Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Takvah

Swiftboat vets TAKING ON WATER!

Recommended Posts

Oh my... this is just not looking very good now is it?

First we have two officials with the Bush campaign resign because they are in league with the Swiftboat people a "no-no".

Then we have the Times reporting this:

New York Times: Bush Family, Bush Political Aide Have Close Ties to These Ads. "In 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 (news - web sites)'s chief political aide, Karl Rove. Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election." (NYT, 8/20/04)

Then we have it come out that Thurlow is a liar.

Thurlow citation indicates enemy fire but he denies ever knowing that he got the citation for acting courageously under fire. Asked for HIS records to be released he says, "NO."

Then earlier today we have the report Jamotto linked up, Navy Report Backs Up Kerry Role in Incident

Now, we have O'Neill chatting it up with President Nixon about being in Cambodia. Oh my, oh my, oh my... IT'S OVER. O'Neill did he lie to Nixon or to us?

Now all that's left to do is finish connecting the dots to Bush's team which is happening. The ad was done by the people that did Bush I's Dukakis ad. The support of the Swifties financially came in the beginning from CLOSE Bush allies. They were prepped by Bush Sr.'s PR handler from the 80s and wow they were even given the SERVICES OF BUSH'S CAMPAIGN COUNSEL, thus far for free!

Are you people kidding me? A private group out to set the record straight? Will you finally concede they are anything but or do we have to keep up that charade?

Now onto the issues, since this is now a non-issue. Nothing but a boat load of bullshitters in that Swiftvet organization and they're dropping like flies. It's unfortunate that they've been as exploited as the current service personnel in Iraq. They make you feel good, make you think it's right what they're asking you to do and then you find out it's a bunch of BS to protect a guy that WOULDN'T EVEN SERVE HIS TIME IN THE GUARD. Meanwhile our soldiers sit in Iraq and fight so that we can rob the treasury (rebuilding a country we didn't need to attack) to enrich CHOSEN companies that happen to have DEEP ROOTED TIES to the Administration. How this doesn't make sense to some of you I have no idea but follow the money kids, follow the money. Thank God Swiftvets and Vietnam are almost over there is a ton of GOOD STUFF that affects us NOW to get to.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are in fairyland, That is hilarious actually, because NONE of it is based on fact at all.

Uh oh, 2 guys are supporters of Bush, but they also support other republican and private causes, ohhh, that must mean that Bush is involved with all of those other causes as well.

Give me a break, Bush has NO direct relationship with Swiftboat veterans for truth, NONE, although Kerry has a number of DIRECT relationships with Moveon.org and 2 other 527's which is ILLEGAL, but you haven't heard a thing about that, have you?

ALso, this letter that Cleland came to deliver to Bush, was BEGGING Bush to do something ILLEGAL, because Bush HAS NO DIRECT connection, so they are trying to get him to make one.

Democrat desperation is SO fun to see.

Thurlows Medal was based on KERRY's after action report, Kerry WROTE IT!!!

Thurlow has stated, that if his medal was based on the fact that there was enemy fire, then he should NOT have recieved the medal, because there was NO enemy fire.

And again, that report has been show to be full of holes and factually lacking. nice try though....LOL

And then the O'niel thing, He NEVER stated that he was IN Cambodia, he stated that he was based near the CAMBODIA, HUGE difference. He was in fact based less then 100 yards from the Cambodian Border.

Poor Takvah, you really are desperate to slime these veterans.

They have the truth on your boy Kerry, and he's going down, and down HARD.

The Swifties are all HONORABLY discharged veterans, ALL have medals, ALL served at least 1 FULL tour in Vietnam, and most of them served with Kerry in some capacity.

Read the book unfit for command Takvah, it is very illuminating, then again it is based on facts, and you just love propaganda.

ROFLMAO!!!

Desperation is so fun to see, and Takvah, you seem to be loaded with it.....

