Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

O'Neill does what John Kerry won't - answer all the tough questions...

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

O'Neill does what John Kerry won't - answer all the tough questions...

Old 08-26-04, 06:57 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
O'Neill does what John Kerry won't - answer all the tough questions...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug18.html

Why can't John Kerry just do this and release all his records? That will put all of this, except the part about what he did AFTER the war, to rest.

The media is trying to portray these guys as "liars", while ignoring the fact that they've caught John Kerry in at least three blatant lies already and made him change two accounts - accounts that he has made repeatedly for decades, as a direct result of this book.

They are unquestionably scoring hits here, and Kerry needs to get out in front of the press and face the tough question(not fawning John Stewart), and get it over with, or he's sunk.

Book: Unfit for Command


John E. O'Neill
Co-author
Thursday, August 26, 2004; 12:00 PM



In his book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," co-author John E. O'Neill questions numerous aspects of Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's Vietnam service.


O'Neill was online Thursday, Aug. 26, Noon ET to take your questions and comments on the book as well as the accusations.
John Hurley, National Director of Veterans for Kerry, will be online Thursday, Aug. 26, at 2 p.m. ET.

The transcript follows.


Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.


_____________


John E. O'Neill: A lot of good information can be found at swiftvets.com. The readers will have to go to that site exactly because if you vary or alter the name in other ways or use search engines you are liable to reach bogus Kerry sites to divert people from our site. So you would have to use exactly the words swiftvets.com.

Another good place to get information is Unfit for Command the book to which over 60 of us contributed. The members of Swift Boat Veterans for truth are listed on the Web site and include over 260 Swifties led by Adm. Roy Hoffmann, our commander in Vietnam. I am simply one of many people involved in our organization.

We are here for two reasons. First Kerry lied about our record in Vietnam, both in 1971 and most recently in his authorized biography. Second, and less important to us, he exaggerated wildly his own short record in Vietnam.



_______________________


Bethlehem, Pa.: Mr. O'Neill, you are questioning the validity of medals awarded to John Kerry by the U.S. government. Aren't you also by implication questioning the competency of the medal eligibility determinations made by U.S. military brass? If so, aren't you in reality calling into question the authenticity of every medal awarded to every U.S. serviceman? If so, how do we differentitate the "good" medals from the "bad" medals?


John E. O'Neill: A portion of the book deals with the incidents in which John Kerry obtained medals. With respect to John Kerry's first Purple Heart the book demonstrates that it was from a self inflicted wound in the absence of hostile fire. It was denied by the commanding officer at the time Grant Hibbard. It was granted only three months later when Kerry applied after all who had known the facts had left Vietnam. With respect to Kerry's third Purple Heart Kerry represented to the Navy that he had received shrapnel from an underwater mine. He know admits that he had wounded himself earlier in the morning playing around with a grenade. The would was minor and superficial. The Naval award system particularly with purple hearts depends on a self reporting system relying on integrity. Kerry gamed that system by submitting false information to the Navy. He used the three Purple Hearts to get out of Vietnam 243 days before his one year tour ended. No one else in the history of our unit ever reviewed a Purple Heart for a self inflicted wound. Neither did anyone else leave early because of three minor scratches. None of which resulted in an hour lost or involved more than bandaid and tweezers. The Naval System depends on the integrity of a Naval officer. Kerry didn't have it.


_______________________


New York, N.Y.: You made a statement that you would have voted for John Edwards for President. What qualities do you think will make John Edwards a great VP choice for voters?


John E. O'Neill: I am a lawyer in Houston. I have heard only good things from other lawyers about John Edwards. He obviously has given up a successful career in order to pursue the public interest. I hope he has a long and successful career in public service. In the summer of 2003 I was contacted on this matter by the Boston Globe and indicated that I supported Sen. Edwards for President. Unfortunately that is not the hand we got dealt.


_______________________


Arlington, Va.: How would you characterize your group's relationship with Benjamin Ginsberg?


