Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,

Science > Abortion > Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 5

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Bill Case"
Date:	18 Aug 2004 03:20:36 PM
Object:	Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,

The people, like Hines, who support Bush's slanders on John Kerry's war
service, are not just doing something dishonorable in the context of an
election.
They are also damaging the US military. Slander campaigns like this sink
into the culture and social practices of a country. This one will have its
affect on the comradeship that young troops and officers feel for each other
in the years ahead - always wondering who might turn one on another sometime
in the future, and for what reasons. Perhaps at the behest of weak corrupt
men trying to cut others down to their size. That's toxic.
Following is a Wall St Jl editorial by JIM RASSMANN, the Special Forces man
who's life was saved by Kerry in Vietnam.
Read on...
Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.
BY JIM RASSMANN
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift
boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung
soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I
worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage
and decision-making ability under fire.
On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine
detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks
of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second
blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river.
Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the
river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire
from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water
as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank
of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me
avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I
thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water
and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat
ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to
the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make
it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a
perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his
boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us
from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our
country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this
past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for
his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S.
Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior
grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under
fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval
Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to
this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.
It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got
married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I
retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left
Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.
I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer
with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public
presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential
election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John
Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I
would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the
well-being of our country.
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican,
and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I
volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of
conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership
under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans
for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are
calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon
administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these
Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John
at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their
attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at
John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad
asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records.
This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who
don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.
As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is
"dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to
condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has
ignored Sen. McCain's advice.
Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In
2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain.
In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that
placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks
against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W.
Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new
charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did
not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served
in Vietnam.
But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man
who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his
country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star,
a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud.
Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for
Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against
those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
should hang their heads in shame.
Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam
1968-69.
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	25 Aug 2004 09:12:16 PM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6qbpi0pc7m9kl5s4h6fei61al8rnd0m9k6@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<QeuWc.7020$eu1.197065@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
:> :>
:> :> Furthermore, he has released his DD-214 (Honorable Discharge), which he
:> :> could not have obtained if he failed to meet his obligations.
:> :
:> :Baloney, it proves he received an Honorable Discharge
:> :that is all.
:>
:> They don't give them to you if you failed to satisfactorily complete
:> your obligated service, you stupid *****^Hll.
:
:Resorting to vulgarity Fred,
Where? You don't know what a control-H character is?
:I am suprised,
I suspect that someone of your limited intellect is OFTEN surprised,
and by very simple things, too.
:I thought you were above that.
If words weren't intended to be used they would not be in the
language.
:We all know that AWOL Shrub Jr.
I suspect that's hardly the first 'non-fact' that "you all" know.
:pulled strings to get into the Guard (1),
Who cares? The article you point to explains there is no proof of
anything of the kind, so this must be another one of those "we all
know" things that your lot ignore the facts on.
Do you also have a handy excuse for why he would have been asking
about PALACE ALERT? Or, as I suspect from above, do inconvenient
facts simply get ignored in your world?
:it is not a
:big stretch that he did the same to get out, especially
:once you see that there is no documentation that he
:fulfilled his service.
:
:1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162
You read this, right?
It proves you wrong. Even the article you point to shows you to be a
liar. He got all his required points every year. That's all the
documentation it takes. He got a DD214, which is the closing bit of
documentation.
In other words, you're clearly a lying ***** who can't read English
and doesn't even realize when the things he points to as 'proof'
actually prove his position is absolute and unadulterated *****.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	26 Aug 2004 10:02:13 AM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<m3hqi0tg8e401b2572chbhvbva1re4jqpb@4ax.com>...

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6qbpi0pc7m9kl5s4h6fei61al8rnd0m9k6@4ax.com>...
:>

Alright, lets say that you didn't.

:I am surprised,

I suspect that someone of your limited intellect is OFTEN surprised,
and by very simple things, too.

Ad hominem again.

:I thought you were above that.

If words weren't intended to be used they would not be in the
language.

:We all know that AWOL Shrub Jr.

I suspect that's hardly the first 'non-fact' that "you all" know.

:pulled strings to get into the Guard (1),

Who cares? The article you point to explains there is no proof of
anything of the kind, so this must be another one of those "we all
know" things that your lot ignore the facts on.

The article, and I quote, states that "Bush's flight instructor,
Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a
special look because his father was a fighter pilot in
World War II". The article states that the allegations
that Bush family friend � the late oilman Sidney Adger,
asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968
cannot be proven, but lets face it, you cannot always get
photo copies of everything.
This on top of the fact that he was admitted and secured
a coveted pilot slot with very poor qualifying scores
and a record of arrests for stealing (a Christmas
wreath and rowdiness at a football game during
his college years) make it clear that strings were
pulled for Jr.
snipage

:it is not a
:big stretch that he did the same to get out, especially
:once you see that there is no documentation that he
:fulfilled his service.
:
:1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162

You read this, right?

Only the relevant parts, about Jr. pulling strings.

It proves you wrong. Even the article you point to shows you to be a
liar. He got all his required points every year. That's all the
documentation it takes. He got a DD214, which is the closing bit of
documentation.

Wrong. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40964-2004Feb13&notFound=true
10th paragraph, where you will see that 15 guard points were
simply given to Bush for nothing.
"For Bush's fifth year in the Guard,
May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a
total of 41 "points" for his service
and was granted another 15 "gratuitous"
points by his superiors, bringing him
above the 50-point minimum requirement
for the year. There are no records showing
he participated in any Guard activities
from May 1972 through the end of October 1972."

In other words, you're clearly a lying ***** who can't read English
and doesn't even realize when the things he points to as 'proof'
actually prove his position is absolute and unadulterated *****.

