The Main Stream Media (MSM) is going bonkers trying to refute the Swift Boat Vets but the sunami is already crossing the ocean and will be breaking on the shore soon.


http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video2.html

Wow. I just can't imagine being a POW and hearing someone says these things and then having them used against you while you are captive.

P.S. People have finally figured out JFK's initials. John Fonda Kerry.

Hey, Ho, Kerry sign the One _Eight_O!

IMO President Bush had the Michael Moore 9/11 movie to deal with and kerry has this Swift boat thing. Both appear to be motivated by outside sources and have some weakpoints. Time will tell if this is actually malitious and deceitful. Im not buying just yet.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

Kinda strange that its coming up just in time for election.

In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements. Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.The offical Navy records are simply the after-action reports filed by Kerry himself after he fabricated (embellished) them to get his medals. Hopefully the military has/will change the way it handles records like this so that no unscrupulous person can create or change them by oneself.

As far as lavishing praise. These were all public ceremonies where decorum calls for appropriate (politically correct) behavior. To attack someone then would make you look like an a-hole. So I can understand why a guy several years ago would say, ya, they were all great guys.

Kerry brought this all down on himself. Trotting out his "band of brothers" at the convention and running on a military platform when he is one the biggest traitors this country has ever produced. Kerry has been an opportunist all his life.

The only reason, and I mean the only reason he is still standing is because the Main Stream Media is trying desperately to prop him up. If this was a conservative that had done all this, the media would be going at him like hungry dogs. Instead, they are defending him at all cost. If anyone was ever confused about the liberal bias in this country, here it is for all to see.

The only way to get to the bottom of all this is to have Kerry sign the Form 180 document, releasing all his records. He won't do it and the media will not ask for it because if he does, the lies and distortions will be there for all to see and he will be forced out of the race.

The only reason this has surfaced at election time is because he has the potential to be Commander in Chief and he is unfit to be so. His actions during and after Vietnam clearly demonstrate that. In fact, I would argue that he should be in jail for colluding with the enemy while a member of our armed forces. He is a disgrace to all Americans, veterans or not.

WASHINGTON - Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5751284/


"A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.

Kerry’s complaint to the Federal Elections Commission about the ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth alleges "overwhelming evidence” that the veterans group is “coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson told NBC News. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/

Wanna talk about Flip Flopping?


Taken from the NY Times

NY Times Claims Conspiracy in Swift Boat Vets' Anti-Kerry Ad


NewsMax.com

Friday, Aug. 20, 2004
In a front page report on Friday, the New York Times lends support to Sen. John Kerry's claim that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVFT)are a front for the Bush-Cheney campaign.


According to the newspaper, "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."

The New York Times says the accounts given by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "prove to be riddled with inconsistencies," and it then details those inconsistencies - basically dismissing the Swift Boat vets' charges against Kerry without pressing Kerry himself for answers.


The Times charges:

Many of the vets criticizing Kerry now have praised him in the past, calling him a "good man," his silver star action "an act of courage," and saying Kerry was "beyond reproach" and "among the finest of those Swift Boat drivers."

Bob Perry, top donor to Republicans in the state of Texas, has given $200,000 to SBVFT. Perry is a close friend of Bush adviser Karl Rove.

Several other Bush associates are affiliated with the SBVFT group, including Harlan Crow (trustee of Bush Library), Margaret Wilson (former Bush General Counsel) and Tex Lexar (ran as Lt. Gov. on ticket with Bush in 1994).

SBVFT investigators misled interviewees when researching Kerry Biographer Douglas Brinkley's book.

One of the authors of "Unfit for Command" (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/4/134116.shtml), Jerome Corsi, should be discredited because he has said anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic things, for which he has apologized, on a "right-wing" Website.

The Times says the SBVFT's argument "founders" because of Corsi and other contradictions, including a Dr. Letson's claim that he treated Kerry for his Purple Heart wound the SBVFT says was self-inflicted. The Times reports that the then-medic does not appear on Kerry's medical records.

SBVFT haven't been able to satisfy questions about their accusation regarding Kerry, so they are "focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986," the Times writes. The Swift Boat Veterans' Lonsdale responded to the Times by telling the Old Grey Lady, " Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us."

Thursday, Aug. 19, 2004 11:04 p.m. EDT

Washington Post: Record Supports Kerry Claim, Maybe



Claims by a fellow naval officer that John Kerry lied about being under fire in the incident that led to his Bronze Star medal were challenged by Thursday's Washington Post.


The Post obtained the military records of Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Swift Boat that was present during the action, for which he also was recommended for a Bronze Star.


The newspaper reports that the records cast doubt on the former lieutenant junior grade's assertions that there was no enemy fire when Kerry fished Special Forces officer James Rassmann out of the water.

Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift Boat alongside Kerry's craft in Vietnam, strongly disputes Kerry's claim that his boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969.

Two other Swift Boat skippers present during the incident also say they have no recollection of enemy fire.

The incident began when one of the Swift Boats was crippled by a mine, at which observers on the scene say Kerry's boat turned and fled, throwing Rassmann overboard.

Kerry then brought the craft back and pulled Rassmann out of the water. Kerry and Rassmann say that they were under enemy fire at the time.

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know first hand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had fled down the river after the mine exploded. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Thurlow's records, portions of which were released to the Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla, the Post reported.

In the citation accompanying Thurlow's Bronze Star he is praised for providing assistance to a Swift boat damaged by a mine "despite enemy bullets flying about him." indicating that there was enemy fire being directed at the Swift Boats. Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 254 member group of Vietnam veterans angered by Kerry's anti-war activities when he came home from Viet Nam.



The group has aired a television advertisement attacking Kerry's war record.

Thurlow's account of the incident is also cited in John E. O'Neill's new best seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," which the Post says will hit No. 2 on the newspaper's best-seller list this weekend.

The book accuses Kerry of "fleeing the scene" and lying repeatedly about his role.

Kerry has repeatedly insisted that his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap river after the mine explosion. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as Kerry leaned over the bow of his boat to rescue Rassmann.

Thurlow, however, swore in a recent affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth.

According to the Post, two other Swift Boat skippers who were directly involved in the incident, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire."

The document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow told the Post last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow added that he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

Members of Kerry's crew along with Rassmann back Kerry's account of the action.

Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks after he fell into the river and as Kerry came to his rescue.

The Post reported that the Bronze Star recommendations for both Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott, who received reports on the incident from his base in the Gulf of Thailand.

Elliott is a supporter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has questioned Kerry's actions in Vietnam. He refused repeated requests from the Post for an interview, charging that he was misquoted by the Boston Globe as having refuted his original testimony about Kerry's Silver Star.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly charged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire, but Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion. As a result, the Post admits that and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.

Records Counter a Critic of Kerry
Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01


Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.

In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.

The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

" 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together."

Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

The incident featured prominently in an anti-Kerry television ad produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth earlier this month. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star," says Van Odell, a gunner on PCF-23, one of the boats that came to the rescue of the stricken boat. "I know. I was there."

The Bronze Star controversy is also a major focus of an anti-Kerry book by John E. O'Neill, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," which will hit No. 2 on The Post's bestseller list this weekend. The book accuses Kerry of "fleeing the scene" and lying repeatedly about his role.

Members of Kerry's crew have come to his defense, as has Rassmann, the Special Forces officer whom he fished from the river. Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks after he fell into the river and as Kerry came to his rescue. The two had an emotional reunion on the eve of the Iowa Democratic caucuses in January, an event that some political analysts believe helped swing votes to Kerry at a crucial time.

The Bronze Star recommendations for both Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott, who received reports on the incident from his base in the Gulf of Thailand. Elliott is a supporter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has questioned Kerry's actions in Vietnam. But he has refused repeated requests for an interview after issuing conflicting statements to the Boston Globe about whether Kerry deserved a Silver Star. He was unreachable last night.

Money has poured into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth since the group launched its television advertisement attacking Kerry earlier this month. According to O'Neill, the group has received more than $450,000 over the past two weeks, mainly in small contributions. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president.

Bush campaign officials have said they have no connection to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is not permitted to coordinate its activities with a presidential campaign under federal election law.




© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Kerry says Bushbroke the lawin TV ad dispute
President's campaigndenies ties to vets' group

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 7:10 p.m. ET Aug. 20, 2004

A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.

Kerry’s complaint to the Federal Elections Commission about the ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth alleges "overwhelming evidence” that the veterans group is “coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson told NBC News.

The complaint comes at the end of a week in which Kerry himself accused Bush of having the Swift Boat veterans do “his dirty work” and media reports have exposed connections between Bush, his family and other high-profile Texas politicians. In a Thursday speech, the Massachusetts senator said: “The fact that the president won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know.”

Steve Schmidt of the Bush campaign said charges that Bush is in league with the veterans’ group are “absolutely and completely false. The Bush campaign has never and will never question John Kerry’s service in Vietnam.” But the Bush campaign has, in fact, refused to specifically disavow the Swift Boat veteran’s ad, in which fellow Vietnam veterans say Kerry acted dishonorably to win the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts that he was awarded for his service in Vietnam.

Formal ties would be illegal
Any formal ties between the Bush campaign and the veterans group would be against the law. Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is organized as a non-party, independent political group under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and coordination between a 527 group and a presidential campaign is illegal.

The Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney campaign filed a similar complaint last March that accuses the Media Fund, America Coming Together and several other anti-Bush groups of illegal use of so-called soft money (unlimited donations) and of illegal coordination with the Kerry campaign. And three campaign finance watchdog groups also have filed FEC complaints against the Swift Boat veterans group.

Any legal resolution of the matter would likely take months, if not years, campaign law experts told MSNBC.com.

In a campaign shadowed by the war on terrorism and in Iraq, Kerry’s valorous combat experience is a cornerstone of his campaign. After using the Democratic National Convention to improve his poll ratings on national security, Kerry remained silent as the criticism led to growing indications — much of it anecdotal, some in polling, party officials say — that his gains were eroding.

His medals are supported by Navy documents and the memories of all but one of the swift boat crewmates who served beneath Kerry, then a Navy lieutenant. The anti-Kerry group includes several veterans who say they witnessed Kerry’s actions from nearby swift boats.

Although the ad was released early in the month and created a stir then, more contention over it erupted this week when Kerry made his “dirty work” remarks at a Boston campaign stop. Those remarks came the day after the Washington Post published a story that showed official military records countered the statements made by one of Kerry’s most vocal critics, Larry Thurlow. Thurlow has disputed Kerry’s Bronze Star-winning assertion that he came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory. But Thurlow’s own military records contained several references to small arms fire that day, according to The Washington Post.

Thurlow said in a statement Thursday that his records were based on Kerry’s account.

Knowing several news organizations, including the Post, were investigating the claims of anti-Kerry veterans, the Democratic campaign swung into action late Wednesday — rewriting the candidate’s speech to a firefighters’ union overnight, flying two of his swift boat colleagues to Boston and producing a new campaign commercial, despite earlier plans to stay off the air until September.

The 30-second ad features a former Green Beret (http://msnbc-editor/Editor/5762373) saying Kerry saved his life under fire. “He risked his life to save mine,” Jim Rassmann says.

On Friday, another newspaper report detailed ties between the veterans' group, Bush and his family, other high-profile Texas politicians and Bush’s chief political aide. The piece, in the New York Times, also listed inconsistencies in some of the veterans' own public statements on their regard for Kerry.

How the group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970s allied themselves with Texas Republicans," The Times said.

"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," the Times reported. "Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry 'unfit' had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

As Kerry denounced the criticism as “lies about my record,” aides privately acknowledged that they and their boss had been slow to recognize the damage being done to his political standing.

Three Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars
Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star for Vietnam War combat. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard. Both men say the other served honorably, but their supporters are pouring tens of thousands of dollars into television ads and other tactics to insist otherwise.

MoveOn.org, a liberal group funded by Kerry supporters, is airing an ad accusing Bush of using family connections to avoid the Vietnam War.

Kerry advisers said they had heard from several Democratic politicians that voters were starting to ask questions about the candidate’s war record. The politicians urged him to fight back. Internally, there was an initial reluctance from senior advisers for Kerry to respond — because they believed that Bush would condemn the critical ad, or that the allegations would blow over.

As for the candidate himself, this was personal, aides said. He had heard the group was raising money for more ads, and was tired of his integrity being assaulted.

“Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts,” Kerry said. “Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.”

Kerry aides said they will maintain the offensive through surrogates, if not Kerry himself. Democrats welcomed the response.

“Out of desperation, the Bush campaign has picked the wrong fight with the wrong veteran,” said Jim Jordan, former Kerry campaign manager who now runs an outside group airing ads against Bush. “Today’s the start of the mother of all backlashes.”

Kerry surrounded himself with friendly veterans and union workers to criticize the group airing the ad against him.

Bush and the White House refused to condemn the anti-Kerry ad, which stopped airing this week. When Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked Kerry to condemn the MoveOn.org ad, Kerry quickly did so — though he has personally raised questions about Bush’s Vietnam-era service.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is funded in large part by Bob Perry, a Texas Republican, has knocked the Democratic nominee's campaign off stride with a small but effective advertising buy in the battleground states of Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The group spent about $500,000 on the ad, but its allegations that Kerry exaggerated his combat record to win medals have been on the Internet, the 24-hour cable channels and, most recently, the nation's major television networks and newspapers.

Bush leads in veterans' votes
During the week ending Aug. 8, 966,000 people visited the anti-Kerry group's Web site, 34,000 fewer than those who visited Kerry's official site, according to Nielsen/Net Ratings. The new CBS poll found Kerry winning 37 percent of veterans' votes to Bush's 55 percent. (The two were tied at 46 percent after last month's Democratic National Convention, where Kerry highlighted his service.)

"They have been very effective at using the August lull to drive a story" in news outlets, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). Kerry, who planned to conserve resources by not buying television ads this month, will spend at least $180,000 to respond, his aides said.

Emanuel said Kerry has an opportunity to "turn this and backfire it on the White House," which is what the Democratic nominee began trying with his remarks Thursday. The campaign wants to convince voters that Bush and Rove are behind the effort, at least in spirit.

Perry, a Houston home builder, initially contributed $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and recently gave another $100,000. Perry has given millions of dollars to GOP efforts over the years, including $46,000 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns in 1994 and 1998. He gave $2,000 to Bush's re-election campaign this year, records show. Seven of the 10 initial financial contributors to the veterans group have given to Bush's campaign this year, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.

Yet many of the veterans affiliated with the anti-Kerry effort do not have obvious relationships with the Bush campaign, nor do some of its donors.

Tad Devine, a top Kerry strategist, said Bush's refusal to condemn the content of the ad suggests an alliance. If Bush had, "that would have changed the whole chemistry of this debate," he said.

The dispute is unlikely to end soon. John O'Neill, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and author of the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command," said the group raised nearly $500,000 from 10,000 donors in recent days.

The group released a new ad Friday, which hammers the Democrat for his war claims and his war protests after he left Vietnam, especially his claim that U.S. soldiers committed war crimes.
Kerry’s campaign was quick to release this response: "This is another ad from a front group funded by Bush allies that is trying to smear John Kerry. The newest ad takes Kerry's testimony out of context, editing what he said to distort the facts. He testified as a 27 year-old Vietnam veteran. He opposed a war that, at that point, cost over 44,000 lives of the 58,245 names that are on the Vietnam Memorial wall. It says a lot that the president refuses to condemn this smear. The American people want to hear how we're going to cut health care costs and strengthen the economy, not smears."









NBC's Felix Schein, the Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/)

Here is my question..........

WHen will all of us, not just those of us here, but all of us, really start talking about the issues? Honestly, what happened40 years ago, be it the sift boat stuff or if bush actually did his duty back then, is meaningless to me TODAY. What will either do for the economy, for our security, to help put more americans to work, to increase the average american wage, health care, the enviroment, the deficit, etc etc....... THESE are important issues, not what happened 40 years ago when the guys were 20 years old.

Honestly, and I blame both candidates for this............ SO far most of this election campaign has been MEANINGLESS GARBAGE in my opinion............ How will either of these guys make my life better, safer and more enriched?

08-05) 12:51 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

The White House declined.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.

The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.

"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, later said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to condemn the ad. He did denounce the proliferation of spending by independent groups, such as the anti-Kerry veterans organization, that are playing on both sides of the political fence.

"The president thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law," McClellan said. A chief sponsor of that bill, which Bush initially opposed, was McCain.

In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.

McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."

"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, head of the Swift Boat group, said they respected McCain's "right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not."

McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying.

They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."

The general counsel for the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee sent television stations a letter asking them not to run the ad because it is "an inflammatory, outrageous lie" by people purporting to have served with Kerry.

Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL

WASHINGTON - Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla.
This will have to be told hundreds and hundreds of times until the media finally gets it. John Kerry wrote the after-action report that the medals were awarded on. Pretty simple. He embellished the story to get a medal and this time he actually included someone else for some of the glory. There was no fact checking. Kerry was the only officer. Military brass expected that their officers would be writing up TRUE conflict reports. So of course the report says what it does. Kerry wrote it.


"A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.

More B.S. - The swift boat vets have made it very clear that this dispute is between Kerry and vets that he denigraded. Thats it. They do not want him to be Commander in Chief. They would have taken money from anybody to get their message out. Even George Soros, who has given over $4,000,000 to the Democrats and admitted willing to spending $20,000,000 to defeat Bush. Get your wallet out George Soros. Your going to need every penny.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1040&stc=1
Is that John Kerry, Kerry F. Kerry or John Fonda Kerry they listed?

Hahaha Joey. I'll save this one for November 2nd. The Democratic Underground was responsible for that poll result. And it an NBC poll to boot.:eek2: Saved in archives.

Here is my question..........

WHen will all of us, not just those of us here, but all of us, really start talking about the issues? Honestly, what happened40 years ago, be it the sift boat stuff or if bush actually did his duty back then, is meaningless to me TODAY. What will either do for the economy, for our security, to help put more americans to work, to increase the average american wage, health care, the enviroment, the deficit, etc etc....... THESE are important issues, not what happened 40 years ago when the guys were 20 years old.

