Do veterans want to talk about what Kerry did?

[nt250]

Is Kerry such a sore subject that veterans would rather just not talk about it?

I'm asking because here it is, two years later, and I'm still reading crap from liberals about how the Swifties lied. I'm not talking about this board, but I post on a couple of different boards, the others more liberal than this one, and it's RAMPANT!

Would you rather just forget it until he runs again, or what?

 

[Bonnie]

Is Kerry such a sore subject that veterans would rather just not talk about it?

I'm asking because here it is, two years later, and I'm still reading crap from liberals about how the Swifties lied. I'm not talking about this board, but I post on a couple of different boards, the others more liberal than this one, and it's RAMPANT!

Would you rather just forget it until he runs again, or what?

Great question!!

 

[Mr. P]

Is Kerry such a sore subject that veterans would rather just not talk about it?

I'm asking because here it is, two years later, and I'm still reading crap from liberals about how the Swifties lied. I'm not talking about this board, but I post on a couple of different boards, the others more liberal than this one, and it's RAMPANT!

Would you rather just forget it until he runs again, or what?

IMO…Kerry is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. Same as Jane Fonda, we know it. Why continue to repeat the truth?

EDIT: When they raise their heads, I'll speak out.

 

[nt250]

IMO…Kerry is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. Same as Jane Fonda, we know it. Why continue to repeat the truth?

Because so few people know it's true. And to too many people it's not true. I've had liberals on message boards argue with me over the word "all" when it comes to Kerry accusing all service members of committing atrocities. They'll argue until they're blue in the face that he didn't accuse ALL of them. The treason accusation? Forget that. Even though he admitted it on the floor of the senate, there is no WAY any Democrat will even entertain that idea.

John Kerry is a known, proven liar and there is ample evidence of that fact on videotape going back 35 years and they don't care. But they'll call the Swift Boat vets liars at the drop of a hat. Because that's what they do.

If he does decide to run again, what then? If the Democrats succeed in demonizing the Swifties, which I think they've already done, what then?

You guys really have to speak up. Now. The internet is a powerful tool. Message boards may seem trite and a waste of time to some, but they reach a LOT of people.

 

[Mr. P]

Because so few people know it's true. And to too many people it's not true. I've had liberals on message boards argue with me over the word "all" when it comes to Kerry accusing all service members of committing atrocities. They'll argue until they're blue in the face that he didn't accuse ALL of them. The treason accusation? Forget that. Even though he admitted it on the floor of the senate, there is no WAY any Democrat will even entertain that idea.

John Kerry is a known, proven liar and there is ample evidence of that fact on videotape going back 35 years and they don't care. But they'll call the Swift Boat vets liars at the drop of a hat. Because that's what they do.

If he does decide to run again, what then? If the Democrats succeed in demonizing the Swifties, which I think they've already done, what then?

You guys really have to speak up. Now. The internet is a powerful tool. Message boards may seem trite and a waste of time to some, but they reach a LOT of people.

Fear not, We'll speak.

 

[Bonnie]

IMO…Kerry is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. Same as Jane Fonda, we know it. Why continue to repeat the truth?

EDIT: When they raise their heads, I'll speak out.

Good because we all know how selective liberals memories are

 

[Annie]

Good because we all know how selective liberals memories are

I think he's worse than Fonda. She can claim ignorance of the troops, he would have to admit not paying attention.

 

[nt250]

I think he's worse than Fonda. She can claim ignorance of the troops, he would have to admit not paying attention.

What Kerry did was much worse than what Fonda did and what she did was pretty fucking bad.

What aggravates me more than anything is that they simply will NOT READ ANYTHING from the other side. They'll call the Swift Boat Vets liars but then come right out and admit they have never read a single word they said. Typical liberal bullshit.

The media is starting to use 'Swift Boat" as a verb now. Whenever one of their candidates gets criticized, they claim they're being "Swift Boated". Ugh.

 

[Mr. P]

What Kerry did was much worse than what Fonda did and what she did was pretty fucking bad.

What aggravates me more than anything is that they simply will NOT READ ANYTHING from the other side. They'll call the Swift Boat Vets liars but then come right out and admit they have never read a single word they said. Typical liberal bullshit.

The media is starting to use 'Swift Boat" as a verb now. Whenever one of their candidates gets criticized, they claim they're being "Swift Boated". Ugh.

