Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

low down on kerry for presi-don't
simonvii Posted: Mon Aug 23 16:49:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the bottom line is this - as president you have a responsibility to protect the constitution and the rights of its adherents...so how is it that kerry wants to silence these vets in their ads just because he doesnt agree with them? even if they were lying, they still have a right to say what they want...if kerry displays such disregard for constitutional rights now, what about what would happen to those rights if he was given power as president?


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 23 17:13:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think the extent of him trying to 'silence' them is just that he said they were lying, which has been well, well documented and that attacks on someone's military service should be condemned by the president.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 23 19:17:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  KERRY DENIES PERFORMING GAY WEDDINGS ON SWIFT BOAT

by Andy Borowitz

Democratic nominee John Kerry today blasted a just-released attack ad in which a new group of swift boat veterans accuse him of performing hundreds of gay weddings on the boat he commanded during that conflict.

The ad, financed by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans For Truth About Gay Weddings On Swift Boats, accuses Sen. Kerry of using his status as commanding officer on his boat to perform gay weddings on an almost non-stop basis.

According to one veteran who appears in the ad, Mr. Kerry stunned his boatmates by announcing, "I hereby declare this swift boat 'The Love Boat.'"

The veteran goes on to accuse Mr. Kerry of performing hundreds of gay weddings "whether the sailors wanted to marry each other or not."

The latest charges come at a critical juncture for the Kerry campaign, as over one million anti-Kerry boatmates marched on Washington this weekend to express their unbridled hatred of the Democratic nominee.

But Sen. Kerry came out swinging against the ads today, telling a Michigan audience, "It would have been impossible for me to declare my swift boat 'The Love Boat' because 'The Love Boat' did not come on TV until 1977."

Moments after Mr. Kerry's comment, the airwaves were blanketed with a new ad financed by a group calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans For Truth About What John Kerry Claims Did Or Did Not Happen On His Swift Boat.

In the ad, a veteran states: "Okay, so maybe John Kerry didn't perform any gay weddings, but it's a lot like something he would have done if given half a chance."


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 23 19:18:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This was in the Boston Globe.

IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?

The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.

Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 23 20:24:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>This was in the Boston Globe.
>
> IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?
>
> The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.
>
> Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.
>
1. The Boston Globe sucks, it's nothing more than a liberal rag.
2. Are you aware of the fact that Bob Dole lost 100% of the use of his right arm in combat ?
3. Bob Dole never lied about any of his combat exploits.
4. Are you aware that the article by Mr. Borowitz was written entirely tongue in cheek ?
5. Why hasn't Kerry responded to any of the accusations of the swiftboat vets ?
6. Where the fuck was Kerry on Christmas Eve 1968 ? And who the fuck was president then ?


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 23 20:45:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>1. The Boston Globe sucks, it's nothing more than a liberal rag.

That's rather unsubstantiated, and even if it's true it doesn't mean evreything they've said is false. Or anything for that matter, as that's assuming being a liberal rag is bad.

>2. Are you aware of the fact that Bob Dole lost 100% of the use of his right arm in combat ?

That's absolutely idiotic, because if you'd read past the first paragraph you'd notice they say Bob Dole 'deserves the nation's gratitude' and that the point of this was to show what would happen if a Democrat had tried to besmirch Dole's record. I think I just read the stupidest thing you've ever said, but I haven't been around this forum as long as others. Anyone else want to contribute?

>3. Bob Dole never lied about any of his combat exploits.

A intelligent person would have noticed that I did not say anything bad about Bob Dole.

>4. Are you aware that the article by Mr. Borowitz was written entirely tongue in cheek ?

And your point is?

>5. Why hasn't Kerry responded to any of the accusations of the swiftboat vets ?

I know it's kind of lame, but I'm forced to ask, "What are you smoking?"

>6. Where the fuck was Kerry on Christmas Eve 1968 ? And who the fuck was president then ?

I don't know enough about the situation, but I don't think being a few days off is worse than, I don't know, draft dodging perhaps.


 
zander83 Posted: Mon Aug 23 21:55:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  a couple things that trouble me about the whole swift boat thing:
1) why wait now... sure some will say its because kerry never ran for president before, but hes been in politics an awful long time, he wrote a book, and where were these people when the navy checked to make sure whether the medal was justified or not.