Honestly, and I blame both candidates for this............ SO far most of this election campaign has been MEANINGLESS GARBAGE in my opinion............ How will either of these guys make my life better, safer and more enriched?I feel sorry for all Democrats because this is Kerry's doing. He decided to not talk about the issues when the trotted out the band of brothers at the convention and pissed off alot of people claiming he was a war hero. If I had been there, I would be foaming at the mouth and probably would have a heart attack. Some people have no conscience. I guess that explains why his only "kill" was a young wounded Vietnamese limping away that he shot in the back.

What happened 35 years ago is critical to the future of this nation. I can think of 5 good reasons. Do we really want a glory hound, a fabricator, treasonist and manipulator as our Commander in Chief? Do we want a person who hasn't done anything in his 20+ years in political office?

1) He asks for 5, not 1, 5 deferments. Gets put on a boat out in the ocean. Sees that swift boats are pretty cool, and says to himself, pretty cake job, I think I'll do that. No combat. After all, the original JFK was on a boat. Cool. Wrong, 2 weeks later, swiftees are in the middle of it. Too late to back out. Better bring my camcorder so I can film some nice footage for the future. Why didn't he record all those atrocities he says he saw? He could have easily walked in into all those countryside villages he burned down and taken film. Humm. Wonder why not? Because they didn't happen. HE HAD A CAMCORDER THERE. WHY NOT SHOOT SOME FOOTAGE OF THE ATROCITIES!!!!!!!!

2) Took events and embellished them or outright lied to make himself look good. Found out a way to get out early. 3 purple hearts. Downright didn't deserve 2 of them, SELF INFLICTED, not sure on the 3rd. Nor the Silver Star. Turned tale and ran and just happened to pick up the guy he knocked off the boat after gunning the engines to flee.

3) Goes to Paris while an officer in the military and meets with the very Communists that are killing our own soldiers. He committed treason. He should be in jail, not running for office.

4) Happened to marry for money, not once, but twice. What kind of person marries someone for money? What a p.o.s. that person must be. Not once, mind you, but twice.

5) Has been one of the most liberal (out of step with America) Senators and has nothing to show on his resume after 20 years. Now he has secret plans that he will reveal after the election to save the country.

He won't sign the Department of Defense Form 180 which will show him to be a fraud.

All he has to do is sign the Form and put all this behind him. Pretty simple.

Heard of a great sign for the Kerry rallies.

on one side

This
VET
aint
FONDA
Kerry

on the other

Admitted
war criminals
aren't eligible
for President

I feel sorry for all Democrats because this is Kerry's doing. He decided to not talk about the issues when the trotted out the band of brothers at the convention and pissed off alot of people claiming he was a war hero. If I had been there, I would be foaming at the mouth and probably would have a heart attack. Some people have no conscience. I guess that explains why his only "kill" was a young wounded Vietnamese limping away that he shot in the back.

What happened 35 years ago is critical to the future of this nation. I can think of 5 good reasons. Do we really want a glory hound, a fabricator, treasonist and manipulator as our Commander in Chief? Do we want a person who hasn't done anything in his 20+ years in political office?


Its kinda funny, I can tell someone is a very biased republican. Lemme guess you read/heard the swift boats ads and you were convinced from the start they were true! No need for proof. Well I feel for ppl who read something and without any real knowlege on it assume its true. I mean I cant sit here and say I know its false for sure, but im smart enough not to assume everything I read is true. But for republicans im sure you all are just praying its true or you can hopefully convince enough people it is. Sure ya can make it known those statements are out there... Its great to have debate and all, but it drives me crazy when ppl just find the latest spam out about someone and post it all over and make statements like its proven fact. To me that is ignorance...

Here are the Top 10 contributors to the 527's that Kerry is only now whining about. Keep in mind that $62,000,000 has already been spent to criticize and impune George Bush by 527 pacs committed to the election of a Democratic president.

Click on their name to see who they contributed to.

Hint, only number 10 has contributions linked to Republican causes. Talk about the hypocrisy.

What I love is that the Swift vets can turn out commercial after commerical and not even have to put them on TV to be seen.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004

This will have to be told hundreds and hundreds of times until the media finally gets it. John Kerry wrote the after-action report that the medals were awarded on. Pretty simple. He embellished the story to get a medal and this time he actually included someone else for some of the glory. There was no fact checking. Kerry was the only officer. Military brass expected that their officers would be writing up TRUE conflict reports. So of course the report says what it does. Kerry wrote it.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla.Who wrote Thurlow's records? Kerry was NOT the only officer present.

"military records of Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam,"

"Kerry won a Bronze Star for that event, as did Thurlow, with citations that referred to heavy "enemy fire" from small arms and automatic weapons. "


To me, this is looking more and more like Thurlow is the gloryhound. After all, this guy has his own Bronze Star for that day, so if Kerry's is unearned, isnt Thurlow's?

Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete And Flawed
Clashes Roil Kerry Campaign

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A01


When John F. Kerry rescued James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River in the jungles of Vietnam in March 1969, neither man could possibly have imagined that the episode would become a much-disputed focus of an American presidential campaign 35 years later.

For Kerry, then a green and gangly Navy lieutenant junior grade and now the Democratic challenger to a wartime Republican president, that tale of heroism under fire has become integral to his campaign. A centerpiece of public rallies, videos and a new campaign advertisement last week, it has helped distinguish the candidate from his Democratic primary rivals and from President Bush, who spent the war at home as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.

For the Massachusetts senator's critics, who include three of the five Swift boat skippers who were present that day, the incident demonstrates why Kerry does not deserve to be commander in chief. They accuse him of cowardice, hogging the limelight and lying. Far from displaying coolness under fire, they say, Kerry was never fired upon and fled the scene at the moment of maximum danger.

Establishing the facts 35 years later is complicated not merely by fading memories and sometimes ambiguous archival evidence, but also by the bitterly partisan nature of the presidential campaign.

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that neither side has been entirely forthcoming, and that each has withheld information from the public record.

Two best-selling books have formed the basis for public discussion of the events of March 13, 1969, as a result of which Kerry won a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The fullest account of Kerry's experience in Vietnam is "Tour of Duty" by prominent presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. It was written with Kerry's cooperation and with exclusive access to his diaries and other writings about the Vietnam War. "Unfit for Command," by John E. O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of his Swift boat, and Jerome R. Corsi, lays out a detailed attack on Kerry's record.

The Post's research shows that both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors. This reconstruction of the climactic day in Kerry's military career is based on more than two dozen interviews with former crewmates and officers who served with him, as well as research in the Naval Historical Center here, where the Swift boat records are preserved. Kerry himself was the only surviving skipper on the river then who declined a request for an interview.

On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under enemy fire that day, thereby qualifying for a third Purple Heart, the Navy records clearly favor Kerry. Several documents, including the after-action report and the Bronze Star citation for a Swift Boat skipper who has accused Kerry of lying, refer to "all units" coming under "automatic and small-weapons fire."

The eyewitness accounts, on the other hand, are conflicting. Kerry's former crew members support his version, as does Rassmann, the Special Forces officer rescued from the river. But many of the other skippers and enlisted men who were on the river that day dispute Kerry's account and have signed up with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group that has aired television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service.

From an outsider's perspective, the flotilla of five 50-foot Swift boats that followed the Bay Hap River that humid March day has spawned two competing webs of loyalty. One group is fiercely loyal to Kerry and frequently appears with him at campaign events. The other group dislikes him intensely and is doing everything it can to block his election.

Many Swift boat veterans opposed to Kerry acknowledge that their disgust with him was fueled by his involvement in the antiwar movement. When they returned from Vietnam, they say, they were dogged by accusations of atrocities. While Kerry went on to make a prominent political career, they got jobs as teachers, accountants, surveyors and oil field workers. When he ran for president, partly on the strength of his war record, their resentment exploded.

At one level, an attempt to establish what happened during a Vietcong ambush on the Bay Hap River 35 years ago is a simple search for facts. At another, it is the story of the divisions that tore the United States, and its armed forces, into two opposing camps at the time of the Vietnam War -- tensions that have resurfaced with a vengeance during the current political campaign.

"The old wounds have been reopened, and they still bleed," said Larry Thurlow, one of Kerry's accusers, who was awarded a Bronze Star for heroism for going to the rescue of a boat that was rocked by a mine explosion that day. He says he got involved with the anti-Kerry campaign organized by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's distortion of the truth about the Vietnam War "makes me madder than hell."

"We decided we aren't going to take it anymore."

Boats Thrown Into Fight



When Kerry signed up to command a Swift boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific in World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the Swift boats -- or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy jargon -- were largely restricted to coastal patrols. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in a book of war reminiscences published in 1986.

The role of the Swift boats changed dramatically toward the end of 1968, when Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. naval forces in South Vietnam, decided to use them to block Vietcong supply routes through the Mekong Delta. Hundreds of young men such as Kerry, with little combat experience, suddenly found themselves face to face with the enemy.

Taking a 50-foot aluminum boat up a river or canal was replete with danger, ranging from ambushes to booby traps to mines. Kerry and his comrades would experience all these risks on March 13, 1969. The purpose of the mission was twofold: to insert pro-government forces upriver in a group of Vietcong-controlled villages; and more generally to show the flag, keeping the waterways free for commerce.

In some ways, it was a day like any other. The previous day, Kerry had taken part in a Swift boat expedition that had come under fire. A friend, Lt. (j.g.) Bill Rood, almost lost an eye in the ambush and several windows of Kerry's boat were blown out. In other respects, March 13 would mark the culmination of Kerry's Vietnam War career. With three Purple Hearts, he became eligible for reassignment. Within three weeks, he was out of Vietnam and headed home after a truncated four-month combat tour.

As commander of PCF-94, Kerry was responsible for ferrying a group of Chinese Vietnamese mercenaries, known as Nung, eight miles up the Bay Hap River, and then five miles up the winding Dong Cung Canal to suspected Vietcong villages. His passengers included Rassmann, the Special Forces officer, who had run into Kerry at a party a couple of weeks before and remembered him as "a tall, skinny guy with this humongous jaw."

The expedition began to go wrong soon after they inserted the Nung troops into a deserted village off the Dong Cung Canal. As the mercenaries searched from house to house, Rassmann recalled, one reached for a cloth bag at the base of a coconut tree and was blown to pieces. It was a booby trap. Kerry, who arrived on the scene soon after, helped wrap the body in a poncho and drag it back to the boat, diving into a ditch when he thought he was under fire.

"I never want to see anything like it again," Kerry wrote later. "What was left was human, and yet it wasn't -- a person had been there only a few moments earlier and . . . now it was a horrible mass of torn flesh and broken bones."

In "Tour of Duty," these thoughts are attributed to a "diary" kept by Kerry. But the endnotes to Brinkley's book say that Kerry "did not keep diaries in these weeks in February and March 1969 when the fighting was most intense." In the acknowledgments to his book, Brinkley suggests that he took at least some of the passages from an unfinished book proposal Kerry prepared some time after November 1971, more than two years after he had returned home from Vietnam.

In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment.

Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Washington Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences.

As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran.

Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm."

Anti-Kerry veterans have accused Kerry of conflating the two injuries to strengthen his case for a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Kerry's Bronze Star citation, however, refers only to his arm injury.

At 2.45 p.m., according to Navy records, Kerry was joined by four other Swift boats for the Bay Hap trip. Kerry led the way on the right-hand side of the river, in PCF-94, followed 15 yards behind by one of his best friends in Vietnam, Don Droz, in PCF-43. A procession of three boats on the left side of the river was led by Richard Pees on PCF-3, followed by Jack Chenoweth on PCF-23 and Thurlow on PCF-51.

Ahead of them was a fishing weir, a series of wooden posts across the river. That morning, the Swiftees had noticed Vietnamese children in sampans attaching nets to the posts and had thought little of it. To get through the weir, their boats had to pass to the left or to the right of the fishing nets.

Just as the Kerry and Pees boats reached the weir, there was a devastating explosion, lifting Pees' boat, PCF-3, three feet out of the water.

Witness Accounts Diverge



"My God, I've never seen anything like it," Chenoweth wrote in what he says is a diary recorded soon after the events. "There was a fantastic flash, a boom, then the 3 boat disappeared in a fountain of water and debris. I was only 30 yards behind." Assuming that they had run into a Vietcong ambush, Chenoweth wrote, "we unleashed everything into the banks."

Aboard the 3 boat, Pees remembered in an interview being "thrown up in the air" into the windscreen of his pilothouse and landing "kind of dazed," his legs numb, lap covered with blood. When it was over, Pees and three members of his crew would be medevaced to a Coast Guard cutter offshore with serious head and back injuries.

"When the mine went off, we were still going full speed," recalled Michael Medeiros, one of Kerry's crew members. Kerry's boat raced off down the river, away from the ambush zone.

It is at this point that the eyewitness accounts begin to diverge sharply. Everybody agrees that a mine exploded under the 3 boat. There is no argument that Rassmann fell into the river and that Kerry fished him out. Nor is there any dispute that Kerry was hurt in the arm, although the anti-Kerry camp claims he exaggerated the nature of his injury. Much else is hotly contested.

When the first explosion occurred, Rassmann was seated next to the pilothouse on the starboard, or right, side of Kerry's boat, munching a chocolate chip cookie that he recalls having "ripped off from someone's Care package." He saw the 3 boat lift out of the water. Almost simultaneously, Kerry's forward gunner, Tommy Belodeau, began screaming for a replacement for his machine gun, which had jammed. Rassmann grabbed an M-16 and worked his way sideways along the deck, which was only seven inches wide in places.

At this point, Kerry crew members say their boat was hit by a second explosion. Although Kerry's injury report speaks of a mine that "detonated close aboard PCF-94," helmsman Del Sandusky believes it was more likely a rocket or rocket-propelled grenade, as a mine would have inflicted more damage. Whatever it was, the explosion rammed Kerry into the wall of his pilothouse, injuring his right forearm.

The second explosion "blew me right off the boat," Rassmann recalled. Frightened that he might be struck by the propellers of one of the boats, he dived to the bottom of the river, where he dumped his weapons and rucksack. When he surfaced, he said, bullets were "snapping overhead," as well as hitting the water around him.

At first, nobody noticed what had happened to Rassmann. But then Medeiros, who was standing at the stern, saw him bobbing up and down in the water and shouted, "Man overboard." Around this time, crew members said, Kerry decided to go back to help the crippled 3 boat. It is unclear how far down the river Kerry's boat was when he turned around. It could have been anywhere from half a mile to a mile.

O'Neill claims that Kerry "fled the scene" despite the absence of hostile fire. Kerry, in a purported journal entry cited in Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," maintains that he wanted to get his troops ashore "on the outskirts of the ambush."

The Kerry/Rassmann version of what happened next has been retold many times, in TV advertisements and campaign appearances: Rassmann struggling to climb up a scramble net, Kerry leaning over the bow of the boat and pulling him up with his injured arm. As Kerry later recalled, in notes cited by Brinkley, "Somehow we got him on board and I didn't get the bullet in the head that I expected, and we managed to move down near the 3 boat that was still crawling a snail-like zig-zag through the river."

Rassmann remembers several boats coming back up the river toward him. But Chenoweth believes that the rescue must have taken place fairly close to the other boats, which had been drifting slowly downriver. In his diary, he said, he wrote that "we spotted a man overboard, started to pick him up, but 94 [Kerry's boat] got there first."

While Kerry was rescuing Rassmann, the other Swift boats had gone to the assistance of Pees and the 3 boat. Thurlow, in particular, distinguished himself by leaping onto the 3 boat and administering first aid, according to his Bronze Star citation. At one point, he, too, was knocked overboard when the boat hit a sandbar, but he was rescued by crewmates.

The Kerry and anti-Kerry camps differ sharply on whether the flotilla came under enemy fire after the explosion that crippled the 3 boat. Everybody aboard Kerry's boat, including Rassmann, says there was fire from both riverbanks, and the official after-action report speaks of all boats receiving "heavy a/w [automatic weapons] and s/a [small arms] from both banks." The Bronze Star citations for Kerry and Thurlow also speak of prolonged enemy fire.

A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure." According to Thurlow, at least one of the bullet holes was the result of action the previous day, when he ran into another Vietcong ambush.

Thurlow, Chenoweth, Pees and several of their crew members who belong to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say neither they nor Kerry came under fire. "If there was fire, I would have made some notation in my journal," Chenoweth said. "But it didn't happen that way. There wasn't any fire." Although he read his diary entry to a reporter over the phone, he declined to supply a copy.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Rassmann said, "are not just questioning Kerry's account, they are questioning my account. I take that very personally. No one can tell me that we were not under fire. I saw it, I heard the splashes, and I was scared to death. For them to come back 35 years after the fact to tarnish not only Kerry's record, but my veracity is unconscionable."

Who Initialed Navy Report?



Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

Other Swift boat veterans, including Thurlow and Chenoweth, have said they believe that Kerry wrote the March 13 report. "I didn't like to write reports," said Thurlow, who was the senior officer in the five-boat flotilla. "John would write the thing up in longhand, and it would then be typed up and sent up the line."

Even if Kerry did write the March 13 after-action report, it seems unlikely that he would have been the source of the information about "enemy bullets" flying around Thurlow. The official witness to those events, according to Thurlow's medal recommendation form, was Radioman 1st Class Robert Lambert, a member of his crew. The Post was unable to trace Lambert before publication of this article.

In a telephone interview, the head of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded all Swift boats in Vietnam, said he believed that Kerry wrote the March 13 after-action report on the basis of numerical identifiers at the top of the form. He later acknowledged that the numbers referred to the Swift boat unit, and not to Kerry personally. "It's not cast-iron, I agree with you," he said.

Some of the mystery surrounding exactly what happened on the Bay Hap River in March 1969 could be resolved by the full release of all relevant records and personal diaries. Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift BoatVeterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.

Some Felt Betrayed



Kerry's reunion with Rassmann in January this year, nearly 35 years after he pulled the former Green Beret from the river, was a defining moment of his presidential campaign. Many political observers believed that the images of the two men embracing helped Kerry win the Iowa Democratic caucuses. The "No Man Left Behind" theme has become a recurring image of pro-Kerry advertising.

