McCain defends Kerry

Palomar · 2004-08-06 08:32:48

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … aug5]Click

*Bush supporters have a lot of nerve going after Kerry's military record. He's "betrayed" his Vietnam comrades because of his later protest of the war? Bush -didn't- betray his "comrades" by merely sitting on his duff in Texas during the war and now his military records are totally "missing"?

That's the height of gall.

I'm glad McCain went to Kerry's defense. Why Bush got the nomination in 2000 over McCain I'll never know. Probably McCain isn't religious enough for the Righties, who'd rather have a Bible-thumping President than someone who actually dodged a few bullets in a war.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 09:17:42

The ad in question is put out by an organization called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" http://www.swiftvets.com/,]http://www.swiftvets.com/, not part of the Bush campaign. If people who served with Kerry want to give their impressions of him, fine, like to hear from them. Is his four months in Vietnam really all that relevant to his fitness to be President now? No, not really. But then he does keep bringing it up.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Bush wasn't at his post in the Guard. I also wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Kerry's Purple Hearts hinge on technicalities. If it draws blood, and you're in combat... If I were in that war and my President didn't show up for Guard duty I'd probably look at him with a bit of a sneer. But I'm sure I'd be rightly PO'd if my President was a former brother in arms who came back after a brief tour and started spitting on the effort and sacrifice of other soldiers.

See, now I'm gettin' all riled up. :angry:

If the Kerry campaign doesn't want Vietnam to be an issue in the campaign, they can drop it. Otherwise, the door swings both ways.

. Why Bush got the nomination in 2000 over McCain I'll never know. Probably McCain isn't religious enough for the Righties, who'd rather have a Bible-thumping President than someone who actually dodged a few bullets in a war.

Probably some of that, and on policy McCain is a rather liberal Republican. He turned off alot of conservative voters with his "moderate" positions.

Palomar · 2004-08-06 10:02:07

But I'm sure I'd be rightly PO'd if my President was a former brother in arms who came back after a brief tour and started spitting on the effort and sacrifice of other soldiers.
See, now I'm gettin' all riled up. :angry:

*Wait a minute.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up. :-\

The impression I've gotten is Kerry came back from the war, disillusioned over the necessity/rightness of that war and went after The Establishment, particularly the power players in Washington.

Did he "spit on the effort and sacrifice of other soldiers" as you say?

If it were merely a situation of questioning and challenging authority, I'd say not. Not all wars are necessary and dissent can be a good thing.

But I'm probably not as familiar with Kerry's post-war efforts as you may be, so...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 10:39:08

I'm just trying to see it from the perspective of other Vietnam vets. Not that tough a task as lately I've had a few give me their impressions quite bluntly. :;):

Basically, we've got a guy who used the regs to get out of his tour early (leaving his crew, the men who he had command responsibility over) behind. Then comes back and starts saying things like this:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had 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 fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Now, almost certainly there were war crimes of various sorts committed, Kerry actually admits to having taken part in them.

"SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

But imagine you just came home from some wartorn hellhole on the other side of the planet, sent there against your will for a cause you don't particularly give a damn about, and then this guy's running around saying the soldiers over their, saying your comrades and in effect saying you are running around lopping off heads, raping, pillaging and butchering at your leisure. I can understand why alot of these guys are less than supportive of Kerry's candidacy, to put it mildly.

One doesn't have to support the Vietnam war to be opposed to Kerry's conduct after returning home. I know some of the events he described actually happened, free-fire zones and village burning were not uncommon. But one has to question
A: why he didn't bring it up over there when it might have made a difference and
B: why his opposition focused not on the lack of justification for the war but on the conduct of the soldiers. He easily could have focused on the nation's leaders for taking us into it, but chose instead to rally opposition by making our soldiers out to be ravenous genocidal monsters.

Palomar · 2004-08-06 11:22:38

*Well...

You make some good points (like usual).

we've got a guy who used the regs to get out of his tour early

What are "regs"?

A month or so ago I saw a Vietnam vet at one of the national Walls (on TV; he was interviewed of course). He is very angry at Kerry.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 11:40:09

What are "regs"?

Sorry, regulations. At the time Navy regulations specified that if wounded under combat conditions three times you'd be reassigned, unless you request to stay. Kerry requested transfer stateside. He was perfectly within his rights to do so, but it understandably does not endear one to comrades and subordinates.

BWhite · 2004-08-06 12:35:58

I hope this link works:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/6/ … 12911/4298

It appears the whole "Swift boat smear" may well backfire on the GOP. Regardless of the truth, I'd now say this was a bad idea (from a pragmatic perspective) for the Right to fund this media blitz.

It makes Bush look desperate.

= = =

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … kerry/]One retraction - - others are coming in.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 12:49:40

It appears the whole "Swift boat smear" may well backfire on the GOP. Regardless of the truth, I'd now say this was a bad idea (from a pragmatic perspective) for the Right to fund this media blitz.
It makes Bush look desperate.

It can only backfire on them if they were behind it to start with. :;): Citizens are free to associate and put out whatever ad they deem fit. Just when it's anti Left it's the work of Bush and the GOP rather than the work of independent citizens speaking for themselves, so the story goes.

