Before heading out this weekend, I managed to catch the latest Swift Boat Veterans ad.
It’s devastating.
Kerry cannot deny what he said in the Winter Soldier investigations. He cannot deny his own words to the United States Senate in which is falsely accused many American soldiers of war crimes. Nor can he slur the names of former Prisoners of War, although he may try.
But it’s not the charges that are telling, it’s how Kerry has responded to them. He’s demanding that Bush tries to stop a private group from distributing a book because it contains “lies” about him. Did Bush demand that theaters pull Fahrenheit 9/11 since that film was packed with outright lies? Has Bush demanded that publishers stop publishing the torrent of anti-Bush books that have been stacking up in bookstores for the anti-Bush left? Has Bush demanded that Kerry disband MoveOn.org since they have been launching personal attack after personal attack against the President?
The answer, of course, being no.
This issue is going to kill John Kerry politically. Not based on the charges being made, but based on Kerry’s shrill, sinister, and arrogant responses to them. You can’t claim to have the military be your “band of brothers” while you’re smearing fellow veterans. You can’t claim to be a champion for civil rights when you’re trying to ban a book because you don’t like what it says about you. You can’t claim to be for fairness when you’re whining about what President Bush has had to go through for four years straight.
Kerry is doing more damage to himself than the Swift Boat ads are doing to him.
Kerry cannot deny what he said in the Winter Soldier investigations. He cannot deny his own words to the United States Senate in which is falsely accused many American soldiers of war crimes.
Which Americans were falsely accused?
Or is it your position that no war crimes occured during the Vietnam conflict?
What I love most about this particular Swift Boat ad is that the Swift Boat liars are criticizing Kerry for exercising the free speech that he fought and bled to defend.
If a decorated war veteran hasn’t earned the right to criticize a mismanaged and brutal war, who has?
You can’t claim to be for fairness when you’re whining about what President Bush has had to go through for four years straight.
Oh, please, Jay. Poor President Bush. How unfair to have inconsistencies in his stories paraded on the front page. How unfair to have every lie exposed in the media. How unfair to have such a shitty record on issues that matter that he has no choice but to run, once again, a disgusting smear campaign against his betters. I mean, it’s not like he’s in any position to refute the issues raised against him, now is he? If only he had some power, so that he could bring these shocking injustices to light.
Oh, wait.
What I especially love in this post is the implied “tu quoque” – “since Kerry supporters have occasionally lied about Bush (not that I’ve ever been able to prove it), it’s ok for Bush to promote lies about Kerry.”
Tu quoque, as you point out every time it suits your purpose, is a fallacy.
“This issue is going to kill John Kerry politically….”
I bet not.
(P.S. Chet is an idiot).
Nuh uh!
According to Kerry’s own testimony, nearly every American that served in Vietnam, since he said point blank that “war crimes” were “widespread” and occurred with the full knowledge of officers.
Some did, but Kerry’s argument is like saying that every soldier in Iraq is a war criminal because of Abu Ghraib (which some on the left seem to believe anyway.)
Which considering they were Prisoners of War in Vietnam, they fought and died and were tortured for this country and were betrayed by a man who was selling falsehoods to the country to deliberately prevent those soldiers from achieving their objectives.
Propagandizing for the enemy is not patriotism.
Bush has nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads. Nor are their arguments lies. Kerry did say those things in 1971. Kerry was not in Cambodia. Kerry’s wounds were minor.
But of course some would like to sweep everything under the rug. Kerry made Vietnam an issue in this campaign, in fact he made it his only issue. If he didn’t want criticism about his record he should have gotten the hell out of politics.
According to Kerry’s own testimony, nearly every American that served in Vietnam, since he said point blank that “war crimes†were “widespread†and occurred with the full knowledge of officers.
Since Kerry didn’t say “all American soldiers committed war crimes”, you still haven’t answered my question: Specifically, which Americans did Kerry falsely accuse of committing war crimes? “All Americans” isn’t an answer, because Kerry didn’t accuse all American soldiers.
Propagandizing for the enemy is not patriotism.
Neither is white-washing the truth. Americans committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Bush has nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads.
…you know, besides the fact that his re-election committee is spreading their literature, and that their largest single donor has long and close connections to Bush.
Kerry was not in Cambodia. Kerry’s wounds were minor.
Kerry likely was in Cambodia, Kerry’s wounds were no less substantial than anyone else who earned medals, and furthermore, the doctor who treated the wounds substantiates that they were not simply “scratches.”
If he didn’t want criticism about his record he should have gotten the hell out of politics.
Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? As much as you claim that Kerry’s attention to this issue will be his downfall, and that it’s substantiating the Swift Boat claims, what you be your reaction if Kerry simply ignored the claims? Honestly?