But many of the men Kerry served with in Vietnam feel betrayed and left behind by him. Soon after Kerry returned to the United States, he began organizing antiwar rallies. Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, he said that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

The anti-Kerry veterans began mobilizing earlier this year, following publication of the Brinkley biography and the nationwide publicity given to Kerry's emotional reunion with Rassmann. Many of the veterans were contacted personally by Hoffmann, a gung-ho naval officer compared unflatteringly in "Tour of Duty" with the out-of-control lieutenant colonel in the movie "Apocalypse Now" who talked about how he loved "the smell of napalm in the morning."

Hoffmann, who was already angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return from Vietnam, said in an interview that he was "appalled" to find out from reading "Tour of Duty" that Kerry was "considered to be a Navy hero." "I thought there was a tremendous amount of gross exaggeration in the book, and in some places downright lies. So I started contacting some of my former shipmates," he said.

One of the men Hoffmann contacted was O'Neill, a longtime Kerry critic who debated Kerry on television in 1971. O'Neill put Hoffmann in touch with some wealthy Republican Party contributors. One of O'Neill's contacts was Texas millionaire Bob Perry, who has contributed $200,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Perry has also contributed to the Bush campaign.

"I'd met him three or four times and represented people he knew," said O'Neill, who has been practicing law in Houston for nearly 30 years.

In addition to helping to organize the anti-Kerry campaign, O'Neill wrote his own book about the senator's wartime record, which soared to the top of the Amazon.com best-seller list before its publication earlier this month.

With the exception of a sailor named Stephen Gardner, who served with Kerry in late 1968 on PCF-44, Kerry's own crew members have remained loyal to him. "If it wasn't for some of his decisions, we would probably be some of the names in that wall," said Gene Thorson, the engineman on PCF-94, referring to the Vietnam War Memorial. "I respect him very much."

Others who served on boats that operated alongside Kerry on that fateful day in March 1969 say they cannot stand the man who is now challenging George W. Bush for the presidency.

"I think that Kerry's behavior was abominable," said Pees, the commander of the boat that hit the mine. "His actions after the war were particularly disgusting. He distorted the truth when he talked about atrocities. We went out of our way to protect civilians. To suggest otherwise is a grotesque lie. As far as I am concerned, he did not speak the truth about how we conducted operations in Vietnam."

"A lot of people just can't forgive and forget," countered Kerry crew member Medeiros. "He was a great commander. I would have no trouble following him anywhere."

Staff writer Linton Weeks contributed to this report.

Who wrote Thurlow's records? Kerry was NOT the only officer present. That is what inquiring minds want to know. Kerry sign, the form and show us the records. What does he have to hide/






To me, this is looking more and more like Thurlow is the gloryhound. After all, this guy has his own Bronze Star for that day, so if Kerry's is unearned, isnt Thurlow's? He has publicly said he thought his award was for jumping into the board, helping the captain who had suffered a concussion from the explosion and then going inside and helping to plug the leak. He seems like a pretty humble guy to me. He didn't see the report that was written by Kerry. He only assumed he won the award based on his actions that day, not the movie script written by Kerry.

The fullest account of Kerry's experience in Vietnam is "Tour of Duty" by prominent presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. It was written with Kerry's cooperation and with exclusive access to his diaries and other writings about the Vietnam War. "Unfit for Command," by John E. O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of his Swift boat, and Jerome R. Corsi, lays out a detailed attack on Kerry's record.I stop reading the diatribe written by the Post guy after I got to this part. Again, and again and again. Sign the DD Form 180 and lets get this over with. The fullest account of Kerry's experience is written by Kerry and with access to his diaries! How totally laughable.

I'm sorry, but I choose to believe other officers that served and bunked with Kerry and saw what was going on. I choose to believe men with no axe to grind except that they fear for the safety of our country if John F. Kerry is elected Commander in Chief. I believe the words of 250 decorated men over the word of one man, who has demonstrated in so many ways how truly deplorable he is.

I hope the liberal media keeps defending him with the blinders on. The truth you know will come out. The records will be released and this episode will set the Democrats back 35 years. How ironic will that be.

At least the rest of the article showed some political balance.

Not to be spiteful or disrespectful, but I honestly feel like I have been assaulted with a wave attack similar to a missile attack designed to overwhelm my point defenses after reading all of the above articles disputing the Swift boat veterans' story. I realize the fighting fire with fire principle, but I sorta feel like I've been caught in the crossfire and overwhelmed with "stories". If all the articles say the same thing by citing the same sources and using the same information, what's the point? And an article in my local paper today states that "campaigns often file complaints with the FEC" (DAVID ESPO, AP). This is politics. Did anyone think it would be any other way? Both sides get ugly, it's up to clear heads to sift fact from fiction.

I watched a lot of the DNC and I heard what everyone said about Kerry being a "hero" and all. It kinda made me upset. All the hypocritical undertones are simply nauseating. And if it made me upset, I'm sure it made a lot of people upset. I agree with you Joey that what a man did when he was young shouldn't necessarily be held against him, but Kerry is the one that kept shoving it down our throats and keeping it a central theme in his campaign. This Swift Boat Vets for Truth thing didn't need Bush to get it going. And it certainly doesn't need him to keep it going.

And as far as ignorance goes, it cuts both ways. Why doesn't Kerry just reveal his military records? Why would people want to be knowingly ignorant of the facts? Sounds like there are some people out there who'll just hold there nose and kiss Kerry's rear simply because he's running against Bush. Not good enough for me. And I believe I have a different definition of "smart" than some. There's a lot of ignorant people out there, it's just sad that many are willingly ignorant.

On a conciliatory note, I did like what Kerry said about going after Al Qaida and not letting our military go downhill. My point being that I know Kerry is not the anti-Christ, it's just funny that many people think Bush is.

Its kinda funny, I can tell someone is a very biased republican. Lemme guess you read/heard the swift boats ads and you were convinced from the start they were true! No need for proof. Well I feel for ppl who read something and without any real knowlege on it assume its true. I mean I cant sit here and say I know its false for sure, but im smart enough not to assume everything I read is true. But for republicans im sure you all are just praying its true or you can hopefully convince enough people it is. Sure ya can make it known those statements are out there... Its great to have debate and all, but it drives me crazy when ppl just find the latest spam out about someone and post it all over and make statements like its proven fact. To me that is ignorance...All I can say is if it looks like a duck,....

I have spent more than 200 hours (maybe even more) looking at this election which is more than 98% of population will do. I have been watching all the cable shows from 6:00 until 10:00 on all channels. CSPAN, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN FOX, ABC, CBS, and NBC. I have been on all the websites from johnkerry.com and move-on.org to hannity.com and swiftvets.com and all the bloggers in between. I would say I am very educated on this election.

Many Americans, either out of sure ignorance or laziness will make no effort to educate themselves. They will vote the party line. They will just look at what they see orchestrated on behalf of the Democrats by the liberal media and half of them will say OK, I believe that, while the other half will say bunk. And that is where we are at in this country. 50-50 The population has been brainwashed and dumb downed to the point that it can no longer make decisions on its own. That is why we have all the polls. A simple technique to convince people to vote for the winner. Who wants to vote for the loser. Everytime there is a poll that favors Kerry, front page news here I come. For Bush, buried on page 7. Tell me I am wrong!

As far as Kerry goes, I have heard and read both sides of the story and only one side is telling more of the truth. Let's put it that way for convenience. It is obvious where I stand on this issue and I am proud of it. I want to be able to look at the President of the United States and say, you know what, I may not agree with some of your policies but at least I respect you. I can't honestly say I could say that with Fonda Kerry. Sorry.

Thats quite responsible of you. You are quite strong in your convictions. But if you believe there is a great liberal conspiracy on the media then why do you still watch cable television to get your information?

I agree some people lack knowledge, but that is an assumption that most are ignorant. In your opinion they are ignorant becuase they do not agree with you, in the end is that not hypocritical and mabie a touch unsensible.

From the sounds of it you have only gathered information on Kerry. Why dont you spend some time digging into Bush as well. As joey said I want someone who will run the country. Im not looking for someone to run a swift boat here!!! Im not looking for someone to take a bullet!!! The simple fact is everyone around me, including me, is loosing there jobs or taking pay cuts and i could give two shakes who said what about someones brothers cousing nieces uncle said what they heard about kerrys war record!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Im being fecicious of course, its a metaphor for all of the hearsay about an insignificant war record). Now i ask you are we in martial law, why is what someone did in war the most important thing someone can do to be elected to run this country: thats what the generals are for!!!!!!

The simple fact is (beyond my political research) EVERY bush ad i have seen in michigan attacks Kerry. Thats great you can cap on him better than he can on you. But what are your plans for our economy that dont contain bush making his company less bankrupt, or more profitable. The kerry ads that i have seen have talked about what he wants to do in this country. Are we all planning to go to war or something. Is that what is important about running this country, what can we attack next. Or is me finally getting that 96 cartier that i have wanted but cannot get enough to afford.

Big Joe

Besides all that, old people cant remember to turn the stove off but you are expecting them to remember 1969. LOL.

Id be willing to bet most of the biggest Bush supporters are wealthy.

Thats quite responsible of you. You are quite strong in your convictions. But if you believe there is a great liberal conspiracy on the media then why do you still watch cable television to get your information?

That's just argumentative. My local paper is completely liberal and proud of it. But I read it every day. I don't watch Fox news except when something really newsworthy happens (Iraq invasion, et al). I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh for obvious reasons. I first found out about the Swift Boat Vets from this site.

I agree some people lack knowledge, but that is an assumption that most are ignorant. In your opinion they are ignorant becuase they do not agree with you, in the end is that not hypocritical and mabie a touch unsensible.

No offense meant here, but I viewed his statements as people are ignorant because they don't have all the facts. In my reply above I alluded to the same ignorance of Kerry's war record.

From the sounds of it you have only gathered information on Kerry. Why dont you spend some time digging into Bush as well. As joey said I want someone who will run the country. Im not looking for someone to run a swift boat here!!! Im not looking for someone to take a bullet!!! The simple fact is everyone around me, including me, is loosing there jobs or taking pay cuts and i could give two shakes who said what about someones brothers cousing nieces uncle said what they heard about kerrys war record!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Im being fecicious of course, its a metaphor for all of the hearsay about an insignificant war record). Now i ask you are we in martial law, why is what someone did in war the most important thing someone can do to be elected to run this country: thats what the generals are for!!!!!!

I couldn't agree with you more about the generals. If Kerry would drop the whole "hero" bit, then your point is well taken. I sympathize with your job situation. Things are tough all over and I'm not immune. I wish Bush or Kerry would have some real vision in this regard, but neither do. So I must turn to other issues to base my vote.

The simple fact is (beyond my political research) EVERY bush ad i have seen in michigan attacks Kerry. Thats great you can cap on him better than he can on you. But what are your plans for our economy that dont contain bush making his company less bankrupt, or more profitable. The kerry ads that i have seen have talked about what he wants to do in this country. Are we all planning to go to war or something. Is that what is important about running this country, what can we attack next. Or is me finally getting that 96 cartier that i have wanted but cannot get enough to afford.

Big Joe

The accusations about Bush making his company less bankrupt today will only be replaced by accusations of Kerry making Heinz more profitable tomorrow if Kerry is elected. Kerry is not better than Bush in this regard, so again I must base my vote on other issues. And Kerry would have gone to war against Iraq, too, by his own admission. So that argument is also nullified between the two. And IMO, when placed on opposite sides of the scale, Kerry is found wanting. But I want to stress that this is my OPINION, so don't hate me for it. I'm voting for Bush. You're voting for Kerry. And in 20 years, who gives a chit? (I couldn't resist quoting Driller there cause I felt the humor in his post)

Id be willing to bet most of the biggest Bush supporters are wealthy.

Not most, but some. And every other presidential nominee has wealthy supporters as well. My point being that you have no point. :tongue:

I'll respond to all you guys later in the night. Thank you for keeping it civil. I really do appreciate a "fair fight'.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104.html

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104.gif

Sen. Kerry's Statement On THe Senate Floor As a Eulogy For Mr. Thomas Belodeau.

"There was the time we were carrying special forces up a river and a mine exploded under our boat sending it 2 feet into the air. We were receiving incoming rocket and small arms fire and Tommy was returning fire with his M-60 machine gun when it literally broke apart in his hands. He was left holding the pieces unable to fire back while one of the Green Berets walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M-60. As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going--straight into the river. The entire time while the boat went back to get the Green Beret, Tommy was without a machine gun or a weapon of any kind, but all the time he was hurling the greatest single string of Lowell-Chelmsford curses ever heard at the Viet Cong. He literally had swear words with tracers on them!'
http://idexer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48 (http://idexer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48)

According to Kerry, first a mine explodes under HIS boat. Not NEAR his boat, but UNDER his boat. Sending it 2 feet into the air. After sending it TWO feet into the air, the boat continued on, and then made a high speed turn to starboard (Throwing the Green Beret (Rassmann) into the water). So according to Sen. Kerry the turn caused Rassmann to go into the water, and a mine exploded under PCF-3. THis certainly conflicts with the WaPo diagram, and is just another one of the many varying accounts by Sen. Kerry, his campaign, and his Band Of Brothers.

Kbob,

"But I want to stress that this is my OPINION, so don't hate me for it. I'm voting for Bush. You're voting for Kerry."

Honestly, i would go for greenpeace if i knew they could win. Good points by the way. I really dont mind who you guys vote for. I hope you know i respect your opinoins, im not condemning any of you and I respect you all for making informed decisions. I JUST WANT MY NEW LINCOLN. lololol

I will have to come back to read your reply monstermark my friends are nagging me to get going to the movies.

Honestly, i would go for greenpeace if i knew they could win.

Good one, LOL!

Good points by the way. I really dont mind who you guys vote for. I hope you know i respect your opinoins, im not condemning any of you and I respect you all for making informed decisions. I JUST WANT MY NEW LINCOLN. lololol

The feeling is mutual. And I'd like a new Lincoln too, specifically that TASCA Mark on the home LVC page. Is that thing awesome or what! :eek2:

I will have to come back to read your reply monstermark my friends are nagging me to get going to the movies.

Enjoy and let us know if it was worth seeing.

Good graphic MonsterMark. Question: whose account is the graphic based? Also, do you know what Droz was doing while Chenoweth and Thurlow assisted Pees? Did he hang back to cover the rear? Just trying to make sense of it all.

yes, nice graphic

to be honest the movie totally sucked, never go to see, i think it was "open water". There is one good scene where one of the main characters is naked and quite beautiful, may i add. The rest of the movie is her and her husband floating in open water!!!!!!!!!!! For a good hour!!!!!!!!!! It was a total waste. I could have filmed it in my swimming pool. Dont waste your money on this movie, learn from my mistake.

Anyway, onward with the swiftboats.

Edwards faults Bush for overtime pay cuts
Says Democratic ticket would ensure rewards for workers' efforts

Reuters
Updated: 2:36 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2004


PITTSBURGH - Vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Saturday assailed a new Bush administration policy that excludes millions of Americans from overtime pay and promised that the Democratic ticket would ensure that workers are rewarded for their efforts.

He made his comments in the party’s weekly radio address two days before the Republican administration’s policy takes effect. The new rules change the criteria for how employers determine overtime for their employees.

“Why would anyone want to take overtime pay away from as many as 6 million Americans at a time when they need it the most?” asked Edwards, a senator from North Carolina.

“And why would anyone support this new rule which could mean a pay cut for millions of Americans who have already seen their real wages drop again this year?”

Edwards said that he and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry “believe we don’t need changes that deny workers their overtime pay.”

Recalling his own background, which included unloading tractor trailers while in college, Edwards said the Democrats believe that “if you work hard, then you should be rewarded for that effort.”

Platform aims to please middle class voters
Kerry and Edwards, running neck and neck with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have offered an economic platform designed to please middle class voters, many of whom have failed to benefit much from an economic recovery that has yet to generate robust hiring or wage gains.

Kerry was to meet with top Democrats on Saturday.

More than 1.1 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office and the tepid recovery in the labor market has fueled public concern over offshore “outsourcing” to low-wage countries like China and India.

Kerry and Edwards have tried to capitalize on that discontent.

But Republicans say Bush will likely highlight tax relief and Social Security reform when he retools his economic platform for an intense month of campaigning after the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 Republican Party convention in New York.

The focus will be on small investors and young voters worried about their retirement savings, according to Republicans close to the administration.

“The message will be that Bush is for wealth creation and (Democrat John) Kerry is for wealth redistribution,” said Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, a group that raises money for conservative political candidates.

The president is expected to roll out the polished themes at the convention.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5781227/

Despite veterans' ad, Kerry remains in the lead


MSNBC
Updated: 10:00 a.m. ET Aug. 20, 2004


This week’s controversy over allegations made by anti-John Kerry Vietnam veterans in their TV ad and in their book provides an illustration of the way division of labor works today in American politics.

“The President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country,” Kerry said in a speech Thursday. “Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: ‘Bring it on.’”

Indeed, John O’Neill (who debated Kerry more than 30 years ago on the Dick Cavett show on ABC) and his fellow “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” have “brought it on.”

Bush himself has stayed aloof, praising Kerry last week, saying Kerry "is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and he should be."

As the dust settles a bit, Kerry remains in the lead of MSNBC.com's White House Derby.

How potent an issue is Bush’s non-disavowal of the Swift Boat Veterans ad?

Those voters who don't believe Bush in general will never believe that he and his strategist Karl Rove didn't authorize the ad.

Voters may assume all anti-Kerry attacks are somehow conforming to a larger anti-Kerry strategy, and likewise on the anti-Bush side.

And in the end, the battle of Najaf may well matter more to voters than the battle on the Mekong River in 1968.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, with coverage by talk radio, blogs, and some in the more traditional news media, did force Kerry to spend time responding.

If you are campaign manager, you never want to have your candidate dancing to your adversaries’ sheet music.

Meanwhile, in another illustration of division of labor, even though Kerry did not delve into the question "what did Bush really do in the Air National Guard in 1972?" anti-Bush allies like Michael Moore, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe and Moveon.org have been doing that work for months. Moveon.org uncorked a new ad this week criticizing Bush’s Guard service, which Kerry disavowed.