Oh and your last line about other issues, I'd LOVE to get to the other issues, but you ignore the fact that YOUR BOY KERRY MADE VIETNAM the CENTRAL ISSUE of his campaign.

He asked for this, he literally begged for this.

It has backfired BIG time, and now you and he and everyone else is begging people to get back to the issues.

Sorry, YOUR boy brought it up, and it's gonna sink his little butt in the mud.

He's done, and the Swifties are NOT even close to done, the campaign has just begun, and their creidibility with the American people is growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow did you read what you wrote? Desperation, yeah it's all on me LOL. Reading a book by liars is not going to enlighten me.

By the way Farenheit 9/11 to be released to DVD 10/05/04. Ouch that's gonna hurt.

Desperate, nah... we're just getting to the part where this gets to be fun man. Hang on.

Takvah... Takvah... Takvah... its like the mantra O'Neill mumbles while thinking back to the early 70s but only his is Kerry...Kerry...Kerry. It's just a shame that to remove a crook from office I have to go against people that I would have likely sided with politically 8 months ago. Time really changes perspectives, don't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

LOL, because they are not telling you what you want to hear, you are sliming them, you are trying to take propaganda and show that it's fact, just as you did with Michael Moore, although it has been shown that there are at least 60 lies within the movie itself, and you have shown your total lack of any thinking skills on the subject at all, because it is all emotionally based for you.

Anyone but Bush, so Kerry has to be your boy, and now that it is turning out that he is a traitor of the worst sort, you are trying to make it OK for you to vote for him.

Poor Takvah, just desperate to clear your conscience, well, sorry, your boy Kerry is not only worse then Bush, he is a proven traitor and liar, as documented in his book, the New soldier, you ought to read it, it's fascinating, and the fact that his stories are continuing to change, yet the Swifties have stuck to theirs, through thick and thin.

Hmm, Kerry has changed his story, yet the Swifties have not changed theirs.

Tells me exactly who is telling the truth, and it ain't Kerry.

You're just too funny, and your desperation is indeed showing, BIG time.

Kerry is gonna lose, and Bush is gonna win reelection.

Then what are you gonna do, trheaten to move out of the country? ROFLMAO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This stuff about Bush ahving a direct connection to the Swifties just makes me laugh.

Here, want some truth?

Nah, you are n't interested in the truth, but here it is anyway.

quote:

The latest spin from the Kerry apologizers are the sinister ÔÇÿtiesÔÇÖ between contributors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and some of the members of the organization have to President Bush.

The New York Times hit piece on the Swift Boat Vets and their ÔÇÿtiesÔÇÖ to President Bush came off like it was Woodward and Bernstein again, digging through request slips at the Library of Congress. What did they come up with? Look at this graphic for the results. ItÔÇÖs a joke. A total of $225,000 from two men, one of whom, Bob Perry, knows Karl Rove. The other, Harlan Crow, is the trustee of the foundation for President George BushÔÇÖs library.

Meanwhile, the ÔÇ£conservative mediaÔÇØ has given John Kerry a free pass on the ties he has to the various liberal 527ÔÇÖs that are out pimping his bid for the Presidency by attacking President Bush. Well, I looked into it a little, and used OpenSecrets.org to get some interesting results:

Zach Exley - Former director of special projects for the MoveOn PAC is now the online communications director for the Kerry campaign. HeÔÇÖs also the one who started the Bush cocaine smear in 2000.

Jim Jordan - John KerryÔÇÖs former campaign manager is now a spokesperson for America Coming Together, which is helping to sponsor anti-Bush concerts and is famous for using convicted felons to including sex offenders, to try and register voters door to door.

George Soros - A direct contributor John KerryÔÇÖs campaign, he has donated literally, tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.org, ACT, and The Media Fund. He is also the largest contributor to The Center For American Progress, which just happens to back Media Matters Whores For America. The Center for American Progress is run by John Podesta who also is a direct contributor to John Kerry.