We all know what it would be, Jay. You’d see that as evidence that the claims had merit.
This is just a witchhunt in the worst sense – there’s no way Kerry could react to these lies that wouldn’t, in your mind, confirm their validity. That’s how deep your personal hatred of Kerry runs, I guess.
Chet:
There’s incongruity here, regardless of the ultimate outcome:
Kerry is supposed to be insulated from criticism simply by his service to the country (for which we thank him).
SBVfT are pond-scum for questioning him. Who are they? Just a bunch of guys who ALSO served their country, but who are now not worthy of having their voices heard. Yeah. Right.
There’s a simple solution here, and I don’t care what the facts of 35 years ago happen to be: I would like to see Kerry respond to the allegations, just as he and his campaign have asked others to respond. If the truth, in the record, bears him out, then why is it not front and center right now, instead of shrill calls to “Stop bringing it on”?
And since when is “Kerry was likely in Cambodia” a response to claims by people who served with him that the opposite is true? Or a claim that his wounds were “no less substantial” than, say, Bob Dole’s?
Kerry can’t be allowed to answer questions like these by simply insisting that people stop asking the questions. And even if one were to allow your tenuous claims of direct involvement by Bush-Cheney’04, so what? The questions remain.
Kerry is supposed to be insulated from criticism simply by his service to the country (for which we thank him).
SBVfT are pond-scum for questioning him.
Not so. Anyone’s free to ask for substantiation for anybody’s account of the story, Swift Boat or Kerry or whoever you like.
The problem is that Kerry and others have provided documentation, but the Swift Boats have not. In fact, the documentation provided completely contradicts the Swift Boat accounts of just about everything they’ve put in an ad.
It’s fine for people to question Kerry’s record, because his record substantiates his story, and you don’t have to take his word for it. But people – including the media – seem to be promulgating Swift Boat lies without mentioning that not a whit of what they’ve claimed is backed up by anything.
The Swift Boat guys aren’t liars because they’re vets, or because they’re Bush supporters. They’re liars because their claims are simply false, and they know it.
I would like to see Kerry respond to the allegations, just as he and his campaign have asked others to respond.
To my knowledge, he has. Enough of his service records, and the records of others, are avaliable to substantiate his story, and they do.
And since when is “Kerry was likely in Cambodia†a response to claims by people who served with him that the opposite is true?
I’ve responded and rebutted those claims in other threads, I guess. If you want to know more you can go here:
A HREF=”http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/”>http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
To sum up, there’s no reason Kerry couldn’t have been in Cambodia when he said he was – Americans were in Cambodia at the time, and there’s documentation that he was close to Cambodia near the time in question.
In other words, if I see you on the way to the bathroom at 5 o’clock, and at 7 o’clock I go in and it’s obvious someone was in the bathroom, I can conclude that you were probably in the bathroom between 5 and 7 o’clock, especially if you claim to have been.
If the truth, in the record, bears him out, then why is it not front and center right now, instead of shrill calls to “Stop bringing it on�
I don’t know how you missed it, but it has been. It’s been in USA Today, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and others. Of course, the only place you won’t read about any of the facts substantiating Kerry’s claims is jayreding.com.
Kerry can’t be allowed to answer questions like these by simply insisting that people stop asking the questions.
But the questions have been answered, and shown to be lies. We’re way past the “answer” stage now. Now, it’s getting people to realize that the SBV claims have been investigated and proven false. If you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it. That’s the strategy of the Swift Boat liars at this point.
And even if one were to allow your tenuous claims of direct involvement by Bush-Cheney’04, so what?
So, do you think that it’s an admirable trait in a President of the United States that he flaunts campaign election law, and sees nothing wrong in shameless, cowardly attacks against a veteran of a war he was too afraid to go to? Boy, I don’t.
It goes to character. What kind of man attacks a wounded war hero, and breaks the law to do it? Not one I want running my country.
As Investor Business Daily writes:
If Kerry thinks he’s being slandered, he should answer with facts —not with insults, threats and lawsuits.
We have questions, senator. We’re ready for your answers.
As noted author and War College professor Mackubin Thomas Owens writes:
Today, Sen. Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask Sen. Kerry this: Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now? We do know that his speech was not the spontaneous, emotional, from-the-heart offering that he suggested it was. Burkett and Whitley report that instead, “it had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it.”
But the issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn’t possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a “good issue.” If the latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.
Kerry lied, and a generation of veterans have suffered for it.
Mackubin Thomas Owens writes:
In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane’s 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane’s “eye witnesses” either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.
Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.
End of quote.
Kerry’s real band of brothers were the antiwar protesters. And with regards to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and their Winter Soldier investigation, it turns out that Kerry pedalled lies, most of which were uttered by people who pretended to be Vietnam vets.