A new Pennsylvania poll from Franklin & Marshall College released Thursday showed Kerry with a six-point lead, 48 percent to 42 percent over Bush, but still within the margin of error, which was 3.8 percent.

The undecided amounted to eight percent. If one accepts the traditional pollster’s wisdom that two-thirds of the undecided ultimately vote against the incumbent, Kerry looks to be in fine shape in Pennsylvania.

Bush has made a remarkable 32 visits to the Keystone State since becoming president. This is puzzling in that he lost Pennsylvania by more than 200,000 votes last time. This could end up as one of the smartest — or most ill-advised — investments in modern campaign history.

But Pennsylvania illustrates the point that we don’t know for sure what the battleground states are and neither do the candidates. It is easier to say which states are not tossup states (Alabama, California, Utah, Rhode Island) than which ones are.

And this week's list of tossup states may not be the same as the week of Oct. 25

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5770431

Chicago Tribune Editor Backs Kerry's Story

Saturday, August 21, 2004



CHICAGO — A Chicago Tribune (search) editor who was on the Vietnam mission for which John Kerry (search) received the Silver Star is backing up Kerry's account of the incident.

William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission because reports by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search) are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry, according to a report in the Tribune's Sunday editions.

Rood, an editor on the Tribune's metropolitan desk, said the allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue. Kerry came up with an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors, Rood said.

"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," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in the newspaper. "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."

According to the Tribune, Rood's recollection of what happened that day in South Vietnam was backed by military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star and a report written by then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded his and Kerry's task force and is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129661,00.html

Come on, man, if you're going to post a poll try to make it up to date or "scientifically valid". Otherwise, it's very misleading. And if you don't know my opinion of polls by now, they're for idiots. Make up your own mind and don't follow the crowd like a stupid lemming.

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Election 2004

Presidential Ballot

Bush 47%
Kerry 47%
Other 2%
Not Sure 4%
RasmussenReports.com

---------------------------

Rasmussen Reports Home

Economic Confidence Today

Bush vs. Kerry Today

Bush Job Approval

Congress - GOP vs. Dem

Electoral College

State-by-State Polls

----------------------------------------------
Sunday August 22, 2004--For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John Kerry with 47% of the vote and President George W. Bush with 47%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Kerry's military service while 36% have an unfavorable view. Thirty-nine percent (39%) believe Kerry is telling the truth about his experiences in Vietnam while 31% believe he is exaggerating the truth and 15% believe he is lying.

Our latest Electoral College projection stands at Kerry 223 Bush 183. Those figures, which reflect our latest polling in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, will be updated today at 3:00 p.m. Eastern.

Yesterday, we provided our Premium Members with new Top-Line polling results for 25 states.

So far in August, we have publicly released state election polls for Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Washington, Maine, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, Arkansas, New Mexico, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Georgia, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, and Minnesota.

Supplemental data is available for

RR Premium Members.

Learn about Premium Membership




Data released last week 52% of voters trust Bush more than Kerry when in comes to national defense and the War on Terror. Forty-two percent (42%) prefer Kerry. Voters are more evenly divided when it comes to managing the economy.

Rasmussen Reports data also shows that 42% of Likely Voters say President Bush is doing a good or an excellent job of handling the situation in Iraq. Another 42% say he is doing a poor job. When it comes to the economy, 41% say good or excellent while 43% say poor. These figures are updated weekly.


The national telephone survey of 1,500 Likely voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports over the past three nights. Margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

----------------------------
Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Election 2004

Date Bush Kerry
Today 47 47
Aug 21 47 47
Aug 20 47 48
Aug 19 46 48
Aug 18 46 48
Aug 17 46 49
Aug 16 47 48
Aug 15 46 48
Aug 14 46 47
Aug 13 46 48
Aug 12 45 48
Aug 11 46 49
Aug 10 46 49
Aug 9 48 47
Aug 8 48 47
Aug 7 47 47
Aug 6 46 48
Aug 5 45 48
Aug 4 46 46
Aug 3 45 48
Aug 2 46 47
Aug 1 45 49
Earlier Results for

RR Premium Members

Dates are release dates

Surveys conducted on preceding three nights

RasmussenReports.com

Almost everyone on Capital Hill wanted to reform overtime pay rules because they were so outdated. And surprise, Democrats were unhappy with the final version. If you want to know the truth, go to the source:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/main.htm

Posting editorial pieces is really just a waste of time. There's little if any news in it. I think it's misleading, too.

"Chicago Tribune Editor Backs Kerrys Story"

He said, she said, blah blah blah. Show us the records.

Good graphic MonsterMark. Question: whose account is the graphic based? Also, do you know what Droz was doing while Chenoweth and Thurlow assisted Pees? Did he hang back to cover the rear? Just trying to make sense of it all.The graphics were created by the Washington Post. I at least give them credit for 'finally' digging into this. This story is very troubling for Kerry on many fronts.

1st: It shows that Kerry lied on how he received one of his purple hearts. The infamous 'toss a grenade into the uncle bens and get your butt cooked' incident.

2nd: Although there are discrepancies, overall the report validates what the Swift Boat Vets said. The number 3 boat took a mine. At the same time, Kerry took off down the river. Based on where Rasmussen was on the boat, it seems the most plausible that Kerry gunned the engines to get the hell out of there and Rasmussen was in the most vulnerable position on the boat and, with no handrails, took a dive over the side. (Have you ever been standing up in a boat when the driver steps on the gas? Usually the driver waits till everybody is seated, right?) More troubling though is that in Kerry's own words, he only turned around when he noticed Rasmussen was missing, so he may have well been 5000 meters down the river, fleeing the scene. Which is why he may have had to withstand the "withering" firestorm from all sides to get back. (Not plausible)

3rd: The report states there are 2 explosions yet there is only one damage report and that Kerry towed the damaged 3 boat yet the report states the 94 (Kerrys) boat as damaged to the point of being inoperable. The damages seem to be consistent with that of a mine so I believe the 3 boat was mined. The damage as reported to Kerry's boat would not have allowed his boat to tow the other. Why wouldn't they use a boat that was unscathed?

4th: The is no mention of small arms damage to either the boats or crew. Yet Kerry survived "withering" vollies from both sides. Man, the Vietcom were bad shots. The rest of the boats were 'trapped' by the 3 boat. How were they not wiped out. They were trapped weren't they? Then the report goes on to say that they were even able to sit there and make repairs for an hour and a half after the assault. The most plausible explaination comes from the Swift Vets again. There was a mine explosion. The crews started using suppression fire on both sides of the river. Rasmussen is upside down in the water and under the water and hears 50s' going off all over the place.

5th: Kerry states he made a "starboard" turn which would have put him squarely on the beach, which is at least consistent with his strategy of always beaching his boat when under fire.

6th: The report states the Droz's boat (#43) was behind Kerrys which makes it consistent that they would go to the aid of the 3 boat and therefore would be out of position to retrive Rasmussen from the water. So Kerry beats them there first to pluck Rasmussen from the water..

When you compare the 2 events as outline by both Kerry and the Swift Vets, you must judge the stories based on what makes the most sense and seems the most plausible. Again, Kerry tries to take credit by indicating damage to his boat on the report that would be consistent with mine damage but would render his boat inoperable, yet he tows the other boat. This is consistent with his embellishing his record to the detriment of those there.

These are my opinions and yes I am partisan on this issue but there is no question in my mind why the Swift Vets are challenging this guy's credibility. He doesn' have any in my mind.

What we have here is a liar and a traitor seeking to be Commander in Chief. This would obviously give aid and comfort to our enemies around the world and would allow the world to paint us as the evil empire. Our enemies would say, look at who they just elected (Kerry). A man who has openly and freely admitted to war crimes. Americans are murderers.

Democrats would have no basis to criticize the Bush administration for Abu Graib or any such incident ever again.

So criticize me for being partisan but I have watched all the shows, went on all the websites and brought my life to a halt so I could ascertain the truth in all this. I share this with you and spend alot of time writing these things up because I know you guys are busy and I hope that this helps you more easily understand what is being discussed and then be able to take this information and make up your own minds.

Kerry is the wrong choice and the Democrats should ask him to immediately bow out of the race and let Edwards continue. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather see Kerry run than Edwards because Edwards would give the Dems a fresh start and then the mantra of Anybody but Bush could start all over again.

Joey, you can post all you want on the issues but they do not matter at this point in time. This election is now about the fitness of Kerry to serve as President and CIC and until he releases all the records through the signing of Form 180 and puts this to rest, he will continue to slip in the polls.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (www.swiftvets.com (http://www.swiftvets.com/)) have a 28 minute documentary coming out next month that will torpedo and finish off Kerry's sinking boat.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,686045,00.html

Excerpts from Time Magazine:



THE CHARGE Kerry lied to get the first of three Purple Hearts. SBVT alleges that the wound was a minor, self-inflicted scratch. Kerry says on Dec. 2, 1968, he and his two crewmates that night fired on men on a riverbank. It's unclear if someone fired back, but shrapnel hit Kerry's arm. Louis Letson, a medical officer at the time, says that he treated Kerry's wound and that it was too small to justify a medal. William Schacte Jr. says he was on the boat that night and there was no enemy fire; he says Kerry was injured by a grenade Kerry himself launched.

THE EVIDENCE Kerry's medical record was signed not by Letson but by corpsman J.C. Carreon. Letson claims Carreon routinely signed forms for him. Letson told the Los Angeles Times he heard the wound was self-inflicted thirdhand — from his subordinates, who heard it from Kerry's two crewmates. They deny saying that and insist Schacte wasn't on the boat that night. The military grants a Purple Heart for any wound requiring medical attention that was inflicted during action against the enemy.





THE CHARGE Kerry lied to win his Silver Star. SBVT charges that Kerry exaggerated his role in a battle on Feb. 28, 1969. In charge of a three-boat patrol that was ambushed, Kerry ordered the boats to beach in front of their attackers and engage them head on. Kerry's boat was providing cover when a rocket hit it. Kerry jumped ashore to chase a Viet Cong with a rocket launcher and killed him. SBVT says Kerry simply shot a wounded teenager in the back. Former Lieut. Commander George Elliott, Kerry's direct superior, said in a recent affidavit that he wouldn't have awarded Kerry a Silver Star if he had known the details.

THE EVIDENCE Kerry's crewmates say the boat was in clear danger. Besides, Kerry won the medal for leadership during the whole battle, and Elliott describes the entire episode in the citation he wrote. Elliott later told the Boston Globe he had made a terrible mistake in signing the affidavit. Then he signed a new affidavit standing behind the first. When newspapers questioned Kerry's account in 1996, Elliott went to Boston to uphold it. The commander of one of the other two boats, Chicago Tribune editor William Rood, corroborated Kerry's story last week.



THE CHARGE Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. On March 13, 1969, five swift boats were patrolling the Bay Hap River when a mine detonated under one of them. Kerry and Green Beret Jim Rassmann, aboard other boats, claim gunfire started coming from the riverbank. After another blast knocked Rassmann overboard, Kerry pulled him onto his boat. Three members of SBVT, including Larry Thurlow, insist that there was no gunfire and that Kerry initially fled the scene, returning to help Rassmann only when it was clear there was no danger.

THE EVIDENCE The Navy also awarded Thurlow a Bronze Star that day, and his citation, signed by Elliott and uncovered by the Washington Post, reads, "All the boats came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks." A separate damage report mentions three bullet holes in Thurlow's boat.




THE CHARGE Kerry lied about spending Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia. In 1979 and 1986, Kerry recounted a mission in which he and his crew boated into neutral Cambodia. The Pentagon said at the time that Vietnam's neighbor was off limits, and Kerry said his mission was proof of Richard Nixon's dishonesty. Steven Gardner, the sole member of Kerry's crew to join the SBVT, says their boat was 50 miles from the Cambodian border that day.

THE EVIDENCE Kerry has no proof he entered Cambodia, though other U.S. forces certainly did. Two crew members have said the boat was near the border. Records show that the boat was about 50 miles south of Cambodia that morning. Kerry and his crew headed upriver and could have been at the border in two hours. On Christmas Eve, Nixon was President-elect; he would not be in the White House for a month. A Kerry campaign spokesman now says that Kerry might not have been in Cambodia that night but that he definitely went there on a mission.

Joey, you can post all you want on the issues but they do not matter at this point in time. This election is now about the fitness of Kerry to serve as President and CIC and until he releases all the records through the signing of Form 180 and puts this to rest, he will continue to slip in the polls.
I dont know that they are his to release. My assumption is that they are military documents, in the possession of the Military and as such its up to the pentagon to release them, not Kerry.

???

To my knowlege, Kerry hasnt refused to release them, but I might be wrong. If he has, show me where, otherwise we need to know why they havent been released.

There are some who claim Kerry has lied to get his medals, some say he hasnt lied, but inaccurate, others say he was truthful........ Who is to be believed? We have no way to know.

Want to talk about ability to lead? CIC Bush just fired one of his high level campaign people who was directly involved with the swift group, a direct violation of election law. Bush doesnt even know what his own campaign people are doing. Not exactly a great leadership quality in my book. As Truman used to say, the buck stops here.

To my knowlege, Kerry hasnt refused to release them, but I might be wrong. If he has, show me where, otherwise we need to know why they havent been released. Everyday he doesn't release them he is denying to do so.

There are some who claim Kerry has lied to get his medals, some say he hasnt lied, but inaccurate, others say he was truthful........ Who is to be believed? We have no way to know..Releasing the records will allow us to know.

Want to talk about ability to lead? CIC Bush just fired one of his high level campaign people who was directly involved with the swift group, a direct violation of election law. Bush doesnt even know what his own campaign people are doing. Not exactly a great leadership quality in my book. As Truman used to say, the buck stops here.Yes, leadership was again shown by Bush. Come on, an organization usually has hundreds even thousands of volunteers. I sent a written letter to G.W. telling him in the future to personally interview every single volunteer from every state and give them personal lie detectors tests (alla Meet the Parents), so as to avoid this situation in the future. http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_after.jpg (http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto#)Touch the photo to see which Swift officers support John Kerry

The purpose of this photo is to correct the misleading use of our images -- against our will -- to further John Kerry's campaign.

----------

Everyday he doesn't release them he is denying to do so.
Your assuming he even can release anything -

Your assuming that he is the only one that would have to agree to release them -


Releasing the records will allow us to know.
SO - guilty until proven innocent?

Have you heard Kerry's own recorded account of the "Christmas Eve in Cambodia" story? It was "SEARED, SEARED" in his memory. I like a good exaggerated story just as much as the next guy, but not to be taken completely seriously. I'm not saying Kerry didn't rescue that guy when he fell overboard. I'm not saying Kerry is a criminal. But in my book, a "hero" doesn't boast about his heroic deeds by using them to seduce the public. And don't you agree that at least one, maybe even two of the purple hearts awarded was iffy? This is not a huge leap for people to question those events, especially since Kerry paraded it to the entire nation. Here's an example: SOLDIER: "Doc, I've had this headache since that last firefight I had." DOCTOR: "Okay, here's some Tylenol, and here's your purple heart. This is your third one, you say? Well, I guess you're going home early then. Congratulations hero." Enough of the controversy, let's just see the records. And the point about the Bush "firing" a campaign person was very weak and completely frivolous. The guy was a volunteer according to my local news at 5. Do you think Bush should have kept him on his campaign?

Your assuming he even can release anything -

Your assuming that he is the only one that would have to agree to release them -



And you're grasping at straws. Quit defending the release of these documents, it's just not logical unless you fear the accusations are true. It may not clear everything up, but it should help one way or the other.

And he's not guilty. But in an election, time is of the essence. Kerry is just smoke-screening through a very damaging attack on his campaign, IMHO.

On a side note: Does anybody know when we can expect some televised debates between Bush and Kerry, and between Cheney and Edwards? I haven't been this excited about a debate since the '88 debates. I voted for Bush then, but watching Benson tell Quayle, "sir, you are no Jack Kennedy" was priceless. What a knockout punch! I'm hoping there will be another historic exchange.

And you're grasping at straws. Quit defending the release of these documents, it's just not logical unless you fear the accusations are true. It may not clear everything up, but it should help one way or the other.

And he's not guilty. But in an election, time is of the essence. Kerry is just smoke-screening through a very damaging attack on his campaign, IMHO.

Actually im not defending anything. I dont know if they are something HE can release. I think he should release them if its in his power to do so. They are in the possession of the military - I dont know whats involved in getting those kind of records, but someone please educate me. I would think they would be accessible via FOI act, but clearly they would have been obtained by someone by now if that was the case..........

But all hear from the anti kerry side here - is really just heresay and conjecture. Im asking for some proof is all.

While we are at it -- How about you go after bush for his reasons for going to war in IRAQ --- Most of the reasons he stated prior to the war have proven invalid so far......... Dont misunderstand me -- I agree with going to Iraq --- but I question how much BS there was in his motives.

My whole point is, that I see little about the real issues, and alot about heresay and conjecture. CONVINCE ME!!!!!! thats all im asking :)

Everyday he doesn't release them he is denying to do so.

Releasing the records will allow us to know.



"What's good for the donkey is good for the elephant; Mr. Bush should sign an SF 180, too." Quoted from the Washington Times

So by his not releasing his military records, I guess its fair to assume he didn't fulfill his military commitment....

While we are at it -- How about you go after bush for his reasons for going to war in IRAQ --- Most of the reasons he stated prior to the war have proven invalid so far......... Dont misunderstand me -- I agree with going to Iraq --- but I question how much BS there was in his motives.Because the Brits, Russians, Libyans, etc. etc. agred with the U.S. that Iraq was working on these weapons and had used them in the past. They are either in Iran or Syria or buried in the sand, but they are out there and we will unfortunately get a taste of them soon enough.

http://www.uscg.mil/ccs/cit/cim/forms1/FORMS%5CSF_180.pdf
http://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/sf180.pdf

How to Submit Requests:


Send by mail (http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/standard_form_180.html#mail)
Send by fax (http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/standard_form_180.html#fax)
Today we must continue to receive requests, dated and with a handwritten signature, either by mail or by fax only. This is because Federal law (http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/foia_info.html#mprpriv) [5 USC 552a(b)] requires that all requests for records and information be submitted in writing. Each request must be signed and dated.