In other words, you can't think of a good argument so you
use profanity because your temper is out of control.
Larry
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	26 Aug 2004 10:16:45 AM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<m3hqi0tg8e401b2572chbhvbva1re4jqpb@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6qbpi0pc7m9kl5s4h6fei61al8rnd0m9k6@4ax.com>...
:> :>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<QeuWc.7020$eu1.197065@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Furthermore, he has released his DD-214 (Honorable Discharge), which he
:> :> :> could not have obtained if he failed to meet his obligations.
:> :> :
:> :> :Baloney, it proves he received an Honorable Discharge
:> :> :that is all.
:> :>
:> :> They don't give them to you if you failed to satisfactorily complete
:> :> your obligated service, you stupid *****^Hll.
:> :
:> :Resorting to vulgarity Fred,
:>
:> Where? You don't know what a control-H character is?
:
:Alright, lets say that you didn't.
Big of you. <snicker>
:> :I am surprised,
:>
:> I suspect that someone of your limited intellect is OFTEN surprised,
:> and by very simple things, too.
:
:Ad hominem again.
Merely the simple truth.

:> :I thought you were above that.
:>
:> If words weren't intended to be used they would not be in the
:> language.
:>
:> :We all know that AWOL Shrub Jr.
:>
:> I suspect that's hardly the first 'non-fact' that "you all" know.
:>
:> :pulled strings to get into the Guard (1),
:>
:> Who cares? The article you point to explains there is no proof of
:> anything of the kind, so this must be another one of those "we all
:> know" things that your lot ignore the facts on.
:
:The article, and I quote, states that "Bush's flight instructor,
:Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a
:special look because his father was a fighter pilot in
:World War II".
Which is quite interesting, since his father WASN'T a fighter pilot at
all.
:The article states that the allegations
:that Bush family friend � the late oilman Sidney Adger,
:asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968
:cannot be proven, but lets face it, you cannot always get
:photo copies of everything.
In other words, innuendo is so much better than facts. One needn't
back up innuendo, after all.
:This on top of the fact that he was admitted and secured
:a coveted pilot slot with very poor qualifying scores
Wrong.
:and a record of arrests for stealing (a Christmas
:wreath and rowdiness at a football game during
:his college years) make it clear that strings were
:pulled for Jr.
Wrong. Arrests don't mean *****. CONVICTIONS mean *****. Of course,
since you're working on the "guilty until I can prove him guilty"
philosophy, I'm sure such distinctions don't matter to you.
:> :it is not a
:> :big stretch that he did the same to get out, especially
:> :once you see that there is no documentation that he
:> :fulfilled his service.
:> :
:> :1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162
:>
:> You read this, right?
:
:Only the relevant parts, about Jr. pulling strings.
Of course. Hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. About
what I expected.

:> It proves you wrong. Even the article you point to shows you to be a
:> liar. He got all his required points every year. That's all the
:> documentation it takes. He got a DD214, which is the closing bit of
:> documentation.
:
:Wrong. See
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40964-2004Feb13&notFound=true
:10th paragraph, where you will see that 15 guard points were
:simply given to Bush for nothing.
:
: "For Bush's fifth year in the Guard,
: May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a
: total of 41 "points" for his service
: and was granted another 15 "gratuitous"
: points by his superiors, bringing him
: above the 50-point minimum requirement
: for the year. There are no records showing
: he participated in any Guard activities
: from May 1972 through the end of October 1972."
You know what? I got 15 gratuitous points every year I was in the
Navy Reserve. *EVERY* year. That's why they're called gratuitous
points. They just give them to you. Everybody gets them. The only
reason you don't get them is if they would take you over the maximum
number of points allowed in a year.
What's funny is that you people really are so pig-ignorant that you
never even bothered to find out the simplest things.
:> In other words, you're clearly a lying ***** who can't read English
:> and doesn't even realize when the things he points to as 'proof'
:> actually prove his position is absolute and unadulterated *****.
:
:In other words, you can't think of a good argument so you
:use profanity because your temper is out of control.
Well, if it makes you feel important, by all means you should believe
that. It's in keeping with all the other ignorant things you believe.
It's only Usenet, moron. You seriously think people with any sense
get worked up over it? <snicker>
Those are certainly 'other words'. Your problem is that they don't
address the huge holes punched in your position by your own 'proof'
(which you admit you don't bother to read except for the bits that
support you - such intellectual integrity!).
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	27 Aug 2004 05:10:25 PM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<76vri05i1lutof1mb42dcncvsqgtko2ur4@4ax.com>...

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<m3hqi0tg8e401b2572chbhvbva1re4jqpb@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6qbpi0pc7m9kl5s4h6fei61al8rnd0m9k6@4ax.com>...
:> :>

It is simply an insult serving no
purpose to your arguments. Intelligent readers
know this and you come off looking either
immature or malicious.

:> :I thought you were above that.
:>
:> If words weren't intended to be used they would not be in the
:> language.
:>
:> :We all know that AWOL Shrub Jr.
:>
:> I suspect that's hardly the first 'non-fact' that "you all" know.
:>
:> :pulled strings to get into the Guard (1),
:>
:> Who cares? The article you point to explains there is no proof of
:> anything of the kind, so this must be another one of those "we all
:> know" things that your lot ignore the facts on.
:
:The article, and I quote, states that "Bush's flight instructor,
:Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a
:special look because his father was a fighter pilot in
:World War II".

Which is quite interesting, since his father WASN'T a fighter pilot at
all.

From:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/G.%20H.%20W.%20Bush
G. H. W. Bush
He was a naval aviator during World War II, the youngest
ever at that time, and earned the Distinguished Flying
Cross for his service in the Pacific Theater. On one
mission over the Pacific as a torpedo bomber pilot he
was shot down by Japanese antiaircraft fire and was
rescued from the water by the submarine USS Finback.

:The article states that the allegations
:that Bush family friend ? the late oilman Sidney Adger,
:asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968
:cannot be proven, but lets face it, you cannot always get
:photo copies of everything.

In other words, innuendo is so much better than facts. One needn't
back up innuendo, after all.

