No Band Of Brothers for Kerry
- Thread starter mtnboomer
- Start date
- Status
I was reviewing some of the old post and ran accross this and had to say something about the "swiftvets"
First of all I am not a John Kerry Democrate no more than I am a gwb regardless radical republican. It is my understanding that this group is financed by the same group
who spread rumors about Gore (also not a champion of mine) in the 90's and it is also true that when the shooting started they chose to run and never stuck around to see what happened.
I would much rather believe the men who were on the boat with Kerry and the man who was pulled from the water, all of whom stood behind Kerry the entire time.
First of all I am not a John Kerry Democrate no more than I am a gwb regardless radical republican. It is my understanding that this group is financed by the same group
who spread rumors about Gore (also not a champion of mine) in the 90's and it is also true that when the shooting started they chose to run and never stuck around to see what happened. I would much rather believe the men who were on the boat with Kerry and the man who was pulled from the water, all of whom stood behind Kerry the entire time.
The swiftboat vets claims are nothing more than politcal propoganda and personal opinions...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp
The important point to note here is that this piece presents only one side of the story:
Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:
"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.
"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3
— Fred Short
"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.
I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3
— David Alston
"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2
— James Wasser
Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:
Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.
"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."1
How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:
. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.1
"The other side of the story"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp
The important point to note here is that this piece presents only one side of the story:
Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:
"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.
"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3
— Fred Short
"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.
I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3
— David Alston
"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2
— James Wasser
Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:
Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.
"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."1
How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:
. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.1
"The other side of the story"
Wow, the smear campaign against the swiftvets is starting early I see.
The fact is, Kerry never, to this day, released his full military records, despite promising to do so years ago.
And you don't have to be on the boat to know Kerry's performance, swift boats never went out alone, always in squadrons of 4-5 boats. The commanders of the other boats most certainly would be aware of what Kerry was doing or not doing. The man in the boat, Gardner, was by far the most experienced man in Kerry's boat, was second in command, and was positioned to see everything that happened, and he, shall we say, isn't a Kerry fan.
And you don't have even to have served at all to realize Kerry was never in "seared in my memory" Cambodia, or to understand his treasonous behavior after his three month "tour", or to compare that to every other swift boat vet who served the full 13 month tour. Or to see he took the three purple heart dodge to escape his duty, or to see that at least two of those were gotten under suspious circumstances.
The swift vets did us all a big favor in exposing the fraud that is John Kerry.
The fact is, Kerry never, to this day, released his full military records, despite promising to do so years ago.
And you don't have to be on the boat to know Kerry's performance, swift boats never went out alone, always in squadrons of 4-5 boats. The commanders of the other boats most certainly would be aware of what Kerry was doing or not doing. The man in the boat, Gardner, was by far the most experienced man in Kerry's boat, was second in command, and was positioned to see everything that happened, and he, shall we say, isn't a Kerry fan.
And you don't have even to have served at all to realize Kerry was never in "seared in my memory" Cambodia, or to understand his treasonous behavior after his three month "tour", or to compare that to every other swift boat vet who served the full 13 month tour. Or to see he took the three purple heart dodge to escape his duty, or to see that at least two of those were gotten under suspious circumstances.
The swift vets did us all a big favor in exposing the fraud that is John Kerry.
The swift boat vets were just another political tool...
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.
On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
seems the swiftboat vets have bad memories hrmmm.........
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:
George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.
Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:
Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.
On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."
A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.
Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
seems the swiftboat vets have bad memories hrmmm.........
http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Releases&page=2
Speaking of bad memories... do you honestly think Kerry was in Cambodia as he claims?
for the record on Thurlows award....
Thurlow told USA TODAY that he assumed he had won the award for his efforts to assist injured sailors on the mine-damaged boat. He said he left Vietnam shortly after the incident and didn't read the citation until he was back home in Kansas a few months later. "If being under fire is a requirement for getting that medal, then I didn't earn it," he said.
Thurlow said his and Kerry's Bronze Star citations were based on "fraudulent" after-action reports by Kerry. Van Odell, also serving there, said Kerry's report was "a hoax on the entire chain of command."
However, the single eyewitness listed on Thurlow's Bronze Star recommendation is not Kerry. It is "R.E. Lambert."