PM me the site address, I'll visit.

 

[CSM]

There is a little quirk about a good majority of vets...they let their ballots speak for them!

As for the libs talking about vets like the Swift Boaters, you might remind them that they are pretty darned hypocritical when they hold up the sanctity of Kerry's service and then belittle and denigrate all other vet's service. They also often need to be reminded that speaking out of ignorance is ...well...ignorant!

In the end though, debating with many libs is like peeing into the wind, you gain nothing except momentary relief and you need a shower afterwards.

 

[Gunny]

Is Kerry such a sore subject that veterans would rather just not talk about it?

I'm asking because here it is, two years later, and I'm still reading crap from liberals about how the Swifties lied. I'm not talking about this board, but I post on a couple of different boards, the others more liberal than this one, and it's RAMPANT!

Would you rather just forget it until he runs again, or what?

My take on John Kerry ....

1. How he "earned" his Purple Hearts/ticket back stateside is questionable.

2. In one statement where he alleged he was illegally in Cambodia, he claims he was listening to President Nixon address the Nation on Christmas Eve, a month before Nixon was inaugurated. If that discrepancy isn't enough, I find it pretty damned stupid that IF he was in Cambodia illegally, he was listening to the radio where anyone could hear it and blow him and his crew away.

3. When demonstrating against the Vietnam War, he threw someone else's medals over the White House fence instead of his own. Some conviction.

4. His statement before Congress. Now, either he was derelict in his duty as an officer and gentleman, and member of the US Armed Forces by failing to immediately report crimes committed by US service personnel to the next higher up in the chain of command; which, btw, makes him complicit in those crimes according to the UCMJ ... or ... he lied to Congress, smearing the names of those with which he served in order to jumpstart his fledgling political career.

5. Kerry was not getting my vote because of his record as a politician. What he did in Vietnam was irrelevant until HE made an issue of it and tried to use it as a qualifier for public office. Once under the microscope, stuff just didn't add up.

IF Kerry lied, then the Swifites have EVERY right to be pissed, IMO. However, I came to none of the above conclusions from any information from the Swifties simply because few if any of their allegations were backed by factual evidence. Since "losing paperwork" is a long-practiced tradition by the US military in general, I doubt there is any real evidence to support either side or it would have come out when this went under the microscope.

 

[nt250]

My take on John Kerry ....

1. How he "earned" his Purple Hearts/ticket back stateside is questionable.

All his medals are questionable, but I think it was a mistake for the Swifties to go after him on that because it could never be more than a he said/he said debate and it made them look like they were attacking a war hero.

I've read both versions of his "3 Purple Hearts get you shipped home" strategy. Some are convinced he knew about that and planned it, and others say it was his commanders who brought it up because they wanted to get rid of him. Either way, nobody can deny the man got 3 Purlple Hearts in the space of less than 4 months and never needed more than a band aid.

2. In one statement where he alleged he was illegally in Cambodia, he claims he was listening to President Nixon address the Nation on Christmas Eve, a month before Nixon was inaugurated. If that discrepancy isn't enough, I find it pretty damned stupid that IF he was in Cambodia illegally, he was listening to the radio where anyone could hear it and blow him and his crew away.

He did a hell of a lot more than just "allege" he was in Cambodia in December 1968. He told the story for years, including on the floor of the senate where he said the memory was "seared, SEARED" into him, and it was repeated again in the Brinkley book "Tour Of Duty". When it was pointed out to him that Nixon wasn't President until 1969, he still didn't back track, but claimed confusion. Confusion? It was supposedly Christmas Eve and he only spent 4 months in Vietnam. It's not like he could have confused that Christmas Eve with another one. By Christmas Eve 1969, when Nixon WAS president, Kerry had been back in the states for months.

But your point about the radio is a good one. Yeah, everybody takes a radio on secret missions.

3. When demonstrating against the Vietnam War, he threw someone else's medals over the White House fence instead of his own. Some conviction.

The medal throw isn't even the half of it. It's the lies he told about it for YEARS. Well documented lies. He told people they were his medals and ribbons. He is on record as saying they were his.

After Kerry was elected to the senate he gave an interview to a reporter in his senate office. The reporter noticed that his medals were on display in his office. This reporter knew that Kerry supposedly threw his medals over the fence during the demonstration in 1971.