:This on top of the fact that he was admitted and secured
:a coveted pilot slot with very poor qualifying scores

Wrong.

Not according to Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard of USA today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm
"Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting
into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot
despite poor qualifying scores...?"

:and a record of arrests for stealing (a Christmas
:wreath and rowdiness at a football game during
:his college years) make it clear that strings were
:pulled for Jr.

Wrong. Arrests don't mean *****. CONVICTIONS mean *****. Of course,
since you're working on the "guilty until I can prove him guilty"
philosophy, I'm sure such distinctions don't matter to you.

:> :it is not a
:> :big stretch that he did the same to get out, especially
:> :once you see that there is no documentation that he
:> :fulfilled his service.
:> :
:> :1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162
:>
:> You read this, right?
:
:Only the relevant parts, about Jr. pulling strings.

Of course. Hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. About
what I expected.

I back up my statements with citations from reputable
web sites, and what I cited is there.

:> It proves you wrong. Even the article you point to shows you to be a
:> liar. He got all his required points every year. That's all the
:> documentation it takes. He got a DD214, which is the closing bit of
:> documentation.
:
:Wrong. See
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40964-2004Feb13&notFound=true
:10th paragraph, where you will see that 15 guard points were
:simply given to Bush for nothing.
:
: "For Bush's fifth year in the Guard,
: May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a
: total of 41 "points" for his service
: and was granted another 15 "gratuitous"
: points by his superiors, bringing him
: above the 50-point minimum requirement
: for the year. There are no records showing
: he participated in any Guard activities
: from May 1972 through the end of October 1972."

You know what? I got 15 gratuitous points every year I was in the
Navy Reserve. *EVERY* year. That's why they're called gratuitous
points. They just give them to you. Everybody gets them. The only
reason you don't get them is if they would take you over the maximum
number of points allowed in a year.

snipage
Gratuitous implies that it is given for good service,
yet Bush did not bother to show upfor months, was grounded
from flying, and failed to take a medical exam he was ordered
to take, not exactly good service.
Bush did receive an honorable discharge, but if that
was conclusive proof that he fulfilled his obligation
in the guard he would not have released his other
records and then ordered military personnel not to
talk about his service. Yeah, I am convinced.
Larry
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	27 Aug 2004 08:02:31 PM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<76vri05i1lutof1mb42dcncvsqgtko2ur4@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<m3hqi0tg8e401b2572chbhvbva1re4jqpb@4ax.com>...
:> :>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6qbpi0pc7m9kl5s4h6fei61al8rnd0m9k6@4ax.com>...
:> :> :>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<QeuWc.7020$eu1.197065@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Furthermore, he has released his DD-214 (Honorable Discharge), which he
:> :> :> :> could not have obtained if he failed to meet his obligations.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Baloney, it proves he received an Honorable Discharge
:> :> :> :that is all.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> They don't give them to you if you failed to satisfactorily complete
:> :> :> your obligated service, you stupid *****^Hll.
:> :> :
:> :> :Resorting to vulgarity Fred,
:> :>
:> :> Where? You don't know what a control-H character is?
:> :
:> :Alright, lets say that you didn't.
:>
:> Big of you. <snicker>
:>
:> :> :I am surprised,
:> :>
:> :> I suspect that someone of your limited intellect is OFTEN surprised,
:> :> and by very simple things, too.
:> :
:> :Ad hominem again.
:>
:> Merely the simple truth.
:
:It is simply an insult serving no
:purpose to your arguments. Intelligent readers
:know this and you come off looking either
:immature or malicious.
Whatever fantasies you need to get through your day, Mr Seib.

:> :> :I thought you were above that.
:> :>
:> :> If words weren't intended to be used they would not be in the
:> :> language.
:> :>
:> :> :We all know that AWOL Shrub Jr.
:> :>
:> :> I suspect that's hardly the first 'non-fact' that "you all" know.
:> :>
:> :> :pulled strings to get into the Guard (1),
:> :>
:> :> Who cares? The article you point to explains there is no proof of
:> :> anything of the kind, so this must be another one of those "we all
:> :> know" things that your lot ignore the facts on.
:> :
:> :The article, and I quote, states that "Bush's flight instructor,
:> :Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a
:> :special look because his father was a fighter pilot in
:> :World War II".
:>
:> Which is quite interesting, since his father WASN'T a fighter pilot at
:> all.
:
:From:
:
:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/G.%20H.%20W.%20Bush
:
:G. H. W. Bush
:
:He was a naval aviator during World War II, the youngest
:ever at that time, and earned the Distinguished Flying
:Cross for his service in the Pacific Theater. On one
:mission over the Pacific as a torpedo bomber pilot he
:was shot down by Japanese antiaircraft fire and was
:rescued from the water by the submarine USS Finback.
Yes, and you will note that a torpedo bomber is *NOT* a fighter.
Hence GHWB was not "a fighter pilot in WWII". He was "a Naval
aviator" (which has bugger all to do with the Air Force or Air
National Guard) and a "torpedo bomber pilot" (which has bugger all to
do with "fighter"). Thinking that the AIR NATIONAL GUARD will
'grandfather' in someone as a fighter pilot because their father flew
TORPEDO BOMBERS FOR THE NAVY is carrying inter-service cooperation
just a *bit* far, don't you think?
I always love it when people try to prove their point by posting
references that prove mine.
:> :The article states that the allegations
:> :that Bush family friend ? the late oilman Sidney Adger,
:> :asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968
:> :cannot be proven, but lets face it, you cannot always get
:> :photo copies of everything.
:>
:> In other words, innuendo is so much better than facts. One needn't
:> back up innuendo, after all.
:>
:> :This on top of the fact that he was admitted and secured
:> :a coveted pilot slot with very poor qualifying scores
:>
:> Wrong.
:
:Not according to Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard of USA today
:http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm
:
:"Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting
: into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot
: despite poor qualifying scores...?"
So if I write a partisan article and pose a question, that makes it
truth? What are you smoking?
If you want to actually prove this smear, you need to show the list of
people with better scores waiting to get into that billet ahead of
Bush. Don't you think it odd that no one who wants to attempt this
smear ever does that?
:> :and a record of arrests for stealing (a Christmas
:> :wreath and rowdiness at a football game during
:> :his college years) make it clear that strings were
:> :pulled for Jr.
:>
:> Wrong. Arrests don't mean *****. CONVICTIONS mean *****. Of course,
:> since you're working on the "guilty until I can prove him guilty"
:> philosophy, I'm sure such distinctions don't matter to you.
:>
:> :> :it is not a
:> :> :big stretch that he did the same to get out, especially
:> :> :once you see that there is no documentation that he
:> :> :fulfilled his service.
:> :> :
:> :> :1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162
:> :>
:> :> You read this, right?
:> :
:> :Only the relevant parts, about Jr. pulling strings.
:>
:> Of course. Hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. About
:> what I expected.
:
:I back up my statements with citations from reputable
:web sites, and what I cited is there.
Except you don't read them, since if you did you'd have to take back a
lot of things you try to claim are true.

