Swift Boat Liars
 

"jps" wrote in message

.....Having never served, you still think
someone would have to have been on exactly the same boat in order to
have
any comprehension of the circumstances.

"They served on similar boats at the same time in the same area."

NOT on the same boat.

See above.

Swift Boat Liars
 

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

.....Having never served, you still think
someone would have to have been on exactly the same boat in order to
have
any comprehension of the circumstances.

"They served on similar boats at the same time in the same area."

NOT on the same boat.

See above.

Would anyone know you as well as your own men, if you had commanded that
swift boat?

Nope.

And he has every man who served with and under him on his side.

Doesn't lend much credibility to you Republican shills.

jps

Swift Boat Liars
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"jps" wrote in message

Would anyone know you as well as your own men, if you had commanded that
swift boat?

Nope.

Not necessarily so. Without commenting one way or the other on anything
that transpired on Kerry's boat, I would point out that *if*, and I
emphasize *if*, anything untoward did take place, the whole crew would have
the highest incentive to keep their stories congruent.

Sort of like the Bush White House, eh? Except, of course, that Bush
neither knows the meaning of congruent nor could he pronounce it.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

"jps" wrote in message

Would anyone know you as well as your own men, if you had commanded that
swift boat?

Nope.

Not necessarily so. Without commenting one way or the other on anything
that transpired on Kerry's boat, I would point out that *if*, and I
emphasize *if*, anything untoward did take place, the whole crew would have
the highest incentive to keep their stories congruent.


And he has every man who served with and under him on his side.

I seem to recall from the primary campaign that there was at least one
crewman of his who takes exception to the general descriptives. Obviously,
he's not part of the traveling roadshow.

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Not necessarily so. Without commenting one way or the other on anything
that transpired on Kerry's boat, I would point out that *if*, and I
emphasize *if*, anything untoward did take place, the whole crew would
have
the highest incentive to keep their stories congruent.

Sort of like the Bush White House, eh?

.....or perhaps the national HQ of most large unions, eh?

Swift Boat Liars
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Not necessarily so. Without commenting one way or the other on anything
that transpired on Kerry's boat, I would point out that *if*, and I
emphasize *if*, anything untoward did take place, the whole crew would
have
the highest incentive to keep their stories congruent.

Sort of like the Bush White House, eh?

....or perhaps the national HQ of most large unions, eh?



Nope. I attend lots of meetings of international unions, and the
dicussions are more than lively. And if on rare occasion, the guy at the
top is dipping into the collection plate, it usually is one of the other
officers or senior staff members who turns him in.

Oh...and the part you left off...that Bush wouldn't know the meaning of
the word congruent or be able to pronounce it...

Most presidents of international unions these days are very bright, and
woulc know the meaning of congruent and be able to pronounce it.
Several of them would be more capable presidents of the United States
than George W. Bush.




--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

WaIIy wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:48:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:
"jps" wrote in message

For all you who served in the military,

We now have two groups of swift boat veterans making contradictory
statements, neither group necessarily being more or less credible than the
other.


Bull****. The "anti-kerry" group is bought and paid for by the same GOP
slimeballs that went after John McCain in 2000; they're liars, they have
no credibility, and they can't keep their stories straight. Further,
NONE of them served on Kerry's boat, and therefore have no immediate
knowledge of what happened.

Nice try, though. I'm sure many braindead Repubs will believe your
latest bull****.
SWIFT OFFICERS AND VETS: KERRY LIED ABOUT SPENDING CHRISTMAS IN CAMBODIA

**Exclusive**



DRUDGE has learned from the accounts of Swift Boat officers and Kerry’s
crewmembers that Kerry was never in Cambodia. UNFIT FOR COMMAND authors
charge that Kerry made it all up.


Matt Drudge...hehehe.
It's amazing to me that our government and former GIs maintain that we
didn't go into Cambodia, and on a regular basis. We did, and we did.




--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

These cut and paste posts carry no validity.

1. You have violated copyright laws by reproducing and posting an entire
article

2. You give no link to the reported story you cut and pasted.

You have been caught editing articles so they meet your agenda. In those
cases, as with this one, you failed to provide a link to the story you
*quoted*.

Post the sections of the article you want to highlight, post a link to the
entire article, then comment on it and make the point you wish to make.

Failing to do so gives you and your cut and paste posts zero credibility.



On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:50:05 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:48:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:
"jps" wrote in message

For all you who served in the military,

We now have two groups of swift boat veterans making contradictory
statements, neither group necessarily being more or less credible than the
other.


