Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

David Fritzinger wrote:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are.

Obviously "every where" you've looked for your "everything" doesn't include any
unbiased sources. The swift vets claims have yet to be answered by Kerry, so
determing truth or lies hasn't even been made yet. I do know that Kerry's lies
about Cambodia have been exposed by the Swift vets so if anyone is turning out
to be a liar, it appears to be Kerry.

REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.

Tell us about the "vast right wing conspiracy" led by GW Bush to unseat
Cleland.You do realize Clelend was in a Senatorial race right?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 21 Aug 2004 15:14:13 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

David Fritzinger wrote:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are.

Obviously "every where" you've looked for your "everything" doesn't include any
unbiased sources. The swift vets claims have yet to be answered by Kerry, so
determing truth or lies hasn't even been made yet. I do know that Kerry's lies
about Cambodia have been exposed by the Swift vets so if anyone is turning out
to be a liar, it appears to be Kerry.

REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.

Tell us about the "vast right wing conspiracy" led by GW Bush to unseat
Cleland.You do realize Clelend was in a Senatorial race right?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

And, for those in "fly-over" country where the most recent Swift boat
ad hasn't yet played, here's a link. Simply click on the Paul Galanti
TV picture to get the whole thing. Both Pablo and Ken Cordier are long
time friends of mine and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
campaign.

http://www.hanoijohnkerry.com/links.html

Most assuredly a lot of the links from that page are hysterical
trash-talking, but the words of Cordier and Galanti are the important
message available through the site.

Watch also for the media coverage (if any) of the Sept 12th "Kerry
Lied" rally in Washington DC.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
wrote:

The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters
seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort
of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.

Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
campaign.

I haven't seen the ad, and I am willing to posit that both you yourself
and Paul Galanti are honorable, brave men who have served this country
well. Thank you for that service.

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that. Remember, Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, and as such a spokesman. Unfortunately there is no
doubt that atrocities were committed; I am old enough to remember the
name of William Calley and the town of My Lai. I'm sure that you
remember these names as well. They were aberrations, and those who
committed these crimes were punished; but they did happen. They happen
in every war. It would be passing strange had they not happened in
Viet Nam, a particularly nasty war as wars go. Let me say at once that
in my opinion, the crimes committed by the other side were far more
frequent than on ours.

Next, I believe that Mr. Galanti and many other veterans are angry at
Kerry for his testimony, and believe that they were tarred with the
brush of being a war criminal. I do not believe that was the main
thrust of Kerry's testimony, by the way; I think he was trying to say
that the war was badly conducted, and one of the symptoms of bad
conduct by the upper echelons of the military is that discipline had
failed in some cases, as evidenced by these few atrocities. I remember
many returning veterans were accused by idiots my own age with being
baby killers and all the rest. There is no excuse for the terrible
behavior of those who weren't there insulting those who were. Mr.
Galanti and others, perhaps including you, have much to be angry about.
I'm not sure that John Kerry is the appropriate target for that anger,
but I wasn't there, and I don't know.

Finally, I want to say that while Mr. Galanti is doubtless an honest man,
there are many dishonest men in the employ of the Bush administration
who will make whatever use they can of honest, decent men who happen to
share their opinions about Kerry not being the right choice for the next
President. I would be very careful about who I let get me in front of a
camera were I your friend. By all means let Mr. Galanti and others do what
they wish to re-elect Bush, but it should be on their own terms. Mr. Rove
and Mr. Perry have, in my opinion, demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards
the truth, and that is putting it very charitably.

Best wishes to you, sir.

David Derbes


Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k therefore the
ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org and his investment of
several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
to be heard.

And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
accident which was largely his own fault. The fact that he was injured
by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
his record in the Senate.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"david raoul derbes" wrote in message
...

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that.


Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

analyst41 wrote:

How do you "answer" a group that

(1) said nothing for 30 odd years, or said/wrote in the past the exact
opposite of what they are saying now ?

Wrong. Kerry was publically opposed by several members of the Swift Vets when
he first ran for public office. Kerry invited these men to organize when he
made his service in Vietnam the center piece of his Presidential campaign.