I don't want to start ripping Kerry's military service, but if he insists on making it the centerpiece of his campaign then it's fair game when other vets come out and challenge his claims. It's certainly reasonale for them to be a bit peeved with his conduct afterward. He would have us believe he's a genuine hero, they'd have us believe he's a medal filching, fleeing VC executing, swift-boat beaching liar. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

So we've got a deserter and a confessed war criminal on the ballot! Ho-ah! :laugh:

Euler · 2004-08-06 13:05:30

A: why he didn't bring it up over there when it might have made a difference and

He did bring it over there. However, it did not make much difference because the generals and admirals in charge did not care much about what a junior lieutenant thought.

Palomar · 2004-08-06 13:09:15

Just when it's anti Left it's the work of Bush and the GOP rather than the work of independent citizens speaking for themselves, so the story goes.

*Maybe, but not in my case.

I've heard about the "Swift Boat vets"; however, when I read the article earlier this morning I interpreted it as the Republican party in Texas starting this. I didn't make the connection until I read your post.

So, I wasn't deliberately trying to be unfair to the GOP.

Have a headache now, must return to astronomy stuff...over and out.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-08-06 13:24:55

The Swifties are backed by a couple of rich texas Republican backers. These are men that served on different boats- the men that served with Kerry, the boat he commanded, they're for him.

Now what I see is a bunch of other swift boat commanders who were left in Vietnam to listen to one of their own bitch about their units (and other soldiers in general) conduct. It's called payback.

the men who fought with Kerry, who he commanded, show an unwavering loyalty- usually the kind seen from fighting together.

None of us were there and this happened several decades ago to a teenager. However whoever wants to remember it now, Kerry received citations of valor. He has men coming forward to testify to his actions under combat- men standing right next to him on the same boat.

What's going on right now is the same thing done to McCain during the primary in 2000 when he ran against Bush. It's disgusting. Maybe Bush didn't clal for it, but you can't seriously suggest that Bush is unable to stop it. He could disavow the whole show by the Swifties. But something tells me he won't. And that in effect makes him complicit.

Kerry is speaking loudly about his credintials in war because Bush is running around yelling, "I'm a war president!" (yet he was the one to make himself a war president). Kerry demonstrated his willingness to sacrifices for this country. Bush went to Harvard School of Business after working on a campagin. Kerry spent enough time in Vietnam to realize it wasn't worth fighting for- and what did he do? He went back and fought against sending more people there.

He was a young angry man that felt betrayed and he was used as a symbol by others.

What's going on now is ridiculous. Kerry served, he was honored for that service. Now some others want to rewrite history (where were the swifties during all of Kerry's senate carrer?!) for politcal gain during a close election.

Cobra, you make a lot of sense most times. But you need to think this one through a bit more.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 14:12:17

Clark, you're missing my two points here. First, I don't particularly care one way or another what other vets think of Kerry, nor really what exactly went down to be blunt. But I can understand their anger at Kerry for his actions. Sure, his crew supports him. Who wouldn't want to be on a first-name basis with the President of the United States? :;): But many vets don't, he's offended them and they neither like nor respect him for his own deliberate actions. They have legitimate gripes, and airing them doesn't make them pawns of the Bush campaign.

Which brings us to point two. This is a campaign fought in part by proxies on both sides due to vague and illogical campaign finance laws. Thank you John McCain. When a group of people come out supporting a Right-leaning cause turn up, of course wealthy Republicans back them. They are then portrayed as goons released by the GOP to smear the opposition. Yet when a Left-leaning group gets big fat donations from George Soros or some other such Leftist bigshot they are an independent grassroots citizen group expressing outrage at blah blah blah, and to even suggest that there is any coordination is tantamount to heresy, that would be against McCain-Feingold afterall. Blasphemy, shame on you for thinking it.

So can we please dispense with the bull. The Bush campaign can't stop these guys, and doesn't want to. The Kerry campaign can't stop MoveOn.org from spouting off about Bush killing innocent Iraqis so Dick Cheney can drink the oil. Because both parties as well as their usual surrogates are effectively muzzled, both have to tolerate these loose-cannon wackjobs spewing forth whatever garbage they come up with. If the Kerry people want Bush to condemn the swift boat vets' ad, they need to condemn the smear-machine on their side. Otherwise, if he wants to talk about Vietnam there are plenty of people willing to oblige.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-06 14:12:57

So we've got a deserter and a confessed war criminal on the ballot! Ho-ah! :laugh:

Um, that's _two_ deserters and confessed war criminals, isn't it?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 14:16:18

Um, that's _two_ deserters and confessed war criminals, isn't it?

Well, one of each. What a country, eh?

Trebuchet · 2004-08-06 14:39:14

Everybody above Kerry in the chain of command has slammed him, most of those below him support him.

The real reason that this ad has come out is probably because Kerry used the pictures of his fellow officers in his own campaigning. The people who are in that ad are in a photo of fellow swiftboat captains Kerry used earlier this year; they resented the implication of supporting him. The boats operated in groups, too, so they actually did watch him in combat.