:> :> It proves you wrong. Even the article you point to shows you to be a
:> :> liar. He got all his required points every year. That's all the
:> :> documentation it takes. He got a DD214, which is the closing bit of
:> :> documentation.
:> :
:> :Wrong. See
:> :http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40964-2004Feb13&notFound=true
:> :10th paragraph, where you will see that 15 guard points were
:> :simply given to Bush for nothing.
:> :
:> : "For Bush's fifth year in the Guard,
:> : May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a
:> : total of 41 "points" for his service
:> : and was granted another 15 "gratuitous"
:> : points by his superiors, bringing him
:> : above the 50-point minimum requirement
:> : for the year. There are no records showing
:> : he participated in any Guard activities
:> : from May 1972 through the end of October 1972."
:>
:> You know what? I got 15 gratuitous points every year I was in the
:> Navy Reserve. *EVERY* year. That's why they're called gratuitous
:> points. They just give them to you. Everybody gets them. The only
:> reason you don't get them is if they would take you over the maximum
:> number of points allowed in a year.
:
:snipage
:
:Gratuitous implies that it is given for good service,
:yet Bush did not bother to show upfor months, was grounded
:from flying, and failed to take a medical exam he was ordered
:to take, not exactly good service.
He got 41 points for the year. That's sufficiently good service to
qualify for the gratuitous points. I won't bother to address the
other list of lies above.
:Bush did receive an honorable discharge, but if that
:was conclusive proof that he fulfilled his obligation
:in the guard he would not have released his other
:records and then ordered military personnel not to
:talk about his service. Yeah, I am convinced.
Oh, I see. If he DOESN'T release all his records then he has
something to hide. If he DOES release all his records, then he STILL
HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE.
Why don't you spend some time explaining why Mr Kerry won't release
HIS records?
But I won't hear it, because you've shown yourself to just be another
lying shill, too stupid to bother with.
<plonk>
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	02 Sep 2004 09:43:27 AM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<cmlvi0th3qp1t4sr3mr8dohrk7oj2g2139@4ax.com>...

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:

snipage

:> :>
:> :> :We all know that AWOL Shrub Jr.
:> :>
:> :> I suspect that's hardly the first 'non-fact' that "you all" know.
:> :>
:> :> :pulled strings to get into the Guard (1),
:> :>
:> :> Who cares? The article you point to explains there is no proof of
:> :> anything of the kind, so this must be another one of those "we all
:> :> know" things that your lot ignore the facts on.
:> :
:> :The article, and I quote, states that "Bush's flight instructor,
:> :Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a
:> :special look because his father was a fighter pilot in
:> :World War II".
:>
:> Which is quite interesting, since his father WASN'T a fighter pilot at
:> all.
:
:From:
:
:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/G.%20H.%20W.%20Bush
:
:G. H. W. Bush
:
:He was a naval aviator during World War II, the youngest
:ever at that time, and earned the Distinguished Flying
:Cross for his service in the Pacific Theater. On one
:mission over the Pacific as a torpedo bomber pilot he
:was shot down by Japanese antiaircraft fire and was
:rescued from the water by the submarine USS Finback.

Yes, and you will note that a torpedo bomber is *NOT* a fighter.
Hence GHWB was not "a fighter pilot in WWII". He was "a Naval
aviator" (which has bugger all to do with the Air Force or Air
National Guard) and a "torpedo bomber pilot" (which has bugger all to
do with "fighter"). Thinking that the AIR NATIONAL GUARD will
'grandfather' in someone as a fighter pilot because their father flew
TORPEDO BOMBERS FOR THE NAVY is carrying inter-service cooperation
just a *bit* far, don't you think?

Not when you consider that this Veteran was now a United States
Representative and a millionaire. There was a waiting list
of around a year and a half to get into the guard in Texas
and Bush got in the same day he applied.
And If you want a smoking gun I have it. An artilce
in the New York Times by Jim Yardley qoutes the
speaker of the Texas house as saying he helped
Bush Get into the Guard.
Here is the first fifty lines of the article
from the New York Times archives which is long eneough to
varify my claim.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C14F9355B0C748EDDA00894D1494D81
BTW I figured you would nit pick what type of plane Bush Sr.
piloted, as if that made Maurice Udell's statment out to be a lie.

:> :The article states that the allegations
:> :that Bush family friend ? the late oilman Sidney Adger,
:> :asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968
:> :cannot be proven, but lets face it, you cannot always get
:> :photo copies of everything.
:>
:> In other words, innuendo is so much better than facts. One needn't
:> back up innuendo, after all.
:>
:> :This on top of the fact that he was admitted and secured
:> :a coveted pilot slot with very poor qualifying scores
:>
:> Wrong.
:
:Not according to Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard of USA today
:http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm
:
:"Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting
: into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot
: despite poor qualifying scores...?"