Kerry did amazing damage to Vietnam vets and their reputation…many many vets testify to that. Kerry owes them a big apology.
If Kerry was so correct in his antiwar protest days, why does he not mention it…why does he not campaign on it? Why does he try to hide it?
Why won’t he allow his book, The New Soldier, with the American flag on the cover upside down, to be reprinted?
Kerry literally betrayed his fellow Vietnam vets…he is a traitor…a Benedict Arnold…that alone disqualifies him from being CinC…
Chet:
Let’s see. In order for Kerry’s Cambodia story to be true, you’d have to believe that Kerry, a Lieutenant who had been in the theater of conflict only a few weeks, would be sent on a secret mission to ferry a CIA agent into a forbidden zone in a craft that can be heard for miles away, and none of his own crew would recall being there, none of his superior officers would recall sending him there, and there would be no documentation on any such mission despite the fact that it would no longer be any big secret.
In other words, if you believe that pile of crap, you’re not just drinking the Kool-Aid, you’re guzzling it. Hell, even Kerry is backing away from his Cambodia claims.
Defending Kerry, the Winter Soldier investigations, and VVAW is like defending Joe McCarthy. Yes, McCarthy sure as hell uncovered some real Communist agents in the US government (Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were indeed Soviet agents), but that in no way justifies McCarthy’s witchhunts, just as the fact that war crimes did occur in Vietnam doesn’t justify Kerry’s wild accusations.
The Kerry camp has walked right into a trap, and their petulant response, threats, and smear attacks against veterans are a sign of desperation.
Let’s see. In order for Kerry’s Cambodia story to be true, you’d have to believe that Kerry, a Lieutenant who had been in the theater of conflict only a few weeks, would be sent on a secret mission to ferry a CIA agent into a forbidden zone in a craft that can be heard for miles away, and none of his own crew would recall being there, none of his superior officers would recall sending him there, and there would be no documentation on any such mission despite the fact that it would no longer be any big secret.
To believe this crap, you’d have to believe:
That the CIA never did anything half-assed; that our government is always absolutely straightforward about secret, illegal missions and would document its own acts of breaking international law; that the Cambodians were interested in partolling the entire Mokong River Delta, constituting potentially hundreds of miles of river, marsh, and tributary; that all of his crew that testifies that they were in or near Cambodia are actually liars too; and that the documentation that does exist is fraudulent, despite no evidence of being so.
Sorry, I’m not impressed by your objections to the story.
Defending Kerry, the Winter Soldier investigations, and VVAW is like defending Joe McCarthy.
I don’t think that, as a Bush supporter, you want to be bringing up Joe McCarthy.
The Kerry camp has walked right into a trap, and their petulant response, threats, and smear attacks against veterans are a sign of desperation.
As I said, if they answered with silence, you’d take that as a sign of desperation, too.
The Swift Boat claims have already been debunked. Maybe you missed it or something, but at this point, nobody with sense puts any stock in them, including prominent Republican leaders. But I guess we know what liberal partisan hacks McCain and O’Reilly are, right?
If there was something to this story, don’t you think Fox Fuckin’ News would be on it, at least?
but that in no way justifies McCarthy’s witchhunts, just as the fact that war crimes did occur in Vietnam doesn’t justify Kerry’s wild accusations.
Who, specifically, was accused?
Long string of crap follows
That isn’t the question. The question is did John Kerry go on a secret mission in Cambodia? The answer is clearly no. You don’t send an agent out on a secret mission in a boat that can be heard for MILES commanded by a greenhorn, and 35 years later there is no reason why such a mission would remain secret.
If you can’t even make a credible lie (look at a map of the Mekong River as it crosses from Vietnam to Cambodia and see where that “hundreds of miles of marsh” is), don’t bother.
It’s obvious that you’re frantically spinning for Kerry, drinking the Kool Aid. Kerry has offered absolutely no proof that he was in Cambodia. One would think that a US Senator could easily produce some evidence other than a recollection that he himself has had to back away from.
Hell, even Steven Gardner, who was on Kerry’s boat at the time says Kerry’s story is bullshit:
Sa Dec is 50 miles away from Cambodia. It’s in the middle of Vietnam.
But of course, Chet and the other rabid partisans don’t want to hear it.
Right here. Note that there are only a handful of navigable waterways on the border. Note also that a PCF boat is extremely loud. Even at idle, the engines can be heard for some time away. The chances that someone would use a PCF for covert infiltration is small to none.
Note also that the Navy had placed concrete pillars across the river along the border to prevent a craft larger than a sampan from entering Vietnam from the Cambodian side and vice versa.