Bull****. The "anti-kerry" group is bought and paid for by the same GOP
slimeballs that went after John McCain in 2000; they're liars, they have
no credibility, and they can't keep their stories straight. Further,
NONE of them served on Kerry's boat, and therefore have no immediate
knowledge of what happened.

Nice try, though. I'm sure many braindead Repubs will believe your
latest bull****.
SWIFT OFFICERS AND VETS: KERRY LIED ABOUT SPENDING CHRISTMAS IN CAMBODIA

**Exclusive**

Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was
illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of
the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan’s actions in
Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here’s what he
said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I
remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer
Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States
telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in
Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me.

DRUDGE has learned from the accounts of Swift Boat officers and Kerry’s
crewmembers that Kerry was never in Cambodia. UNFIT FOR COMMAND authors
charge that Kerry made it all up.

“Despite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry’s
statements are complete lies,” according to John O’Neil, co-author and
the Swift Boat commander who took over Kerry’s boat. “Kerry was never in
Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. . . .
he was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia.”

Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division
13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about 55 miles from the Cambodian
border. . . . Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in
charge of PBRs (small river patrol crafts] confirmed that there were no
Swifts anywhere in the area and they would have been stopped had they
appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command . . . deny that
Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have
been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At
least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven
Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in
Cambodia.

O’Neill observed that the Cambodia incursion story is not included in
Tour of Duty (Kerry’s recent biography). Instead, Kerry replaced the
story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve
1968 “near the Cambodian border” in a town called Sa Dec and Christmas
day was spent at the base writing entries in his journal.

After conducting interviews and research, authors of Unfit for Command
conclude, “The truth is that Kerry made up his secret mission into
Cambodia.... the lie about the illegal Cambodian incursion painted his
superiors up the chain of command. . . . as villains faced down by John
Kerry, a solitary hero in grave and exotic danger and forced illegally
against his will into harm’s way.”

Developing...

Swift Boat Liars
 

Go look it up.

The current Drudge Report front page has this article present.

It is as was posted by this other user.

How hard is it for you to check for yourself, Jim?

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://boaterforum.com Talk about Boating online - any topic, any time!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!

In article ,
jim--- wrote:


These cut and paste posts carry no validity.

1. You have violated copyright laws by reproducing and posting an entire
article

2. You give no link to the reported story you cut and pasted.

You have been caught editing articles so they meet your agenda. In those
cases, as with this one, you failed to provide a link to the story you
*quoted*.

Post the sections of the article you want to highlight, post a link to the
entire article, then comment on it and make the point you wish to make.

Failing to do so gives you and your cut and paste posts zero credibility.



On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:50:05 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:48:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:
"jps" wrote in message

For all you who served in the military,

We now have two groups of swift boat veterans making contradictory
statements, neither group necessarily being more or less credible than the
other.


Bull****. The "anti-kerry" group is bought and paid for by the same GOP
slimeballs that went after John McCain in 2000; they're liars, they have
no credibility, and they can't keep their stories straight. Further,
NONE of them served on Kerry's boat, and therefore have no immediate
knowledge of what happened.

Nice try, though. I'm sure many braindead Repubs will believe your
latest bull****.
SWIFT OFFICERS AND VETS: KERRY LIED ABOUT SPENDING CHRISTMAS IN CAMBODIA

**Exclusive**

Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was
illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of
the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan’s actions in
Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. Here’s what he
said as excerpted from the new book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I
remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer
Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States
telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in
Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me.

DRUDGE has learned from the accounts of Swift Boat officers and Kerry’s
crewmembers that Kerry was never in Cambodia. UNFIT FOR COMMAND authors
charge that Kerry made it all up.

“Despite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry’s
statements are complete lies,” according to John O’Neil, co-author and
the Swift Boat commander who took over Kerry’s boat. “Kerry was never in
Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. . . .
he was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia.”

Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division
13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about 55 miles from the Cambodian
border. . . . Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in
charge of PBRs (small river patrol crafts] confirmed that there were no
Swifts anywhere in the area and they would have been stopped had they
appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command . . . deny that
Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have
been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At
least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven
Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in
Cambodia.

O’Neill observed that the Cambodia incursion story is not included in
Tour of Duty (Kerry’s recent biography). Instead, Kerry replaced the
story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve
1968 “near the Cambodian border” in a town called Sa Dec and Christmas
day was spent at the base writing entries in his journal.

After conducting interviews and research, authors of Unfit for Command
conclude, “The truth is that Kerry made up his secret mission into
Cambodia.... the lie about the illegal Cambodian incursion painted his
superiors up the chain of command. . . . as villains faced down by John
Kerry, a solitary hero in grave and exotic danger and forced illegally
against his will into harm’s way.”

