Swift Change Of Heart

Critic once saluted Kerry's bravery, loyalty, moral courage

AUGUST 20--The broadside against John Kerry's war record is particularly bizarre in light of what one of the leading bomb throwers had to say about the Democrat while both served in Vietnam. George Elliott, a key member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the anti-Kerry group's virulent TV commercial, recommended Kerry for a Bronze Star in 1969. In the below Navy report, Elliott, a lieutenant commander, recounts how Kerry was "highly courageous in the face of enemy fire" during a fight on the Bay Hap river in March 1969. During that skirmish, Elliott noted, Kerry dodged sniper fire to save a colleague who was knocked overboard when a mine detonated. In a March 1969 evaluation (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry3.html), Elliott reported that Kerry was involved in "several enemy initiated fire fights" and "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment." A December 1969 fitness report (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry5.html) was equally laudatory, with Elliott giving Kerry the highest possible grade available ("Is not exceeded") in most categories, including loyalty and moral courage.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0820041kerry1.gif


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0820041kerry2.gif


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0820041kerry3.gif


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0820041kerry4.gif


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0820041kerry5.gif


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html

I sign lots of documents stuck in front of me that I did not write. Has Elliott stipulated that HE wrote the report or did he just sign it to get it off his desk. Hmmm. That's the answer we are looking for.

Now why is it, that there are no records produced to support the swift guys' stories - just their statements 30 years later - but every document produced supports Kerry - and the documents arent good enough --- and there are people supporting Kerry's side also. Do the Viet Cong that shot at them have to testify before you'll believe there is a chance the swift guys are FOS?

If he signed it just to get it off his desk, too bad. He cant change his opinion now. If this was such an important thing why did he sign it then? He SHOULD have at least read it before signing it.

When in doubt, go to the paperwork. No judge wouold give him squat on the "I didnt write it' argument.

Fact is, the paperwork all supports kerry. Some people who were involved have made statements supporting Kerry's version, even GW said Kerry has every reason to be proud of his military service. All that against a handful of guys who have nothing to support their stories that 30 years later want to contridict their statemnts when it happened........

Even a kangaroo court has to side with kerry on this one.

John Kerry, sign the 180 and then we will all know the truth.

John Kerry, sign the 180 and then we will all know the truth.

and where is GW's 180?

Good question. I'll give him a call and find out.

and where is GW's 180?

I don't think it's going to happen like some kind of Chris Tucker transaction: "I don't know you, man, same time, same time!" Someone's got to be first. And since Kerry's at the center of this firestorm, it might as well be him. Afterward, if everything in the records are kosher, Kerry can crow all he wants about Vietnam and Bush's National Guard duty and the Swift Boat Vets. The accusation has been made against Kerry. He has been called. Mr. Kerry, it's time to show your cards.

I dont agree about kerry having to sign first. I just happens to be that "mystery veterans thirty years later for truth" (LOL) come around and want the truth. It will not be an issue about bushs' 180 while kerrys is being picked apart, which is timed just right for bush to ride the back burner for a little while and let the whole swift boat situation keep everyone occupied.

I forgot which one of you gentlemen said it ,I believe it was kbob, "lets get all of the information and let the chips fall where they may". It seems to be more; Expose kerrys little trinket of war at all costs even if the persuit of truth is biased and unfair, expose whomever you need to, to make kerry guilty. Sounds kinda like the Iraq war. In light of his not signing I think no less of kerry. In fact i will think less of him if he does sign.

If bush were to recieve as much heat as kerry on his suspected mishaps i think we may be a bit more decided on this presidency.

Those war documents are contractual. These officers cannot sign a document as testimony and then change their minds. If these guys are so honorable, then they would not just sign something under their nose. If my mom cosignes a loan for me and i dont pay it back i will jsut tell the bank i never really wanted the money and i just signed it because it was infront of me.

Those war documents are contractual. These officers cannot sign a document as testimony and then change their minds. If these guys are so honorable, then they would not just sign something under their nose. If my mom cosignes a loan for me and i dont pay it back i will jsut tell the bank i never really wanted the money and i just signed it because it was infront of me.

