rags like the NYT. Way to think for yourself. One more time. Research the actual backgrounds of these individuals and what they have been trying to do for the last 30 years before you claim that they are lieing.

 

[busch2008]

Where is the evidence of the NYT? All they have are opinions and hearsay. "There might be some connection..", "There is a possibility of George Bush funding them...", "It very well could be..." . Those are not FACTS. If NYT is all you have, you arguement holds no water.



Apparently you havent. because you've missed the posts ive made on this very thread showing that Moveon claims to be NON-PARTISAN. SBVFT are non-partisan in that they don't comprise a group of entirely one political party bent on attacking the opposing parties every move. They are a group thats signleminded goal is to reveal the Truth to the American public of what really happened during Kerry's command in Vietnam.



AGAIN, by this logic, Moveon.org is a part of the DNC. George Soros is a long time political advocate of many Democratic candidates. He has pledged millions into Moveon.org. Moveon.org is in theory a 527 and an independent group but according to your logic they work for the DNC. Which BTW is highly illegal. Individual patrons and their past aquaintances do not neccessarily mean that a group is directly related to one political party or another.

Once again you failed to address the fact that NOT all of the Vets are Republicans. Some are Democrats and some are independants. when you get a group as big as them, they are bound to have many different party affiliations. Are all of them working for the GOP then? Your such a useful idiot.



How about the changing stories of one man. The stories of the Vets has been pretty consistent for 30 years. Nit picking at words like i served on Kerry's boat and serving with Kerry as entirely different are assinine.

Why is it that when a Republican is accused of something its the seriousness of the charge that deems it neccessary to be investigated. Yet when a Democrat such as Sandy Berger, Bill clinton or John Kerry are accused of serious charges, its the timing or the motives of the accusor that are the main focus.

You want to question everything, but your are happily regurgitating what is fed to you by Left wing rags like the NYT. Way to think for yourself. One more time. Research the actual backgrounds of these individuals and what they have been trying to do for the last 30 years before you claim that they are lieing.

JOHN KERRY'S WAR RECORD


Okay Insein, the Chicago Tribune today is saying the SBVFT is full of crap too. Are you ready to admit defeat yet? Now I've given you the second most important newspaper in the nation. Where's your proof by the way?

Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong
Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

By Tim Jones
Tribune national correspondent
Published August 21, 2004

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue.

"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," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry's task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

Rood's previously untold story and the documents shed new light on a key historical event that has taken center stage in an extraordinary political and media firestorm generated by a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Allegations in the book, co-authored by one of the leaders of the group, accuse Kerry of being a coward who fabricated wartime events and used comrades for his "insatiable appetite for medals." The allegations have fueled a nearly two-week-long TV ad campaign against the Democratic nominee. Talk radio and cable news channels have feasted on the story.

Animosity from some veterans toward Kerry goes back more than 30 years, when Kerry returned from Vietnam to take a leadership role in the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Anger reached a boiling point with Kerry's presidential nomination and his own highlighting of his service during the war, a centerpiece of his campaign strategy against President Bush, who spent the war stateside in the Air National Guard in Texas and Alabama.

Many know of ads

A poll released Friday by the National Annenberg Election Survey reported that more than half the country has heard about or seen TV ads attacking Kerry's war record, a remarkable impact for ads that have appeared in only a handful of states.

Kerry strongly disputes the allegations. Last week he called on the White House to denounce the TV ads and accused Bush of relying on the Vietnam veterans "to do his dirty work." On Thursday, Kerry challenged Bush to a debate on their respective war records. Democrats point to unresolved questions about whether Bush in fact served all the time he was credited with serving in Alabama.

The Bush campaign has denied any association with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but so far has refused to condemn the book and the group's TV ads. A report in Friday's New York Times disclosed connections between the anti-Kerry vets and the Bush family, Bush's chief political aide Karl Rove and several high-ranking Texas Republicans. Some of the recent accounts from veterans critical of Kerry have been contradicted by their own earlier statements, the Times reported.

Rood's account also sharply contradicts the version currently put forth by the anti-Kerry veterans. Rood, 61, wrote that Kerry had personally contacted him and other crew members in recent days asking that they go public with their accounts of what happened on that day.

Rood said that, ever since the war, he had "wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. … I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune."

"I can't pretend those calls [from Kerry] had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "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 declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed for this article. Rood wrote that he could testify only to the February 1969 mission and not to any of the other battlefield decorations challenged by Kerry's critics—a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts—because Rood was not an eyewitness to those engagements.

Ambush scenario

In February 1969, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade commanding PCF-23, one of the three 50-foot aluminum swift boats that carried troops up the Dong Cung, a tributary of the Bay Hap River. Kerry commanded another boat, PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz, who was killed in action six weeks later, commanded PCF-43. Ambushes from Viet Cong fighters were common because the noise from boats, powered by twin diesel engines, practically invited gunfire. Ambushes, Rood said, "were a virtual certainty."

Before this day's mission, though, Kerry, the tactical commander of the mission, discussed with Rood and Droz a change in response to the anticipated ambushes: If possible, turn into the fire once it is identified and attack the ambushers, Rood recalled Kerry saying. The boats followed that new tactic with great success, Rood said, and the mission was highly praised.