Kerry has given so many different versions of the whole medal throw incident that nothing he says can be believed. First he said they were his medals and ribbons. Then he said he didn't have his medals with him that day so he only threw his ribbons. Then he said other veterans (even Korean vets if I remember correctly) approached Kerry and gave him their medals to throw. The man can't even keep track of his own lies.

4. His statement before Congress. Now, either he was derelict in his duty as an officer and gentleman, and member of the US Armed Forces by failing to immediately report crimes committed by US service personnel to the next higher up in the chain of command; which, btw, makes him complicit in those crimes according to the UCMJ ... or ... he lied to Congress, smearing the names of those with which he served in order to jumpstart his fledgling political career.

Kerry based his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the sham Winter Soldier investigation that took place in a Detroit motel in early 1971. This circus was sponsored by the VVAW and was funded by Jane Fonda. Over 100 men "testified" to atrocities. Kerry was a moderator.

The Navy's CID was unable to get a single man, who they could find, to sign an affidavit about what they had testified to at Winter Soldier. Some of them had never been to Vietnam at all. Others were nowhere near the places they claimed to be and so could not have possibly witnessed the things they said they did. Still others claimed they had never been in Detroit in their lives. Yup, some of those men at Winter Soldier were apparently imposters.

Kerry knew that when he said what he said on April 22, 1971 during his "they cut off ears" speech. There is no way he couldn't have known.

Kerry committed treason and admitted it during that speech. (Technically, it really wasn't "testimony" because he was never sworn in and so was not testifying under oath.) He told the senate panel about his meeting in Paris. He said he met with "both sides" in Paris, both sides being the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." The DRV was the North Vietnamese government, and the PRG was the Viet Cong.

Which leads to another set of lies Kerry has told over the years. He's given several different stories about what he was doing in Paris. How did he happen to be invited to this meeting? He was non-active member of the Navy Reserves. Why the hell would HE be meeting with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong in Paris? The funniest story I read said that he was on his honeymoon. Yeah, right. He just happened to be the only former Navy officer and anti-war activist in Paris so they decided to invite him over.

5. Kerry was not getting my vote because of his record as a politician. What he did in Vietnam was irrelevant until HE made an issue of it and tried to use it as a qualifier for public office. Once under the microscope, stuff just didn't add up.

Kerry is an opportunist in the worst sense of the word. When his anti-war activitives did not help him get elected to public office, he abandoned that tactic and started to remake himself into a war hero. Everytime he ran for office veterans would come out against him. But it was just local back then. How he couldn't have known that if he ran for president they wouldn't oppsose him much for fiercely I'll never understand.

Here's what I think: Some of his former sailors came out and supported him when he faced a tough reelection battle against Governor Bill Weld. Kerry was being accused of committing war crimes himself, and so some of the men who later became members of SBVT supported him during that campaign. And when Howard Dean crashed and burned after Iowa, and Kerry became the front runner for the Democratic nomination, Kerry took Deans defeat as a sign that the voters didn't want an anti-war candidate, but wanted a strong pro-military candidate. So Kerry was back to being the war hero again and he used that as the basis for his campaign.

Kerry's biggest mistake was repeating many of the lies he told back in the 1970's to Douglas Brinkley for the book Tour of Duty. At the press conference that launched the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, many of the men who spoke mention that book. Here's a link if anyone is interested in watching it. It's long, almost an hour and a half. The link is way down near the bottom of the page. It's the May 4, 2004 press conference.

http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Ads

No reasonable person who watches that press conference could possibly believe those men did what they did because they were Republicans who supported George W. Bush. Grown men do not have to fight back tears to speak in a room full of reporters because of politics.

IF Kerry lied, then the Swifites have EVERY right to be pissed, IMO. However, I came to none of the above conclusions from any information from the Swifties simply because few if any of their allegations were backed by factual evidence. Since "losing paperwork" is a long-practiced tradition by the US military in general, I doubt there is any real evidence to support either side or it would have come out when this went under the microscope.

Kerry is a known, proven, liar. From the harmless lies all politicians tells, like letting people think he was Irish, to his phony medal throw, to his telling the whole world all our service members committed war crimes on a "day to day basis with the full awareness of all levels of command", to his bogus Christmas in Cambodia story, to the fact that man hasn't actually lived in Massachusetts for years. OK, OK, he's got a house here. Or two. Hey, the Mrs is loaded.