John E. O'Neill: After we received threatening letters and complaints from at least two law firms representing the Kerry campaign it became apparent that we would need additional council in order to respond and represent us. We therefore retained the Patton-Boggs firm where we worked with several lawyers. We were happy for their assistance. We are proud that Mr. Ginsberg has decided to represent us as opposed to the much larger clients available. We were very surprised at the attacks on him and his firm given that many of the huge Kerry 527 organizations are represented by exactly the same law firm as his campaign. The attacks obviously hold us to a higher standard than the Kerry campaign and that is fine with us. We would want to adhere to a higher standard than the Kerry campaign.


_______________________


St Augustine, Fla.: Mr. O'Neil, are you saying that John Kerry lied when he reported the information he had received about atrocities in Vietnam to Congress? Are you saying there were not attrocities committed in Vietnam or that they should not have been reported?



John E. O'Neill: All atrocities in Vietnam should have been reported to investigative authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Neither John Kerry nor his associates in VVAW ever reported a single atrocity to the Naval investigative service or any other law enforcement authority. Instead Kerry made a general charge that rape, murder and mayhem was occurring on a day to day basis with the awareness of officers at all levels of command. On the Dick Cavett show in June 1971 I asked Kerry to itemize the specific atrocities that he had seen. He was unable to name any except generalizations. He lied to the United States Congress and to the world when he claimed that our policies in Vietnam were criminal policies and that our troops to the lowest levels were criminals carrying out murder and mayhem on a daily basis. It is one thing to be against the war in Vietnam, it is another to criminalize the kids that the country sent to fight it. Kerry did the second. That was wrong.


_______________________


Fairfax, Va.: If you have all these issues with John Kerry, why wait 35 years to bring them public after he has served in the US Senate all these years? It seems that much of what we are hearing is literal gotcha that can easily be turned on anyone including yourself.


John E. O'Neill: First, when John Kerry made war crimes claims I debated him in June of 1971 after which he generally faded from public view. On many occasions his political opponents, democratic and Republican, contacted me and many other swifties for information to defeat him in political races. For more than 30 years we refused because we wanted the past to over and who Massachusetts picks does not affect the nation. It because apparent to all of us when John Kerry's name became to be considered with the office of Commander and Chief that we were now talking about a very serious matter that would affect our children, our grandchildren and the future of the entire nation. Under the circumstances more than 260 of us felt we had no alternative but to come forward. In addition as a matter of basic integrity and honor we could not allow Kerry's current misrepresentations in his biography Tour of Duty and at the Democratic Convention where he made his service the centerpiece of his campaign to continue without rebuttal. We owe that to our friends living and dead beyond politics.


_______________________


Dayton, Ohio: Mr. O'Neill, I recently heard a portion of the White House audio tape of your meeting with President Nixon. I heard you tell President Nixon that you had gone to Cambodia on your swift boat.


I also heard you tell a reporter recently(on tape) that you had never been in Cambodia.


Did you lie to President Nixon or did you lie to the reporter?


Have you ever been in Cambodia, and if so, when did you go and did you go more than once?


If you have never been in Cambodia, how close did you ever get to the Cambodian border (in feet or miles)?


John E. O'Neill: I lied to no one. You quote the first half of the statement but ignore the following sentence. I clearly said that I was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique's Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don't believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different. John Kerry on many different occasions said that the turning point of his life was being in Cambodia illegally for Christmas Eve and Christmas in 1968. This was in a different area than I was in and close approach to Cambodia was not possible for him in that area. In fact he was more than 50 miles away. How many people invent the turning point of their life and repeat it on the senate floor, in articles and more than 50 times in 35 years?



_______________________


Washington, D.C.: Do you think George W. Bush honorably served his country during the Vietnam War?


John E. O'Neill: Our group has agreed we will take no position with respect to George Bush not because we don't have individual opinion on him but because we have no knowledge about him different than you have. In our letter of May 4, 2004 we called upon {President Bush to release all military records along with Kerry and called upon Bush's comrades to come forward with any information they have about his service. We are still in favor of that. We have no special information however about George Bush. We do have very first hand information about John Kerry which may be found at swiftvets.com and in Unfit for Command.