Developing...

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Nope. I attend lots of meetings of international unions, and the
dicussions are more than lively. And if on rare occasion, the guy at the
top is dipping into the collection plate, it usually is one of the other
officers or senior staff members who turns him in.

Going for a fiction award now, eh?


Most presidents of international unions these days are very bright, and
woulc know the meaning of congruent and be able to pronounce it.

The most successful of professional thieves are invariably quite bright.

Swift Boat Liars
 

Same as a fighter squadren. You knew tho was good, who was weak, and what
the others did. You did not have to be in the same plane. They worked
along side the boat, these were not all solo missions.
Bill

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

.....Having never served, you still think
someone would have to have been on exactly the same boat in order to
have
any comprehension of the circumstances.

"They served on similar boats at the same time in the same area."

NOT on the same boat.

See above.

Would anyone know you as well as your own men, if you had commanded that
swift boat?

Nope.

And he has every man who served with and under him on his side.

Doesn't lend much credibility to you Republican shills.

jps

Swift Boat Liars
 

Same as a fighter squadren. You knew tho was good, who was weak, and what
the others did. You did not have to be in the same plane. They worked
along side the boat, these were not all solo missions.
Bill

Let's see here. Six guys per boat. 250 people swearing they say Kerry do this,
Kerry do that.....(oh, make that 249 because his Commander got a guilty
conscience and stated that he regrets signing the paper shoved in front of
him).

That comes to over 40 boats. Bill, that's not a "mission", that's an armada.



Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth". http://www.sftt.org/

Swift Boat Liars
 

In article . net,
says...
Go look it up.

The current Drudge Report front page has this article present.

It is as was posted by this other user.

How hard is it for you to check for yourself, Jim?

Dennis was trying to prove how fair and balanced he is.

A very thin veil.

jps

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Same as a fighter squadren. You knew tho was good, who was weak, and
what
the others did. You did not have to be in the same plane. They worked
along side the boat, these were not all solo missions.
Bill

Let's see here. Six guys per boat. 250 people swearing they say Kerry do
this,
Kerry do that.....(oh, make that 249 because his Commander got a guilty
conscience and stated that he regrets signing the paper shoved in front of
him).

That comes to over 40 boats. Bill, that's not a "mission", that's an
armada.



Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth".
http://www.sftt.org/


They did not all work the same place at the same time, but I bet they worked
in teams a lot of the time. If the boat took a disabling hit, they would be
toast if a single boat. Same as a wing man in the air force or naval air.
I have a buddy who was shot down a couple of times (Marine pilot), and he
states the buddies check out damage and flew cover. I would bery much
presume the same for boats.
Bill

Swift Boat Liars
 

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:38:18 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


I seem to recall from the primary campaign that there was at least one
crewman of his who takes exception to the general descriptives.
Obviously, he's not part of the traveling roadshow.


Correct, 9 out of 10 support Kerry. There is a lone exception:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...599034,00.html

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
ink.net...
Go look it up.

The current Drudge Report front page has this article present.

It is as was posted by this other user.

How hard is it for you to check for yourself, Jim?



That is not the point. The point is that the link should be posted. Krause
has altered work in the past to fit his agenda and posted it as the original
writing by the author.

Also, there is no need to post the entire article. He can post a few
important paragraphs, a link and a comment on them and move on.

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
ink.net...
Go look it up.

The current Drudge Report front page has this article present.

It is as was posted by this other user.

How hard is it for you to check for yourself, Jim?




Krause
has altered work in the past to fit his agenda and posted it as the
original
writing by the author.

Yawn.



Sort of sums up your ethics quite nicely, eh Krause?

Swift Boat Liars
 

They did not all work the same place at the same time, but I bet they worked
in teams a lot of the time. If the boat took a disabling hit, they would be
toast if a single boat. Same as a wing man in the air force or naval air.
I have a buddy who was shot down a couple of times (Marine pilot), and he
states the buddies check out damage and flew cover. I would bery much
presume the same for boats.
Bill


Yes, the swift boats were often deployed in
small groups.

The problem with your Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is that they make some
specific charges about specific actions that Kerry supposedly took during
combat.
Most of the 249 guys were not there. The men who actually served on Kerry's
boat not only say "That's horse****!", they are campaigning for him.

For example:

On Friday I heard two different radio interviews.

The first was 2-3 guys from Swift Boat Veterans for (distorting the) Truth.
They all claimed to have been on the scene when Kerry turned his boat around to
pick the guy out of the water. They said that Kerry's boat was never under fire
at any time during the engagement, that another boat was hit instead, and that
Kerry sped off and (basically) "hid" until he was sure the
area was safe.

