Attacks from GWB on McCain... let's not forget that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:41:23 -0400, "Vito" wrote:

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a
former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry
(news - web sites)'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 .....

"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.


It is disgusting. As I mentioned in a previous post, these are the
same sorts of attacks that were unleashed on John McCain last time
around. I guess the only reason they do them is because they work
among the weak minded and unprincipled.

The Swiftboats attack group is the same guy that the Nixon Whitehouse
recruited for the task back in 1971 with the "Viet Nam Veterans for a
Just Peace." John O'Neill, the strawman for this ongoing smear group,
wasn't even in Viet Nam when Kerry was and didn't meet him until they
appeared on the Dick Cavett Show after the war.

Now they want us to disregard Kerry's fitness reports and the
experiences of those who actually served *with* him and put great
weight in the opinions of those who never met him. No thanks.

Kerry enlisted, volunteered and went. Enough said.

He did and has lied about his record. He's done that
by omission. He has never yet said why he didn't show
for his physical. Cheney didn't lie about his lack of
military experience though. He said he had other priorities.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
et...

"DSK" wrote
Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Bush didn't lie about his record. Bush didn't write himself up
for decoration he didn't deserve. Kerry did.

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

Right, but everyone new about Gore. Bush claimed lots
of stuff, but still hasn't told us why he didn't show up for
his physical.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:27:43 GMT, "Bart Senior"
said:

John F. Kerry might have set a record for least time served in
Vietnam.

I dunno about that. If I remember right that cushy job Gore's father
arranged for him, sitting in Saigon and writing stories under the
protective
wing of a general, was of about that same length before Gore pulled out
and
came home.

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

He *must* be a liberal or the homosexuals got to him.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:27:43 GMT, "Bart Senior"
wrote:

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.

You mean like Kerry's C.O., Lieutenant George Elliot?


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...cism_of_kerry/

An excerpt:

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former
commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant
Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a
''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did
not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the
book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry
group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in
Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was
never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in
the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong
soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of
events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry
critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's
crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the
affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It
was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with
those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

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

I could say the same about Kerry and F-911.

"DSK" wrote

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?