Also, I don't know how many of you have really paid attention to the ads, but they;re really not that convincing. "The Swiftvets' allegations are deliberately blurred. Their ad starts with John Edwards urging people to talk to "the men who served with" Kerry. Several Swiftvets then appear on the screen, saying they "served with" Kerry. This is a semantic trick. Edwards is talking about crewmates who, at one time or another, accompanied Kerry on his six-man boat. The Swiftvets served with Kerry only in the sense that they manned other boats in Vietnam. It's a bit like saying you spent the night with Bill Clinton because you were on Martha's Vineyard, too.

Thirteen vets make 15 statements in the ad. Let's discard the unfalsifiable ones: "You could not count on John Kerry," "John Kerry is no war hero," "John Kerry has not been honest," "John Kerry cannot be trusted," "He is lying about his record," and "He lacks the capacity to lead." There's no way to fact-check these because they cite no facts.

Next, let's distinguish Kerry's statements about what he did from his statements about what others did. Most of the Swiftvets' material complaints address the latter: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did," "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate." Phrases such as "what happened in Vietnam," "dishonored his country," "lied before the Senate," and "the men and women he served with" (there were no women on Kerry's boat) give away that these claims have nothing to do with Kerry's service. They're about his allegations afterward that American forces participated in war crimes.

Now honestly I don't know if american troops partisipated in war crimes in vietnam(I sincerely hope however, that jaded republicans are not so jingoistic as to be unable to admit they might have happened.)That brings us to the allegations that he misrepresented his own experiences. Here, Kerry's testimony was firsthand, so his veracity is on the line. Only two statements in the ad fall into this category. One comes from Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The other comes from Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Letson loses credibility right away for implying that he has firsthand knowledge about his allegation. He doesn't. The allegation has to do with the source of Kerry's injury, not its severity. According to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Letson told the paper that after treating Kerry, "[Letson] learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas. Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats."

That's third-hand testimony from somebody who doesn't even know the identity or location of the firsthand source. Pretty lousy stuff. Furthermore, the Times notes, "Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.' … A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." Case closed.

O'Dell, on the other hand, really "was there" when Kerry earned his Bronze Star. This was the incident in which Kerry pulled Jim Rassman, a green beret, from a river. Nobody disputes that it happened or that mines had gone off. Kerry says the rescue happened under fire. O'Dell and some others who were in boats nearby say it didn't. Rassman backs up Kerry's version. So does Del Sandusky, a crewman on Kerry's boat, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week, "I saw the gunflashes shooting at us from the shore. I saw the rounds hitting the water." So does the Navy's official after-action report."(quoted in whole from William Saletan)...

Now I'll be the first to admit that using war hero merits to justify a presidential campaign is incredibly idiotic and I'm really not sure how this proves ability to lead a country(unless I'm living in manchurian world which I hope I'm not...)Of course, what I can never understand is how the fact Kerry criticized the army means he doesn't support the soldiers. It's something quite troubling because a lot of people seem to think that to criticize the army means your against "us" somehow. If only things were that simple. Do war crimes occur during war time, yes just as crimes occur during peace time, or let me put into a better perspective, when you take aggresive people, place them in high stress situation, with an enemy waging a guerilla war, which means any villager can blow you away... yeah i would imagine some of them would probably crack. This doesn't mean you don't support your troops, it just means your aware of the high toll war has on the human spirit and its why war should only ever be used as a last recourse.

I do wonder if JFK were running for president whether anyone would object to his heroism during WW2... we'll never know i guess



 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 23 22:32:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think it's ridiculous that we're bitching about whether Kerry got hurt enough when we could be looking at this:

http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/medals/medals.html


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Aug 24 00:56:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Daily Show With Jon Stewart is great. It's especially funny since they showed 2 of the Swift Boat Vets campaigning for and with John Kerry for re-election for Senate in 1996. Standing along side him, proclaiming his valour, bravery, and heroism in Vietnam.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Aug 24 01:44:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  zander, did you write that whole piece above? If so, i'm damn impressed, man.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Aug 24 01:46:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the fearless ninja...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 07:03:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  zander83 said:
>a couple things that trouble me about the whole swift boat thing:
>1) why wait now... sure some will say its because kerry never ran for president before, but hes been in politics an awful long time, he wrote a book, and where were these people when the navy checked to make sure whether the medal was justified or not.
>
John Oneill debated Kerry several times on national TV back in the 70's, to refute his allegations of war crimes.
>
The Swiftvets served with Kerry only in the sense that they manned other boats in Vietnam. It's a bit like saying you spent the night with Bill Clinton because you were on Martha's Vineyard, too.
>
Jesus Goddam ! how many times do I have to say this ? Swiftboats operated in group of 3 to 5. The Swiftvets were the guys he operated with day in and day out. The 8 or 9 guys Kerry has were only with him a few days. The officers included in the swiftvets were the guys he worked with, ate with, slept with, went to meetings with, etc. They were his peers, not his enlisted crew.
>
>Thirteen vets make 15 statements in the ad. Let's discard the unfalsifiable ones: "You could not count on John Kerry," "John Kerry is no war hero," "John Kerry has not been honest," "John Kerry cannot be trusted," "He is lying about his record," and "He lacks the capacity to lead." There's no way to fact-check these because they cite no facts.
>
>Next, let's distinguish Kerry's statements about what he did from his statements about what others did. Most of the Swiftvets' material complaints address the latter: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did," "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate." Phrases such as "what happened in Vietnam," "dishonored his country," "lied before the Senate," and "the men and women he served with" (there were no women on Kerry's boat) give away that these claims have nothing to do with Kerry's service. They're about his allegations afterward that American forces participated in war crimes.
>
>Now honestly I don't know if american troops partisipated in war crimes in vietnam(I sincerely hope however, that jaded republicans are not so jingoistic as to be unable to admit they might have happened.)That brings us to the allegations that he misrepresented his own experiences. Here, Kerry's testimony was firsthand, so his veracity is on the line. Only two statements in the ad fall into this category. One comes from Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The other comes from Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."
>
>Letson loses credibility right away for implying that he has firsthand knowledge about his allegation. He doesn't. The allegation has to do with the source of Kerry's injury, not its severity. According to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Letson told the paper that after treating Kerry, "[Letson] learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas. Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats."
>
>That's third-hand testimony from somebody who doesn't even know the identity or location of the firsthand source. Pretty lousy stuff. Furthermore, the Times notes, "Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.' … A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." Case closed.
>
>O'Dell, on the other hand, really "was there" when Kerry earned his Bronze Star. This was the incident in which Kerry pulled Jim Rassman, a green beret, from a river. Nobody disputes that it happened or that mines had gone off. Kerry says the rescue happened under fire. O'Dell and some others who were in boats nearby say it didn't. Rassman backs up Kerry's version. So does Del Sandusky, a crewman on Kerry's boat, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week, "I saw the gunflashes shooting at us from the shore. I saw the rounds hitting the water." So does the Navy's official after-action report."(quoted in whole from William Saletan)...
>
Louis Letson is the one who treated him for that wound, no loss of credibility there.
As for the official after action report, it was WRITTEN BY KERRY HIMSELF.
Yes of course atrocities were committed as in all wars, but if you ever watched or read what Kerry said, it was the policy of our government to do these atrocities. Basically what he said was "I was a war hero in VietNam surrounded by criminals".
As a veteral myself, I find that to be a disgusting self serving statement.
>
>Now I'll be the first to admit that using war hero merits to justify a presidential campaign is incredibly idiotic and I'm really not sure how this proves ability to lead a country(unless I'm living in manchurian world which I hope I'm not...)Of course, what I can never understand is how the fact Kerry criticized the army means he doesn't support the soldiers. It's something quite troubling because a lot of people seem to think that to criticize the army means your against "us" somehow. If only things were that simple. Do war crimes occur during war time, yes just as crimes occur during peace time, or let me put into a better perspective, when you take aggresive people, place them in high stress situation, with an enemy waging a guerilla war, which means any villager can blow you away... yeah i would imagine some of them would probably crack. This doesn't mean you don't support your troops, it just means your aware of the high toll war has on the human spirit and its why war should only ever be used as a last recourse.
>
Nothing could excuse his statements before congress unless it were the truth. It was obviously not the truth.

>I do wonder if JFK were running for president whether anyone would object to his heroism during WW2... we'll never know i guess
>
No presidential hopeful ever made his war record a main theme in his election campaign. More to the point, every war hero I know is somewhat embarassed to discuss his exploits in combat.