ACT by the way, was formed by Steve Rosenthal, the former political director of the AFL-CIO, and Ellen Malcolm of EmilyÔÇÖs List, both of whom have contributed directly to John KerryÔÇÖs campaign.

Harold Ickes - Former deputy White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton is the head of The Media Fund, another anti-Bush 527. He is also a direct contributor to John Kerry.

Stephen Bing, a Hollywood producer, who in the past has donated money to John Kerry has donated millions of dollars to various 527ÔÇÖs as has Peter Lewis, head of Progressive Insurance. You can get more details from this post by John Cole.

Environment 2004 is anti-Bush environmental 527 that was started by Bruce Babbitt, Bill ClintonÔÇÖs former Interior Secretary and Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA. Babbitt has contributed directly to KerryÔÇÖs campaign. In fact, on the page I linked, a good number of the board members of Environment 2004 are Kerry campaign contributors.

I know thereÔÇÖs more, and as I find them I will update this post. In the meantime, it almost hilarious that Kerry and his underlings are whining about the SBV, when they have essentially working on behalf of their campaign that have funds that dwarf those of the receipts the SBVÔÇÖs have received.

UPDATE: If you want a good snicker, read AtriosÔÇÖs absolutely pathetic attempt to spin the differences between MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. HereÔÇÖs a quote in particular that is just neck deep in idiocy:

Move On is an established organization which has been around for years and which has a very large small donor base (and, a few large donors as well). Swift Boat Liars came into being just recently to lie about John KerryÔÇÖs record.

First of all, one only has to go to Opensecrets.org to see that the bulk of the donations received by MoveOn.org are large donations from wealthy individuals. Second of all, what reason would the SBV have for forming their organization before John Kerry had the Democratic nomination wrapped up?


So Bush has connections to the Swifties? ROFLMAO!!!

Now, you want to talk about Kerry and HIS ties to the 527's, oh we can talk, and we can talk with FACTS to back it up as well.

It's not the evidence, because there isn't any, it is the seriousness of the charges.

Bush has NO ties to the Swifties, and if he did, it would be illegal, yet Kerry has DIRECT ties to 527's which is ILLEGAL, yet he complains about the swifties? Talk about hypocrisy in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I didn't miss it at all.

He gave legal advice to them, just as many of the lawyers that work for the Kerry campaign have given legal advice to organizations such as Moveon.org and others.

Unlike Democrats, Republicans have a sense of propriety, and the lawyer HIMSELF, decided that he should resign, because the media was making such a huge stink about it.

When the media starts going after the Liberal attack Bush 527's and their MYRIAD of DIRECT links to the Kerry campaign, that is when I will believe that the media is no longer biased.

The bias is showing in stark BOLD letters now.

But, the fact of the matter is, the Lawyer chose to do it, because he felt that it would be better for Bush.

I don't agree with him, but I ain't him.

BTW, giving legal advice to one group, and then giving legal advice to another, does NOT tie the 2 groups together, no matter how much the media would like to spin it.

That would be like me having a lawyer that gives you advice, and someone saying that therefore you and I must share all our legal expenses.

It does not wash, then again, it is not the evidence, it is the seriousness of the charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the single instances of Bush friends trying to help him. It is the repeated ocurrence of Bush friends' ties to this orginazation.

OK, Kerry has couple of friends at Moveon.org and what not. Does it even compare to the Bush friends ties to Swift Boat Vets?

So I still dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

At Moveon.org? What the heck are you talking about?

He has hired ONTO his campaign 2 people FROM moveon.org, who are still in REGULAR contact with Moveon.org.

George Soros gave over 10 million dollars to Moveon.org and other organizations, and is a HUGE financial supporter of Kerrys.

So no, Bush's socalled ties, which are not ties at all, does not even come close to Kerrys DIRECT support and ties to 527's.

Kerry just loves his 527's when they attack Bush with outright lies and nonsense, but when Kerry is the victim of a 527, he cries foul, and screams about how those indirect ties, DIRECTLY tie Bush to those 527's, when there is enough evidence and FACTUAL information to DIRECTLY tie Kerry to a number of 527's.