The second was with the guy that was pulled out of the water. It turns out, the
guy was *not* actually part of Kerry's crew. He was Army, a Green Beret. The
Special Forces used to get ferried into various areas by swift boats, and that
was Kerry's mission on the day in question.

According to the Green Beret, they were proceeding up the river when they came
under heavy small arms fire. The bow gunner's weapon was disabled by hostile
fire, and the soldier was going forward with
another weapon when a mortar rocked the boat, throwing Kerry against some
machinery and tossing the soldier overboard. By the time Kerry got back to the
helm, the boat was a little distance away from the MOB. According to the guy
who was in the water, Kerry turned the boat around (while the small arms fire
from both banks continued) and recovered him.
He was a sitting duck in that river, and he credits Kerry for saving his life.

So, ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have two stories to consider. One
version of events is being related by a much larger group, but nearly all of
them were *somewhere else* when the events occured. The other version of events
is being related, very consistently, by everybody who was actually on board the
boat in question and substantiated by the
guy who was pulled out of the river.

Since none of us were there, it becomes a judgment call. Do we believe 200,
2000, or
20000 people who *weren't there* either?
Or do we have to conclude (even if our politics cause us to wish it were
otherwise)
that the people who were actually on the scene can give a better and more
accurate account of events?

What's that Faux News slogan? "We distort, so you'll divide".

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
They did not all work the same place at the same time, but I bet they
worked
in teams a lot of the time. If the boat took a disabling hit, they would
be
toast if a single boat. Same as a wing man in the air force or naval
air.
I have a buddy who was shot down a couple of times (Marine pilot), and he
states the buddies check out damage and flew cover. I would bery much
presume the same for boats.
Bill


Yes, the swift boats were often deployed in
small groups.

The problem with your Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is that they make
some
specific charges about specific actions that Kerry supposedly took during
combat.
Most of the 249 guys were not there. The men who actually served on
Kerry's
boat not only say "That's horse****!", they are campaigning for him.

For example:

On Friday I heard two different radio interviews.

The first was 2-3 guys from Swift Boat Veterans for (distorting the)
Truth.
They all claimed to have been on the scene when Kerry turned his boat
around to
pick the guy out of the water. They said that Kerry's boat was never under
fire
at any time during the engagement, that another boat was hit instead, and
that
Kerry sped off and (basically) "hid" until he was sure the
area was safe.

The second was with the guy that was pulled out of the water. It turns
out, the
guy was *not* actually part of Kerry's crew. He was Army, a Green Beret.
The
Special Forces used to get ferried into various areas by swift boats, and
that
was Kerry's mission on the day in question.

According to the Green Beret, they were proceeding up the river when they
came
under heavy small arms fire. The bow gunner's weapon was disabled by
hostile
fire, and the soldier was going forward with
another weapon when a mortar rocked the boat, throwing Kerry against some
machinery and tossing the soldier overboard. By the time Kerry got back to
the
helm, the boat was a little distance away from the MOB. According to the
guy
who was in the water, Kerry turned the boat around (while the small arms
fire
from both banks continued) and recovered him.
He was a sitting duck in that river, and he credits Kerry for saving his
life.

So, ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have two stories to consider. One
version of events is being related by a much larger group, but nearly all
of
them were *somewhere else* when the events occured. The other version of
events
is being related, very consistently, by everybody who was actually on
board the
boat in question and substantiated by the
guy who was pulled out of the river.

Funny I heard that one of our mines went off near Kerry's swift boat
(that's how he got shrapnel scratch on arm), the man fell overboard and
Kerry turned around and picked him up. All the while suppression fire was
targeted on the beach from the boats. They found out later that there was
no enemy to suppress. It doesn't change the fact that Kerry THOUGHT there
was fire from shore. That it was a brave thing he did. My only criticisim
was he applied for and got a purple heart.

Swift Boat Liars
 

Gould, you are blind. Open your eyes. The guys on Kerry's boat most likely
got stuck there because they couldn't transfer off due to nobody wanting to
transfer onto Kerry's boat. Kerry never went anywhere alone on his boat.
There was always somebody covering his six or he was covering somebody
else's six. What is telling is that the CO's of the other boats didn't trust
Kerry covering their six. If you are not trusted to cover someone's six then
you are really a screw up.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
They did not all work the same place at the same time, but I bet they
worked
in teams a lot of the time. If the boat took a disabling hit, they would
be
toast if a single boat. Same as a wing man in the air force or naval
air.
I have a buddy who was shot down a couple of times (Marine pilot), and he
states the buddies check out damage and flew cover. I would bery much
presume the same for boats.
Bill


Yes, the swift boats were often deployed in
small groups.

