On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:43:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

Where were these guys during the primary?
Why is their group a 527 organization, a blatant partisan format?
If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Answer: this group is a shill for Bush, bought and paid for by pro-Bush
interests & contributors. It is exactly parallel to the wild insults &
accusations being flung at Howard Dean when *he* was the presumptive
Democrat nominee. For that matter, it's the same as the smear campaign
aimed at John McCain during the 2000 election.

For some people, hate sells. It's the one lesson Bush & Cheney (but
mostly Karl Rove) has learned well.

Looking over the Swift Vets web site, very few of the comments are about
Kerry's performance or character. They mostly focus on how outraged they
were at Kerry protesting the war.

DSK

Well said. I think the following link sheds a bit more light on the
subject...

http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504


The republican attack machine has been working overtime trying
everything they can to discredit Kerry on the issue of service. I
wonder why?

Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus. Everyone gets outstanding
reports. If you don't it's a career killer. In the case
of junior officers, these are typical reports for everyone.
Chances are Kerry wrote his own fitness reports
because his supervisors didn't have the time, nor did
they likely feel such junior officer reports mattered.

"felton" wrote

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:43:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

Where were these guys during the primary?
Why is their group a 527 organization, a blatant partisan format?
If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Answer: this group is a shill for Bush, bought and paid for by pro-Bush
interests & contributors. It is exactly parallel to the wild insults &
accusations being flung at Howard Dean when *he* was the presumptive
Democrat nominee. For that matter, it's the same as the smear campaign
aimed at John McCain during the 2000 election.

For some people, hate sells. It's the one lesson Bush & Cheney (but
mostly Karl Rove) has learned well.

Looking over the Swift Vets web site, very few of the comments are about
Kerry's performance or character. They mostly focus on how outraged they
were at Kerry protesting the war.

DSK

Well said. I think the following link sheds a bit more light on the
subject...

http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504


The republican attack machine has been working overtime trying
everything they can to discredit Kerry on the issue of service. I
wonder why?

Bart Senior wrote:
Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus.

That's mostly true. Officers fitreps especially tend to be overblown. My
Navy evals would lead one to believe that I could leap tall buildings
and walk on water.

However, it doesn't change the fact that these guys are changing their
story. If Kerry was unfit for command, then he could have gotten 3.5
evals and no commendable remarks. Instead he got very high marks and
some definite statements about his performance. Now they are changing
the story.

Either the Swift Vets were lying about Kerry then, or lying now. Either
way they are liars.

Oh wait, that would make them liberals, right??

DSK

Doug,

Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

First. Who are they? Some are superior officers in his
chain of command. They may have been writing about
his potential, not his abilty. And we allready discussed
the inflated performance reporting system. You must
realize that the way to get promoted to high rank is by
impressing your superiors, not strictly by your performance
report. There are code words used in performance
reports to convey the persons real ability.

I'd be willing to bet that most performance reports were
firewalled, for any officer, during that period. So his
performance reports were meaningless. And, as I said
before, he probably wrote them himself.

One clue on an officer real performance would be who
signed the endorsements, particularly the final endorsement
on his performance reports.

I haven't check that yet. I'm not sure what performance
reports looked like in those days. Perhaps someone who
was an officer during Vietnam can clue us in. It will be
interesting to see who signed them. If Kerry really did walk
on water, there would be 0-6 endorsements or perhaps even
O-7's (rear Admirals) as final endorser's.

If they were endorsed by an O-4 or O-5, Lt Cmdr, or
Commander that would signify he was not a golden boy, and
the performance report was average.

Also, I'd guess, but I don't know for certain, that anyone
serving in a war zone would get glowing performance reports
for a moral builder for the person endorsed. It seems the
least you can do for a person in harms way is to give them
a good rating.

Second, most of the people who wrote negative things about
Kerry were enlisted men, or not in his chain of command,
like the doctor that treated him. You can't say they lied
then, because there is nothing to back that up. The doctor
in particular is a credible source since he is not registered
with either political party. I'd take his testimony as significant.

What all these people say now, is more likely true than false.
Some could be lying, some could be angry at what Kerry did
after he got out. Perhaps they are coming forward now
because they did not know until recently that he only served
four months over there. That would anger many veterans. It
****ed me off when I heard it.

You have to admit that serving four months and bugging out
is not the act of a hero. It is the act of a self-serving coward.

I know many Vietnam vets. I wrote about my friend Bill who
still carries a bullet in his spine picked up in his second tour of
duty. I wrote about Col Jim Flemming, a medal of honor
winner who discounts his heroism and instead talks about the
four tour of service man he rescued. These men are real heros.

John F. Kerry might have set a record for least time served in
Vietnam. It seems clear this among other things angered many
Vietnam Vets.


"DSK" wrote

Bart Senior wrote:
Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus.

That's mostly true. Officers fitreps especially tend to be overblown. My
Navy evals would lead one to believe that I could leap tall buildings
and walk on water.

However, it doesn't change the fact that these guys are changing their
story. If Kerry was unfit for command, then he could have gotten 3.5
evals and no commendable remarks. Instead he got very high marks and
some definite statements about his performance. Now they are changing
the story.

Either the Swift Vets were lying about Kerry then, or lying now. Either
way they are liars.

Oh wait, that would make them liberals, right??

DSK

Bart Senior wrote:
Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

No, it is a tautology.

The same men say two opposite things. There is a 30 year interval, sure,
but that does not change the nature of their statements. Either they
were lying then, or lying now.

They *must* be liberals, Bart!

DSK

Read it again Doug, only some of the men wrote his
performance reports. And you admited yourself the
performance reporting system was inflated.

"DSK" wrote
Bart Senior wrote:
Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

No, it is a tautology.

The same men say two opposite things. There is a 30 year interval, sure,
but that does not change the nature of their statements. Either they
were lying then, or lying now.

They *must* be liberals, Bart!

DSK

Bart Senior wrote:
Read it again Doug, only some of the men wrote his
performance reports.

Ok, some of them were lying then, or lying now.

... And you admited yourself the
performance reporting system was inflated.

Yes it was, and probably still is. However there is a HUGE difference, a
fundamental difference, between inflated reports and what they are now
saying about Kerry. A difference so monumental that they were either
lying then, or lying now.

In short: lies , more lies, and more liars. If Bush & Cheney are so
great, then why does their support rest on such a foundation of falsehood?

DSK

A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets.
--Arthur C. Clarke