Thurlow told USA TODAY that he assumed he had won the award for his efforts to assist injured sailors on the mine-damaged boat. He said he left Vietnam shortly after the incident and didn't read the citation until he was back home in Kansas a few months later. "If being under fire is a requirement for getting that medal, then I didn't earn it," he said.
Thurlow said his and Kerry's Bronze Star citations were based on "fraudulent" after-action reports by Kerry. Van Odell, also serving there, said Kerry's report was "a hoax on the entire chain of command."
However, the single eyewitness listed on Thurlow's Bronze Star recommendation is not Kerry. It is "R.E. Lambert."
O'Neill on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos: How do I know he's [Kerry] not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made-up story. [8/22]
From Unfit for Command: Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. ... Areas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. [pp. 47-48]
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
COLMES: You claimed at one point you weren't [in Cambodia], and then you claimed you were. This is very confusing to people.
O'NEILL: Well, it shouldn't be confused. I was never in Cambodia, and Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia.
COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon you were in Cambodia.
O'NEILL: And it was the turning point of his life.
COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir."
HANNITY: On the border.
COLMES: There's a tape of you saying that to Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: What's the next sentence? I was along the Cambodian border. That's exactly right. What I told Nixon and was trying to tell him in this meeting was I was along the Cambodian border. As Sean clearly read ...
COLMES: "I was in Cambodia" -- those are your words.
O'NEILL: Yes, but you missed the next sentence. You're not reading the next sentence, Alan.
COLMES: Yes, along the border. But you're in Cambodia or you're not in Cambodia.
O'NEILL: Well, I'm sorry, Alan. I wasn't -- I was talking in a conversation. And the first thing, by the way, I told him in the conversation, as you know, was that I was a Democrat and I voted for Hubert Humphrey.
hrmmm
so whos fibbing now?
having trouble getting their soreis straight it seems...lol
From Unfit for Command: Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. ... Areas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. [pp. 47-48]
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
COLMES: You claimed at one point you weren't [in Cambodia], and then you claimed you were. This is very confusing to people.
O'NEILL: Well, it shouldn't be confused. I was never in Cambodia, and Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia.
COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon you were in Cambodia.
O'NEILL: And it was the turning point of his life.
COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir."
HANNITY: On the border.
COLMES: There's a tape of you saying that to Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: What's the next sentence? I was along the Cambodian border. That's exactly right. What I told Nixon and was trying to tell him in this meeting was I was along the Cambodian border. As Sean clearly read ...
COLMES: "I was in Cambodia" -- those are your words.
O'NEILL: Yes, but you missed the next sentence. You're not reading the next sentence, Alan.
COLMES: Yes, along the border. But you're in Cambodia or you're not in Cambodia.
O'NEILL: Well, I'm sorry, Alan. I wasn't -- I was talking in a conversation. And the first thing, by the way, I told him in the conversation, as you know, was that I was a Democrat and I voted for Hubert Humphrey.
hrmmm
so whos fibbing now?
having trouble getting their soreis straight it seems...lol
Not O'Neill. The fact is, Cambodia has a coastline on the sea. The swift boats, later in the war, patrolled the coastline. That's not inside Cambodia. Kerry claims to have gone upriver, which is inside Cambodia, which the swiftboats didn't do.
Are you going to answer my question or not?
I can't answer your question because I wasnt serving with Kerry and have no opinion nor basis in fact for doing so. Kerry would have to do that.
I do know for a fact that O'Niell in his book said that they were not allowed within 50 miles of the border and they only patrolled north of Sedek which is still miles from the border, yet he made the claim to Nixon that he served on the border of Cambodia. His own words........
O'Niell seems confused about Cambodia....maybe he was confused about Kerry too
I do know for a fact that O'Niell in his book said that they were not allowed within 50 miles of the border and they only patrolled north of Sedek which is still miles from the border, yet he made the claim to Nixon that he served on the border of Cambodia. His own words........
O'Niell seems confused about Cambodia....maybe he was confused about Kerry too
Funny, you found plenty to slander the swift boat vets with, yet you freely admit you know nothing about what happened.
That he said he was in Cambodia in 1968 is a matter of public record. That he couldn't possibly be in Cambodia is also indisputable:
http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Christmas
Kerry was simply lieing, having some wierd fantasy that he was in "Apocalypse Now".