The media is covering for Kerry in a BIG way, and it startingly obvious, and it angers me no end.

The evidence against Kerry is damming, the facts from the Swiftboat vets is piling up high as can be.

Kerry has yet to answer ANY of the charges, except for his first purple heart, and his Christmas in Cambodia, which Kerry has changed to Match the Swiftboats stories. He has instead gone after them via lawyers, trying to close down their 1st amendment rights to free speech, has tried to keep the book from being sold, and has threatened TV stations that ran the add.

Bush has done NONE of these things, and the adds that have been tossed at him, are so full of stark raving madness and fiction that it is insane.

THe direct ties to Kerry and the liberal 527's are there, the direct ties to Bush and the Swiftboat vets, don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

It's all noise. Pay no attention to it.

I you're talking about the Democrats attacking the swifties, and claiming that Bush is somehow connected with them, then I agree with you.

If you are talking about the fact that the Swifties are discussing Kerry's Vietnam record, then I disagree, because Kerry has made it the central issue of his campaign, and it needs to be discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the "who's who" of financing 527's. Today's news reports are of how the media is salivating over the Ginsberg resignation while ignoring the Robert Bauer and Harold Ickes connections to Democrat 527's while also being lawyers for either the Kerry-Edwards campaign or the DNC. Hint to others: do an internet search on Robert Bauer and Harold Ickes and compare what you find to the situation with Ben Ginsberg.

On another front (pun intended):

Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports:

quote:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.

Kerry told the committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission..."

Kerry also said that many in the military had "a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."

Kerry's comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.

According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, Sen. Symington asked Kerry, "Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]"

Kerry responded, "I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.

Kerry later added, "I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."

The 34-year-old testimony could shed light on the present debate over who wrote key battlefield reports that critics of Kerry say allowed him to win awards.

B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, calls the 1971 testimony "significant."

"What is significant about this is [Kerry] is readily admitting that he often submitted reports and he is implying that he himself exaggerated in those reports," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"We have no way of knowing specifically which documents Kerry composed; and of the the ones he did compose -- did he in fact exaggerate or outright lie in those reports? That is the issue here," Burkett said.

The controversy about who authored the now controversial after-action reports arose earlier this week, when the Washington Post obtained the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Thurlow's military records indicated that enemy fire erupted after Kerry's boat was hit by a mine explosion on March 13, 1969.

Thurlow now insists there was no enemy fire that day. The best selling new book by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, details the groups' critique of Kerry. Kerry has denounced the book and the Swift Boat vets and accused them of being an affiliate of President Bush's re-election campaign.

Thurlow and Kerry were each awarded a Bronze Star for heroism on that 13th day of March. Kerry also received his third Purple Heart as a result of the events of that day.

At the center of the controversy is whether or not there was enemy fire during Kerry's rescue of James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River. Kerry and Rassmann and others say there was enemy fire, while Thurlow and other swift boat veterans insist there was not.

Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation states that there was "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." But Thurlow believes his citation was based on Kerry's own account of the day.

"I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report," Thurlow said earlier this week. "John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incident," Thurlow added.

The Washington Post summed up the controversy this way: "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."

Burkett believes that Kerry stated the controversy surrounding his war record.

"Kerry thought that he could make a grand presentation of his combat record, and there would be no response, obviously, from the Republicans, considering the lack of military experience on that side of the aisle," Burkett said.

"I think [Kerry] completely misjudged the anger of Vietnam Veterans collectively and their ability to organize and have an answer to John Kerry," he added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the smell of desparation in the morning! You guys will do anything to prop that idiot up in the white house another four years. I for one hope you get your wish, then you'll have no one else to blame when the shit hits the fan.