_______________________


Warren, Mich.: Mr. O'Neill, were you ever on the same boat as John Kerry? Were you on the boat at the same time and day as Mr. Rood, who has first hand eyewitness knowledge of the events of that day? Have you read Mr. Rood's response to the Swift Boat ads?


John E. O'Neill: I was never on the same boat at the same time with either John Kerry or Bill Rood. Bill Rood was present only one event discussed in the book relating to John Kerry. This was the silver star incident. The account in our book is very similar to Bill Roods article except that Bill Rood's article makes the Vietcong killed by John Kerry into an adult clothed in pajamas whereas our book describes him as a young Vietcong in a loincloth. This is exactly the same description that the Boston Globe biographers of John Kerry reached on page 101 of their recent biography by Michael Kranish. In addition Mr. Larry Lee on Bill Rood's boat confirmed our description. More than 60 different factual eyewitnesses to the Kerry events participated in the book as described. Read Unfit for Command.


_______________________


John E. O'Neill: Bill Rood is one of four officers at Anthoi who believe that John Kerry is fit to be president. 17 of 24 believe he is unfit to be president and have joined our group. We respect Mr. Rood's opinion but it is clearly a small minority opinion among those who served with John Kerry.


_______________________


Essex, Conn.: You are accepting money from Bush supporters. You have personally donated money to the Republicans. You voted in a Republican primary. How can you claim, with a straight face, to be any sort of apolitical organization?


John E. O'Neill: Addressing your questions one by one. We will accept money from anyone except a political campaign who gives it to us. The vast majority of our money - some 32,000 individual donations totaling $2.2 million - have come from the public generally in one of the largest genuine outbursts of public support in political history. We are happy to take money form George Sorros. Whoever donates money to us does not control our message. The message is ours.

Second, I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person.

Third, I did and have on occasion voted in Republican and Democratic primaries but most of the time I have not. Sadly Texas has become a one party state and often the only genuine choice is in the republican state. I would much rather prefer for Texas to have a two party system. Understand that my votes are for people and not for parties.

Finally I am one of 260 people. Most of them are retired sailors. They have little or no political affiliation with anyone. I have never run for any office nor managed anyone's campaign or played any serious role in politics for over 30 years. It took John Kerry running for Commander and Chief to bring us all out.



_______________________


Arlington, Va.: Since there is no written record, produced to date, backing any of your group's claims and ample written evidence to the contrary, why should the American people continue listening to you? Aside from the affidavits you hold, which as a lawyer you know are worth no more than the paper they are written on, can you produce any documentation to back your claims?


John E. O'Neill: To the contrary the problem for the Kerry campaign is that the written records back us and not him. Numerous written records show that he was not in Cambodia on Christmas or Christmas Eve in 1968 including his authorized his biography Tour of Duty. With respect to the Sampan incident on January 20, 1969, Kerry describes the incident in the book Tour of Duty notwithstanding the fact that Kerry in tour says that there was a family of four in the boat, his written report to the United States Navy describes a nonexistent Vietnam squad and omits the small child he said he killed. With respect to Kerry's first Purple Heart, the causality report and the hostile fire report required for a Purple Heart are both missing because there was no casualty and there was no hostile fire. With respect to Kerry's third Purple Heart, the records show he reported shrapnel wound in his hip to the Navy as coming from an underwater mine. However his own book at page 313 and 317 makes clear that he wounded himself with a grenade. The single most powerful witness against John Kerry is John Kerry's through contrasting his own written accounts with what he reported to the Navy. See the book for a more complete answer since space here makes it difficult to go on.


_______________________


Washington, D.C.: Earlier this week George W. Bush denounced your ad as well as the ads of all 527 groups. How do you react to the President's remarks? In light of his rebuke, will you pull these ads? Why or why not?


John E. O'Neill: The answer of Adm. Hoffman our leader was "full speed ahead." George Bush was not a part of our unit nor is he a part of our story. This is a matter deeply between Kerry and ourselves. It goes beyond politics and deeply involved the honor of our unit, the damage done by his false charges and his wild exaggeration of his service with our unit. We will continue through though the election with the last dollar we raise and the last energy we raise to bring the truth to the American public about the falsehood about Kerry's charges and the exaggeration of his service to the attention of the American people. We will do that not as a matter of politics but because we know he is unfit to command our children, our relatives and other American soldiers or sailors in a dangerous time in our nation.

