SwiftVets.com

[John Gault]

In their usual myopic way, I think the Left seriously misjudged the amount of resentment over those years still in the hearts of many Americans. Not just Vets, but even those of us who didn't serve have our reasons to be sure these people never hold power. (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.)

They never expected groups like the SBVT to get any traction. And if any started to, they expected to bush it away with their normal tactics of Lie and Deny.

[wally626]

A key point to remeber is that for Kerry and Move-on etc. as well as the talking head democrats on the talk shows. They are not telling lies.

"Anything that is said that advances my casue is the truth. Anything said that retards my casue is a lie." This is the philosophy of the new man.

This is why communist can make a statement one day and state the exact opposite the next and claim both statements to be the truth.

Nixon resigned becasue he knew he had told lies and disgraced himself.
Clinton didn't resign becasue he believed he told the truth.

[Bob Chamberlain]

There have been a number of posts on these boards that have mentioned Kerry and his "home movies". From what I can gather, one of Kerry's favorite activities is viewing himself "in action". One of the posts was about some Hollywood starlet type who stated that her first (and only) date with Kerry was spent viewing his collection. For years, he has brought Vietnam into the conversation, testimony or Congressional Record at just about every opportunity. And then there is this business with his "lucky" bush hat - the one he wore on his secret missions into Cambodia. The guy is so obsessed with Vietnam and his "heroic" performance that he seems to have lost touch with reality. I seriously question if he really knows what the "truth" is any more.

I have heard more than one political pundit and/or campaign strategist state in the last few days that the best thing for Kerry to do at htis point would be to state his case - and shut up. Simply refuse to talk about it anymore. But these same people also say that Kerry can't brng himself to do that. That he has to have the last - winning - word over the Swiftvets. So, it looks like Kerry is going to keep the battle raging in the mistaken belief tha he can put down the Swiftvets. But clearly, there is enough proof on the Swiftvets side that he will fail. If the recent poll trends continue, this will mean that Kerry will lose. Thank God.

[kschroeder]

I meant that there were about 1000 people in advisory positions on the Kerry campaign (I don't remember where I heard that) compared with Bush's 80 (I don't know where I heard that either). Don't know where I heard either of those numbers but I think it was from a reputable source.

[Ragnar]

Why would Kerry make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign?

(1) The economy has been turning around for quite some time, so that issue has lost traction for the Democrats.

(2) Although there have been a number of miscalcuations in Iraq, I don't think the overall situation is bad enough to oust Bush. There are certainly many who oppose the war, but I think a sizable number of people agree with Bush that the war on terrorism is better fought overseas than in our own backyard. At any rate, I don't think arguing about the Iraq war is going to be a winning strategy for the democrats.

(3) The continuing threat of terrorism creates an environment in which the voting electorate favors a pro-defense candidate. This is traditionally a strong suit for the Republicans.

With the above in mind, I think the Democrats believe the only way to beat Bush is to run a candidate who appears to have a strong military record.

Enter Kerry, the decorated war hero of Vietnam.

Kerry himself seems to have been engineering this campaign for over three decades. He collected bogus medals and filmed himself in dramatic battle re-enactments, casting himself in the role of the hero, of course. I don't doubt for a minute that a number of his advisors have tried to get him to tone down his stories. However, in addition to being a pathological liar, I think Kerry has shown himself to have a highly inflated ego. I simply don't think he has listened to his advisors on this particular issue. He is simply too smart to be corrected.

[Ragnar]

Who is John Gault?

Ragnar here....

[Jbam]

One question that I think needs to be asked is what was John Kerry’s motivation for his actions in going to Vietnam and his subsequent shift to his anti-war efforts. I believe that you have to look at Kerry’s early years. He idolized John F. Kennedy and I think early on he wanted to model himself after JFK. He knew of JFK’s naval war record and how it was an important asset to JFK. As such his motivation in going to Vietnam was to build a heroic war record which he could use in later political life. He was smart enough to know that he could get killed in Nam so his goal was to get the medals and get out as quick as possible. If you look at his activities as described by O’Neil you can see how this fits with the actual record.

As to why he switched upon his return, you have to first understand that his motivation for going was not to “do his duty”, but to get a war record. Then I’m sure he was motivated by the fact that by the time he returned we no longer had the Democratic President Johnson in the White House, but a Republican in Richard Nixon. Kerry could quickly see that the nation was turning against Nixon and the war and that his best chance to get ahead would be becoming a champion of the people against the Nixon and the war. So he set out to build a reputation as an anti-war activist.

Kerry has had one driving ambition since his youth and that was to follow in the steps of JFK. If you look at his life you can see time after time he has followed the in the steps of his idol. But to paraphrase that famous quote, “We knew John F. Kennedy and Kerry you are no John F. Kennedy.

[kschroeder]

I know Kerry's behavior and claims all point to a troublesome cause. Sherlock Holmes and Achem's Razor both apply here. And perhaps the left really is having a breakdown. It's just difficult to believe that such a prominent, public person would have such a detachment from reality... and that so many people would believe it. But I guess this isn't the first case in history where that's the case.

[hiyall]

The John Gault that I have run into was a central character in "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand

What is the context of your question?

[Ragnar]

Hiyall,

Just having a little fun with the John Galt handle.

If you remember, Ragnar was a classmate of Galt's.

Regards.

[Ragnar]

kschroeder,

Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to assume that many on the left actually *believe* Kerry. For many of them, they are looking for an opportunity to vote *against* the Republican candidate, not cast a vote *for* Kerry.

This crowd doesn't care if Kerry is lying. To them, the end justifies the means. If they have to lie to get elected, so be it.

[kschroeder]

That's what I think is going on with the Dems too. They'd rather vote for Saddam than for Bush. As inflamitory as that sounds many of them have carried protest signs saying as much. The whole "Anybody but Bush" thing. I have yet to hear a good reason to vote for Kerry. It would seem that the only reason that people would vote for Kerry is because he's not Bush.

[baldeagl]

[kschroeder]

True, but at the same time half of eligible voting Americans support Kerry, or are at least willing to overlook or refuse to research the available information. That's almost as troubling as the stories Kerry has told. We'll have to wait and see what election day holds.