Never mind that two of the swift boat vets campaigned for Kerry in his last re-election bid, never mind the fact that the MoveOn ad's are not significantly different from what the DNC and Kerry campaign's ads are in form and content, never mind that Bush on one hand calls Kerry's service "admirable" and the other hand lets slips the dogs of war to do his dirty work. Ignore all that and focus on framing yourselves and your party as morally superior,while dividing this country in a time it needs to be united the most.

Keep propping up the so called recovery while Bush presides over what the New York Times called the largest Trade deficit in history. The American people are just dumb enough to fall for the GOP's shell and pea game and reelect the most inept man ever to hold this office, a man who failed at every venture he ever headed prior to stealing the last election. The sheeple of this country deserve whatever they get. I just cant wait for the new and creative ways you guys will come up with for blaming the inevitable dump Bush will take in the bed on the democrats following eight years of GOP rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is'nt really bush's fault....I mean really!.. Look at the people, who are standing behind bush, and you see the character(or lack of, rather.)of bush himself.

Makes me nausious when I see the condition of my country. I am Sick, that Kerry is the best hope we have in getting a real Idiot out of office, but what other rational choice do we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Race,

It already hit the fan, or have you forgotten about 911?

Bush has dealt the terrorists a serious blow, they are disorganized, and desperate, you may not think that because of the media, but it is indeed a fact.

They would like nothing better then to attack us here in the US, but thanks to the patriot act, which has NOT been abused, as the ACLU keeps screaming it has, has stopped many of these terrorists in their tracks.

You poor disillusioned people.

The terrorists are being killed by the thousands, the economy is roaring back, unemployment is lower then it was when Clinton was in office, taxes are lower, and the country is in EXCELLENT shape, and considering all the crap that has happened in the last 4 years, it is amazing to see how far we have come.

Bush has done a magnificent job, and he will be reelected, which will please me no end, because you guys will be freaking out like Chicken littles, and I can sit back and laugh at you, oh, hold it, I am sitting back and laughing at you, so never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question that really separates the libs from the conservatives, based on their answer:

What is more important, the seriousness of the charge or the nature of the evidence?

Liberals always seem to think that the seriousness of the charge is most important, while conservatives see the logical and correct answer, the nature of the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by War Bringer:

Here is a question that really separates the libs from the conservatives, based on their answer:

What is more important, the seriousness of the charge or the nature of the evidence?

Liberals always seem to think that the seriousness of the charge is most important, while conservatives see the logical and correct answer, the nature of the evidence.

If that were true, then we wouldn't have spent millions of dollars and 8 years trying to nail Clinton on various criminal charges only to end up entraping him on an unrelated charge involving an intern and a BJ.

It wasn't the Dems getting all uptight about the "seriousness of the charges", they were the ones that realized that the whole Lewinsky thing was the end product of a failed attempt to manifest "evidence" of other criminal wrong doings. What a joke those few years were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have spoken more clearly, the libs see the seriousness of the charge as the only thing important when they are the ones accusing, if they are the ones being attacked, its the reputation of the attacker that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by War Bringer:

Here is a question that really separates the libs from the conservatives, based on their answer:

What is more important, the seriousness of the charge or the nature of the evidence?

Liberals always seem to think that the seriousness of the charge is most important, while conservatives see the logical and correct answer, the nature of the evidence.

If that were true, then we wouldn't have spent millions of dollars and 8 years trying to nail Clinton on various criminal charges only to end up entraping him on an unrelated charge involving an intern and a BJ.

It wasn't the Dems getting all uptight about the "seriousness of the charges", they were the ones that realized that the whole Lewinsky thing was the end product of a failed attempt to manifest "evidence" of other criminal wrong doings. What a joke those few years were.


I see, so lying under oath is OK? For Clinton that is?

Getting a BJ in the White house Oval office is OK as well? Getting illegal contributions is OK as well, sharing military technology with the only communist power in the world is OK as well?

Geez, as long as it's a Democrat it's OK.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Oh, and the Swift Vets are taking on water? ROFLMAO!!!

Poor Takvah, wishful thinking on your part as usual.