The problem with your Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is that they make
some
specific charges about specific actions that Kerry supposedly took during
combat.
Most of the 249 guys were not there. The men who actually served on
Kerry's
boat not only say "That's horse****!", they are campaigning for him.

For example:

On Friday I heard two different radio interviews.

The first was 2-3 guys from Swift Boat Veterans for (distorting the)
Truth.
They all claimed to have been on the scene when Kerry turned his boat
around to
pick the guy out of the water. They said that Kerry's boat was never under
fire
at any time during the engagement, that another boat was hit instead, and
that
Kerry sped off and (basically) "hid" until he was sure the
area was safe.

The second was with the guy that was pulled out of the water. It turns
out, the
guy was *not* actually part of Kerry's crew. He was Army, a Green Beret.
The
Special Forces used to get ferried into various areas by swift boats, and
that
was Kerry's mission on the day in question.

According to the Green Beret, they were proceeding up the river when they
came
under heavy small arms fire. The bow gunner's weapon was disabled by
hostile
fire, and the soldier was going forward with
another weapon when a mortar rocked the boat, throwing Kerry against some
machinery and tossing the soldier overboard. By the time Kerry got back to
the
helm, the boat was a little distance away from the MOB. According to the
guy
who was in the water, Kerry turned the boat around (while the small arms
fire
from both banks continued) and recovered him.
He was a sitting duck in that river, and he credits Kerry for saving his
life.

So, ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have two stories to consider. One
version of events is being related by a much larger group, but nearly all
of
them were *somewhere else* when the events occured. The other version of
events
is being related, very consistently, by everybody who was actually on
board the
boat in question and substantiated by the
guy who was pulled out of the river.

Since none of us were there, it becomes a judgment call. Do we believe
200,
2000, or
20000 people who *weren't there* either?
Or do we have to conclude (even if our politics cause us to wish it were
otherwise)
that the people who were actually on the scene can give a better and more
accurate account of events?

What's that Faux News slogan? "We distort, so you'll divide".

Swift Boat Liars
 

Gould, you are blind. Open your eyes. The guys on Kerry's boat most likely
got stuck there because they couldn't transfer off due to nobody wanting to
transfer onto Kerry's boat.

And 35 years later they still feel "trapped" by Kerry? If the stories being
spread by the shadow organization are true, why do Kerry's crew still feel
compelled to call it "bull****". They're under a lot more pressure from 250
dedicated Republican character assassins than from one guy who skippered their
boat way back when.

Only motivation I can think of for the guys on his boat sitcking up for him, in
the face of a lot of very public pressure to do otherwise, is that there is a
sense of honor among these guys and they think telling the truth is important.

The guys on Kerry's boat say the charges are bull****. John McCain says the
charges are bull****. Kerry's commander has recanted his statement, regrets
making it, and has all but admitted that the charges are bull****.

Others think that keeping a particular politician in power is so important that
they truth comes second.

By now, your guy should have such a sting of sterling accomplishments to his
record that a dirty trick like this would be unnecessary.

Too bad for all of us that such is not the case.

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould, you are blind. Open your eyes. The guys on Kerry's boat most
likely
got stuck there because they couldn't transfer off due to nobody wanting
to
transfer onto Kerry's boat.

And 35 years later they still feel "trapped" by Kerry? If the stories
being
spread by the shadow organization are true, why do Kerry's crew still feel
compelled to call it "bull****". They're under a lot more pressure from
250
dedicated Republican character assassins than from one guy who skippered
their
boat way back when.

Only motivation I can think of for the guys on his boat sitcking up for
him, in
the face of a lot of very public pressure to do otherwise, is that there
is a
sense of honor among these guys and they think telling the truth is
important.

The guys on Kerry's boat say the charges are bull****. John McCain says
the
charges are bull****. Kerry's commander has recanted his statement,
regrets
making it, and has all but admitted that the charges are bull****.

Others think that keeping a particular politician in power is so important
that
they truth comes second.

By now, your guy should have such a sting of sterling accomplishments to
his
record that a dirty trick like this would be unnecessary.

Too bad for all of us that such is not the case.

Why doesn't Kerry simply address the things he thinks are lies? He can also
open up his military records to show they are not telling the truth.

Instead he sends out a pack of lawyers to threaten the TV stations who carry
the ads with lawsuits.

I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Strange, eh Chuck?