(2) Say that Kerry is lying, Kerry's boatmates are lying, Rassmann is
lying

Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire. Sounds like you've got
guys with nothing to gain telling one story and guys with much to gain telling
the other.


snip other "lies"

These guys can lie endlessly and there is simply no way of refuting
their allegations completely.

Well, if Kerry would personally address the issue instead of sending out his
surrogates to attack the messengers we would at least have two sides to the
story.

But these guys have put themselves out there and they already stand
discredited from the motive standpoint

What motive? Lets pretend Bush himself is organizing this, what could he offer
these guys as payment for their work? Cabnit positions? Money? Face it, these
guys have nothing to gain and that is what makes their story so compelling and
dangerous to the Kerry campaign.

These are small-timers who might even crack under the pressure the
Kerry campaign is going to bring to bear on them

The only pressure the Kerry campaign has brought to bear is on the book
publishers and TV stations. This follows the Kerry campaigns absolute
embracement of Michael Moore. Can you say hypocritical?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:


Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire.

Odd that he is claiming to just now being aware of why he received his
medal. Was his bronze star awarded to him in silence and w/o any
documentation????


The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.



This will be entertaining.




--Mike

In message , Cub Driver
writes
Sure, I will. I read the NYT story yesterday and forwarded it to a
friend who believes that the NYT is an unbiased source. Even he
blushed to admit that it might as well have been an infomercial.

I read the NY Times story and came away unconvinced of anything other
than "a plague on both their houses". Lots of political BS on all sides.

It struck me as the sort of whitewash that would convince only the
individual who paid for it.

It was better whitewash than that, but I'm suspicious of both Kerrey's
claims and the Swift Boats Veterans. (If only because there's no 'Delta
Dart Drivers' club bashing Bush Jr.)

I don't know what the truth might be in this matter, but I hope the
Swifties will pursue it until the last "Bush AWOL" site is taken down
and the owner apologizes for defaming an F102 pilot who did his job
and by all accounts did it well. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

I'd class myself as centrist, which doubtless is a misspelling of either
"communist fellow-traveller" or "fascist baby-eater", on this issue. At
top level, Kerrey was not in a safe, routine, Stateside assignment, nor
was he 'photocopier officer' on a ship well out of harm's way, but he
spent a few months in direct-fire range of the enemy and may even have
got shot at himself on a few occasions.

On the other hand, George Bush Jr. qualified to fly and logged many
hours in the F-102 Delta Dart: while it may not have been the newest or
*most* dangerous aircraft available, it killed a sad roll-call of pilots
and was more dangerous than its replacements. And flying a fighter is
*not* easy. He "skipped his extended service"? Really? Where's the memo
calling him up to train to fly F-106s or F-4s? And where's the training
slot left empty because he never showed?


I've decided that I thoroughly dislike the policies of both candidates,
I don't get a vote on the issue, and I wish all the partisan ********
would go away so r.a.m can get back to talking about military aviation.
But both of them appear to have rendered respectable service thirty-some
years ago.

Why not concentrate on "what they'd do now and for the next four years"
rather rhan obsess about "what they did thirty years ago"?

I see that the Swifties' book was the number-one seller on Amazon
yesterday. I reckon it has legs.

Al Franken and Ann Coulter have both sold well. Doesn't make either of
them right.

(Coulter is *scary* from what she says here, not seen a UK interview of
Franken)




--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Mike wrote:

Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire.

Odd that he is claiming to just now being aware of why he received his
medal.

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make sense to
him. Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and moved
on.

Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country.

Unlike Kerry, Bush isn't interested in discussing issues un-related to the
Presidential election.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.


Right. Anything to avoid discussing Kerry's record since he left the Navy.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news

It was better whitewash than that, but I'm suspicious of both Kerrey's
claims and the Swift Boats Veterans. (If only because there's no 'Delta
Dart Drivers' club bashing Bush Jr.)


Why would there be? Bush did nothing to defame F-102 pilots.