Swiftvets.com

quote:

August 31, 2004

Senator John Kerry

901 15th Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Senator Kerry:

As you prepare for your address before the American Legion in Nashville, Tennessee, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth encourages you to use this opportunity to clarify your actions in Vietnam and your statements about your fellow Veterans and shipmates when you returned home. Since you have made your four-month tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of your campaign, we respectfully insist that you be truthful. The public is owed a full and honest accounting of your actions. Veterans are owed an apology from you and an acknowledgement that there was no basis in fact for the accusations you made against them.

We urge you to:

1. Apologize for your conduct once you returned from Vietnam. Your exaggerated testimony before the US Senate; the blanket indictment of your fellow veterans; throwing away medals and ribbons; all of these actions dishonored America and the armed forces. Your rhetoric and actions were not only wrong, they aided the enemy and brought great pain to POW's, veterans and their families.

2. Clarify the conflicting accounts involving the Bay Hap River incident of March 13, 1969 (Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart). You have now described three different versions of this incident. In the first version of this incident presented during the Democrat National Convention, you stated: "No man left behind," suggesting to the American people that you alone stayed on the river to rescue Mr. Rassmann. Later, when forced to acknowledge conflicting eyewitness testimony from fellow swift boat veterans, you said that your boat left the scene to return moments later to retrieve Jim Rassmann from the water. Yet, in another version of the same incident discovered in the Congressional Record, you reported that your boat struck a mine and Rassmann fell off the boat. Mr. Kerry, please explain to your fellow veterans and the American people which version is the truth.

3. Affirm that the injuries for which you received your purple hearts never required any medical treatment beyond perhaps a bandage and that, in all instances, these injuries were self-inflicted and came from your own weapon. Further, that if any of these purple hearts were falsely awarded, that you would not have been eligible to leave Vietnam after serving only four months.

4. Acknowledge what your own biographer is now saying, that the Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong,ÔÇØ that you were never in Cambodia over Christmas or any other time during your brief, four-month tour in Vietnam and that your statements before the United States Senate in 1986 were false.

If you undertake these steps we will be satisfied that the American public has been sufficiently apprised as to these aspects of your career, and we will discontinue the media advertisements you have sought so fervently to silence.

Please know that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are eager to close our own personal chapters on Vietnam and instead focus on the war we're currently fightingÔÇöthe ongoing war on terrorism. In the absence of full public disclosure and a public apology, we will continue efforts to carry our message to an ever-expanding base of grassroots supporters.

Senator Kerry, we want to get Vietnam behind us. But, we can only do so if the truth is told.

We respectfully await your reply.

Sincerely,

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth


ROFLMAO!!

Poor Kerry, imloding, absolutely IMPLODING.

Ya just gotta love it, I know that I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got this via email.

All I can say is OUCH!

quote:


Bring it on, John

Oliver North

August 27, 2004

"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. 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.'" -- Sen. John Kerry

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I see, so lying under oath is OK? For Clinton that is?

Getting a BJ in the White house Oval office is OK as well? Getting illegal contributions is OK as well, sharing military technology with the only communist power in the world is OK as well?

Geez, as long as it's a Democrat it's OK.


I never said anything of the sort and I'm not about to go drag out the old argument about the whole Clinton witchhunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I see, so lying under oath is OK? For Clinton that is?

Getting a BJ in the White house Oval office is OK as well? Getting illegal contributions is OK as well, sharing military technology with the only communist power in the world is OK as well?

Geez, as long as it's a Democrat it's OK.


I never said anything of the sort and I'm not about to go drag out the old argument about the whole Clinton witchhunt.


Witchhunt?

ROFLMAO!!

That is too good, that was no witchhunt, then man was a criminal, still is as far as I am concerned.

He should be sitting in jail for treason, and that's one of the smaller charges he should have been charged with.

He was guilty as sin, the Senate should have found him guilty, but partisan politics, and Democrat BS, and the fact that they have no moral compass pretty much allowed him to stay in office.

The man is scum, and his wife is just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×