Fortunately, the First Amendment and the commitment of the American public to fairness will assist us in doing so. We will let the chips fall where they may.



_______________________


Albany, N.Y.: "I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person."


Where can we find this information? A local publication couldn't. This is what they had to say:


'"I've given more to Democrats than Republicans," John O'Neill claimed on Fox but FEC records do not show a single contribution from John E. O'Neill to any Democratic candidates. When pressed, he said he gave to Democrats "at the local level" and Republicans "at the national level."


However, a search of records with the Texas Ethics Commission, keeper of contribution records, finds no contributions listed for John E. O'Neill.'


Well?


John E. O'Neill: Yes, you have looked at the wrong place. Check the City of Houston contribution records for 2003. In addition you are ignoring Democratic contributions that I have made in other elections to Democratic offices such as Ilene O'Neill and Kathy Stone.


_______________________


John E. O'Neill: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this chat. I urge people to visit our Web site at swiftvets.com or to read the book Unfit for Command. I am satisfied that when the truth comes out the American People will reach a wise decision as they always have. Thank you.


_______________________


© 2004 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

Last edited by natesfortune; 08-26-04 at 07:00 PM.
Old 08-26-04, 07:06 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Questions people should ask John Kerry if he ever decides to meet the media...

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/002295.php

1. For over two years, you and David Alston have spoken about your combat service together and used the engagements of 29 January and 28 February as examples of your combat bond. However, your campaign recently recanted both stories, as records show that you were not part of the 29 January engagement and Alston did not participate in your Silver Star mission. How could it be possible for you to mistake Ted Peck's mission for your own, given that his injury allowed you to take command of his ship the next day, and with the picture of your crew from the Silver Star engagement in your office, how could you allow David Alston to take credit for that mission?


2. Senator, your first Purple Heart came from an event on 2 December 1968 which you describe on your website as "intense combat". Yet, your authorized biography, based on your journals, shows your passage for 11 December 1968 as saying that 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky'. The Long Tau trip came after the 2 December engagement. How can you reconcile your journal entry with your report that led to the first Purple Heart? Can you have "intense combat" when no one shoots at you?


3. During your public life, you have often spoken of the epiphany you experienced as a young man in Cambodian territory on Christmas Eve 1968, ordered there by the government run by the man who you heard that day denying any involvement in Cambodia. You told that anecdote as far back as 1979 and as recently as 1994, and even used it on the floor of the Senate in 1986 to argue against supporting the Nicaraguan contras, claiming the event was "seared" into your mind. Yet when your crewmates and your own journal proved that to be incorrect, your campaign responded by claiming you never said it, and then that you meant you were only near Cambodia, and then that you went into Cambodia inadvertently, and then that you went there to support Special Ops insertions. Given that all of these explanations are mutually exclusive, how would you explain to undecided voters these sudden changes in your story and how that affects the credibility of the epiphany that you earlier claimed changed your entire life?
http://nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

March 13, 1969

1. On March 13, 1969, did you wound yourself in the hip with a rice grenade?


2. Why was the above wound reported to the Navy for a Purple Heart as coming from a water mine?


3. On March 13, 1969, did you suffer a contusion (minor) (i.e., bruise) on your arm, as opposed to a bleeding wounded arm?


4. Did you claim your third Purple Heart and leave Vietnam eight months early on the basis of this bruise?


5. On March 13, 1969, did the boats other than yours stay behind and come to the aid of PCF 3?


6. Did your boat initially leave the kill zone on March 13th ?? rather than going to PCF 3's aid?


7. Why, how long, and how far were you gone?


8. When you came back, was the Chenoweth boat also proceeding to rescue Rassmann?


9. Was there fire when you returned? Why was no one and nothing hit in the 75?yard canal for the one and one-half hour period?


10. Do you admit the damage to the boats occurred the day before, on March 12, 1969, as described on page 304 of Tour Of Duty?