So if I write a partisan article and pose a question, that makes it
truth? What are you smoking?

OK, how about a scanned copy of Bush's
test scores signed by USAF test control
officer Ralph Iannuzzi, showing that his
pilot aptitude test socre was 25 the
lowest passing score.
See http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04073.html
and scroll down. (there is a blank area before you see the document)

If you want to actually prove this smear, you need to show the list of
people with better scores waiting to get into that billet ahead of
Bush. Don't you think it odd that no one who wants to attempt this
smear ever does that?

No I do not think that is necessary. Do you seriously
beleive anyone thinks that any Tom ***** or Harry
can walk off the street, get the lowest passing score,
and then start flying airplanes.
Larry
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	30 Aug 2004 01:12:45 PM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<cmlvi0th3qp1t4sr3mr8dohrk7oj2g2139@4ax.com>...

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:
But I won't hear it, because you've shown yourself to just be another
lying shill, too stupid to bother with.
<plonk>

So Fred has poked his head into the sand, I guess
what he does not know will not hurt him.
Larry
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	29 Aug 2004 10:56:41 AM

Here's some sources for people wanting to get an idea of the truthfunness of
the attacks on Kerry and whether junior Bush should be re-elected.
A good source for DETAILED info on junior Bush
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#got%20in
Comparison of Kerry and Bush bios:
http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7073&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported
A detailed refutation of the swifty liars.
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
Here are the 10 crewmates who ACTUALLY served with Kerry in Vietnam, ON HIS
BOAT.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/8/4/0311/48764/6#6
Reagan's son's article on Bush
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/073104Y.shtml
===
Thanks to Nixon taping conversations, evidence has emerged that O'Neill told
Nixon that he was in Cambodia during a conversation in 1971.
"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill is heard
telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the former president's
secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in
College Park, Md.
The Swiftboat Liars have been caught in lie after lie. This is similar to
the footage of George Elliot from 1996 where he's praising Kerry's war
record. The Liars have been caught going both ways like this enough times
that their credibility should be shattered.
John O'Neill, King of the Swiftboat Liars, has come under fire for lying
about his own military background. John Kerry, in the past, claimed to be
over the border in Cambodia during some of the time he spent in Vietnam. O'
Neill has refuted that claim.
In the book, O'Neill wrote that Kerry's accounts of having been in Cambodia
on Christmas Eve, 1968 "are complete lies."
[note: I don't think Kerry ever actually claimed to have been in Cambodia
"on Christmas Eve, 1968", the liars only SAY he did].
O'Neill wrote that "Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and
would have been court-martialed had he gone there." O'Neill added that the
Navy positioned its own craft along the border area to make sure no American
vessels strayed across the border from Vietnam.
In an interview earlier this week on ABC's "This Week," O'Neill said: "Our
boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was
about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
During his AP interview, O'Neill criticized Kerry for making claims,
including in the Senate, that he was in Cambodia as part of a secret war
authorized by Nixon.
===
Bush's attack on Kerry's war service is discredited in this article. It
would be good to remember that similar slander attacks have been made on
other veterans (McCain, Cleland) by Bush in his political career to minimize
his own shirking of war duty.
Read on...
" But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'
prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as
proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's
own statements. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases,
material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy
records and the men's own statements. "
" In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his
commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral
courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the
second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he
called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged
leader in his peer group." "
" "It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he
said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest
night of my life." "
==========
Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM
RUTENBERG
NY Times August 20, 2004
After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about
his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career,
Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements
categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush
campaign.
His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group
that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the
forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book,
in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in
an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.
How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with
longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's
allied themselves with Texas Republicans.
Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the
campaign denied.
A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections
to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President
Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.
Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from
two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political
associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr.
Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped
prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice
president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television
commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad
mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr.
Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.
The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war
hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that
resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many
cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official
Navy records and the men's own statements.
Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him,
some as recently as last year.
In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized
biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York
Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group,
allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said,
"I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good
man."
In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr.
Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver
Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."
George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home
in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough
re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won
Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian
L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry,
supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young
officers that ran the Swift boats."
"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and
cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of
those Swift boat drivers."
Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in
1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not
exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and
decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in
the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed,"
"beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."
The Admiral Calls
It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic
nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his
old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new
biography of the man who would be president.
Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war from a base in Cam
Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong -
the kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a spokesman for Vietnam
Veterans Against the War in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he
was issued a letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in
the military justice system.
Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the
past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr.
Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military
approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians.
Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty
colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm
in the morning.
The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.
"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr.
Lonsdale said.
Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to John E. O'Neill, who at
one point commanded the same Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission
against him dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon
administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The ***** Cavett Show."
Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous
television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr.
Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some
of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client
list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy
firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a
central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state
Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.
Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that he had come to know
two of his biggest donors, Harlan Crow and Bob J. Perry, through longtime
social and business contacts.
Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the top donor to
Republicans in the state, according to Texans for Public Justice, a
nonpartisan group that tracks political donations. He donated $46,000 to
President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. In the 2002
election, the group said, he donated nearly $4 million to Texas candidates
and political committees.
Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said through a spokeswoman
that he and Mr. Perry were longtime friends, though he said they had not
spoken for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been associates
since at least 1986, when they both worked on the gubernatorial campaign of
Bill Clements.
Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years. "I've represented many
of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests
for comment.
Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30 years, through mutual
friends. Mr. Crow, the seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state
according to the Texans for Public Justice, has donated nowhere near as much
money as Mr. Perry to the Swift boat group. His family owns one of the
largest diversified commercial real estate companies in the nation, the
Trammell Crow Company, and has given money to Mr. Bush and his father
throughout their careers. He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush
Presidential Library Foundation.
One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr. Bush's general counsel
when he was governor of Texas and followed him to the White House as deputy
counsel for the Department of Commerce, according to her biography on the
law firm's Web site.
Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican ticket with Mr. Bush in
1994, as lieutenant governor. They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr.
Lezar worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan administration.
Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful
public relations executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth.
In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that ran $2 million worth of
ads attacking Senator John McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr.
Bush's in crucial states during their fierce primary battle. The group,
calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas
supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly.
Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House,
where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to
help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984. She says
she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a
client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she
had ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas
treasurer's office in 1990.
When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure,
Ms. Spaeth initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when
Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week Ms. Spaeth
acknowledged that she had spent an hour in the Old Executive Office
Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr.
Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman, public speaking advice.
Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration
officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my
memory.''
"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of the organization.
"Absolutely not.''
Another participant is the political advertising agency that made the
group's television commercial: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in
Alexandria, Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr.
Bush's father in 1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr.
Dukakis. A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization
decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking
on television.
About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April to share
outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr.
Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an
indoctrination session."
What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.
"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not just for me, but
for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."
The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr.
Brinkley's account of the war - to find "some neutral way of actually
questioning people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.
But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.
Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially
thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement
about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said
he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the
edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it
look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.
"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said.
"He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night
of my life."
By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had collected as well as
additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The
expanded group gathered in Washington to record the veterans' stories for a
television commercial.
Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit and sent to him to
sign and have notarized. But the validity of those affidavits soon came into
question.
Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star, had signed one
affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in the statements that had
led to the award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that
he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second
affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to
reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then.
The Questions
The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat
Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has also come under fire. It is published
by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books
critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who
was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many
books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a
contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a
right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.
The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the
television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares,
"I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated
him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of
shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue
that it was minor and self-inflicted.
Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr.
Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is
signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson
said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that
Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.
Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr.
Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."
The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear
admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which
Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr.
Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.
But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry,
Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member.
"Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon
said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr.
Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year
and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.
Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group
said he would not comment.
The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire
from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he
turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang
from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the
shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40
rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a
solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been
armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and,
citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the
sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.
The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal.
But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for
recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if
there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly
corroborated the accounts.
"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale
said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and
carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described
the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."
According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats
was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one
boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy
fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.
Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa
caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely
credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.
But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry
did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a
sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was
dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's
lying."
"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was."
Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to
the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's.
"What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat
was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a
Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the
report at headquarters, not the author.
A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet
holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that
one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the
presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He
also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for
Command."
Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the
citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives
of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said,
that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr.
Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he
declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The
New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and
"enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The
Washington Post on Thursday.
Standing Their Ground
As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained
steadfast and adaptable.
This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily
on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been
able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he
declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has
emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was
unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas,
though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly
afterward.
The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against Mr. Kerry on
Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry
did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and
their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most
members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe
what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist.
And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as
a hero of that war.
"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of
guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the
first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star.
"Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."
As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost
the war for us.
"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he
expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."
xend
url
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=1&th
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	30 Aug 2004 01:21:47 PM