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 16:04:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I think the extent of him trying to 'silence' them is just that he said they were lying, which has been well, well documented and that attacks on someone's military service should be condemned by the president.

kerrys lawyers sent letters to all the major networks threatening that if they air the swiftboat ads they could be held legally lible because the swiftboat ads are independently funded


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 16:05:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>This was in the Boston Globe.
>
> IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?
>
> The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.
>
> Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.

im glad you brought this up, as bob dole himself is currently being criticized because of his outspoken opinions on kerrys lack of integrity and honesty regarding his wounds and service in vietnam


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 16:08:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:

>
>>2. Are you aware of the fact that Bob Dole lost 100% of the use of his right arm in combat ?
>
>That's absolutely idiotic, because if you'd read past the first paragraph you'd notice they say Bob Dole 'deserves the nation's gratitude' and that the point of this was to show what would happen if a Democrat had tried to besmirch Dole's record.


actually the reason they didnt bring up dole's record was because he ran against bill clinton, who dodged the fucking draft, and it wouldve just made the democrats look bad...clinton wrote a letter to the draft board or whatever saying "i want to remain politically relevent, but i really would rather not fight" or some crap like that


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 16:12:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  zander83 said:
>a couple things that trouble me about the whole swift boat thing:
>1) why wait now...

they havent, it just hasnt been publicized, oneill disputed kerry on television as early as 1976...also the river the swiftboats were on was 75 ft. wide, if there was really gunfire, how come of the six boats there (for over an hour) not one was damaged except for by the mines? and how come the only one "shot" was kerry? if there was as much fire, or any fire even, there wouldve been casualties...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 16:52:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Vets vs. Kerry on Vietnam
Thomas Sowell
August 24, 2004


Senator John Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, has said melodramatically: "Ask the men who served with him in Vietnam!" But now that men who served with Kerry in Vietnam are coming forward and contradicting Kerry's version of what happened there, Senator Edwards is calling it a "smear."

Apparently we are to listen only to those veterans who were hand-picked by the Kerry campaign.

One of the photos used by the Kerry campaign shows Kerry as a young Navy lieutenant, surrounded by 20 of his fellow service men in Vietnam -- a "band of brothers." But now a new book says that a majority of the men in that photo have objected to having their pictures used in support of Kerry's candidacy for President.

Nearly 200 Vietnam veterans, including many from Kerry's old unit, have organized as Vietnam Veterans for Truth to actively oppose John Kerry and a new book titled "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill repeatedly contradicts Kerry's version of events in Vietnam. There are of course other books with other views on the subject, notably "Tour of Duty" by Douglas Brinkley, with a pro-Kerry slant. If you enjoyed the movie "Rashomon," where different people had radically different memories of the same events, you will love reading O'Neill's book and Brinkley's book together.

The Kerry version of events begins with his volunteering to serve in the Vietnam war. The O'Neill version has Kerry's draft board rejecting his application for a deferment and Kerry then enlisting in the Naval Reserve -- not the Navy, as in Brinkley's book.

Enlisting in the Naval Reserves is not very different from enlisting in the National Guard. The big difference is that John Kerry happened to get sent to Vietnam and George Bush did not. But those decisions were made by people far above them in the military chain of command.

Yet some in the media and elsewhere have acted as if it was heroic for John Kerry to have enlisted in the Naval Reserve and cowardly for George Bush to have enlisted in the National Guard. But none has bothered to show what essential difference -- if any -- there is between these two back-up branches of service.

Both O'Neill's book and Brinkley's book have numerous footnotes to document what they say about very specific events. With all the investigative reporters in this country, someone ought to be able to track down many of the controverted facts and settle these things.

But with Beltway journalists favoring Kerry's election by 12 to 1, according to a New York Times poll, there may not be so much zest for facts this election year.

One discrepancy that does not require much research arises from John Kerry's statement that he was in Cambodia at Christmas time in 1968, while President Nixon was assuring the world that there were no American forces in Cambodia.

Richard Nixon was not yet President of the United States in December 1968. He had been elected in November but, like other Presidents, he did not take office until January 20th.

The ferocity of Kerry's media defenders was exemplified in Chris Matthews' browbeating of columnist Michelle Malkin on his "Hardball" program when she questioned Kerry's Purple Hearts. Matthews repeatedly demanded to know if she was saying that Kerry had deliberately shot himself.

That was never the charge made by the Vietnam Veterans for Truth. Those who were there say that there was no enemy fire, that Kerry on two occasions accidentally injured himself when shrapnel from his own grenades nicked him, and later an enemy mine also got him. The doctor who treated Kerry said that he removed a tiny fragment with tweezers, put a Band-Aid on the spot -- and refused to certify it as a wound that merited a Purple Heart.

Kerry's commanding officer at the time likewise rejected Kerry's application for a Purple Heart, according to O'Neill. Later, Kerry got a Purple Heart through another commanding officer who knew nothing about the incident and took Kerry's word for it.

Maybe the media could put some of the energy that they spend trying to discredit Kerry's critics into finding out what the facts are. Or don't they dare risk finding out?