You may submit more than one request per envelope or fax, but please submit a separate request (either SF 180 or letter) for each individual whose records are being requested.


Send by Mail

Our mailing address is: National Personnel Records Center
Military Personnel Records
9700 Page Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63132-5100


Send by Fax

Our fax number for requesting military records is 314-801-9195.
The Center will respond in writing by U.S. Mail.
Order Processing Time

Response times for records requested from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) vary greatly depending on the nature of the request. For example, the NPRC Military Records Facility currently has a backlog of 180,000 requests and receives approximately 5,000 requests per day. Routine requests for separation documents currently require only 2-4 weeks for servicing. However, requests that involve reconstruction efforts due to the 1973 fire or older records which require extensive search efforts may take much longer. The average turnaround time on all requests is currently running at approximately 12 weeks.

"NARA ensures, for the Citizen and the Public Servant, for the President and the Congress and the Courts, ready access to essential evidence."

My whole point is, that I see little about the real issues, and alot about heresay and conjecture. CONVINCE ME!!!!!! thats all im asking I'm working on it, believe me. I don't want your vote to cancel out mine.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon6.gif

I'm working on it, believe me. I don't want your vote to cancel out mine.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon6.gif

Yeah, but im in chicago --- My vote could be a few more then one!!!!!!!

ROFL


While your filling out those forms for Kerry, Fill out one for Bush also - I'd love to see that he actually served his committment like he claims but that others have questioned.

Bryan,

What I have long suspected is proven. Rupublicans are some of the biggest nut-huggers alive. Let's review the facts.

1) Kerry gives up the security of America, the greatest country in the world, and goes to Vietnam.

MEANWHILE

Bush finds a way to get out of going to Vietnam and serving his country

2) Kerry is in harm's way in Vietnam, an MAY have lied about a mission what happened during a mission.

MEANWHILE

Back in the US, Bush is a DESERTER..he's not AWOL, since AWOL is gone 30 days or less. He's gone for much longer. No peril here.

3) Kerry MUST produce documents showing what he did and why while he was in peril fighting for his life in Vietnam. If he does not, according to Bryan, he is too disgraceful to be president.

MEANWHILE

Bush, who weaseled his way out of serving, doesn't have to produce HIS documents shwoing he was a DESERTER. Yet seemingly, he is fitter to be president than Kerry. Even though he didn't fight. Neat, how that works, eh?

While all along, the Bush administration continues to attack Kerry for what he did in VIETNAM. You know, the place where I doubt Bush could find on a map. So Kerry was actually in VIETNAM, serving, fighting, whilst Bush was sitting at home, taking it easy. Then you have John Ashcroft chiming in. Who's Ashcroft? Why he's the guy who had 5 deferments..FIVE so he didn't have to serve. Then there's Cheney, perhaps the Grand Champion of Deferments. Seven to be exact. 7. VII. And neither of these guys EVER step foot into Vietnam to serve their country, yet they have the right to criticize Kerry? And to say Kerry is less fit to be president than Bush???? Unbelieveable!

And Bryan..save yourself the hassle of the whole "he used WMD in the past" BS. Those WMD came from the US, which is known. Saddam's buddy Reagan wanted him to gas some Iranians, which was OK. (but gassing Kurds is bad) Onto the Kurds...evidence put forth by the US ARMY WAR COLLEGE suggest it was NOT Saddam that gassed the Kurds. Research it yourself. During the 1st instance in Halabjah, there was a fight between Iraq and Iran. BOTH countries used gas on each other in this conflict. It was indeed Iran who killed the Kurds here. These are the gassed photos you see on the net/news. The 2nd instance was in Amadiyyah, after the war. NO GASSING VICTIMS WERE EVER PRODUCED for this one. The only evidence that a "gassing" has occured, was testimony recovered from Kurds who had fled to Turkey. Their eyewitness accounts were collected by staffers of the US Senate. These accounts were turned over to US military experts, and based on the symptoms described by these people, they did not conform to any known chemical weapons.

So let's ge back to fantasy-land, and pretend that Iraq DID gas the Kurds. (remember..gassing Kurds BAD, gassing Iranians GOOD) So if it was such a big deal, why did the US wait nearly 15 YEARS to do something about it???? Clearly if it was such a threat to US security, back when Saddam gassed the Kurds the 1st time in 1988, they would have done something, no????? Perhaps they were just too embarassed to say "Our gas is for gassing Iranians, NOT Kurds, you jerks". Nevermind the fact that the sanctions the US put on Iraq killed up to 14 MILLION Iraqis. I think the gassings, if they occured as reported, killed 3,000. Iraq kills 3,000 = bad. US kills MILLIONS = good.

Fast forward back to present....Bush decides that "pre-emptive" strikes are the way to go. This one may backfire on the US, with dire consequences. Iran stated just the other day, that they may "pre-emtive" strike US soldiers in Iraq because Israel is threatening to pre-emtive strike Irans nuclear generating facility. Iran basically said "we are adopting the US doctrine. If it is OK for them it is OK for the rest of the world too". Great plan, Bush! (remeber way back when..when I warned that this could create a dangerous precedent for other countries..but what do I know? I'm a Bastard Canadian).

While I certainly won't blame Bush for 9/11, as I don't think ANY president could have avoided it, I will say what he did after the fact elevated Osama to god-like status with his followers. Osama himself once told his followers "The US will invade and occupy an oil rich country unable to defend itself ". And just like that, Bush does it, and Osama followers liken him to a prophet. No wonder why they'll die for the guy...he "predicted" a future event, almost to a "t". Allah is their god...Osama is their god on earth.

And the past? Clinton gets a BJer, lies about it and nearly gets hung and impeached. Bush lies about WMD and Al-Quaeda, causes 1,000 service men to give their lives, and he is "fit" to be president??? Please....

Ron, great to see you come out from the shadows.

Kerry is either a perjuror or a war criminal? Which is it?
The way I see it, Kerry is not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less CIC.

Bush already went through the scrutiny process back in the 2000 election, so as Kerry says, Bring It On.

Forget about the medals argument. The real story has always been about his treasons created after his 4 month tour. The medal dispute was just a kick in the shins. Tomorrow, he gets punched in the stomach to bend him over, and then the documentary comes out to deliver the uppercut that puts him on the canvas for the count.

Why do all liberals continue to change the subject? Just ask Kerry to answer the charges against him. Hold a press conference. Answer questions. Show his records and shut us all up. Kerry, prove us wrong. We beg you.

The fact that you may be supporting Kerry for President (I say maybe because I am certain you could also go for a guy like Nader) is beyond belief for me. He has admitted under oath that he personally committed war crimes! He should be in jail, not running for President.

Why don't you join us in demanding Kerry release his records so we can all put this behind us. That is, after he apologizes to the millions of honorable Americans he besmerched after his short tour of duty.

It was great to see Bob Dole tear Kerry a new A-Hole today. This is only just the beginning. Grab a bag of popcorn and a coke and enjoy the show.

Rupublicans are some of the biggest nut-huggers alive.Is being a "nut-hugger" a compliment, EH? LOL

1) Kerry gives up the security of America, the greatest country in the world, and goes to Vietnam.Yes, thank you Mr. Kerry for your service to our country.

2) Kerry is in harm's way in Vietnam, an MAY have lied about a mission what happened during a mission.No, Kerry spends his 1st year on a frigate in the middle of the ocean. He then fantasizes about being JFK #1 by joining the swift boats, which is a NON-COMBAT role at the time he joins. 2 weeks after he joins, the armed forces changes the role of the swift boats and makes them an interdiction force. Kerry balks, but it is too late to back out.

3) Kerry MUST produce documents showing what he did and why while he was in peril fighting for his life in Vietnam. If he does not, according to Bryan, he is too disgraceful to be president.No, he is too disgraceful to be President period. With or without the documents.

We just need to have him show the documents to the rest of the world so these people that seek to have him elected President see the real Kerry. Once the records are out, he's done. Put a fork in him. Not even the Democrats are disputing that he is a traitor after the war. But please, let's save that argument for later this week.

Stay tuned...more to come.

No, he is too disgraceful to be President period. With or without the documents.

SO now if the documents support his version, he's still no good?

Then why should he produce anything? He has nothing to gain.........

SO now if the documents support his version, he's still no good? Then why should he produce anything? He has nothing to gain.........Let me explain. I don't really care about the medals. Everybody knows he embellished them, at best. That is not the story.

What he did after he got back is the story. It is the story that the average American knows little about except for those truly involved in the Vietnam era.

I just want to see the records to prove he is an embellisher and opportunist.

Then I want to move on his Senate testimony after the war to prove he is either a traitor or a perjuror, but clearly one or the other. No foggy middle ground here.

Then I want to move on to his Senate records and show that he was a non-existent member of the Senate for 20 years, an ineffectual leader, and expose his voting records as one of the most liberal in America. His record will show that how he voted in the past in the Senate is exactly opposite of what he is saying he will do now. You know, Kerry the flip-flopper.

Unfortunately, people need to have these things spelled out for them one at a time. So it has to happen in phases.

He has already done so many 180's, I just wish he'd sign the damn thing. http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Hey RRocket, :waving: I was wondering when you'd show up. Unfortunately you go over ground that has already been covered. Bush didn't vault himself up for his military service (call it what you like). But Kerry sure did and does on a daily basis. I think that warrants a little more proof. And I hate to get technical, but the Bush administration hasn't attacked Kerry's military service at all. You have a different opinion on this, but it's just that, an OPINION. I prefer to rely on facts, thank you. And it seems the "anyone but Bush" crowd reaches into our arctic neighbor as well, closing their eyes and plugging their noses while they pick through Kerry's crap looking for something good to eat. Look real close, I think he had a handful of peanuts and corn on the cob for dinner yesterday. Bon appetite!

And you're beating a dead horse with the whole "Bush lied" angle. Kerry would have invaded Iraq, too. So why aren't you trying to push Nader on us? He wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That's a rhetorical question. I know why, cause he can't beat Bush, the evil anti-Christ :dancefool .

The deaths that occurred during the sanctions (where did you get that ridiculously high number of 14 million? That's more than half their population :rolleyes: ) were caused by Saddam himself. I believe we went over this before, too. RRocket: "Actually, yeah, it was, um, more like 100 million! Yeah, that's the ticket! You bunch of murdering Americans, you! You've all been brainwashed! Elect the right candidate and we'll be friends with you again after you give up your security, your guns, your jobs, your import protections, and your sovereignty." If we get attacked again, you're not going to like any president we have, and this includes Kerry.

And I'll give you a little military education, for free cause we're LvC bros: pre-emptive strikes have been around for a while now, and they work real good. Bush didn't invent it. If Iran wants to attack, let 'em come! I aint sceered. We'll blow the heck out of them, too! (Did that sound like the nut-hugging redneck you think us Republicans are?) No, if Iran attacks, it'll be after we're gone. They aren't that stupid. MEANWHILE they'll sure keep funding, training, and harboring terrorists as much as they can since that's the right thing to do in some peoples opinion. After all, we pushed them to it according to many. And according to your logic RRocket, Osama should naturally "prophecy" that the US will attack some nation that will be unable to defend itself again. That way he'll either look even more like a god when it happens, or we should heed his words and stand down the next time we see a threat emerging. We should just not worry about it until the world is at war and the price will be far greater then. Yup, makes sense to me. Please, give me a break. You say it's no wonder they follow him like he's god. It doesn't take much to impress you, does it. Osama's a god, and Saddams a friggin saint the way he was maliciously used by Reagan and didn't use gas and cried so much because the U.S. killed 60% of his people. Save your revisions on history, cause the only ones that are going to listen to you are your dreaded "nut-huggers".

I'm sure you're well meaning and truly believe the US will be better off with Kerry in the White House. Thanks for your concern. (I'm saying this jokingly in a good-natured, condescending manner) And thanks for the weather you've been sending us. It's the coolest summer ever!

Yeah, but im in chicago --- My vote could be a few more then one!!!!!!!

ROFL

LOL!

And I agree about Bush releasing his info too. And what if they're both lying? Which one is worse? Who knows, you decide. I know where I stand. I've gotten out of a drill or two before as well, so sue me.

Ive said it before - I'm much more interested in current issues, not what happened 35 years ago. I'm sure we could find alot of dirt on most politicians 35 years ago when they were college age.

I'm disappointed the issues important today arent being discussed, if only so that people are more educated and aware. WHy isnt anyone discussing health care, or the economy? How about this - do you realize that the winner of this election may get to appoint 3 supreme court justices and affect the court decisions for the next 20+ years? That means if Bush wins again he could make appointments that could hurt our civil liberties LONG term, and after seeing the Patroit Act, I have little doubt that'll be the result of such appointments. There are stories abound the internet about people who protest at bush rallys being arrested, and some fired from their jobs. I dont know about the truth of these stories, but there are alot of them, and that scares me.

How about the lies and misleading things that happen today? You gonna tell me that the whole WMD thing wasnt exaggerated? You gonna tell me it all went to Syria? Ok, maybe it did - ask yourself this, why weren't we watching for this and have proof this happened?

There is MUCH more to being president then being CIC. Yes, Bush doesnt mind talking tough and backing his words up, er, well maybe North Korea isnt too worried. Iran doesnt appear too concerned either as they announced today they would continue building the reactor that'll produce weapons grade plutonium. US Diplomacy seems to be working well around the world.

I never liked GW to be honest. However, I felt he surrounded himself with good people and I had hopes for his administration. Dick Cheney and Colin Powell have both let me down. I would have voted for either one of them, but now I see Cheney's true colors and I would be suprised of Powell signs on for a second term.

Look at the deficit. Bush was given a $200 billion surplus, and now we have $400 billion deficit, which is projected to surpass $500 billion next year. Bush Sr. left Clinton with a $300 billion deficit so it seems to run in the family. If we continue at this rate, we could easily have a trillion dollar deficit in 2008. Think about who gets to pay that bill when you look at your children's faces. Think about how all of us wont have any social security either. What is GW doing about that? Nothin. He's too busy running around his ranch with that silly hat looking like a cowboy taking yet another vacation, more then any other President in history.

Bush BARELY won last time around, and this time the country is just as divided. Doesnt that tell you something? Had it not been for 9-11, do you think the landscape would be any different today?

WHo did what to who 35 years ago means little today, it really doesnt. Today, our President brags about how he doesnt read the newspaper - which to me translates into how he ignores what the people of this country have to say. it's HIS people who have just now broken the law in assisting with these negative ads. What about hand picked, Haliburton, where Cheaney used to be CEO, overcharging left and right. I dont see Bush shopping for a new contractor. Hows that for integrity and leadership?

Look, IM not asking you to vote for Kerry. Im asking you to look at bush with the same critical eye and realize GW is FAR from ideal. 35 years ago isnt important, Its what happens the next 4 years that is MOST important, and if the progress of the last 4 years is any indication, im not ecouraged.

And it seems the "anyone but Bush" crowd reaches into our arctic neighbor as well, closing their eyes and plugging their noses while they pick through Kerry's crap looking for something good to eat. Look real close, I think he had a handful of peanuts and corn on the cob for dinner yesterday. Bon appetite! I'm still cleaning off the keyboard after the coke came out of my nose. Thanks for the humor. That is exactly what the MSM is doing right now. Trying to find that perfect kernel that wasn't chewed yet. LMAO. Nice one.

Ron has gone off on the Iran/Iraq revisionist thing before. It doesn't matter. Clinton didn't have the nads to deal with Saddam. Bush did and went and pulled Saddam out of the rat hole by his tail. Next up. Iran. Then back again to North Korea. So many dictatorships, so little time.

Ive said it before - I'm much more interested in current issues, not what happened 35 years ago. I'm sure we could find alot of dirt on most politicians 35 years ago when they were college age.So now the Dems argument is look, forget it, he was young and stupid? (Speaking of Kerry of course.)

I'm disappointed the issues important today arent being discussed, if only so that people are more educated and aware. So am I. You can blame "reporting for duty" Kerry for that.

WHy isnt anyone discussing health care, or the economy?Because Kerry elected to spend exactly 26 seconds talking about it in his acceptance speech. Trust me, you will get alot more from Bush on these issues during his convention speech.

How about this - do you realize that the winner of this election may get to appoint 3 supreme court justices and affect the court decisions for the next 20+ years? That means if Bush wins again he could make appointments that could hurt our civil liberties LONG term, Joey, you have a typo in there to edit. I think you meant to say "help out civil liberties LONG term".

There are stories abound the internet about people who protest at bush rallys being arrested, and some fired from their jobs. I dont know about the truth of these stories, but there are alot of them, and that scares me. it should. There will be thousands of arrests because wacko lefties don't know how to act in public. The media will be there to 'capture' it all though. You'll see the far left in full foaming at the mouth mode.

How about the lies and misleading things that happen today? You gonna tell me that the whole WMD thing wasnt exaggerated? You gonna tell me it all went to Syria? Ok, maybe it did - ask yourself this, why weren't we watching for this and have proof this happened?.They went somewhere. Just haven't found them yet.

US Diplomacy seems to be working well around the world.I agree. It is.

Look, IM not asking you to vote for Kerry. Im asking you to look at bush with the same critical eye and realize GW is FAR from ideal. 35 years ago isnt important, Its what happens the next 4 years that is MOST important, and if the progress of the last 4 years is any indication, im not ecouraged.35 years ago is very important. We will be the laughing stock of the world and have absolutely no credibility in the world if we elect a war criminal as President. Look, the economy has been growing at better than 4% for the last several years and getting stronger. The war on terror is making progress. STOP MYSELF.

Blah, blah, blah...Clinton had 42 milllion uninsured when he came into office. 8 years later he still had 42 million uninsured. How could that have happened?

Clinton didn't NEED nads to do anything to Iraq, as he knew they weren't then (or ever) a threat to the US.......

