SwiftVets.com

[paideia]

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif

This graphic helped me sort through all the competing opinions around this controversy. I hope you find it helpful.

[kmudd]

Have you ever heard of the Kevin Bacon Game ? With in a few people you can connect anyone together. For example Kerry know most of the SwiftVets. He even use to eat and sleep in the same place they did.Is he connected to them?

[hanna]

Aye Captain, lower the gang plank

[Polaris]

paidiea,

You had better realize that the NYTimes article has been very throughly fisked (debunked). It isn't credible.

-Polaris
_________________
-Polaris

Truth is Beauty

[kmudd]

One thing the media leaves out is that many companies and people too give money to both Democrats and Republicans.So just because someone has donated to a republican before does not always mean they are republican. Do you have proof that any one who donated any money had anything to do with writting the book or making any charges against Kerry? No you Don't.

[paideia]

Thanks for your replies. I'm curious what you think about the content of the chart, denoting the contradictory testimony given by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? That was somewhat disturbing to me. Do any of you have evidence that these comments, as shown by the Times chart, were not made or misquoted?

Another article (from the Post, not the Times) came out this morning which spends quite a bit of time on both Brinkley's and O'Neil's book was very interesting. Have you seen it?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u/washpost40822/pl_washpost/a21239_2004aug21

Best

[Polaris]

paidela,

The 'degrees of seperation' chart to show GOP involvement in SBVFT is bunk. If you tried to use it in an FEC hearing, you would be kicked out of court so hard, you would go into low earth orbit from forward momentum alone. In short it is ridiculous.

As for the contradictory statements, you have to understand that Adm Hoffman and Cdr Elliot were relying on the official records, records they then believed to be accurate. When the discovered differently, they changed their minds (quite understandably).

As for the Washington Post story, it actually does a very good job describing the possible events of 13 March. I note that it completely debunks the DNC convention claim about how Kerry stayed behind to rescue Rasmann. It also (in part) partially debunks his third purple heart. This is suprising from the Washington Post which is unabashedly pro-Kerry.

For more, I recommend www.beldar.org I find him to be a top-notch blogger and very careful with the facts (and seperating fact from opinion).
_________________
-Polaris

Truth is Beauty

[kmudd]

The SwiftVets have proven that Kerry was not in Cambodia under orders of Richard Nixon on Chritmas Evn 1968 as Kerry claimed.They have proven the Khmer Rouge didn't attack Kerry since they did not take the field until 1972. In the last week alone Kerry's spokespeople have changed their story four or five times. The SwiftVets have proven Kerry met with the VC and North Vietnamese in both and 1971. Kerry spokesman claims Kerry didn't intend to meet with them he just ran into them I guess.If you believe Kerry.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/

When Kerry was asked by committee chairman Senator J. William Fulbright how he proposed to end the war, the former Navy lieutenant said it should be ended immediately and mentioned his involvement in peace talks in Paris.

"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points . . . ."

The latter was a reference to a communist group based in South Vietnam. Historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History," described the Provisional Revolutionary Government as "an arm of the North Vietnamese government." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was a leader of the group and had a list of peace-talk points, including the suggestion that US prisoners of war would be released when American forces withdrew.

After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife, Julia Thorne, on a private trip, Meehan said. Kerry did not go to Paris with the intention of meeting with participants in the peace talks or involving himself in the negotiations, Meehan added, saying that while there Kerry had his brief meeting with Binh, which included members of both delegations to the peace talks.

[ccr]

You are correct about the post article. It is very interesting. Because it makes it pretty clear that Kerry has simply lied.

The NYT article does not show ANY evidence of coordination (there isn't any) and there are already very good and well established responses to the so called inconsistent statements of the Swift Vets.

Even if that isn't enough, Kerry has two bigger problems....

1. He clearly lied about Cambodia -- on the floor of the US Senate no less.
2. He called his comrades in arms rapists and murderers. For that, he has provided no valid defense (there is no proper context for ever making such a statement).
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.

http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/

[thordaddy]

I only came away from that Post story thinking one thing. How could five 50 ft boats and 15-25 men under heavy automatic and small arms fire come out virtually scot-free? 3 bullet holes and no one shot or killed?

[ASPB]

[ord33]

Polaris,

If I may add a little more info to your well written response.

Adm. Hoffman and Captain Landsdale made those statements because Kerry called them because Kerry was under fire over the Feb. 28th incident where some media outlets were claiming him committing war crimes (when he shot the wounded fleeing VC in the back, and where Kerry CLAIMED to be forcing a numerically superior force yadda yadda yadda). Adm Hoffman and Captain Landsdale defended Kerry based on the fact they didnt believe it was a war crime by shooting the VC. Which actually, is quite amazing and ironic, that they would come to help someone (Kerry) who accused them of War Crimes previously. Apparently Adm. Hoffman & Landsdale were willing to try to let things go. Kerry called and asked for their help, their support to defend these charges. THen what does he do when he releases "Tour Of Duty" --Creates false charges against Adm Hoffman, Landsdale, & many others. This is in part what set them off....Put it this way, how would you feel if you were in command of Kerry, who you really didnt think was a great leader, put his boat in great danger, then left Vietnam, falsely accused you of war crimes, then asks you to help him when HE is in trouble, then completely lies about you in HIS book. I'm sorry, but I dont think you have ONE thing you can say bad about either two of these gentleman.

[Polaris]

thordaddy,

They couldn't. The river there is only 75 meters wide from bank to bank. That is point-blank range for an AK-47 for human targets much less swiftboats...and swiftboats were not armored.

The boats should have looked like swiss cheese if Kerry's account were true and the boats were really under enemy fire. The problem is that none of the records support that.
_________________
-Polaris

Truth is Beauty

[paideia]

Thanks, Polaris. You're saying that Hoffman and Elliott were providing testimony based on records they had reviewed, rather than first hand experience with Kerry? (I'm sure that's a fact that has been discussed here before, but it is important for me to know.)

I went to the blog you suggested. Although he seems very unabashedly anti-Kerry and pro-Bush (e.g., his banner pic of Kerry in the protective suit and his presentation of the Texas national anthem), and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt, based on your recommendation, I worked through some of his discussion of the evidence regarding Kerry's claims.

He favorably quotes the Washington Post article I mentioned (as did you). Honestly, although there is tremendous controversy over a number of details of the Swift boat ambush, based on this article which we all seem to agree is compelling, Kerry is not very brave. Everyone disputes that he turned his boat around in the middle of an ambush and went back to rescue Rassman. The other vets on the river that day were quite courageous. My thanks to all of them.

[Polaris]

ord33,

Thanks for the information/clarification. I never really followed Mass politics. IMHO they were certainly right to defend Kerry on this. What Kerry did was not a war crime. They man was an armed enemy combatant that was retreating. Shooting him was probably cold, but quite justified. Thanks.
_________________
-Polaris

Truth is Beauty