SwiftVets.com

[DavidB]

Over past week/ten days, officer and enlisted patrol boat sailers who knew Kerry have asserted they witnessed his heroic actions and that he has been telling the truth. One supporter is a former boat skipper now a journalist for the Chicago Tribune. Their various accounts appeared in major US papers. Can anyone here address their claims that the Swift Boat Veterans are lying, not Kerry? From USN vet/1980's/destroyers.

[air_vet]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Hello, DavidB,

You're asking questions that would take a very long time to answer and have been discussed here in depth.

There's a huge amount of information on this board, and the search function works fairly well, but sometimes you just have to put on your waders and go digging.

Let us know if you have questions about specific events or facts.

Thanks,
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[OkiMarine]

This forum was designed to facilitate the discussion of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth strong conviction that John Kerry is unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief.

If your defense of John Kerry can only be couched in rhetoric denigrating the fitness of another candidate, then we suggest that you find another venue for that expression.

Thank you,

Moderator

[Paul]

"Over past week/ten days, officer and enlisted patrol boat sailers [sic] who knew Kerry have asserted they witnessed his heroic actions and that he has been telling the truth. One supporter is a former boat skipper now a journalist for the Chicago Tribune. Their various accounts appeared in major US papers. Can anyone here address their claims that the Swift Boat Veterans are lying, not Kerry?" {DavidB}

Hi DB:

It's a fair question, although on this forum I'm not sure how many are qualified to address it. I'm not formally affiliated with SBVFT (which any who are will probably be glad to see me state) and don't know how many others are or aren't. I get the impression most of us doing the post are not.

The real answer I believe is: Patience and Time.

That and detail by detail.

For one, I just saw a report on the 3rd Commercial that says that it includes the following statements by a fellow named Steve Gardner, former sailor who served as Foregunner on PCF-44 and who has refused Kerry's requests for support of his campaign:

"I spent more time on John Kerry's boat than any other crew member. John Kerry has not been honest. He has been deceitful.

"John Kerry claims he spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968, and that is categorically a lie. Not in December, not in January, we were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever."

There's also the retractions of various claims previously made by the Kerry Campaign as a result of the SBVFT ads to date and an interesting statement from another article I just posted as a separate string noting the DNC folks are reduced to digging up personal post-service personal 'dirt' on members of the SBVFT (civil records such as divorce records and such) and quoting a DNC staffer regarding efforts to find material from Kerry's own diaries and such that would support John Kerry and his campaign:

"Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign continued to look for documentary material that would aid their candidate in some way, but were striking out. ‘A lot of were pushing for a full release of Kerry's diaries from the period. But we're hearing that those diaries aren't helpful at all, and may actually make matters worse,’ says a Democratic political strategist not aligned with Kerry."

So, increasingly, if what's in Kerry's own records only harms him and the only "defense" that the campaign is reduced to is to dig up personal dirt like post-service divorce records and such, then from what I can see, it's looking grim for the defense of Kerry's claims and better all the time for those of the SBVFT against him.

-USN Vet '70s & '80s CGs & DDG
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"...and in 25 words or less, I'm sure. " {AV}

Hi AV:

Notwithstanding the link you provided, and this is an aside (not to mention that you're probably gonna hate me for this little inter-service poke. . . ):

In the navy, we sailors learned to at LEAST give it the "old college try"
That and cumshaw (sp?) was what kept us 'afloat' sometimes, and ALWAYS formidable

Go Navy! Press On Regardless!

PS. Be sure that this one is all in fun!
_________________
Paul

[blue9t3]

[You, snatched the words right out of my mouth.(owe ya one)
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER

[Paul]

David:

One more thing. Personally, I find the Cambodia story especially disconcerting. The episode regarding the sampan in which the child was killed isn’t too impressive either from what's been heard about it (at the very least where LtJg Kerry’s “skills” at monitoring a surface radar screen are concerned, his primary task in the ambush it sounds like), nevermind what sounds like a bout of "creative writing" in the after action report. Another one that it looks like Senator Kerry hasn't been able to adequately address.