Swift Boat Liars
 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:23:05 -0400, jim-- wrote:


I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Strange, eh Chuck?

Just curious, if Kerry wasn't involved with Vietnam Veterans Against the
War, do you think the 250 would be singing the same tune?

Swift Boat Liars
 

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:23:05 -0400, jim-- wrote:


I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Strange, eh Chuck?

Just curious, if Kerry wasn't involved with Vietnam Veterans Against the
War, do you think the 250 would be singing the same tune?


The problem with these anti-Kerry vets is that they think they were
engaged in some sort of useful crusade in Vietnam whereas in fact they
simply were pawns in a game. They gave up years of their lives and, in
some cases, limbs, their health, their futures, and their lives, in a
trumped-up, bull**** war that had nothing to do with American security
and, in fact, did little more than prop up a series of right-wing
dictators in south Vietnam. They were used. The ones who are so
anti-Kerry now have never come to terms with that reality, and they are
sour, bitter, aging men. The problem is, they've never realized they're
still fighting the wrong enemy.





--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:23:05 -0400, jim-- wrote:


I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Strange, eh Chuck?

Just curious, if Kerry wasn't involved with Vietnam Veterans Against the
War, do you think the 250 would be singing the same tune?


Yep. ;-)

Swift Boat Liars
 

jim-- wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:23:05 -0400, jim-- wrote:


I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Strange, eh Chuck?

Just curious, if Kerry wasn't involved with Vietnam Veterans Against the
War, do you think the 250 would be singing the same tune?


Yep. ;-)



So, Dennis, when we actually see a photo of you, you'll be the no-neck
albino playing the banjo, eh?


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ...
Gould, you are blind. Open your eyes. The guys on Kerry's boat most likely
got stuck there because they couldn't transfer off due to nobody wanting to
transfer onto Kerry's boat. Kerry never went anywhere alone on his boat.
There was always somebody covering his six or he was covering somebody
else's six. What is telling is that the CO's of the other boats didn't trust
Kerry covering their six. If you are not trusted to cover someone's six then
you are really a screw up.

Do you have ANY evidence of your wild allegations, other than what the
swift boat vets are being paid to say?

Swift Boat Liars
 

JohnH wrote:



Or they all received questionable awards?

John H

Projecting again, Herring?


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

.....evidence of your wild allegations, other than what the
swift boat vets are being paid to say?


Um, to which group of swift boat vets are you referring?

Glad to see you've resurrected the "wild allegations."

Swift Boat Liars
 

The guys on Kerry's boat most likely
got stuck there because they couldn't transfer off due to nobody wanting to
transfer onto Kerry's boat.



And 35 years later they still feel "trapped" by Kerry? If the stories being
spread by the shadow organization are true, why do Kerry's crew still feel
compelled to call it "bull****".

From John Herring:

Or they all received questionable awards?


Shame, shame, shame on you. :-(





Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth". http://www.sftt.org/

Swift Boat Liars
 

I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Most of the charges this group brings against Kerry involve his actions on just
a few missions. There are 6 guys on a boat.
Do the math, Jim. Do you believe they sent 40 boats at a time to maneuever at
high speeds in very restricted waters?

Even *if* they did, why would anybody be inclined to pay particular attention
to the
actions of one particular skipper who, at that time, was not a public figure?

I'm astonished at the one doctor who said he treated Kerry for one of his
wounds, but now believes that the wound was (depending on the day he tells the
story, it seems to change depending on the audience) either self inflicted or
not serious enough to warrant a purple heart.

Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one of
those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back home," or
does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a serviceman was
wounded?

If anybody checks the records at all, was the doctor who treated Kerry lying
then, or is he lying now?

If nobody checks the records and they do hand out purple hearts like so many
Cracker Jacks prizes to anybody who cares to ask for one......then what is the
basis for the angst and outrage that Kerry "wasn't wounded badly enough" to
qualify?

Oh, hang on......here's something factual about Purple Heart awards. It looks
like
there is no requirement that the injury be of
any certain severity. Only that it required medical treatment and that it was
caused by the enemy.

From:

http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm


b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all
other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the
decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.


(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions
indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be
awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made
for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same
missile, force, explosion, or agent.

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside
force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A
physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made
must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical
treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a
matter of official record.

(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that
commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused
the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or
indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole
justification for award.


Face it, Kerry wouldn't have been wounded "badly enough" to satisfy the modern
Republican tribe unless he came home in a box.

Swift Boat Liars
 

Gould 0738 wrote:
I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth


Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one of
those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back home," or
does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a serviceman was
wounded?