As for the rest, how about the sworn affidavitts of those who were there?:
http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20040808144320243
If they are lieing, then why won't Kerry sue them? Why won't he release his full military records to show the world the truth? Or is it that his full military records will not just show the swift vets are telling the truth, but are also hiding even worse things?:
http://www.nysun.com/article/3107
oh wow sworn afidavits...Im really impressed. I have already read them.
Perhaps because the affidavits and those who have sworn them have contradicted themselves and the historical papers on file with the Navy does not support the affidavits.
The swiftboat vets are nothing but a political tool who came out of the woodwork when the cash started flowing.
Why doesnt kerry sue them? ask him that. Maybe he doesnt beleive in opening old wounds and being a genrl nusiance like the swiftboat vets.
Not that old bit about worse thing..lol have you actually read all the US Code or just that bit?
the fact of the matter is that John Kerry has an Honorable Discharge the same a George Bush has.
Perhaps because the affidavits and those who have sworn them have contradicted themselves and the historical papers on file with the Navy does not support the affidavits.
The swiftboat vets are nothing but a political tool who came out of the woodwork when the cash started flowing.
Why doesnt kerry sue them? ask him that. Maybe he doesnt beleive in opening old wounds and being a genrl nusiance like the swiftboat vets.
Not that old bit about worse thing..lol have you actually read all the US Code or just that bit?
the fact of the matter is that John Kerry has an Honorable Discharge the same a George Bush has.
I wasn't with Kerry in Vietnam, so I've kinda ignored and avoided the controversy...
But this morning I hear a clip of him on the radio saying that our American soldiers shouldn't be breaking into Iraqi citizen's homes at night to terrorize women and children, that should be the new Iraqi police's job.
The guy makes me sick just based on what he's doing now! :barf:
But this morning I hear a clip of him on the radio saying that our American soldiers shouldn't be breaking into Iraqi citizen's homes at night to terrorize women and children, that should be the new Iraqi police's job.
The guy makes me sick just based on what he's doing now! :barf:
The bottom line is Kerry, despite promising to do so, and dispite running on his military record, refuses to release his full military records. Bush released his, all of them, back when he was running for govenor of Texas.
The only possible reason he won't release his records is that it would confirm what the swift boat vets have said, and quite possibly expose even more skeletons in his closet. You can try to spin it all you want, but the truth is buried in those records, and Kerry won't let anyone see them.
All he has to do is sign the form 180, just as Bush did, and let the chips fall where they may. But he already knows where the chips will land, which is exactly why he keeps those records secret. He's already been caught in the Cambodia lie, and he won't let any more of his lies get caught out, if he can help it.
The only possible reason he won't release his records is that it would confirm what the swift boat vets have said, and quite possibly expose even more skeletons in his closet. You can try to spin it all you want, but the truth is buried in those records, and Kerry won't let anyone see them.
All he has to do is sign the form 180, just as Bush did, and let the chips fall where they may. But he already knows where the chips will land, which is exactly why he keeps those records secret. He's already been caught in the Cambodia lie, and he won't let any more of his lies get caught out, if he can help it.
Why are we rehashing an election campaign for an election already past and decided?
Are you assuming that Kerry will run again? Is that the reason for this party politics bash?
Kerry says he was there. He was given a medal for it. It's in the records. Now, some people say he wasn't there and that he lied in order to get the medal.
So what.
From MY PERSPECTIVE, GWB lied about HIS military service. Lots of people also believe he lied and used his contacts to get a cushy set of orders.
So what.
They're both politicians who have skeletons they don't want anyone to see so they twist the facts. And twist and twist and twist until fanatics on both sides start foaming at the mouth about it.
Because it transfers the spotlight from them to the fanatics.
They're both scum. But EITHER is better than Hilliary.
Are you assuming that Kerry will run again? Is that the reason for this party politics bash?
Kerry says he was there. He was given a medal for it. It's in the records. Now, some people say he wasn't there and that he lied in order to get the medal.
So what.
From MY PERSPECTIVE, GWB lied about HIS military service. Lots of people also believe he lied and used his contacts to get a cushy set of orders.
So what.
They're both politicians who have skeletons they don't want anyone to see so they twist the facts. And twist and twist and twist until fanatics on both sides start foaming at the mouth about it.
Because it transfers the spotlight from them to the fanatics.
They're both scum. But EITHER is better than Hilliary.
- Status