War crimes? The US Commander in Chief has commited war crimes by ordering the deliberate bombing of areas where there were known to be civilians. That's a war crime too...Never mind that the US is pals with Israel. Sharon is a convicted war criminal. But he's the US's best friend. So it would seem war crimes don't really matter to Americans anyhow...wouldn't it?

I am also for full disclosure. But until there is ironclad evidence against Kerry, I still say he is a better person to lead the US than the incompetent bunch or morons there now. You WILL be crying the blues when Bush and his weenies push through another evolution of the "Patriot" act....


But NADER??? I could never support anyone who has a total hate for....the automobile. I believe Nader has never owned, and said he would never own an automobile....How can ANYONE like a guy who hates cars??

Clinton didn't NEED nads to do anything to Iraq, as he knew they weren't then (or ever) a threat to the US.......Your right. His nads were pretty busy being buffed by a young intern to notice.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Not to change the subject because I am really enjoying myself, but, how do you like the Lexus now that you've really had a chance to run it. Any more pics you care to share?

Bryan,

The Lexus is amazing. It's such a step up. It's a fine car all around. I'm so very pleased, and wished I would have purchased it sooner. The rest of my cars, I think, will be Lexus. Saving up as we speak for my SC430. It's just such a good brand. I wish everyone could try one just to see what they're missing...

Bryan...what messenger do you use? I've recently done a re-format, and have lost my contacts...which messenger service/contact names do you use. I'd like to chat online....

I revised my post..please re-read..you posted a reply too soon!! LOL

I hate to borrow this from someone else but I thought it was a great post.

"I truly believe history will record that this was the election where a small, grassroots effort overcame the endless funds and disinformation of a pretender to the Oval Office. I am so grateful I am here to bear witness and to feel a part of this fantastic event.

Kerry, armed with left-leaning media, hollywood, misguided (or uninformed) performers, millions upon millions of dollars, fake box-office "documentaries", and pitiful legal threats lost to an independent group who's only weapon was... the Truth.

John O'Neill and ALL SBVT will be remembered for being heroic not only in Viet Nam, but also for the current crusade to keep America from falling into the hands of a narcissistic elitist with delusions of grandeur... "

And I'm only on the first chapter! http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
SOTG

Truer words were never spoken. $63,000,000 spent (so far) by liberal 527 PAC's to tear down Bush vs $ 500,000 from a group of Vets. I just revel in seeing the libs crying right now asking Bush to take down the ads. The hypocrites humor me.


Try this link... 10 questions to ask John Kerry about his war record.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/swiftquestions.php (http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/swiftquestions.php)

Bryan, when did coke start coming in budwieser cans?



Your right. His nads were pretty busy being buffed by a young intern to notice


You say this like it was a bad thing.

Kbob,

Hello...I'll indulge your ego by asking you a question..maybe a touch sensitive. If "pre-emptive" strikes are OK, then surely that makes the attack on Pearl Harbour legitimate, and thus a correct military action. So then why are Americans so sour about it? It was pre-emptive against someone the Japanese thought was their enemy...which is the same doctrine Bush has adopted. So the attack on Pearl Harbour was righteous, correct?

Oh..and please posty your messenger handles too, as I'd like to chat you up on occassion..although only when I'm exceptionally bored....:)

Mine are ICQ: 2237996, AOL messenger SVSRacer, MSN r_durocher@hotmail.com

I will say this.......... I dont think kerry was the best candidate the Dems could have fielded.......... and I think if a better candidate had been fielded, Bush wouldnt have a chance. My honest opinion is that neither of these guys is the best choice for us, but I guess Ive seen the mess made by bush, and figure Kerry cant do much worse.

:sigh: I miss Ross Perot, at least I was entertained during that election.

Joey,

We need live chat so we can harangue each other on a regualr basis, and in real-time...

Bryan, when did coke start coming in budwieser cans?First of all Budhttp://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon13.gif, its Millerhttp://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon14.gif. I wouldn't drink that catfish piss from the Mississippi River if you paid me. Second, this cat has been dry for a long time. Couldn't get away with it while the mrs. is with child. Just not fair to her. You'll have to try again.

Bud, Miller..what's the difference? It's just another thing Americans know little about...making a good beer.... :givemebee

Just not fair to her.

Now im cleaning coke off MY keyboard

But NADER??? I could never support anyone who has a total hate for....the automobile. I believe Nader has never owned, and said he would never own an automobile....How can ANYONE like a guy who hates cars??
I know you can't vote but I was really counting on your support for Nader, thus denying Kerry the vote, enabling Bush to win, again!

Bryan,

If Hillary ran in the future...would she get in? The Clintonistas would be on Cloud 9 for sure.... It seems the Clintons can do no wrong...could anyone stop that juggernaut? Would'nt you just die if she got in with Bill as VP??? LOL

Bud, Miller..what's the difference? It's just another thing Americans know little about...making a good beer.... :givemebeeMan, with the taxes you guys pay on suds, I'm surprised you can afford to drink anything. I will tell you that Labatts Blue almost killed me. Had a severe reaction one time with my throat closing and my uvula growing to a length of 3 inches, gagging me. I guess that is why I am such a sensitive lover now. I only had 3 down my throat so I can just imagine what it would be like with 8! So much for Labatts. What else you got besides Molson?

Bryan,

If Hillary ran in the future...would she get in? The Clintonistas would be on Cloud 9 for sure.... It seems the Clintons can do no wrong...could anyone stop that juggernaut? Would'nt you just die if she got in with Bill as VP??? LOL
Not a snowballs chance in hell. Talk about polarizing the country. That would be unreal, but fun with Billy boy back in the game. Spot me 60 Republicans in the Senate and 250 in the House and I'll go for Hillary and Bill in 2008. Deal?

what a MESS that would be, but think of all the time billy would have to play with interns!

Creemore Springs is dynamite....Sleemans Honey Brown is yummy too...
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/rate_results/455/1654/


I do like a couple micros from the US...kinda hard to get though. Sam Adams isn't too shabby either for a mass brew, though most Americans don't seem to like it.....Had a Michigan micro by Kalamazoo brewery I enjoyed...

I may be making it up to WI in a few weeks. Perhaps we should sample some American beer and titty bars? I can also oblige you, and give you 98 Mark a good whipping with my Lex...

That was a nice little break there. Back to the story. Here is a piece from the WaPo (Washington Times) editorial page.

"As for volunteering for Vietnam, what Mr. Kerry actually volunteered for was patrol duty and only patrol duty, a safe assignment.As he wrote in his contribution to "A War Remembered": "They [swiftboats] were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing. Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn't really want to get involved in the war."

That makes sense, considering he already was opposed to the Vietnam War. And once he found himself assigned to potentially dangerous duty, he complained and moaned so much, demanding transfers back to safer duty, that he was assigned and re-assigned to three different coastal divisions his first month in-country. As Silver Star recipient William Franke says in the book: "Kerry protested being transferred to An Thoi, arguing that he had volunteered only for coastal patrol ? not the more hazardous duty of missions within the inland waterways ? his objections were so strong that he was transferred out within a week."

Mr. Kerry's notion that he could pick and choose his duty assignments — that he could somehow just be there as an observer without encountering mortal peril — fit nicely with the self-centered, cinematic view of himself and the war. He clearly saw himself as the producer, director and star of his own war movie: "John Kerry, War Hero." He even had footage taken of the hero, using his crew as extras, swiftboats as props, the jungle as background."

The Greeks had a word for it: alazon. Also the title of a play by Aristophanes, it denoted a character who tells us more than the truth, much more. He is a man who deceives and is self-deceiving. In his play, Gen. Lamachus embodies this flaw. Besides being boastful, he is vain and conceited. He desires women, wealth and reputation. He prides himself in his possessions as symbols of his expertise.

This trait, this character evolved into the Roman Miles Glorious, as portrayed by Plautus. The "braggart soldier" was self-absorbed and humorless, blinded by his own ego, with a necessary sycophant nearby to reinforce his alpine opinion of himself.

At the end of "Miles Gloriosus," the title character, his true nature revealed, says:"Fool, fool that I am! Now see what an ass they've made of me."
John Kerry, a naval miles gloriosus, has had his true nature revealed by Swiftvets For Truth. Yet he continues to play out his movie role for groups such as the VFW.

John B. Dwyer is an author, military historian and Vietnam veteran.

Creemore Springs is dynamite....Sleemans Honey Brown is yummy too...
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/rate_results/455/1654/


I do like a couple micros from the US...kinda hard to get though. Sam Adams isn't too shabby either for a mass brew, though most Americans don't seem to like it.....Had a Michigan micro by Kalamazoo brewery I enjoyed...

I may be making it up to WI in a few weeks. Perhaps we should sample some American beer and titty bars? I can also oblige you, and give you 98 Mark a good whipping with my Lex...
Give me a call when you firm up your plans. We'll have to run up to the Dells to see some really hot babes. Darn, now I have to get to work on the car, to get her ready to defend our honor. Sounds like a plan. Just give me a heads up in advance.

Another interesting tidbit for all to digest.The Bronze Star debate has come down to "who wrote the After Action Report"

Let me add a little circumstantial evidence to the Bronze Star case. The Spot report for 13 Mar 69 uses the phrase "5000 metres". Agreed?

1. American educated naval officers don't use the term metre, especially with a French spelling.

2. The Navy uses the term yard (3 feet). There are 2000 yards (approx) in a nautical mile which is actually 6086 feet. So an American educated naval officer would have written 5000 yards. (2.5 nautical miles)

3. As Kerry was educated in French and Swiss schools in his formative years, who would you conclude wrote the Spot Report resulting in the awards and citations?

4. All 3 other OinC's still living say Kerry wrote the Spot Report. Hmmmm?

Think about it.....What are you going to believe? The Spot report or the 3 surviving officers on scene?

Tom the RiverRat.

honestly, based on what little you have told me, im more likely to believe the spot report. Ill tell you why.

-This was 35 years ago, what anyone remembers now is somewhat foggy at best;

-Why did it take these guys 35 years to say something? Why didnt they contridict then? If its such a big dishonorable thing, why didnt they stop it when you could actually have fresh stories in everyone's mind?

-These guys didnt say something on their own, they did it in a calculated manner to give Bush an edge, and are funded by Bush supporters;

-These guys are making money off their story, which is a motive to lie;

-What was standard practice as far as who writes these reports? Is it SOP for Kerry to have written the report?

What you have told me here is that both parties have a motive to lie or distort the truth. So, either Kerry made up a story 35 years ago that nobody disputed then and he has stuck with - or it was the truth, which would explain why the story is the same as the report 35 years ago, and also explains why these guys wouldnt have said anything then.

honestly, based on what little you have told me, im more likely to believe the spot report. Ill tell you why.

-This was 35 years ago, what anyone remembers now is somewhat foggy at best;

-Why did it take these guys 35 years to say something? Why didnt they contridict then? If its such a big dishonorable thing, why didnt they stop it when you could actually have fresh stories in everyone's mind?

-These guys didnt say something on their own, they did it in a calculated manner to give Bush an edge, and are funded by Bush supporters;

-These guys are making money off their story, which is a motive to lie;

-What was standard practice as far as who writes these reports? Is it SOP for Kerry to have written the report?

What you have told me here is that both parties have a motive to lie or distort the truth. So, either Kerry made up a story 35 years ago that nobody disputed then and he has stuck with - or it was the truth, which would explain why the story is the same as the report 35 years ago, and also explains why these guys wouldnt have said anything then.
Hopefully this will help.
1. If most of Kerry's fellow Swift veterans don't support him, then who were all those guys with him at the Democratic Convention? They made it appear that Kerry has the complete support of his "Band of Brothers" from Vietnam.


John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at various times crew members on his own 6-man boat. Those are the men the Kerry campaign so prominently featured at the Democratic Convention. The photograph (http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto) we have posted at SwiftVets.com shows Kerry with 19 of his fellow Swift boat OICs (Officers In Charge) in Coastal Division 11. Four OICs were not present for the photograph. Only one of his 23 fellow OICs from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry.

Overall, more than 250 Swift boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. That list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in 5-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour.

The Swift boats fought in groups, so the other OICs who fought alongside Kerry know him well and can accurately describe what he did and did not do. In many cases Kerry's fellow OICs had a better perspective than his own crew members, since the latter had no way to determine whether he was following orders and how well he worked with his peers.

3. Why do you want Senator John Kerry to release his entire military records?

We want Senator Kerry to tell the truth about his conduct in Vietnam to the American public. We were there. We know that there are many critical facts that Americans need to know -– facts that have not been disclosed. Releasing the complete set of Kerry's service records will provide some insight into that conduct.

4. Aren’t you nothing more than Republican loyalists who happen to be veterans?

No. Among us are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. We are acting solely as Vietnam veterans who served in Swift Boats.

5. Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today?

Senator John Kerry himself made his Vietnam service a centerpiece for his campaign for the Presidency, so questions about his service are germane. Senator Kerry’s biographer described Kerry’s total Vietnam experience as a “three-decade-long tour of duty,” so questions about his entire “tour of duty” are germane. And in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry stated that his fellow Vietnam veterans were guilty of widespread atrocities, so questions about the veracity of those charges are germane.

9. Hasn’t Senator Kerry already released his records?

No, Senator Kerry has disclosed only a selected portion of his records. Specifically, Senator Kerry has not disclosed the records leading to the award of the three purple hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. There are also missing performance evaluations (called “Fitness Reports”) for certain periods of his service as a Navy officer. We call upon Senator Kerry to authorize the complete release of his military records by filing a simple two-page Form 180 (http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Form180).

10. Why are you not demanding that President Bush release his records?

It is our understanding that President Bush has released his records. If there are additional facts about his conduct in the military that should be disclosed, then we hope and trust that servicemen who had served with him will come forward as we have.

13. What exactly has Kerry lied about?

Senator Kerry misrepresented his own actions and those of his fellow officers and men. We believe that some of that misrepresentation resulted in him receiving medals to which he was not entitled. While many people might think that is immaterial, it is a matter of great importance to military personnel and veterans. As our chairman, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, U.S. Navy (Ret.), has said, “This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command.”

It is a matter of public record that John Kerry lied before Congress when he falsely portrayed his fellow service personnel in Vietnam as rapists and baby killers. John Kerry claimed that American troops were guilty of “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” and that we “personally raped” and otherwise brutalized innocent civilians. Kerry specifically accused Swift boat personnel of “showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks” and “butchering a lot of innocent people.” None of that is true.

We believe Senator Kerry’s irresponsible accusations damaged the U.S. war effort. Whether his testimony was designed to advance a political or personal agenda, we do believe that testimony endangered our prisoners of war, dishonored those injured and killed in action and did irreparable harm to the reputation of servicemen who served honorably in Vietnam only to return home to unwarranted ridicule and abuse.

Drawing on the credibility of a tour of duty in Vietnam, however abbreviated, John Kerry shaped a false, slanderous image of U.S. military personnel as violent, vicious and brutal. U.S. military personnel, Senator Kerry told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, are collectively “a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence.” That is untrue. As with military men and women today, U.S. military personnel in Vietnam went out of their way to safeguard innocent life, often taking casualties themselves rather than putting civilians at risk.

Having lied to the world about his former comrades, it is our view that Senator Kerry is unfit to command our sons and daughters as Commander-in-Chief.

14. Are you claiming that there were no atrocities committed in Vietnam whatsoever?

No. We base our position on statements made by Vietnam veterans -– many of whom served in the same Swift Boat units as the Senator and many who served at the same time. Our position is based on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were in a position to have seen or been informed about war crimes. None of these veterans witnessed or were informed of any of the crimes Senator Kerry has accused them of committing. Military personnel who witness crimes and atrocities have an absolute duty to report them to their superiors. Senator Kerry did not report a single instance of criminal behavior. If he had indeed witnessed the atrocities about which he testified to Congress, he should have reported them.

15. How common was it for a person to receive medals at the rate and number that Senator Kerry did?

Winning three Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star and the Silver Star in four months is rare. We have received letters from countless veterans outlining serious injuries -- far more serious than any Kerry sustained –- who said they did not seek a Purple Heart, because they did not feel it was warranted by the minor nature of their wound. In any case, the Senator’s full disclosure of his military records will shed light on the truth.

16. How can you demand that Senator Kerry release his records when you refuse to release your own?

We are not candidates to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Services. We are acting on principle -– namely the principle that the public has the right to know the details of Senator Kerry’s service. We believe that as a candidate for Commander-in-Chief, Senator Kerry has an obligation to disclose those records.

17. Are you working or involved in any way with the Bush/Cheney campaign or any other Republican organization?

Absolutely not. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a non-partisan organization. As part of our mission, we believe it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States.

The organization was created, organized and funded by swift boat veterans who joined together to defend a common cause. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accepts donations from individuals and groups as a 527 organization.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joey, as I understand it, all proceeds from the sale of the book are going to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I'll confirm the recipient.

Kbob,

Hello...I'll indulge your ego by asking you a question..maybe a touch sensitive. If "pre-emptive" strikes are OK, then surely that makes the attack on Pearl Harbour legitimate, and thus a correct military action. So then why are Americans so sour about it? It was pre-emptive against someone the Japanese thought was their enemy...which is the same doctrine Bush has adopted. So the attack on Pearl Harbour was righteous, correct?



Don't flatter yourself. Simply because someone yells vehemently doesn't make them right. You're the one that's setting the tone. So you can run interference for Kerry if you want by taking us all off subject with your Pearl Harbor questions and your "Bush is so stupid and evil" accusations and other subjects that we've already hashed out. It just proves even more how you'll blindly follow "anyone but Bush." I just want the truth about Kerry's service, or for Kerry to drop his "hero" routine. If the records are as he says, even with a few minor discrepancies, then you win and I'll admit it on this point.

I don't know if the psychological reaction to the Japanese would have been different if the breaking off of diplomatic relations by Japan had occurred before the attack like they had planned, but it's something to consider. But that's not the only one in history. Wars are full of attacks that occurred before an enemy was planning on attacking. You can't characterize them all as bad simply because you didn't like this one. It's not like it happened without warning, either. Saddam and the whole world knew what was coming. We didn't drive them to it, they drove the U.S. to it.