11. Did you prepare the after-action report of March 13, 1969?


12. Why does the report say there was 5,000 meters of fire from both banks?


Sampan Incident


13. Did your boat, PCF 44, take under fire a sampan on January 20, 1969 that had a family of four aboard?


14. Did you kill a father and child and rescue a mother and child on that day?


15. Did you prepare and submit to the Navy a report saying that there were five VC probably killed on the boat, omitting the child, and describing the mother and baby as captured in action?


16. Why did you do this?


17. Did you receive gratulatory messages on the January 20th incident? Why did you not return them?


Christmas In Cambodia


18. Were you on an illegal mission to Cambodia on December 24, 1968 and December 25, 1968?


19. Were you in Cambodia on Christmas Day and Christmas Eve 1968? Where? Why? How did you get there? Who was with you?


20. Did you testify in the Senate (1986), write an article (1979), and otherwise state on many occasions that you had spent Christmas Day and Christmas Eve 1968 illegally in Cambodia and that it was "seared" forever in your soul? Why did you make up this story?


21. If you claim to have ever been in Cambodia, where was it? When was it? How did you get there?


Purple Heart #1


22. Do you know William Schachte, Grant Hibbard, or Dr. Louis Letson?


23. Did you see any hostile fire on December 2, 1968 while on the skimmer?


24. Is there anyone who definitely saw hostile fire?


25. Do you know who was on the skimmer?


26. Did you have a tiny piece of shrapnel?


27. Did Grant Hibbard deny your request for a Purple Heart?


28. How did you get this Purple Heart? From whom? Where are the hostile fire report and casualty report on December 2, 1968?


29. Why was a Purple Heart issued only after Hibbard, Schachte, et al. left?


War Crimes


30. Did you burn hooches and kill animals?


Post-Vietnam


31. Did you visit representatives of the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong in Paris in the spring of 1970?


32. Were you a naval officer on reserve status?


33. Did you visit the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris on other occasions, including the summer of 1971?


34. Were you ever present in the spring of 1971 or in November of 1971 when Scott Camil proposed assassination of U.S. Senators?


35. Was Scott Camil with you at the Dick Cavett Show debate? Did you seek to invite him on stage?


War Crimes Charge


36. Do you believe that war crimes were committed in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers of all levels of command?"


37. If so, what were they? If not, why did you so state?


38. Do you believe that the officers commanding you in Vietnam were war criminals, like Lt. Calley, when judged by the Law Of War? Why did you say this?


39. Do you apologize for your war crimes charges? Were any of them false? Did any of your VVAW fellows make false war crimes charges?


40. Why is your picture hanging in the war crimes section of the War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City?


General


41. Did you leave Vietnam 243 days early on the basis of three Purple Hearts?


42. Were any of the Purple Hearts questionable? Did you lose any duty time on Purple Heart #1 or Purple Heart #2?


43. Does your campaign biography, Tour Of Duty, contain inaccuracies? What are they?


44. Did you join the Navy only after a student deferment for Paris was denied?


45. Did you join Swift Boats, as you said in 1970, because you wanted to be close enough to report on the war but not be actually in it?


46. Do you have any apologies for any action in Vietnam? Which action?
Old 08-26-04, 07:13 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UPDATE:



ABC News is reporting that John Kerry just said this today:

A revved up Kerry addressed Vietnam first retorting, "All the guys who were with me on my boat absolutely document what I've said...you're now hearing about the lie. I am absolutely telling you the God's honest truth with regard to what happened over there."
The problem is, that's another lie.

Steve Gardner WAS on Kerry's boat - in fact, he was on Kerry's boat longer than any other crew member(Alston, who spoke for Kerry at the convention, was only with him 6 days - Rassman about 2).

Gardner is also a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and in fact, is now featured in the Swiftvets latest ad.

And Kerry's calling THESE guys liars? Think the media will point out Kerry's bald-faced lie here, or just report it and deceive the public on purpose? They know damn well that Gardner was on Kerry's boat. Should they let a candidate just shoot off the mouth in a blatant falsehood without calling them on it?