Yea, they woulda got alot more respect/believability if they would have released there records and went out and said all this. But instead they just say, oh well we dont need to show any proof from our side we were there, so believe us he is lieing, no no no you dont get to see our records they will support him and further make us look like terds.

I agree with Kerry not signing, he would be a retard IMO if he signed that form. Id say swift terds all sign, Bush sign, and I will too, let everyone throw out there service records or leave it alone. Thats the way I see it.

My suspicions are just reinforced by the above posts. Kerry can be guilty of anything, and he'll still get your vote because he's running against Bush. It's a real life "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." This whole Vietnam service fiasco is about played out anyway. There's absolutely no way Kerry will ever sign that form. He knows that if he does the damage will be irreparable. But I was hoping to cut through the complete BS that Kerry is somehow a better man than Bush. I was hoping to put the 2 individuals on equal footing in that regard. Oh well, I tried.

The contractual argument is interesting. And if that's the case, Kerry would benefit from it wouldn't he? So sign the form and be done with it.

Bush won't sign either. Most obviously because it would be self-incriminating. But also because it would align him directly with the whole Swift Boat Vet thing. And it would be an about-face of his assertion that Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

No, it wouldn't be a good move for either of the candidates to sign. My whole point about having everyone sign was simply to show that Kerry is AT LEAST no better than Bush. The logic is there for all to see, but I find that people don't necessarily listen to logic. And sometimes I don't either. So let's vote and we'll all have a beer together afterwards :beer: .

In light of his not signing I think no less of kerry. In fact i will think less of him if he does sign.


This is good-natured and I just couldn't resist. But what if Kerry signed and he was completely vindicated? You'd certainly feel better about him then, wouldn't you? And really, so would the whole country and the entire world. So for your hasty statement of support for Kerry posted above I must raise the flag: :bsflag:

actually, both did not sign because (i think) it would just pro-long the issue. By not addresseing it, you help it go away. If you adress it, you lend the issue credibility.........And really, what bush did or kerry did 35 years ago does not indicate their fitness for anything IMO. I can tell you, I have changed tremendously since I was in my early 20's, and really think very differently.

And really, what bush did or kerry did 35 years ago does not indicate their fitness for anything IMO.

That's true for most things I agree. And I also agree that Kerry shouldn't have brought up what he did 35 years ago during last months DNC because of all the controversy surrounding those actions. Take note future candidates.

My suspicions are just reinforced by the above posts. Kerry can be guilty of anything, and he'll still get your vote because he's running against Bush. It's a real life "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." This whole Vietnam service fiasco is about played out anyway. There's absolutely no way Kerry will ever sign that form. He knows that if he does the damage will be irreparable. But I was hoping to cut through the complete BS that Kerry is somehow a better man than Bush. I was hoping to put the 2 individuals on equal footing in that regard. Oh well, I tried.


Your post reinforces my suspicions, Bush can do anything, and he will still get your vote because hes a republican. LOL talk about B.S., its flying from your corner.... statements like that are just silly, Him signing that form is just stupid, Bush isnt goin to do it, we dont need to hold him to the same standards I guess according to some people, after all hes already president why look into his past. Its amazing the double standard here.

Your post reinforces my suspicions, Bush can do anything, and he will still get your vote because hes a republican. LOL talk about B.S., its flying from your corner.... statements like that are just silly, Him signing that form is just stupid, Bush isnt goin to do it, we dont need to hold him to the same standards I guess according to some people, after all hes already president why look into his past. Its amazing the double standard here.

Actually there is no double standard. If you would read my posts you'd realize that I would not just vote for Bush if there was a better candidate running against him, which admittedly wouldn't be that hard to do. I'm sorry you feel that way about me being a hypocrit or whatever. IMO if everyone's past was revealed, Bush would be the lesser of two evils. Which is the same argument used by many to vote for Kerry. No double standard here, I'm just using the same standard that has been applied to Bush and applying it to Kerry. Sorry if you're offended by that.

And for the record, I'm not eating Bush's BS. So ask yourself if you're eating Kerry's.

:bsflag: Bs from politicians, no way!!!!!! ROFL


Lets all raise the BS flag.