 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:01:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  simonvii said:
>actually the reason they didnt bring up dole's record was because he ran against bill clinton, who dodged the fucking draft, and it wouldve just made the democrats look bad...

Yet the Republicans brought up Kerry's record, and Bush dodged the draft. Shouldn't that be making the Republicans look bad? I could've sworn I saw something about a liberal media to...


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:07:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By the way, Bob Dole recently appeared on cable news saying that John Kerry got two purple hearts in one day, which isn't true. I'm really sick of this purple heart stuff, like whether he was really hurt enough to receive them, because even if it's questionable, that's better than failed oil companies and pot smoking, followed by a failed career as governor.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:11:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Aw damn, I accidentally found more evidence of one of the Swiftboat Vets not really being for truth.


Who is Steve Gardner?
-N.C.

Stephen Gardner has been touted by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and by conservative hosts as a singularly authoritative critic with firsthand knowledge of Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) record in Vietnam because Gardner -- unlike all the other members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- actually served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded. Gardner has questioned Kerry's integrity; has claimed personal knowledge of the circumstances leading to Kerry's first Purple Heart; and has spoken with authority about the events leading to Kerry's Bronze Star. Fellow anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vets member Larry Thurlow has also cited Gardner as eyewitness support for his accusations against Kerry and against Kerry's first Purple Heart. Yet while Gardner did serve as a gunner under Kerry's command on PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) 44, he has admitted that he -- just like the rest of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claiming that Kerry is lying about his medals -- was not present for the incidents leading to Kerry's receipt of any medals or any of Kerry's three Purple Hearts.

Gardner admitted that "he was not on the boat with Kerry during the incidents for which Kerry got his medals," reported The Columbus Dispatch on August 6. And as a guest on Michael Savage's radio show, Savage Nation, on August 2, Gardner said that of Kerry's three Purple Hearts, he could only attest to the first; Gardner later admitted to Savage that he was "not on the boat with him [Kerry]" when that injury occurred.

Yet in repeated media appearances, conservative hosts have presented Gardner as an eyewitness to key Kerry events. And in at least two interviews, Gardner has falsely claimed that he was present for the incidents leading to Kerry's receipt of awards. On Savage Nation on August 2, Savage introduced Gardner as an "expert coming on this show eventually to talk about the phony John Kerry and his swift boat." On FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor on August 9, host Bill O'Reilly identified Gardner as "the only one who served directly under him of the 3,500 ... an eyewitness." As a guest on the August 20 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) introduced Gardner as "a vet who actually served on John Kerry's swift boat" who would provide "a firsthand account of what really happened in Vietnam." On that same edition of Scarborough Country, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan touted Gardner as the "first member who actually served aboard John Kerry's boat to speak since this controversy erupted," before he asked Gardner, "[W]ho is telling the truth?"

In an apparent attempt to substantiate his status as an eyewitness to key Kerry events, Gardner claimed on Scarborough Country, "[T]hat boat never left the dock that I wasn't aboard it with John Kerry, never. I was with that boat everywhere we went." Gardner went on to make assertions regarding the events that occurred on March 13, 1969, involving Kerry's rescue of Jim Rassmann, for which Kerry received the Bronze Star. Gardner claimed to know that Kerry fled the scene on the river that day while the other three boats stayed and that Kerry then "turned around and came all the way back to pick up Mr. Rassmann that he had thrown off his boat when he took off, when he fled down the canal." But later in the show, Gardner admitted to not being present that day. When Scarborough attempted to revisit the "March 13, 1969 incident," Gardner said, "I'm not going to deal with that. Because I wasn't there."

On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Thurlow cited Gardner to substantiate his claim that Kerry's first Purple Heart "was fabricated and wasn't based on any factuality at all." According to Thurlow, Gardner said "that he [Kerry] received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel" and that "Kerry applied for a Purple Heart that he did not merit."

On the August 2 broadcast of Savage Nation, Gardner himself claimed that all of the wounds for which Kerry received Purple Hearts "were superficial wounds, and I mean very superficial, scratches. The very first one is the only one that I can actually attest to because I was there when that wound happened." But Gardner was not there when Kerry sustained that wound; as noted above, Gardner went on to admit: "I was not on the boat with him but I -- in the next three days following that, I was with him on the boat going to take our new position up down there on the seaward operations."