Again, Steve Gardner was ON KERRY'S BOAT LONGER THAN ANY OTHER CREWMEMBER, and he's a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for truth, even featured in their latest ad. And Kerry just said this:

"All the guys who were with me on my boat absolutely document what I've said...you're now hearing about the lie. I am absolutely telling you the God's honest truth with regard to what happened over there."


Hilarious!








Maybe it was "seared - SEARED" into his memory?

Last edited by natesfortune; 08-26-04 at 07:16 PM.
Old 08-26-04, 08:08 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's just pathetic and stupid...
















...your dissection I mean.
Old 08-26-04, 08:12 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The order of the day is: defend cowards and tear down heros all in the name of backwards political ideology.

Lovely.

Incidentally, we have a couple of different threads this could have gone in.
Old 08-26-04, 08:51 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by chess
That's just pathetic and stupid...

...your dissection I mean.
Why, exactly? Or are you just resorting to the standard leftist personal attacks when you don't want to argue the particulars or facts of the case.

And what do you have to say about O'Niell's answers?

And how about this:

This Explains A Lot


CNS News reports on a piece of John Kerry's testimony that, judging from my e-mail, explains a lot about the limited records that the Kerry campaign has released regarding his medals and the combat from which they came. While testifying to the Fulbright Commission, Kerry himself claimed authorship for many of the after-action reports:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.

Kerry told the committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission..."

Kerry also said that many in the military had "a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."

Kerry's comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.
Did Kerry give in to that temptation to report what he wanted to report, or to report what he thought his command wanted to read? Kerry answered this question, too:

Sen. Symington asked Kerry, "Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]"

Kerry responded, "I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.

Kerry later added, "I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."
That sounds to me like a demurral. He said that his reports later on were exaggerated to the point that stretched recognition. This fits with Kerry's character; blaming as much on other people around him, and only admitting to mistakes when they can be cast in the noblest terms. He told the Senators that his reports were accurate when they left his hand, but his superiors dummied them up later on.

That, of course, calls into question the reliability of the after-action reports he's used to back his stories up. The Kerry campaign relied on these same reports to attack Larry Thurlow's recollection of the 13 March engagement; Thurlow claimed that no enemy fire accompanied the Rassman rescue, and that all of the gunfire came from the PCFs themselves in case the mine was a prelude to an ambush. When he read the citation, he said that he never submitted any such report, and in fact had been surprised to receive any medal for the action:

Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation states that there was "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." But Thurlow believes his citation was based on Kerry's own account of the day.

"I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report," Thurlow said earlier this week. "John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incident," Thurlow added.

The Washington Post summed up the controversy this way: "Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else."
If Kerry is the only one who wrote an after-action report for 13 March, it means that Kerry's argument is nothing but circular. Who says that Kerry saved Rassmann under combat conditions? The records. Who wrote the records? John Kerry. They don't prove Kerry right -- and neither do they prove him a liar, either. They just mean nothing.

The lack of after-action reports from the other commanders, on the other hand, would speak volumes -- because if they took inbound fire, shouldn't each officer have filed a report?

Posted by Captain Ed at 06:54 PM
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Old 08-26-04, 08:58 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
these guys have no credibility and your candidate is a draft dodger...you're just chasing your tail at this point.

enjoy.

besides, I can't have the same discussion in two different threads.
Old 08-26-04, 09:55 PM
  #8  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
natesfortune,

I have to ask you a question.

How can you be critical of Kerry on this and then at the same time defend Bush's record on this?

Cant you see the contradiction?
Old 08-26-04, 10:04 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT JOHN KERRY DID NOT OR NOT DO IN VIETNAM.

Good good. Its not like Eisenhower who commanded an entire army and won a major portion of a World War.

John Kerry running on his "tour of duty" in Vietnam is stupid. Doesn't tell me anything about the candidate.