At any rate, the "defense" of Senator Kerry by John Hurley regarding Cambodia is downright idiotic:

"John Hurley, the national director of Veterans for Kerry, said, 'I don't know that anyone can actually say whether or not they were in Cambodia. [It is a] very watery area. It is – there's no sign that says welcome to Cambodia. It is – it is obviously dusk and getting darker, and so they were in those waters.' "

For goodness sake, one would at least expect Senator Kerry to refute Mr. Hurley's statement.

While I understand that LtJg Kerry was not a naval acadamy or even Naval ROTC graduate, then just the same, Naval Officers receive a great deal of training in navigation and are expected to be skilled in dead reckoning and other skills and to be able to read a chart.

Further, by its very nature, the naval service tends most usually to operate in "very watery area"s, and, as they say these days, on a 24/7 basis (meaning day time or dark. . . ). So what the point of that is supposed to be, only Mr. Hurley would know. . .

If LtJg Kerry allowed his PCF to wander inadvertently into Cambodia OR didn't know whether the boat that he was commanding was or was not actually in Cambodia, or didn't even know precisely where it was at all times (on a river, in narrow canals. . . ), at the very least relative to Cambodia, then I'd say that it sounds like LtJg Kerry was grossly incompetent and "Unfit for Command" of the PCF he was placed in command of!

So, as I say, one would at least expect Senator Kerry to correct Mr. Hurley's "defense" of his lack of basic skills as a naval officer, even as a junior officer.

-Navy Vet: CG-5, CG-30 and DDG-41.

PS. AV: Sorry about exceeding the 25 word limit. . . But I didn't take it to be an "absolute" but only "guidance" [One more poke & one more flog of that 'dead horse' my friend!]
_________________
Paul

[DavidB]

Nothing in my post "denigrated" anyone. It was a request for information. The Chicago Tribune journalist, a Mr. Rood, wrote a summary of Kerry's actions on the day he won the Silver Star, 2/28/69 that tended to support Kerry's fitness for the medal. Rood had been a Swift boat captain serving alongside Kerry that day. The lack of a search engine on your home page prompted me to post my question on this Forum, which was not meant to insult anyone but to find out if Rood's article, among others, had been researched. The basic sincerity of SBVT is not something I doubt. Sincerity, however, does not equal knowledge.

[air_vet]

[stop kerry]

DAVIDB please read the post just above yours about the 'Neutral Rear Admiral Speaks out against Kerry' . It's the smoking gun that proves Kerry LIED about his first PH. That's lie #2 this group has proven, the first being that kerry was never in Cambodia- kerry lied about this over 50 times in public records.

[USMC-Pride]

DavidB- the moderator was not referring to you when he said that. He deleted someone elses profane post and put that post in place of it, because those kind of posts are not tolerated. He was not referring to your post but to someones reply to your post. Thanks for comig to the site to get the answers you are looking for and not just being a sheep believing everything the news and the kerry camp feeds you.
_________________
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
-- President Abraham Lincoln

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

No the remarks replaced those of a troll.

And there's a search engine at the top of each page. Some days, it's more helpful than others.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[DavidB]

The search engine for the Forums is excellent. I've found some good insignts there--thanks. It seems that three major beefs have been laid against Kerry: (1) he was vainglorious to the point of dishonesty, hence the overblown accounts of his exploits, bravery, etc. (2) he gave aid & comfort to the enemy in political speeches in the early 70's while still a sworn officer in the US Navy (3) he has misrepresented his Viet Nam service in order to capture swing votes in the current campaign. All in all, it adds up to a pretty miserable portrait. However, a Green Beret officer, Rassman, says that Kerry saved his life under heavy fire on a river in Viet Nam. Can this man's testimony (a Republican, I believe) simply be discounted? Also, supposing that Kerry was in reality a self-serving, incompetent, and even cowardly junior officer, does that make him less fit for office than other national leaders (Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft) who had more success than he in dodging service in Viet Nam?

I have a great problem with Kerry's participation in the VV Against the War group while he was still a serving officer. Secondly, his blanket allegations of massive US war crimes in Viet Nam are indefensible and contributed to a malignant, anti-military attitude that lingered in the US for a long time after Viet Nam. But by lying about his war record, Kerry only shows what we all know anyway--politicians in both parties will say almost anything to get elected. They treat lying as a necessary evil, a way to protect and leverage their sacred 'core platforms.'

[sore loser]