"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Z0nYc.1670$w%6.144@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Thanks for the Great links there Bill, I am going to
save them.
Larry
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	19 Aug 2004 10:00:43 AM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Slander implies false allegations. Since we can prove Shrub
:did not show up at the national guard for over one year (1), without
:permission (2), it is not slander.
Well, yeah, it is. It displays a fine disregard for how the National
Guard works.
:> The only slander against the whole US armed forces consisted of Kerry's
:> allegations at the 1971 Senate hearings that My Lai type incidents were the
:> rule rather than the exception in Vietnam and that everyone knew about those
:> atrocities and everyone participated in them. If that's not a slander
:> against the US armed forces, I don't know what is.
:
:Again, the slander depends on wether or not the allegations are
:true, but they might be. Unless you can prove he
:was wrong you are simply makeing unsubstantiated
:allegations.
So if I accuse you of buggering two year olds, unless you can PROVE
the statement is false your objections are merely "unsubstantiated
allegations"?
Please account for EVERY SECOND OF YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Anything less is
merely "unsubstantiated allegations" and the fact that I don't produce
either any witnesses or any violated two year olds is irrelevant and
your asking me to is slander.
Interesting logic you use there.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	19 Aug 2004 04:37:16 PM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fsf9i0h8pftg096nf74t6ce0inp20f5774@4ax.com>...

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:

:Slander implies false allegations. Since we can prove Shrub
:did not show up at the national guard for over one year (1), without
:permission (2), it is not slander.

Well, yeah, it is. It displays a fine disregard for how the National
Guard works.

:> The only slander against the whole US armed forces consisted of Kerry's
:> allegations at the 1971 Senate hearings that My Lai type incidents were the
:> rule rather than the exception in Vietnam and that everyone knew about those
:> atrocities and everyone participated in them. If that's not a slander
:> against the US armed forces, I don't know what is.
:
:Again, the slander depends on wether or not the allegations are
:true, but they might be. Unless you can prove he
:was wrong you are simply makeing unsubstantiated
:allegations.

So if I accuse you of buggering two year olds, unless you can PROVE
the statement is false your objections are merely "unsubstantiated
allegations"?