And so is attacking him on the stupid idea. But I guess thats what consitutes as political debate nowadays.
Old 08-26-04, 10:04 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C'mon John Kerry's entire platform is based on him being in Vietnam. If you take that away he has nothing.
Old 08-26-04, 10:11 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
C'mon John Kerry's entire platform is based on him being in Vietnam. If you take that away he has nothing.
wellllllllllll,

there's always Bush's miserable failure of an administration. he could always run on that.

i'm just saying.
Old 08-26-04, 10:13 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by chess
these guys have no credibility and your candidate is a draft dodger...you're just chasing your tail at this point.

enjoy.

besides, I can't have the same discussion in two different threads.
You can't have much of a discussion on this subject at all, apparently.
Old 08-26-04, 10:16 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Breakfast with Girls
You can't have much of a discussion on this subject at all, apparently.
apparently.

perhaps scurrilous accusations from folks with fabricated memories simply don't deserve much of a discussion.

edit to add...19 page discussion here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=380824

Last edited by chess; 08-26-04 at 10:18 PM.
Old 08-26-04, 10:19 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't understand partisanship on either side. It's stupid, stupid, stupid. Both candidates are horrible. Both dodge questions and worm their way out of giving real answers because they know that if they give a real answer it will destroy their credibility and the other liar will win. It's not about serving the American people, it's about rivalry for the sake of ego.

Originally posted by chess
perhaps scurrilous accusations from folks with fabricated memories simply don't deserve much of a discussion.
How do you know that? Where is your proof? This O'Neill guy offered some genuine, we-can-verify-this answers.
Old 08-26-04, 10:20 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by chess

there's always Bush's miserable failure of an administration. he could always run on that.
Is that why Kerry is hammering Bush on that and is up by double digits?

Why isn't Kerry trotting his Senate record out and running on that, instead of his 'heroic' time in Vietnam?
Old 08-26-04, 10:21 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bwg,

I don't have the burdon of proof. Every official record and everyone on Kerry's boat save one back his version of events.

The burdon of proof is on the accuser, and their credibility crumbles more by the day.

The latest: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ftboat_witness

O'Neill is on the Watergate tapes for chrissakes! Give me a break.
Old 08-26-04, 10:26 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: in the land of humidity
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They've been asking in polls how people are affected by this Vietnam record stuff, does it make you more for Bush and/or less for Kerry etc.

Personally, it doesn't do any of that for me. It turns me off of politics. Where are the actual issues? Mr. Bush, what's the plan on getting us out of Iraq...is it a 5 year plan? 10 year? What's your take Mr. Kerry? The war on terrorism?

How about home security? Border security? What about education? Social Security (I'm paying it, I'll probably never see it)? Jobs and job security? Hello? Is ANY of this relevant at all folks?

FUCK!

EDITED TO ADD: I'm beginning to hope Montgomery Brewster (Richard Pryor) will run on the "NONE OF THE ABOVE" ticket again....
Old 08-26-04, 10:29 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by harpo787
They've been asking in polls how people are affected by this Vietnam record stuff, does it make you more for Bush and/or less for Kerry etc.

Personally, it doesn't do any of that for me. It turns me off of politics. Where are the actual issues? Mr. Bush, what's the plan on getting us out of Iraq...is it a 5 year plan? 10 year? What's your take Mr. Kerry? The war on terrorism?

How about home security? Border security? What about education? Social Security (I'm paying it, I'll probably never see it)? Jobs and job security? Hello? Is ANY of this relevant at all folks?

FUCK!
Bush will be glad to discuss it with you, as soon as you've been screened and confirmed to be a rabid supporter.

Kerry events are open to the public. Please attend one if you get a chance. You will find him addressing your concerns, because they are exactly the issues he wins on...except terrorism, apparently.
Old 08-26-04, 10:32 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: not CT
Posts: 9,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Nazgul
Is that why Kerry is hammering Bush on that and is up by double digits?
Without actually opening it, I would imagine this thread disagrees with you.
Old 08-26-04, 10:39 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Isn't there already a 19-page thread on this issue?

natesfortune - Do you honestly think that Kerry's service was valueless? How can you defend this type of attack - McCain, Cleland, Kerry?
Old 08-26-04, 10:46 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whatever. Now that I think about it, I'm not capable of having an intelligent discussion about this because I just don't care. Voter apathy? Maybe it's because good candidates are so rare, and then they're knocked out in the primaries and we're usually left with career politicians who lie and then believe their own lies.
Old 08-26-04, 11:44 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
apparently.
Why not read this thread?