And of course, Dubya didn't even get the "Good Attendance" award.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Most of the charges this group brings against Kerry involve his actions on
just
a few missions. There are 6 guys on a boat.
Do the math, Jim. Do you believe they sent 40 boats at a time to maneuever
at
high speeds in very restricted waters?

No, nor do I think others do. I do believe that at some point in time they
served along side Kerry. Do you believe that is possible?

BTW. How many weeks did these 9 or 10 guys serve with Kerry on his boat?
5? And some 30 years ago at that. And they now believe they can offer an
opinion about the mans ability to serve as POTUS based on those 4 or 5 weeks
with him?

Amazing.


Even *if* they did, why would anybody be inclined to pay particular
attention
to the
actions of one particular skipper who, at that time, was not a public
figure?

I'm astonished at the one doctor who said he treated Kerry for one of his
wounds, but now believes that the wound was (depending on the day he tells
the
story, it seems to change depending on the audience) either self inflicted
or
not serious enough to warrant a purple heart.


Why doesn't Kerry debate the issue then and open up the records? It seems
it could be resolved fairly easily.

Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one
of
those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back home,"
or
does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a serviceman
was
wounded?

If anybody checks the records at all, was the doctor who treated Kerry
lying
then, or is he lying now?

If nobody checks the records and they do hand out purple hearts like so
many
Cracker Jacks prizes to anybody who cares to ask for one......then what is
the
basis for the angst and outrage that Kerry "wasn't wounded badly enough"
to
qualify?

Oh, hang on......here's something factual about Purple Heart awards. It
looks
like
there is no requirement that the injury be of
any certain severity. Only that it required medical treatment and that it
was
caused by the enemy.



Face it, Kerry wouldn't have been wounded "badly enough" to satisfy the
modern
Republican tribe unless he came home in a box.


Face it, Kerry loves the fact that the attention has been shifted to his 4
months in Vietnam some 30 years ago rather than on his record as Senator.

Afterall, he thinks so much of his 20 years in Congress that he offered a
whole 73 words to it in his 10,000 word acceptance speach at the convention.

I hope the Vietnam thing goes away so important things can be focused on.

Swift Boat Liars
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

.....evidence of your wild allegations, other than what the
swift boat vets are being paid to say?


Um, to which group of swift boat vets are you referring?

Glad to see you've resurrected the "wild allegations."



he forgot the *unfounded* part though.

Swift Boat Liars
 

Afterall, he thinks so much of his 20 years in Congress that he offered a
whole 73 words to it in his 10,000 word acceptance speach at the convention.

He's not runing for Congress. He's running for POTUS. Unlike the incumbent, he
doesn't have a (dismal) record of job performance as POTUS.

In that case, it's all about character. How will he do the job once elected?
Probably better, and certainly no worse than the current "character" in the
office.

The very fact that Bush winks and nods while his controllers and his supporters
go on a rampage of character assassination in his behalf, (and ignores calls
from rational Republicans like McCain to repudiate the activity), is certainly
informative about Bush's character.

No, nor do I think others do. I do believe that at some point in time they
served along side Kerry. Do you believe that is possible?

BTW. How many weeks did these 9 or 10 guys serve with Kerry on his boat?
5? And some 30 years ago at that. And they now believe they can offer an
opinion about the mans ability to serve as POTUS based on those 4 or 5 weeks
with him?

If you had stopped to consider the logic of that argument, you would not have
offered it. It destroys itself on the runway before ever getting off the
ground.

You say that all 250 people who are damning and slamming Kerry are all experts
on his character because they were in other boats, in the same approximate
vicinity for at least a few minutes and on perhaps only a single mission,
during Kerry's service in Viet Nam. (Odds are, they didn't even know or care
what the name of the Lt. skippering the the other boat was).

Then you say, the people who served on the same boat with him for (in your own
words) "4-5 weeks" are less qualified to judge his character than those who
happened to be assigned to the same or nearby mission for perhaps less than one
day.

Could I interest you in a spectacular deal on a bridge crossing the East River?

Swift Boat Liars
 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:35:15 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:


I'm astonished at the one doctor who said he treated Kerry for one of his
wounds, but now believes that the wound was (depending on the day he tells
the story, it seems to change depending on the audience) either self
inflicted or not serious enough to warrant a purple heart.

Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one
of those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back
home," or does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a
serviceman was wounded?

If anybody checks the records at all, was the doctor who treated Kerry
lying then, or is he lying now?

I believe your talking about Dr. Louis Letson. If he treated Kerry, one
would think his name would appear on Kerry's sick call sheet. It doesn't.