Anyways, the retraction has been retracted - or more accurately the guy is claiming he never retracted the statement in the first place. Interestingly, the reporter who broke the story is the author of a Kerry biographer and is also writing his campaign book.... interesting, no?

This campaign is plumbing new depths in political ugliness. Someone is lying on this one.

BWhite · 2004-08-06 15:37:34

Saw a great new sig earlier today:

Time for Jeb, Kathleen and Diebold to roll up their sleeves. They've got some programming to do.

:;): OR ???

= = =

More http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010]Swift boat attacks. Please!

Mad Grad Student · 2004-08-06 17:27:57

Wait a minute, who's side is McCain on? One minute he's bashing Bush as part of the 9/11 commision, the next he's staring in an ad with him. One minute he says he's considering being Kerry's running mate ( ), the next he says we should support Bush, he's doing a fine job. Right now I really wouldn't want to be helped by him, he might turn around on you any second.

Still, IMHO he would have been a far better candidate than Bush. Both of my parents voted for him in the primaries (As did pretty much everyone else in Arizona), I wonder if he'll try to run again. Then again, speculating about that is about as pointless as speculating about weither or not Hillary Clinton will run.

Morris · 2004-08-06 17:37:27

Saw a great new sig earlier today:
Time for Jeb, Kathleen and Diebold to roll up their sleeves. They've got some programming to do.
:;): OR ???
= = =
More http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010]Swift boat attacks. Please!

Such a moderate! Can't that ole boy get some zing into his comments.

Palomar · 2004-08-10 13:57:47

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … y_ad]Swift Boat Vets' group in trouble

*Mr. Russell says the ads -aren't- intended to influence the election.

Sure.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-10 14:16:44

*Mr. Russell says the ads -aren't- intended to influence the election.
Sure.

Of course they're intended to influence the election, that's the whole and entire point! :laugh:

The real problem isn't the Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org or any of the other proxies that the two parties are resorting to this time around. The problem is that we now have a legal environment that forces organized groups of like-minded American citizens to lie about their intent when expressing an opinion that intersects with an election, if they are permitted to express it through media at all. People on both sides are getting all worked up over their opposition's indirect proxies yet no one seems too concerned that under certain arbitrary conditions Americans expressing an opinion on a candidate for elected office is a felony! ???

Palomar · 2004-08-10 14:48:14

no one seems too concerned that under certain arbitrary conditions Americans expressing an opinion on a candidate for elected office is a felony! ???

*What?

Either I've never heard of that or I forgot (I think I've sprained my brain recently).

Care to flesh that out a bit, if you've got the time and inclination?

"...under certain arbitrary conditions..." That's the concerning part. :-\

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 05:28:46

Care to flesh that out a bit, if you've got the time and inclination?
"...under certain arbitrary conditions..." That's the concerning part. :-\

The specifics regarding what funds are permissable for use in "electioneering" and which are not are rather arbitrary, depending far more on how the funds are handled internally than on their source. For example, a million dollars raised by the ACLU or NRA from 20 million members and supporters can't be used, but a million dollars contributed by George Soros can be, provided the organization structures itself in such a way as to fall under the relevant section of the tax code.

Tax status determining First Amendment 'access.' The Campaign Finance Reform law is an abomination.

There's alot of buzzwords floating around about it, "soft money" and "special interests" and the like. What it all really comes down to is creating an enviroment wherein only two voices can speak on the candidates during election seasons; the mainstream media (with their own biases) and the candidates themselves. The American people, long represented by interest groups such as NRA, ACLU, NAACP etc. are cut out of the dialogue. Disclosing who paid for an ad is one thing, prohibiting them from speaking is quite another.

Oh, but money corrupts politics. :laugh: As though politicians needed any help in that regard. If corruption is our concern we need more transparency, more voices. Not less. What we have here is yet another Right, enumerated in our Constitution, being usurped and destroyed by the very people who have sworn to uphold and defend it. If we can't be represented by organizations that share our views on a specific issue, then we have little choice but to lobby congress and spread the word ourselves, individually. Who can afford to do that, I ask...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-06 08:32:48

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#2 2004-08-06 09:17:42

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#3 2004-08-06 10:02:07

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#4 2004-08-06 10:39:08

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#5 2004-08-06 11:22:38

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#6 2004-08-06 11:40:09

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#7 2004-08-06 12:35:58

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#8 2004-08-06 12:49:40

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#9 2004-08-06 13:05:30

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#10 2004-08-06 13:09:15

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#11 2004-08-06 13:24:55

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#12 2004-08-06 14:12:17

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#13 2004-08-06 14:12:57

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#14 2004-08-06 14:16:18

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#15 2004-08-06 14:39:14

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#16 2004-08-06 15:37:34

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#17 2004-08-06 17:27:57

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#18 2004-08-06 17:37:27

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#19 2004-08-10 13:57:47

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#20 2004-08-10 14:16:44

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#21 2004-08-10 14:48:14

Re: McCain defends Kerry

#22 2004-08-11 05:28:46

Re: McCain defends Kerry

Board footer