In the book "Unfit for Command," Kerry's critics maintained otherwise. The book's authors, John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, wrote that Kerry's attack on the Viet Cong ambush displayed "stupidity, not courage." The book was published by Regnery, a conservative publisher that has brought into print many books critical of Democratic politicians and policies.

"The only explanation for what Kerry did is the same justification that characterizes his entire short Vietnam adventure: the pursuit of medals and ribbons," wrote Corsi and O'Neill. Later in the war, O'Neill commanded the same Swift boat Kerry had led. O'Neill is now a leader of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In the book, O'Neill and Corsi said Kerry chased down a "young Viet Cong in a loincloth … clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded."

Rood recalled the fleeing Viet Cong was "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore." There were other attackers as well, he said, and his boat and Kerry's boat took significant fire.

After the attack, the task force commanding officer, then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, sent a message of congratulations to the three swift boats, saying their charge of the ambushers was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious [method] of dealing with small numbers of ambushers," Rood said.

In the official after-action message, obtained by the Tribune, Hoffmann wrote that the tactics developed and executed by Kerry, Rood and Droz were "immensely effictive [sic]" and that "this operation did unreparable [sic] damage to the enemy in this area."

"Well done," Hoffmann concluded in his message.

Change of story

But more than three decades later, Hoffmann, now a retired rear admiral, has changed his story. Today he is one of Kerry's most vocal critics, saying the attacks against the ambushers 35 years ago call into question Kerry's judgment and show his tendency to be impulsive.

Rood challenges that criticism, recalling that the direction for the actions they took on the river that day came from the highest ranks of the Navy command in Vietnam.

"What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders," Rood said.

Asked for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book. The account of the Feb. 28 attack draws heavily on reporting from The Boston Globe, O'Neill said.

He said the congratulatory note from Hoffmann was based on the belief that Kerry was under heavy fire from the Viet Cong. But O'Neill claimed that "didn't happen." Had Hoffmann known the true circumstances of events that day, O'Neill said, he would not have issued the congratulatory note. Attempts to reach Hoffmann for comment were unsuccessful.

In his eyewitness account, Rood describes coming under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong on the riverbank during two separate ambushes of his boat and Kerry's boat.

Praise for the mission led by Kerry came from Navy commanders who far outranked Hoffmann. Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions on that day. The Bronze Star citation from the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, singled out the tactic used by the boats and said the Viet Cong were "caught completely off guard."

Longtime debate

The war about the war between O'Neill and Kerry has raged for more than three decades. O'Neill, who became a lawyer in Houston after returning from Vietnam, was recruited by the Nixon administration in 1971 to serve as a political counterweight to Kerry, who by then had left the military and was a vocal critic of the war.

The two debated the war on the Dick Cavett television show in 1971, with O'Neill accusing Kerry of the "attempted murder of the reputations of 2½ million" Vietnam veterans.

Rood acknowledged in his first-person account that there could always be errors in recollection, especially with the passage of more than three decades. His Bronze Star citation, he said, misidentifies the river where the main action occurred.

That mistake, he said, is a "cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago—not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

"But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong," Rood wrote. "While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

 

[jimnyc]

busch2008, as per the rules, please don't post entire articles here AND please provide links to your sources.

Thanks

 

[busch2008]

busch2008, as per the rules, please don't post entire articles here AND please provide links to your sources.

Thanks

No problem, will do so in the future.

Link to the CT: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...040821kerry,1,6814873.story?coll=chi-news-hed

 

[jimnyc]

No problem, will do so in the future.

Thanks

 

[insein]

Yes i see that it is at a stalemate in that its a He said/He Said. Kerry's people say that the Swift vets are liars without proving how they lied other than to provde a few testimonies. But who do you weigh more? That is the real question here. 60 eyewitnesses to 2 or 3?

Im not saying either are wrong. My problem with you and the medi is your baseless accusations that the Vets being funded by Reps automatically makes them wrong. There is one way to clear up this whole argument and get back to focusing on Kerry's terrible Senate record. Kerry can release his full war records for all to see and then there will be no more discussion. For if the Vets are lieing, his records will show that. No rather attacks on O'neil and other vets character and who is funding them are the main focus. Even the main focus of your argument has been that it is a GOP funded org that is attacking Kerry. It isn't and yet you still refuse to ackowledge this.

He said/he said arguments only show where loyalties lie. One side is obviously lieing but how do we know who if all the war records arent released? One last point. O'neill hasnt changed his story for 30 years. Kerry has changed his 3 or 4 times in the last year alone. I don't know O'neill enough to make a full judgement call on whether or not hes lieing but i do know that Kerry has changed his story, position, accounts of many other aspects of his life besides military service. Thats why we should lay everything out before the American people and let them decide. Not try to smear the messenger and ignore the message.

 

[freeandfun1]

It's true, but I find it funny the guy just HAPPENS to be a journalist. Secondly, his editor admitted on Countdown that Kerry talked to the guy before he decided to write this article. Thirdly, this guy is only saying that fire was received at ONE of the events and doesn't know anything about the others.

Now let's look even more closely.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the DNC mantra up to this point has been, "none of those guys were on Kerry's boat, how could they know what happened?". Is that question going to be asked of this man also?

Furthermore, his own citation for this same event has an etirely different river named on it than where this all "occurred". Kerry keeps saying military records don't lie - but they allow an exception with this case.

I smell a stink'n rat!