16. How can you demand that Senator Kerry release his records when you refuse to release your own?

We are not candidates to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Services. We are acting on principle -– namely the principle that the public has the right to know the details of Senator Kerry’s service. We believe that as a candidate for Commander-in-Chief, Senator Kerry has an obligation to disclose those records.


Im assuming you got this info from there site or something. This is something that strikes me as odd. I guess they dont want to release there records because it would probly support his side more then it would support theres. Otherwise they would do it. Plain and simple.

Im assuming you got this info from there site or something. This is something that strikes me as odd. I guess they dont want to release there records because it would probly support his side more then it would support theres. Otherwise they would do it. Plain and simple.Yes, I got it from the Swift Vets site. What is really sad is that it has "only' been viewed 645 times. Pretty sad that people don;t want to know where these guys are coming from.

Larry Thurlow just signed his 180. So now what is Kerry's position?

Please understand that these guys are not running for the most powerful position on the planet. Kerry is, and I would think thta just this once, people would be willing to hold him to a higher standard on this.

Im assuming you got this info from there site or something. This is something that strikes me as odd. I guess they dont want to release there records because it would probly support his side more then it would support theres. Otherwise they would do it. Plain and simple.

You may have a point, but there are other things to consider that shouldn't be ignored. Namely privacy issues. Running for public office, especially the presidency, requires a greater level of disclosure IMO. Just show us the records, Mr. Kerry, everything else is inconsequential.

Yes, I got it from the Swift Vets site. What is really sad is that it has "only' been viewed 645 times. Pretty sad that people don;t want to know where these guys are coming from.

Larry Thurlow just signed his 180. So now what is Kerry's position?

Please understnad that these guys are not running for the most powerful position on the planet. Kerry is, and I would think thta just this once, people would be willing to hold him to a higher standard on this.

Good for Larry Thurlow, but IMO if they want to question Kerry and try and force him to sign the release of his records they should do the same thing. I personally feel that they would release there records if they felt it would support there cause. After all, if they all release there records, we are goin to get the best possible understanding of what happened? We will have the reports of everyone to compare. But because those reports will probly help Kerry they will just continue to attack him and say they dont need to release theirs.

From BusinessWeek. A good read on why Kerry's past matters in THIS election

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5797120/

Good for Larry Thurlow, but IMO if they want to question Kerry and try and force him to sign the release of his records they should do the same thing. I personally feel that they would release there records if they felt it would support there cause. After all, if they all release there records, we are goin to get the best possible understanding of what happened? We will have the reports of everyone to compare. But because those reports will probly help Kerry they will just continue to attack him and say they dont need to release theirs.
These guys aren't running for Commander In Chief. So it is irrelevant. So let's see Kerry's records and if that clears things up, great. You don't understand that it is the officers that write the after-action reports, not the grunts.

These guys aren't running for Commander In Chief. So it is irrelevant. So let's see Kerry's records and if that clears things up, great. You don't understand that it is the officers that write the after-action reports, not the grunts.

Its easy to pick apart a single account of something. If you have everyones account you would get the best idea of what really happened. Surely Kerry didnt write everyones reports. If they are after the truth like they claim they would release there records too so everyone could have the best possible idea of what really happened. If say just Kerry were to release his, he would be subject to them attacking his accounts if say he wrote the report, yet if they released there records his report would probly be supported by others, so he wouldnt be so vulnerable to attack. Taking the stand that only Kerry should release his records is silly, and its not goaled at just finding the truth, because that would be best found if all released there records.

Yes, I got it from the Swift Vets site. What is really sad is that it has "only' been viewed 645 times.

Hell -- this thread has been viewed 589 times!

People vote with their wallet - and their wallet isnt 35 years old.

These guys aren't running for Commander In Chief. So it is irrelevant. So let's see Kerry's records and if that clears things up, great. You don't understand that it is the officers that write the after-action reports, not the grunts.
Ok, knowing that I personally dont care much about 35 years ago, how about we talk about real issues? Why should I vote for Bush? What is he gonna do for me and us now?

Its easy to pick apart a single account of something. If you have everyones account you would get the best idea of what really happened. Surely Kerry didnt write everyones reports. If they are after the truth like they claim they would release there records too so everyone could have the best possible idea of what really happened. If say just Kerry were to release his, he would be subject to them attacking his accounts if say he wrote the report, yet if they released there records his report would probly be supported by others, so he wouldnt be so vulnerable to attack. Taking the stand that only Kerry should release his records is silly, and its not goaled at just finding the truth, because that would be best found if all released there records.

I don't have a problem with all their records being made public. Let's open it all up. But you should apply your logic to Kerry as well: Kerry's hiding something. But I know you won't, so what's the point?

Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat vets' ads
‘I think they’re bad for the system,' president says


And I say so too.

The attacks on Bush and his character are well documented. It's funny to see the tables turned on Kerry now, and the Bush-haters' reactions to it. What comes around, goes around. Keep it comin'.

Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat vets' ads
‘I think they’re bad for the system,' president says


And I say so too.

Yeah, a lot of us were getting tired of hearing Kerry and his supporters throw a fit like a spoiled 2 year old.

The attacks on Bush and his character are well documented. It's funny to see the tables turned on Kerry now, and the Bush-haters' reactions to it. What comes around, goes around. Keep it comin'.

I for one, paid little attention to those -- Im interested in today, here and now.

I for one, paid little attention to those -- Im interested in today, here and now.

To be honest, I am too. Sometimes we all get caught up in the moment, like a shark that smells blood and we go for the kill. I was having fun because I felt my point was flawless: let everyones records be made public, Kerry, Swift vets, Bush's, everyones, and let the chips fall where they may. Everyone kept dodging the bullet, though, by bringing up other issues to distract from Kerry's vulnerability. Bush did the right thing by calling for an end to the ads, though, and I know some will argue it came too late. But it was fun while it lasted.

The attacks on Bush and his character are well documented. It's funny to see the tables turned on Kerry now, and the Bush-haters' reactions to it. What comes around, goes around. Keep it comin'.Of course, if anybody is keeping score, it is $62,000,000 vs $500,000. SO of course they want it stop. They already blew their wad.

I love it because Bush can take the high road and ask them to stop but he knows we won't. We won't allow a fabricator (being nice) and enemy comforter (again being nice) from taking charge of this great Country.

We've only just begun!

Attack his anti-war stance
Attack his record as a politician
Let the people see who this guy really is.

Then outline the future for America and what we will continue to do to keep the Country on the right track at the convention.

I am very unhappy that Bush has come out asking for the end of the ads. ALL the ads on both sides I might add. The liberals will never comply. They say one thing and always do another. They remind me Al-Sadir in so many ways. So I am not in favor of it. All is fair in love and war. I want to see conservative action PACs spend $62 mil and then we can call a truce if that is what everybody wants. The libs can attack Bush unrelentlessly for 6 months and now they want a truce. How laughable. Sorry, you started the fight, we're going to finish it.

Every type of media in this country is trying to discredit these guys and they are still standing tall. I have to take my hats off to them. Keep up the good fight for all of us that are drowned out by the liberal elite media.

What else needs to be said. Is Kerry going to stop these ads? Don't bet your life on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celebs Aiding Anti-Bush Web Campaign


http://i1img.com/images/email_this_page_sm.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:eMail_Friend(540,%20540);)Email this Story (http://javascript<b></b>:eMail_Friend(540,%20540);)

Aug 23, 3:44 PM (ET)

By BETH FOUHY




SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - "Bourne Supremacy" star Matt Damon, "Lost in Translation" actress Scarlett Johansson and other celebrity artists are donating their talents - not just their cash - to an online effort to unseat President Bush.

The Internet political group MoveOn.org on Tuesday premieres 10 new anti-Bush ads created by award-winning directors and starring popular Hollywood actors. An independent group not connected directly to Democratic candidate John Kerry, MoveOn has promised an unconventional approach to the election.

"It makes a real difference when performers and visual artists can use their talent as an attraction," said Marty Kaplan, a scholar of politics and pop culture at the University of Southern California. "MoveOn's campaign is a clever way of leveraging star power to get people to pay attention to the message in the ad."

MoveOn showed its populist appeal with a "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest that generated hundreds of online anti-Bush ads, then spent millions airing the winning ad. With the latest ad campaign, it's stepping up to a new level of sophistication.

John Sayles, the writer-director of "Sunshine State" and "Eight Men Out," teams with actor Martin Sheen for one ad. Doug Liman, who directed "Swingers" and "The Bourne Identity," reunites with Damon for another MoveOn spot.

Rob Reiner, the director of "When Harry Met Sally" and "The American President," uses Bush's own words to form the core of his 30-second ad. They come from an April news conference in which Bush struggled to answer whether he'd made mistakes as president.

Despite their star wattage, some of the ads may never get airtime. While MoveOn spokeswoman Laura Dawn said the group has committed to a "sizable" national cable buy for its first ad, the rest may simply remain on the Internet as a motivator for MoveOn members. "Whether they go on TV or not depends on how they are tested (with voters)," Dawn said.

I honestly don't know what to think about actors and entertainers in general getting actively involved in politics. On one hand, maybe they should be applauded for taking a stand. And on the other, they alienate themselves from half their audience. But either way, it's the very rich using their influence which is a very bad thing according to some. I for one hope they continue doing their best. They can have Rob Reiner and Michael Moorer and Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn. They're all a joke to me. There are very few openly conservative people in Hollywood because of the ridicule and scrutiny they receive. That's the way it goes.

Its also hard for an entertainer to dissociate themselves from their characters. In some cases the portrait they paint as a character is probably a lot less serious and informed as their person.

I agree with the "chips fall where they may" ideal. IF that were to be the premise under which kerry would sign the 180 i would agree. But to be honest, i would not sign it either. Assuming kerry is hiding something when he refuses to sign a obviously biased document does not make him a criminal. He knows that his war record is going to be scrutinized down to the very sentince structure, which he probably barely remembers anyway. If i were kerry the only terms i would sign that form were under complete cooperation. EVERYONE involved signs forms to have EVERY aspect of their life scrutized by a third party independant source. who is going to be the first one to get his war records will determine whether or not kerry will get a good or bad reaction. He will not have time to respond because he will be bombarded by all the accusations or praise.

When there is this much pressure on the watergates, by the time they are removed they are going to take down a lot of cities.

Also agree that a politicians life should be made no less than public, but there is a difference between what people want to hear and what people need to hear. Its seems that the hangman is already preparing the noose.

Im glad to see more opinions in here. I think we were starting to get tired of each other.

Im glad to see more opinions in here. I think we were starting to get tired of each other. I think they were post being tired of me LOLOL

It seems like some people are paralleling the "anyone but bush" with "anyone but kerry" LOL

It seems like some people are paralleling the "anyone but bush" with "anyone but kerry" LOL

I think most of the country has that attitude.................. In one direction or another.......

Well, let's see. 2 down, 3 to go.

The John Kerry campaign has now admitted that he wasn't in Cambodia and now admits in his own diary and documented in his own biography shows that the first PH was indeed self-inflicted and the journal he wrote in 9 days later indicated that he and his crew had yet to come under fire so they were still feeling pretty cocky.

And we haven't even seen the real exaggerated documents yet. I guess the Dems feel it is better to trickle out these acknowledgements one at a time.

I agree with the "chips fall where they may" ideal. IF that were to be the premise under which kerry would sign the 180 i would agree.Pepsi2185, I could never get tired of you.

Listen, the Swift Boat guys are putting together a DD180 party and the press is invited. I have heard they are all willing to be there and sign on the dotted line. They will wait and see if the national press corps decides if "this is news" and then will move forward to put pressure on Kerry to do the same.

The Swift guys are not going away. Things are only going to get more intense until he reveals his records. I personally don't understand why a guy running for President needs to be asked to offer up his records. He should volunteer them. And that goes for Bush too.

So lets see a big 'ol signing party. WooWee.

It seems like some people are paralleling the "anyone but bush" with "anyone but kerry" LOLI know I am.

Looks like 'ol Senator Kerry has his own Halliburton to deal with. HaHaHa.

[“What stood in the way of such a profitable thaw in U.S.-Vietnam relations, Kerry knew, were the lack of human rights in Vietnam and its apparent continued holding of many American prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers missing in action (MIAs) from the war. To make these stumbling blocks disappear, Kerry in 1991 conjured a new Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs with himself as chairman. Senator Kerry also prevented a vote on the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833), which would have made lifting trade restrictions contingent on Communist Vietnam restoring basic human rights. By stopping this measure from becoming law, Kerry protected Marxist Vietnam from pressure to free its slave society. Through much manipulation and arm-twisting, Kerry persuaded his now-defunct committee to vote unanimously that no POWs existed in Vietnam. And with the disappearance of this and the proposed human rights legislation, Kerry gave Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party the pretext they needed to begin re-opening trade that could help keep the Marxist Vietnamese dictatorship afloat. Those given first place in line for such trade opportunities, of course, were the biggest contributors to Democrats such as Senator Kerry and Bill Clinton. The year after his committee’s vote to give Communist Vietnam a clean bill of health, the strangest thing happened. In December 1992 Vietnam signed its first huge commercial deal worth at least $905 million to develop a deep-sea commercial port at Vung Tau to accommodate all the trade that was to come. It signed the deal with a company called Colliers International. At the time, the Chief Executive Officer of this company was C. Stewart Forbes. Name sound familiar? It should. He is Senator John F. Kerry’s cousin. What a coincidence!]

Kbob,

I'm also not a fan of Hollywood stars opening their yap, but I DO have to give credit to Sean Penn. Instead of just popping off about Iraq, went twice. Once before, and once DURING the conflict. Say what you will...it took stones...Everybody talks about Iraq, he actually went himself to see what was up instead of relying on the press...It's one thing to talk about Iraq whilst living in your guarded multi-million dollar houses like most in Hollywood. It's another thing to go. Even if you don't like Penn (like me), ot's a good read. Both parts are here:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/14/DDGG048F0G1.DTL

"Also agree that a politicians life should be made no less than public, but there is a difference between what people want to hear and what people need to hear. Its seems that the hangman is already preparing the noose."

Please at least someone throw me a bone and admit that Kerry opened HIMSELF up to this by his "hero" routine.

"Im glad to see more opinions in here. I think we were starting to get tired of each other."

I agree :Beer

"I think they were post being tired of me LOLOL"

I agree :Beer Ooops, I meant to say "and me too" :biggrin:

"It seems like some people are paralleling the "anyone but bush" with "anyone but kerry" LOL"

There are four of us down here at work that are somewhat politically savvy (you can read that as politically stupid) : 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The most liberal democrat is very unhappy with Bush (no surprise there), but he admits that he is even more unhappy with the democratic candidate. At this point, he is quote: "unfortunately leaning towards Bush", but is waiting until after the presidential debates to make up his mind. And honestly, I would have voted for a conservative or central/leaning conservative democrat if he was nominated.

"I know I am."

Yeah Bryan, believe me we know :Party

EDIT: The party wave smily doesn't work either. It's got to do with the : and p, you put them together and it gives you the tongue smily.

I haven't read your link yet, Ron, but I will. I'm splitting my time online and watching the Olympics before I crash. And I agree about Penn having guts, I never doubted that. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the freedom for ANYONE to be active politically, I was just pointing out a hole in the whole "rich political supporter" argument.

EDIT: The party wave smily doesn't work either. It's got to do with the : and p, you put them together and it gives you the tongue smily.

Think I got it fixed, lemmie know if others are screwy

:wave

Think I got it fixed, lemmie know if others are screwy

:wave

Thanks Joey. Do you ever sleep?

Thanks Joey. Do you ever sleep?
Not when one of our members needs something :) Im on it!

Gw doesnt stand a chance :)



http://posttmp.entensity.net/082404/agd.jpg

http://www.eternalfun.com/pictures/bushpimp.jpg

If I have a son in October, I'm going to name him DUBYA. For real. Dubya Zachary Clark. And when he grows up, if he doesn't like it, he can always change his name to Zach.

Dubya................. ok, thats original........

Any meaning behind it?

The wife and I think it sounds better than W. Clark.

LOL.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry’s description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it “an enemy initiated firefight” that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry’s. The document, part of thousands of pages of records housed at the Naval Historical Center, is one of several that say Kerry and other servicemen were shot at from the banks of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. The Associated Press located the document Tuesday during a search of available records. The anti-Kerry group has not produced any official Navy documents supporting that claim, however. The man Kerry rescued, Jim Rassmann, and the crew of Kerry’s boat all say there was gunfire from both banks of the river at the time.

On that day in 1969, Kerry’s PCF-94 was part of a five-boat group heading downriver. An underwater mine exploded underneath another boat, PCF-3, injuring its entire crew. Kerry’s boat was then hit by another explosion that knocked Rassmann, an Army Green Beret, into the water. Kerry hurt his right arm in the explosion.

Kerry turned his boat around to rescue Rassmann, pulling the soldier into the boat with his injured right arm, while the other boats rushed to help PCF-3. All the official Navy reports on the incident say the boats were under heavy fire from the riverbanks at the time. Those records include the official after-action report, citations for Bronze Stars awarded for heroism that day and now the Task Force 115 report.
The weekly report cites the incident twice, referring to its code name of Sea Lords 358. The first reference says the boats “encountered an enemy initiated firefight with water mines and automatic weapons fire.” The second reference also mentions “an enemy initiated firefight ... with water mines and automatic weapons.”
Thurlow, the commander of another swift boat who won a Bronze Star for helping the crew of PCF-3, insists there was no enemy gunfire during the incident. The citation and recommendation for Thurlow’s Bronze Star, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also mention enemy fire, however.

Thurlow’s medal recommendation, for example, says he helped the PCF-3 crew “under constant enemy small arms fire.” That recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry group. It lists as the only witness for the incident Robert Eugene Lambert, an enlisted man who was not on Kerry’s boat who also won the Bronze Star that day.
Thurlow stood by his claim that there was no gunfire that day and said his Bronze Star documents were wrong.

In other words -- all the reports are phony, and the main accuser accepeted his own bronze star despite the documents being "phony"....... Give me a break. This is shaping up to be all BS.