Kerry claims that on Christmas 1968 he was in Cambodia. There is no concrete evidence to support such a conclusion. If Kerry was in Cambodia, he has yet to produce any records of it. Supposedly this experience was “seared” into his memory.
One would think that something that is “seared – seared” into one’s memory wouldn’t involve several obvious contradictions and a story that stretches credulity.
Note also that a PCF boat is extremely loud.
Ok, but who’s gonna hear it?
Border patrol? They’re standing on boats that are just as loud.
Some Cambodian rice farmer? Yeah, I bet he’s gonna get right on his cell phone and call up the Cambodian Navy.
Also, note that tropical jungles are extremely loud. The assertion that you could hear a boat miles away through dense, noisy jungle is simply absurd.
n Christmas 1968 he was in Cambodia.
Again, if he’s made such a statement, you have yet to provide it. I believe that you and the Swift Boat liars are conflating several different claims in order to attack a strawman.
Supposedly this experience was “seared†into his memory.
No, the experience he said was “seared” was being shot at by Cambodians. This did occur. But nice strawman, anyway.
Let’s see: Viet Cong, Cambodian farmers with guns, other Navy ships patrolling the borders, Maritime National Khmer forces, pretty much EVERYONE IN A RADIUS OF SEVERAL MILES.
Yes, because the ambient noise in a tropical jungle sounds just like a MASSIVE BOAT ENGINE. Why just listen to the noise of the horsepower tree and the 50cal machine gun macqaque! None of the many forces along the border would hear a massive boat designed for speed not stealth in a jungle.
And exactly how many times have you been on the Mekong on the Cambodian border?
I know thinking gives you a headache, but it’s not that hard to do an elementary Google search. Since you apparently can’t do basic research (and believe me, it shows), here are Kerry statements:
And
And with Michael Kranish’s June 2003 hagiography of Kerry, the story gets even more elaborate:
And what does Kerry’s own journal say he did on Christmas Eve 1968? From his own campaign biography (written by Douglas Brinkley):
In other words, Kerry’s Cambodia story is complete and utter bullshit. If you don’t believe me, ask a former Navy SEAL who knows a thing or two about these missions.
A Swift Boat piloted by an inexperienced lieutenant would not be used for such a mission. Arguing something that patently ridiculous strains credulity. Anyone even remotely familiar with military operations and technology would know better.
But instead you continue to argue for a story that reeks of bullshit. If this is how desperate the Kerry Kamp is to carry water for their boy it is a sign of how rabid partisanship has overwhelmed common sense.
Viet Cong, Cambodian farmers with guns, other Navy ships patrolling the borders, Maritime National Khmer forces, pretty much EVERYONE IN A RADIUS OF SEVERAL MILES.
Who are standing on boats. That are just as loud.
Do I have to repeat that before is sinks in?
As for the “farmers with guns” or whatever, keep in mind that they don’t exactly have the training to discern a Swift Boat from any other river traffic. And what are they going to do? Shoot in the dark? Call it in on satellite phone?
Oh, wait.
On December 24 1968, Kerry was at Sa Dec
Which proves nothing, as I’ve shown. Sa Dec is two hours from the border of Cambodia.
Furthermore none of your citations make the claim that Kerry was escorting CIA guys, just that he was there being shot at, a claim substantiated by the rest of the crew of his boat.
A Swift Boat piloted by an inexperienced lieutenant would not be used for such a mission.
Says you. It’s unusual, sure, but not out of the realm of possibility. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of reasons they might have gone with Kerry. Certainly by that time he had accrued an impressive array of citations from his commanding officers.
Kerry has a chance at the presidency ONLY if he comes out and admits that he slandered the military
For that to be true, what he said would have to be false.
It’s not. Military abuses were widespread in the Vietnam War, and they did occur with the knowledge of commanding officers.
I don’t see how that “slanders” anybody.
Jay Reding says:
“In other words, Kerry’s Cambodia story is complete and utter bullshit”
Georges W Bush says:
“I think Sen. Kerry served admirably. He ought to be proud of his record.”
2 options:
1-Jay Reding is a republican partisan. He doesn’t care about the Truth. What really matters is that Kerry looks bad.
2-GW Bush is a dumb politician ready to buy into most stupid stories (or maybe he’s trying to ease up the debate on the vietnam war because his own record reports about Texas instead of Saigon, or is just a fake).
Choose for yourself which option is true!
Note also that the Navy had placed concrete pillars across the river along the border to prevent a craft larger than a sampan from entering Vietnam from the Cambodian side and vice versa.
Now that some of the new info about these Swift Boat liars is out, I’m rather curious – if this is true, Jay, and it’s impossible to get into Cambodia on a swift boat, then how did John O’Neill (author of Unfit for Command) manage to do it when he was there, as he told President Nixon?