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Afterall, he thinks so much of his 20 years in Congress that he offered a
whole 73 words to it in his 10,000 word acceptance speach at the
convention.

He's not runing for Congress. He's running for POTUS. Unlike the
incumbent, he
doesn't have a (dismal) record of job performance as POTUS.

But he does as a Senator but does not want to bring his past 20 years up.
Strange.


In that case, it's all about character.

What a bunch of pure BS. You know better than that Chuck.

How will he do the job once elected?

If we take his past 20 years in the Senate as any indication then it is
obvious that he will push for higher taxes on all of us and more government
control of our lives.


Probably better, and certainly no worse than the current "character" in
the
office.


So character is important now but was not an issue when Clinton was in
office? Funny stuff Chuck.

The very fact that Bush winks and nods while his controllers and his
supporters
go on a rampage of character assassination in his behalf, (and ignores
calls
from rational Republicans like McCain to repudiate the activity), is
certainly
informative about Bush's character.

The character assassination is being done by a group of men independant of
the President and the President has distanced himself away from that group.


No, nor do I think others do. I do believe that at some point in time
they
served along side Kerry. Do you believe that is possible?

BTW. How many weeks did these 9 or 10 guys serve with Kerry on his boat?
5? And some 30 years ago at that. And they now believe they can offer an
opinion about the mans ability to serve as POTUS based on those 4 or 5
weeks
with him?

If you had stopped to consider the logic of that argument, you would not
have
offered it. It destroys itself on the runway before ever getting off the
ground.


You say that all 250 people who are damning and slamming Kerry are all
experts
on his character because they were in other boats, in the same approximate
vicinity for at least a few minutes and on perhaps only a single mission,
during Kerry's service in Viet Nam. (Odds are, they didn't even know or
care
what the name of the Lt. skippering the the other boat was).

Then you say, the people who served on the same boat with him for (in your
own
words) "4-5 weeks" are less qualified to judge his character than those
who
happened to be assigned to the same or nearby mission for perhaps less
than one
day.

Could I interest you in a spectacular deal on a bridge crossing the East
River?




I am trying to show that the opinions of these guys carry as much weight as
the 9 you have been discussing...zippo.

Understand Chuck? Not too difficult a concept.

Perhaps it is you who needs the bridge Chuck.

And how about we drop this Vietnam crap already and discuss what Kerry is
really about...high taxes and more government control.

Swift Boat Liars
 

But he does as a Senator but does not want to bring his past 20 years up.
Strange.

His Senate career is a matter of public record. His constituents have been
pleased well enough to reelect him repeatedly. Next wobbly accusation?

In that case, it's all about character.

What a bunch of pure BS. You know better than that Chuck.

You don't believe character is important?
That it's a prime requisite for POTUS?
How about aspects of character, like honesty, intelligence, integrity, and so
forth? Are they "BS" as well?

If we take his past 20 years in the Senate as any indication then it is
obvious that he will push for higher taxes on all of us and more government
control of our lives.

The current guy has obliterated the Bill of Rights. How does that square with
your concern about "government control of our lives"? The current guy has run
up a debt
that will take generations to pay back. How does that square with your concern
about taxation? I'll take a full and faithful restoration of the Constitution
and a moderation of the deficit, thank you very much.

So character is important now but was not an issue when Clinton was in
office? Funny stuff Chuck.



Character has always been important.
I condemned Clinton for a lack of it. You're the Google star. Try "Clinton,
disgrace, embarassed the office" and see what you find.

The character assassination is being done by a group of men independant of
the President

Well, at least we agree that it *is* a case of character assassination. There
may be hope for you still.

I am trying to show that the opinions of these guys carry as much weight as
the 9 you have been discussing...zippo.


You're trying to make a point that working alongside somebody for 4-5 weeks
gives you no more insight into that person's charcter than being aboard another
boat that happpened to be going downriver and passed Kerry's boat going up.

That doesn't make sense.

Bridge back to you. Sorry.

Swift Boat Liars
 

Don't let Chuck get to you, he's just "Harry West Coast" and more a
troll than anything else.

If I were any lower, I'd be a specialist in two-line name calling.

Swift Boat Liars
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
But he does as a Senator but does not want to bring his past 20 years up.
Strange.

His Senate career is a matter of public record.

So? Why is he refusing to talk about it? Because it is lackluster at best
with votes for more taxes and votes for more government control of our
lives.

He is now trying to hide from it and make 4 months in Vietnam more
important.

Then when challenged on his claims he has the gall to bring out the
attorneys to try and stop it.

Yep, a man of character....indeed.