The burden of proof is on the one makeing the allegations,
just like theists, you do not seem to comprehend the difference.
In Kerry's case, He alleged that abuse by US soldiers in Iraq was
common place. Kerry based his remarks partly on the
Winter Soldier hearings in Detroit, which featured 150
veterans telling their stories (1). Kerry told the Senate that
soldiers "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,
taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals
and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion
reminiscent of Genghis Kahn."
I think the stories of 150 veterans starts to sound
convincing. Of coarse Kerry was also there in Vietnam,
and knows the horrors of war first hand. If that is
not enouhg evidence, what is?
Larry
1 http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5285.html
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	20 Aug 2004 02:03:57 AM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fsf9i0h8pftg096nf74t6ce0inp20f5774@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Slander implies false allegations. Since we can prove Shrub
:> :did not show up at the national guard for over one year (1), without
:> :permission (2), it is not slander.
:>
:> Well, yeah, it is. It displays a fine disregard for how the National
:> Guard works.
:>
:> :> The only slander against the whole US armed forces consisted of Kerry's
:> :> allegations at the 1971 Senate hearings that My Lai type incidents were the
:> :> rule rather than the exception in Vietnam and that everyone knew about those
:> :> atrocities and everyone participated in them. If that's not a slander
:> :> against the US armed forces, I don't know what is.
:> :
:> :Again, the slander depends on wether or not the allegations are
:> :true, but they might be. Unless you can prove he
:> :was wrong you are simply makeing unsubstantiated
:> :allegations.
:>
:> So if I accuse you of buggering two year olds, unless you can PROVE
:> the statement is false your objections are merely "unsubstantiated
:> allegations"?
:
:The burden of proof is on the one makeing the allegations,
:just like theists, you do not seem to comprehend the difference.
Well, that's what I always thought, but that is NOT the position
espoused in the article I was responding to. This is why I came up
with the ridiculous example; to demonstrate that the position of the
poster I was responding to was ridiculous.
:I think the stories of 150 veterans starts to sound
:convincing. Of coarse Kerry was also there in Vietnam,
:and knows the horrors of war first hand. If that is
:not enouhg evidence, what is?
Someone truthful saying it?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	20 Aug 2004 09:52:40 AM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<re8bi0hidrdvtjujln74f0gnb8fgt5kgok@4ax.com>...

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fsf9i0h8pftg096nf74t6ce0inp20f5774@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Slander implies false allegations. Since we can prove Shrub
:> :did not show up at the national guard for over one year (1), without
:> :permission (2), it is not slander.
:>
:> Well, yeah, it is. It displays a fine disregard for how the National
:> Guard works.
:>
:> :> The only slander against the whole US armed forces consisted of Kerry's
:> :> allegations at the 1971 Senate hearings that My Lai type incidents were the
:> :> rule rather than the exception in Vietnam and that everyone knew about those
:> :> atrocities and everyone participated in them. If that's not a slander
:> :> against the US armed forces, I don't know what is.
:> :
:> :Again, the slander depends on wether or not the allegations are
:> :true, but they might be. Unless you can prove he
:> :was wrong you are simply makeing unsubstantiated
:> :allegations.
:>
:> So if I accuse you of buggering two year olds, unless you can PROVE
:> the statement is false your objections are merely "unsubstantiated
:> allegations"?
:
:The burden of proof is on the one makeing the allegations,
:just like theists, you do not seem to comprehend the difference.

Well, that's what I always thought, but that is NOT the position
espoused in the article I was responding to. This is why I came up
with the ridiculous example; to demonstrate that the position of the
poster I was responding to was ridiculous.

:I think the stories of 150 veterans starts to sound
:convincing. Of coarse Kerry was also there in Vietnam,
:and knows the horrors of war first hand. If that is
:not enouhg evidence, what is?

Someone truthful saying it?

Nay, all these Vets lied, U.S soldiers never
commit atrocites. Its just a Communist conspiracy
just like marijuana.
Larry
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	20 Aug 2004 02:08:45 PM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<re8bi0hidrdvtjujln74f0gnb8fgt5kgok@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fsf9i0h8pftg096nf74t6ce0inp20f5774@4ax.com>...
:> :>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Slander implies false allegations. Since we can prove Shrub
:> :> :did not show up at the national guard for over one year (1), without
:> :> :permission (2), it is not slander.
:> :>
:> :> Well, yeah, it is. It displays a fine disregard for how the National
:> :> Guard works.
:> :>
:> :> :> The only slander against the whole US armed forces consisted of Kerry's
:> :> :> allegations at the 1971 Senate hearings that My Lai type incidents were the
:> :> :> rule rather than the exception in Vietnam and that everyone knew about those
:> :> :> atrocities and everyone participated in them. If that's not a slander
:> :> :> against the US armed forces, I don't know what is.
:> :> :
:> :> :Again, the slander depends on wether or not the allegations are
:> :> :true, but they might be. Unless you can prove he
:> :> :was wrong you are simply makeing unsubstantiated
:> :> :allegations.
:> :>
:> :> So if I accuse you of buggering two year olds, unless you can PROVE
:> :> the statement is false your objections are merely "unsubstantiated
:> :> allegations"?
:> :
:> :The burden of proof is on the one makeing the allegations,
:> :just like theists, you do not seem to comprehend the difference.
:>
:> Well, that's what I always thought, but that is NOT the position
:> espoused in the article I was responding to. This is why I came up
:> with the ridiculous example; to demonstrate that the position of the
:> poster I was responding to was ridiculous.
:>
:> :I think the stories of 150 veterans starts to sound
:> :convincing. Of coarse Kerry was also there in Vietnam,
:> :and knows the horrors of war first hand. If that is
:> :not enouhg evidence, what is?
:>
:> Someone truthful saying it?
:
:Nay, all these Vets lied, U.S soldiers never
:commit atrocites. Its just a Communist conspiracy
:just like marijuana.
You don't read very well, do you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	24 Aug 2004 05:02:12 PM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<00jci0l9pledhglpm5ft6bp23hf25l0uhh@4ax.com>...