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...12#post4639412

I know that was a bit hard but we all need to step back and see if we are productive member that is adding to the conversation and thus the community.
Old 08-27-04, 08:17 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't understand partisanship on either side. It's stupid, stupid, stupid. Both candidates are horrible. Both dodge questions and worm their way out of giving real answers because they know that if they give a real answer it will destroy their credibility and the other liar will win. It's not about serving the American people, it's about rivalry for the sake of ego.
Candidates (whether they be 'good or bad') have always dodged the questions and wormed their way out of giving real answers. That's American politics. It's no different this election year. It was no different in 2000 or 1996 or 1992 ...... The 'issues' may have been different - but nothing else. If you believe it is or can really be different, I'm afraid you're going to be very disillusioned.

The media would like you to believe that this period of partisanship is somehow unique in American politics - hogwash!

BTW: There are many of us, including myself, who believes that partisanship is beneficial to the process.
Old 08-27-04, 08:33 AM
  #24  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps better suited for another thread, but I don't care.

Here is Mr. O'Neill's editorial from today WSJ:


We're Not GOP Shills
President Bush can't stop us from telling the truth about John Kerry.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Friday, August 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT


We formed Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for one purpose: to present to the American public our conclusion that John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief. We are organized as a "527 group" with Adm. Roy Hoffmann at the helm, our leader today as he was some 35 years ago when we served under him in Coastal Squadron One in Vietnam. Our membership is transparent and shown on our Web site, www.swiftvets.com, currently including more than 250 Swiftees. We have 17 of the 23 officers who served with Mr. Kerry, most of his chain of command, and most sailors. We have more than 60 winners of real Purple Hearts. No one has a better right than we do to speak to the matters involving our unit.

Are we controlled by the Bush-Cheney campaign? Absolutely not. The Swift boat veterans who joined our group come in all political flavors: independents, Republicans, Democrats and other more subtle variations. Had another person been the presidential candidate of the Democrats, our group never would have formed. Had Mr. Kerry been the Republican candidate, each of us would still be here.

We do not take direction from the White House or the president's re-election committee, and our efforts would continue even if President Bush were to ask us directly to stop.

Why have we come forward? As explained in "Unfit For Command," Mr. Kerry grossly exaggerated and lied about his abbreviated four-month tour in Vietnam. He disgraced all legitimate Vietnam War heroes when he falsely testified to Congress that we were war criminals, daily engaged in atrocities that had the full approval of all levels in the chain of command. So, once Mr. Kerry decided to apply for the commander in chief's job with a war-hero résumé, we felt compelled to come forward to explain why he is "unfit for command."

We have faced assaults on our character, motives, personal backgrounds and honesty. We are told that Mr. Kerry's camp has prepared attack dossiers on the members of our organization. I have been charged with being a Republican shill. But for more than 30 years, I have been non-political, and have voted for as many Democrats as Republicans. In truth, I consider myself a political independent, regardless of how John Kerry and his supporters try to characterize me.

The Kerry-Edwards camp has threatened TV stations with libel suits should they choose to run our ads. Mr. Kerry has filed a complaint with the FEC, seeking to silence us.

How many different ways will John Kerry devise to ask President Bush to condemn our ads and squash our book? Why, Mr. Kerry, are our charges as a 527 group unacceptable to you, while the pronouncements from 527 groups favorable to you are considered acceptable, regardless of stridency and veracity? And we do not have a George Soros, willing to drop millions into our modest group. We control our message. To date, we have received $2 million from 30,000 Americans who have donated an average of around $64.

Mr. Kerry, we ask you not to repeat the same mistake you made when you returned from war: Please stop maligning your fellow veterans. Dealing with us should be easy. Just answer our charges. Produce your Vietnam journal and notes, and execute Standard Form 180 so the American people can see your complete military record--not just the few forms you put on your website or show to campaign biographers.
Old 08-27-04, 09:14 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
He disgraced all legitimate Vietnam War heroes when he falsely testified to Congress that we were war criminals, daily engaged in atrocities that had the full approval of all levels in the chain of command.
Denial.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.