See the whole article here:

MSNBC-Navy records appear to support Kerry's version (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/)


argue2

argue2
It appears Mr. Kerry was MIA during his "tour of duty" in the National Guard. It is being "fisked" as we speak. For those of you who do not know what fisked means, it is a term that was coined that describes what conservatives must do to ferret out all the b.s. that the liberals throw out.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Piece by piece the man, the bricks are crumbling.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon14.gif

The Kerry camp has already backed off the Christmas in Cambodia story and now admits that his 1st Purple Heart was probably 'self-inflicted' and most recently as yesterday has said Mr. Kerry may have used some artistic license (can't remember the exact term they used), but it was a beaut of a phrase.

The truth is coming. I have a whole bunch of stuff if people would like to see it, chime in and I'll put it out there for your enjoyment.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

KERRY CAMPAIGN BACKTRACKS ON FIRST PURPLE HEART AWARD

Campaign Says May Have Been Self-Inflicted

Washington -— In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry’s military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry’s first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound.

GARRETT: "And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet,' unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound -- Brit." (Special Report with Brit Hume Aug.23, 2004)

A recent television ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth featured Doctor Louis Letson who treated Kerry for his minor injury and Grant Hibbard who served as John Kerry’s direct commander on the mission where he claimed his medal. Both men say Kerry did not deserve the medal given the fact that Kerry received a very minor wound requiring no more than band-aid treatment and because the wound was not a direct result of hostile fire, a requirement for a Purple Heart commendation.

"When Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson appeared in our ad, they were attacked and vilified by the Kerry campaign but now we see news reports saying the Kerry campaign is now sheepishly acknowledging that what we said was true," said Admiral Hoffmann, founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "John Kerry’s own journal reinforces the fact that neither Kerry nor his crew had seen hostile enemy action. John Kerry’s first Purple Heart medal is based on fiction."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is calling on the Kerry campaign to apologize to Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson as the men did nothing more than come forward to speak the truth about the situation involving John Kerry’s first Purple Heart medal.

This is not the only incident in which Kerry campaign officials have changed their story concerning Kerry’s prestigious war medals. The incident on the Bay Hap River in which Kerry received his third Purple Heart and Bronze Star has also been the subject of considerable waffling by Kerry officials. During the Democratic National Convention, Kerry used the Bay Hap River incident to suggest that he alone returned to rescue Jim Rassmann —- a Special Forces soldier -— who was on Kerry’s boat and was tossed into the river. Kerry described this incident to the American people as "No man left behind."

However, Kerry officials were forced to acknowledge that Kerry’s boat actually left the scene when another swift boat -— operating on the other side of the river —- was damaged by an underwater mine. Kerry officials now admit that Kerry’s boat returned after several minutes to pull Rassmann from the water while three other swift boats remained on site to render assistance to the injured crew of the one damaged boat. Campaign officials once claimed that Kerry returned to the scene under withering hostile fire to rescue Rassmann after all the other swift boats left. But other accounts from eyewitnesses of that day confirm that the other boats stayed on site and that Kerry returned to the scene, facing no enemy fire, only seconds before another swift boat was preparing to retrieve Mr. Rassmann from the water. "John Kerry’s stories are falling apart," added Hoffmann. His statements don’t even match up with his own journal entries. We are going to continue telling the truth about John Kerry’s military service record so that the American people can make their own decisions about John Kerry’s qualifications to be the next Commander in Chief."

Here's another section of that story you posted Joey that should be mentioned:

"A member of the group, Larry Thurlow, said Tuesday he stood by his assertion that there was no enemy fire that day. Thurlow, the commander of another boat who also won a Bronze Star, said task force commanders probably relied on the initial report of the incident. Thurlow says Kerry wrote that report."

You're right, it all sounds like BS. It sounds like 2 boats hit a couple of mines and they manufactured the rest to make themselves look good and get some medals. It sounds like Thurlow and Kerry were in cahoots and Thurlow couldn't stand it any more. It sounds like he saw how this thing grew to such proportions that a man was going to ride this story all the way to the White House and he was scared for the whole country. At least that's one possible story. We all know the pro-Kerry version. And if Thurlow and the others are willing to burn for their accusations, let 'em burn along with Kerry if they're finally telling the truth.

But again: let all the records be made known and we'll see, because that story proves nothing.

alot of records have been shown, and seem to back up Kerry......

You also dont seem to realize, that the accuser got his bronze star the same day for the same incident, and the report explaining why Thurlow was awarded the bronze star indicates they were ALL under enemy fire.

alot of records have been shown, and seem to back up Kerry......

You also dont seem to realize, that the accuser got his bronze star the same day for the same incident, and the report explaining why Thurlow was awarded the bronze star indicates they were ALL under enemy fire.
:bash: :Bang

Kerry it appears wrote the accounts of what happened. That is why he won't release his records. Thurlow already said he would give back the award if it was for enemy fire. He thought he received it for jumping into the boat, helping out, and keeping it from sinking. Not from dodging bullets like "Neo" on the Matrix.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon10.gif

alot of records have been shown, and seem to back up Kerry......

You also dont seem to realize, that the accuser got his bronze star the same day for the same incident, and the report explaining why Thurlow was awarded the bronze star indicates they were ALL under enemy fire.

I know how these reports and medal citations work from firsthand experience, Joey. One guy writes it up and everyone else copies what the original guy wrote. I was awarded a medal by my batallion commander in front of the whole batallion once and he read verbatim what my sargeant wrote. He didn't witness any of the "exemplary" service or whatever, he just relied on what someone else had written. Same thing has happened every other time I or anyone else received a medal or citation of any kind in front of the company awarded by my company commander. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. But I know abuses like that happen a lot more than people would like to think, whether it be an embellished account of something or just plain fiction. If all the records come out, it may or may not show this to be the case.

And I do realize that Thurlow got a medal that day as well. I guess I didn't make that clear in my hypothetical scenario of the Bay Hap River incident. But that's exactly what I meant, he and Kerry both may have benefitted from a big lie.

Dont you see --- A few guys come up, 30 years later - and 'say' things were different then has been reported all this time, and they didnt know why they got medals ---



Thurlow’s medal recommendation, for example, says he helped the PCF-3 crew “under constant enemy small arms fire.” That recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry group. It lists as the only witness for the incident Robert Eugene Lambert, an enlisted man who was not on Kerry’s boat who also won the Bronze Star that day.


Ok, so knowing this -- let him turn his medal in.

And Kerry didnt fill out every piece of paperwork around. Thats BS. They dont give these things away like candy, there is more involved then that.

And Kerry didnt fill out every piece of paperwork around. Thats BS. They dont give these things away like candy, there is more involved then that.

What did Kerry fill out? A report of what happened that day. EVERYTHING else could come from that. And I don't know about combat medals like the Bronze and Silver Star, but I do know that the military does want to award medals and does so quite generously. The ones I have gotten, along with citations, simply were written up by someone and I was never questioned about it by anyone.

Oh NO!! Bush has further eroded our civil rights! Read on:

"The new Homeland Security Bill has passed. Things will be different now. Internet surfing will be tracked by the FBI with a nonintrusive method. The
FBI says you will not notice anything different. Click below for an example of
surfing after implementation of the new policy."


http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/

If Clarence Thomas had to go through this crap because of Anita Hill's accusations, then John Kerry certainly should. Especially since he wants to be everyones "hero". I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for him on this note. If he didn't parade it to the nation, then I'd be crying foul, but he did.

On that point, I will agree with you.

On that point, I will agree with you.

It all stinks to me. That's why I say let's put them all (Kerry, Bush, Swift vets, Kerry's soft supporters) through the fire and see what lies burn up and what truth stays.

Smoke and mirrors

I've seen little of this war hero BS questioning being done by the republicans and most of the stuff being done to keep it in the news is being done by the demos. Why is that? What are we being distracted from looking at?

Could it be Kerry's record as a politician? Why don't we hear about his achievements as a senator? Why does he drag up this old, irrelevant Vietnam war stuff?

Any ideas.

It all stinks to me. That's why I say let's put them all (Kerry, Bush, Swift vets, Kerry's soft supporters) through the fire and see what lies burn up and what truth stays.

It does, and I agree.

Im in for the mass burning. GET YOUR TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!!!!!! LOL, lets verbally drag them all through the streets. Get everyones record on the table. The only thing that lets me sympathize with kerry is: (and im not saying i totally believe it or not, just two points out of the many that i have)

Thurlow could be full of stew as well. He could have an underlying motive to make him forget all about the bullets.

Biased reviews of the information. A kinda "oh we lost page 27" and page 27 had an eye witness account. Just how i hear all these bush ads about "kerry neglected to vote on the reduction tax bill" but "supports reduced taxes". (I didnt pick a bush ad to pick on bush just for expample value) WHERE IS THE REST OF THE INFO. Man i hate commercials!!!! Just leave the jazz on. No wonder i like CD's.

Oh yeah and i dont know if want to believe a man that thinks he can get a metal for: "because i jumped in the river and swam across and had some sandwiches" (trying to be comical of course i dont mean the quote as fact)

Of course there needs to be bullets or i would have a purple heart too, for going to the fridge just now.

See - when they make statements like - Kerry didnt vote to approve the 87 billion for the troops - they neglect to say there were provisions added to the bill that he didnt like that had little to do with the troops.

UH-OH!! Who's lying now? Please recall, that even a few days ago, Bush and his team repeatedly said no one from their staff had ANY ties to the Swift group. Seems it's all a lie...read on:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040826/D84MK0K80.html


WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Bush's top lawyers resigned from his campaign Wednesday, a day after disclosing that he had given legal advice to a veterans group airing TV ads challenging Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War service. The guidance included checking ad scripts, the group said.

Benjamin Ginsberg, who also represented Bush in the 2000 Florida recount that made the Republican president, told Bush in a letter that he felt his legal work for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had become a distraction for the re-election campaign.

"I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote.

The Kerry campaign portrayed Ginsberg's departure as another sign of ties between the Bush campaign and the veterans group, which has been airing ads accusing Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam record.

"The sudden resignation of Bush's top lawyer doesn't end the extensive web of connections between George Bush and the group trying to smear John Kerry's military record," said Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill. "In fact, it only confirms the extent of those connections."

A senior House Democrat, Michigan Rep. John Dingell, sent a letter asking Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate the possible "illegal coordination" between the two. The Bush campaign and the veterans group have denied any coordination.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the campaign knew Ginsberg had other clients but didn't know he was advising the Swift Boat group until reporters began asking about it Tuesday. Ginsberg said Wednesday that the campaign didn't ask for his resignation.

Mark Russell, a spokesman for the veterans group, said it would continue to get legal advice from Ginsberg, whose work included approving ad scripts.

"He offers legal counsel to make sure everything we do is in compliance," Russell said. "We have an ongoing relationship with Ben. We're going to maintain that and we're going to leave it at that. There's an attorney-client privilege there that we're going to maintain."

The Progress for America Voter Fund, a pro-Bush group, said Wednesday that Ginsberg was also providing it with legal advice and that it planned to continue the relationship.

Having an attorney in common does not automatically make the Bush campaign and the veterans group coordinated in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, nor does Ginsberg's approval of the swift boat veterans' ad scripts.

Whether the two are coordinated would depend on other factors, such as what Ginsberg did with the information he obtained about the ads, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said.

Ginsberg said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that he didn't advise the veterans group on strategy, nor did he tell the Bush campaign or the group what he discussed with the other.

In his letter to Bush, Ginsberg accused the media of a "stunning double standard" regarding the activities of groups supporting and opposing Kerry.

Law firms on the Democratic side are also representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race. Washington attorney Joe Sandler represents the Democratic National Committee and a group airing anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org.

DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera said that "isn't even comparable" to Ginsberg's relationship with the Bush campaign and veterans group.

"Of course a lawyer can have multiple clients," Cabrera said. "The issue here is one of deception. The Bush campaign repeatedly denied anyone on staff, including its legal counsel, had any ties to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

Kerry is the subject of complaints by the Bush campaign and the GOP accusing his campaign of illegally coordinating anti-Bush ads with soft-money groups on the Democratic side, allegations Kerry and the groups deny.

Neither campaign has produced proof of coordination on the part of its rival.

Separately, Kerry gained some support from a prominent Republican. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia, a former Navy secretary, said he was confident Kerry had earned his highest military award based on the officers who had endorsed it.

"Based on persons that I knew extremely well and worked with on a regular basis, I feel that I can speak to the Silver Star, that it is a credible award," Warner said.

In Texas, Democrat Max Cleland was rebuffed when he tried to deliver a letter protesting the attack ad at Bush's ranch.

The former Georgia senator, a triple amputee from his service in Vietnam, carried a letter from several Senate Democrats who wrote Bush that "you owe a special duty" to condemn the attacks on Kerry's military service.

Cleland said he wanted to hand the letter "to a responsible officer here on the gate," but neither a Secret Service officer nor a state trooper would take it. A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran, Jerry Patterson, said he would accept the letter and offered Cleland one of his own supporting Bush. Cleland left and said he would mail the letter.

Here's something from that article, Ron, that should be stressed:

"Having an attorney in common does not automatically make the Bush campaign and the veterans group coordinated in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, nor does Ginsberg's approval of the swift boat veterans' ad scripts.

Whether the two are coordinated would depend on other factors, such as what Ginsberg did with the information he obtained about the ads, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said.

Ginsberg said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that he didn't advise the veterans group on strategy, nor did he tell the Bush campaign or the group what he discussed with the other.

In his letter to Bush, Ginsberg accused the media of a "stunning double standard" regarding the activities of groups supporting and opposing Kerry.

Law firms on the Democratic side are also representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race. Washington attorney Joe Sandler represents the Democratic National Committee and a group airing anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org."

It's really starting to get ridiculous. You guys keep saying that Bush is soooo bad, but blind yourselves to the fact that Kerry is at LEAST as bad as Bush, and probably more so.

It's really starting to get ridiculous. You guys keep saying that Bush is soooo bad, but blind yourselves to the fact that Kerry is at LEAST as bad as Bush, and probably more so.
Actually, no. IMO this election is about choosing which bullet I'll be shot with.

Actually, no. IMO this election is about choosing which bullet I'll be shot with.

LOL! Hopefully we'll get to some issues next week, Joey, during the Republican National Convention.

LOLOL!!! That is beautiful joey!!!! Nice choice of words. The national debate is gonna pretty interesting.

FIRST HE SAID: "I don't own an SUV,'' Kerry declared (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4009850,00.html) when asked by reporters on Earth Day 2004.

THEN HE SAID: Asked whether or not his wife, Teresa, owned an SUV — on same conference call during which he denied owning an SUV — he fessed up, sorta: "The family has it. I don't have it." Back in February, however, he rattled off a list of Kerry household cars (http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0402/07/a11-55726.htm): "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST HE SAID: Kerry promised (http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru040903b.asp) during the primaries to appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who favor Roe v. Wade because "people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does."

THEN HE SAID: In April 2004, he said (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) that he would be willing to appoint anti-Roe justices so long as the Court had a pro-Roe majority. ("Supporting the Constitution" was apparently no longer a requirement for his nominees.)

THEN HE SAID: The abortion lobby expressed its displeasure, and reasonably so given its principles — if Clinton had followed that policy, the Court might have upheld bans on partial-birth abortion and pro-lifers would need to switch only one more vote to overturn Roe. So now Kerry is saying that he will nominate only pro-Roe justices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST HE SAID: John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and even wrote parts of it himself.

THEN HE SAID: "It is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." -John Kerry, December 2003 (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST HE SAID: Kerry voted for the "No Child Left Behind" legislation in 2001.

THEN HE SAID: In the summer of 2003, he announced, "I'm running for President to make our public schools a focus for excellence, not a photo-op for tomorrow's front pages — and I am going to criss-cross this country and hold George Bush accountable for making a mockery of the words 'Leave No Child Behind.'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST HE SAID: From 1971 until about a decade later, Kerry wanted people to think he threw his medals away in protest of Vietnam. In a 1971 interview, Kerry insisted that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine" of his medals.

THEN HE SAID: Around 1984, when Kerry ran for the Senate, the times changed and he wanted people to believe he kept the medals and "only" threw away the ribbons. Why? Because his union supporters in particular and voters in general were no longer enamored with the excesses of the antiwar movement.

"It's such a personal thing," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away."

A decade later, he told the Boston Globe that the only reason he didn't chuck the medals was that he didn't have time to go home and get them. In April 2004, Kerry told the Los Angeles Times, "I never ever implied that I threw away the medals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat." — The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997

THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process." - John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST HE SAID: March 2003, Kerry said (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006476.php) he would stop criticizing the president once war in Iraq began: "It's what you owe the troops....I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it will sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert."

THEN HE SAID: In early April 2003, while our troops were approaching Baghdad, Kerry said (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/07/politics/main548213.shtml) in a speech: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

Kbob,

I know, as of yet, it isn't illegal what GInsberg has done. I'm just recalling that it was stressed...OVER AND OVER, than NOBODY from their team had ANYTHING to do with the Swift boat guys...and clearly that's not true....

Kbob,

I know, as of yet, it isn't illegal what GInsberg has done. I'm just recalling that it was stressed...OVER AND OVER, than NOBODY from their team had ANYTHING to do with the Swift boat guys...and clearly that's not true....
Don't worry Ron, a lot of people are looking into all the curious bedmates on the Dem side. Seems like a lot of people went from Kerry's campaign into 527's and vice-versa. I am sure there will be maps and organization charts that will follow the bouncing ball.

Don't worry Ron, a lot of people are looking into all the curious bedmates on the Dem side. Seems like a lot of people went from Kerry's campaign into 527's and vice-versa. I am sure there will be maps and organization charts that will follow the bouncing ball.

Maybe you should start a new thread for that one, Bryan. This one is getting monstrous. We're up to 1000 views now!

Everytime I follow an election campaign closely, I feel dirty......like I must shower after reading about it....

Everytime I follow an election campaign closely, I feel dirty......like I must shower after reading about it....You're not one of those guys that has to take a shower after receiving, do you? LOL.