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<re8bi0hidrdvtjujln74f0gnb8fgt5kgok@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fsf9i0h8pftg096nf74t6ce0inp20f5774@4ax.com>...
:> :>

Can't think of any argument so attack my person.
Brilliant.
Larry
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	24 Aug 2004 05:32:10 PM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<00jci0l9pledhglpm5ft6bp23hf25l0uhh@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<re8bi0hidrdvtjujln74f0gnb8fgt5kgok@4ax.com>...
:> :>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fsf9i0h8pftg096nf74t6ce0inp20f5774@4ax.com>...
:> :> :>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :Slander implies false allegations. Since we can prove Shrub
:> :> :> :did not show up at the national guard for over one year (1), without
:> :> :> :permission (2), it is not slander.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Well, yeah, it is. It displays a fine disregard for how the National
:> :> :> Guard works.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> The only slander against the whole US armed forces consisted of Kerry's
:> :> :> :> allegations at the 1971 Senate hearings that My Lai type incidents were the
:> :> :> :> rule rather than the exception in Vietnam and that everyone knew about those
:> :> :> :> atrocities and everyone participated in them. If that's not a slander
:> :> :> :> against the US armed forces, I don't know what is.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Again, the slander depends on wether or not the allegations are
:> :> :> :true, but they might be. Unless you can prove he
:> :> :> :was wrong you are simply makeing unsubstantiated
:> :> :> :allegations.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> So if I accuse you of buggering two year olds, unless you can PROVE
:> :> :> the statement is false your objections are merely "unsubstantiated
:> :> :> allegations"?
:> :> :
:> :> :The burden of proof is on the one makeing the allegations,
:> :> :just like theists, you do not seem to comprehend the difference.
:> :>
:> :> Well, that's what I always thought, but that is NOT the position
:> :> espoused in the article I was responding to. This is why I came up
:> :> with the ridiculous example; to demonstrate that the position of the
:> :> poster I was responding to was ridiculous.
:> :>
:> :> :I think the stories of 150 veterans starts to sound
:> :> :convincing. Of coarse Kerry was also there in Vietnam,
:> :> :and knows the horrors of war first hand. If that is
:> :> :not enouhg evidence, what is?
:> :>
:> :> Someone truthful saying it?
:> :
:> :Nay, all these Vets lied, U.S soldiers never
:> :commit atrocites. Its just a Communist conspiracy
:> :just like marijuana.
:>
:> You don't read very well, do you?
:
:Can't think of any argument so attack my person.
That's not a personal attack. It's merely a somewhat acerbic way of
pointing out that you are apparently responding to some other set of
words than the one which was written.
:Brilliant.
Thank you. I wish I could say the same about you. However, as with
Prince George in Blackadder, I think the best you can hope for is that
men will say about you, "He's a bit of a thicky".
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	25 Aug 2004 09:12:09 AM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<i8gni01eik9i28co6fgfh4h3s0v6qhvrhe@4ax.com>...

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Someone truthful saying it?
:> :
:> :Nay, all these Vets lied, U.S soldiers never
:> :commit atrocites. Its just a Communist conspiracy
:> :just like marijuana.
:>
:> You don't read very well, do you?
:
:Can't think of any argument so attack my person.

That's not a personal attack. It's merely a somewhat acerbic way of
pointing out that you are apparently responding to some other set of
words than the one which was written.

My apologies for overestimating your analytical abilities, it appears that
you honestly did not realize that I was using sarcasm. You questioned the
honesty of US veterans who testified at the Winter Soldier hearings (1), which
I thought was rather ironic, considering that you trying to defend the honor
of veterans. Therefore I responded with obvious exageration, which
should have made it clear that I meant the opposite of what I said.

:Brilliant.

Thank you. I wish I could say the same about you. However, as with
Prince George in Blackadder, I think the best you can hope for is that
men will say about you, "He's a bit of a thicky".

Sarcasm is lost on children, Therefore I apologies and will keep
my audience in mind in the future.
(1) http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	25 Aug 2004 10:23:24 AM

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<i8gni01eik9i28co6fgfh4h3s0v6qhvrhe@4ax.com>...
:>

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Someone truthful saying it?
:> :> :
:> :> :Nay, all these Vets lied, U.S soldiers never
:> :> :commit atrocites. Its just a Communist conspiracy
:> :> :just like marijuana.
:> :>
:> :> You don't read very well, do you?
:> :
:> :Can't think of any argument so attack my person.
:>
:> That's not a personal attack. It's merely a somewhat acerbic way of
:> pointing out that you are apparently responding to some other set of
:> words than the one which was written.
:
:My apologies for overestimating your analytical abilities, it appears that
:you honestly did not realize that I was using sarcasm.
The problem would appear to be with your ability to properly use
sarcasm. Work on it.
[What you did was commit the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdem
as a rhetorical tactic, not "use sarcasm". It should not surprise you
that you got slapped for it.]
:You questioned the
:honesty of US veterans who testified at the Winter Soldier hearings (1), which
:I thought was rather ironic, considering that you trying to defend the honor
:of veterans.
I didn't "question their honesty". I said a lot of them lied. This
is a known fact.
:Therefore I responded with obvious exageration, which
:should have made it clear that I meant the opposite of what I said.
That's a very bad habit. The young tend to overuse it. You'll
someday learn that actually saying what you mean is a much more
effective method of communication and much less likely to lead to
someone thinking you a fool and treating you as same.
And this explains your failure to understand my comment about your
reading abilities how?
:> :Brilliant.
:>
:> Thank you. I wish I could say the same about you. However, as with
:> Prince George in Blackadder, I think the best you can hope for is that
:> men will say about you, "He's a bit of a thicky".
:
:Sarcasm is lost on children, Therefore I apologies and will keep
:my audience in mind in the future.
Talking to yourself again, are you?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush BY JIM RASSMAN,	25 Aug 2004 07:06:43 PM

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mdbpi01fm4qn3i69u8t4mjp672tr25bfni@4ax.com...

(Lawrence Seib) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:<i8gni01eik9i28co6fgfh4h3s0v6qhvrhe@4ax.com>...

that

:you honestly did not realize that I was using sarcasm.

The problem would appear to be with your ability to properly use
sarcasm. Work on it.

[What you did was commit the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdem
as a rhetorical tactic, not "use sarcas