I don't want a communist sympathizer and pathological liar like Kerry as our President. Is that asking too much?

Actually there is no double standard. If you would read my posts you'd realize that I would not just vote for Bush if there was a better candidate running against him, which admittedly wouldn't be that hard to do. I'm sorry you feel that way about me being a hypocrit or whatever. IMO if everyone's past was revealed, Bush would be the lesser of two evils. Which is the same argument used by many to vote for Kerry. No double standard here, I'm just using the same standard that has been applied to Bush and applying it to Kerry. Sorry if you're offended by that.

And for the record, I'm not eating Bush's BS. So ask yourself if you're eating Kerry's.

IMO if everyones past was revealed Kerry would be the lesser of the two evils. Thats just my opinion. Goin awol is much worse then exagerating to get a medal IMO.

I guess I just get mad when I see ppl saying stuff like, see it proves my point you will vote for anyone but bush, when you dont know what people really think. Just because they like a canidate better then another doesnt mean they are mindlessly following him. Honestly I kinda feel that way about Bush supporters but I dont say it because I dont know what other people are thinking and I dont claim to try to. They may really feel Bush is the better canidate and really have reasons behind it, even if they cant express it very well.

I don't want a communist sympathizer and pathological liar like Kerry as our President. Is that asking too much?



Yes it is too much to ask, we got a pathological liar and worse already in office.

Yes it is too much to ask, we got a pathological liar and worse already in office.Ok, I'll bite. Lay out some of the Bush lies for me.

Ok, I'll bite. Lay out some of the Bush lies for me.

We could start with Iraq and al Qaeda. If we are fighting a war on terrorism and stoping the threat to the U.S., why is it Bush made sure he found enough evidence to support a war in iraq when we havent even got Bin laden yet... Taking funding from the effort in afgan to get ready for Iraq. Saying Iraq is linked to al Qaeda yet intelligence really found there wasnt a significant connection. What could be worse then lieing about a war? I mean if he wanted to free the people of iraq or whatever he should have said that from the start, not mislead to get more people to support a cause they may not have if just told the truth. I dont even need to get into the whole WMD thing. After all there was a decent chance there could have been some of the leftovers we supplied them with.

I guess I just get mad when I see ppl saying stuff like, see it proves my point you will vote for anyone but bush, when you dont know what people really think. Just because they like a canidate better then another doesnt mean they are mindlessly following him. Honestly I kinda feel that way about Bush supporters but I dont say it because I dont know what other people are thinking and I dont claim to try to. They may really feel Bush is the better canidate and really have reasons behind it, even if they cant express it very well.

When people defend everything about somebody, and I mean EVERYTHING, that's what I'm talking about. So far that's all I've seen from you: attack Bush and defend Kerry by attacking Bush. For months we've been hearing about how Bush has lied about this and lied about that. But when the tables are turned on Kerry, somehow it's all Bush's fault. That's the double-standard that I deal with.

We could start with Iraq and al Qaeda. If we are fighting a war on terrorism and stoping the threat to the U.S., why is it Bush made sure he found enough evidence to support a war in iraq when we havent even got Bin laden yet... Taking funding from the effort in afgan to get ready for Iraq. Saying Iraq is linked to al Qaeda yet intelligence really found there wasnt a significant connection. What could be worse then lieing about a war? I mean if he wanted to free the people of iraq or whatever he should have said that from the start, not mislead to get more people to support a cause they may not have if just told the truth. I dont even need to get into the whole WMD thing. After all there was a decent chance there could have been some of the leftovers we supplied them with.When your enemy wears towels on their heads, heavy beards and such, it is tough to identify someone. Plus, when you are willing to hide in caves and rat holes like Saddam did, I am sure you can imagine it being fairly difficult to capture that person. We dealt with Al Qaeda immediately and Afganistan is moving towards democracy. Same thing in Iraq. Bush simply finished what Saddam started in 1990 with his invasion of Kuwait.

Bush lied when he said that he first got to know Ken Lay (Enron CEO) in 1994, and that Ken Lay was a supporter of his opponent, Ann Richards. Actually, Lay first started contributing to GW's career back in 1978, and in fact gave GW three times as much money in 1994 as he did Ann Richards.