In addition, on the August 16 edition of the nationally syndicated radio show The Glenn Beck Program, Gardner falsely claimed that three of Kerry's other crewmates -- James Wasser, Drew Whitlow, and Steven Hatch -- "felt the same way that I felt about John Kerry" before they joined the Kerry campaign. As Media Matters for America previously reported, comments from Wasser in a March 9 article in TIME magazine written by Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley directly contradict Gardner's claim.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:11:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>simonvii said:
>>actually the reason they didnt bring up dole's record was because he ran against bill clinton, who dodged the fucking draft, and it wouldve just made the democrats look bad...
>
>Yet the Republicans brought up Kerry's record, and Bush dodged the draft. Shouldn't that be making the Republicans look bad? I could've sworn I saw something about a liberal media to...
>
Maybe you should check your facts, since Kerry applied for a service deferment and was refused one, so he joined the NAVY RESERVES, not the regular navy. The only difference in his service and Dubyas service was that he got sent to Nam. Dubya had just as good a chance as Kerry to get sent to 'nam, it was merely the luck of the draw, so don't give me that bullshit about Bush dodged the draft.
That not only makes you look stupid,it also demeans the service of all those who are in the guard. Dumbass !


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:13:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
> Yet some in the media and elsewhere have acted as if it was heroic for John Kerry to have enlisted in the Naval Reserve and cowardly for George Bush to have enlisted in the National Guard. But none has bothered to show what essential difference -- if any -- there is between these two back-up branches of service.

I think the problem with Bush is that, besides his dad getting him pushed to the front of the list of people to get into the National Guard, he also didn't show up for his service.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:15:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>By the way, Bob Dole recently appeared on cable news saying that John Kerry got two purple hearts in one day, which isn't true. I'm really sick of this purple heart stuff, like whether he was really hurt enough to receive them, because even if it's questionable, that's better than failed oil companies and pot smoking, followed by a failed career as governor.
>
No it's not better than failed oil companies, pot smoking and he was not a failed governor.
You see, there's a huge difference between someone who tries and fails than someone who tries, fails, and then continues to lie about it.
Dubya will freely admit his wild party days, he even admits to inhaling.
He could have lied about it, but he has much more character than that.
But once again, this is not about Bush, it's about Kerry. Seems that if you can't rebutt the argument you just change the subject like Christophe.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:15:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Dumbass !

You thought the Boston Globe article was insulting Bob Dole. Guess what that makes you?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:16:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>But once again, this is not about Bush, it's about Kerry. Seems that if you can't rebutt the argument you just change the subject like Christophe.

There are about ten different things I've pointed out about how the Swiftboat Veterans are lying that you've failed to mention at all. Get crackin' big boy.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:19:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>> Yet some in the media and elsewhere have acted as if it was heroic for John Kerry to have enlisted in the Naval Reserve and cowardly for George Bush to have enlisted in the National Guard. But none has bothered to show what essential difference -- if any -- there is between these two back-up branches of service.
>
>I think the problem with Bush is that, besides his dad getting him pushed to the front of the list of people to get into the National Guard, he also didn't show up for his service.
>
So make up your mind, did Dubya dodge the draft or did he go AWOL ?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:20:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  He went AWOL. Sorry. I was not consistent.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 19:45:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>He went AWOL. Sorry. I was not consistent.
>
So now you're saying he was no more a draft dodger than Kerry ?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:02:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm saying he dodged actual combat.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:06:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I'm saying he dodged actual combat.
>
No you said he was a draft dodger and when I exposed your ignorance on that you said something else.
As for dodging combat, how the hell did he do that ?
Kerry had much more political clout than the Bushies back in the 70's.
As I stated before, when both were in the guard, it was just the luck of the draw as to who had to go. Kerry did try to get out of it too. Does that make him as bad as Bush since he tried to get out but failed ?


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:09:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>By the way, Bob Dole recently appeared on cable news saying that John Kerry got two purple hearts in one day, which isn't true. I'm really sick of this purple heart stuff, like whether he was really hurt enough to receive them, because even if it's questionable, that's better than failed oil companies and pot smoking, followed by a failed career as governor.

i dont think he got the hearts in one day, though im pretty sure he got the wounds for each heart on the same day - supposedly one for a fooling-around-with-a-grenade-by-tossing-it-into-a-bunch-of-rice wound in the morning and the other one for later in the day on the swift boats...


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:38:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What is it that you want hif? That's the most important thing to know at any given moment. What do you want out of this?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 21:55:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>What is it that you want hif? That's the most important thing to know at any given moment. What do you want out of this?
>
You demeaned Dubya for being a draft dodger, but when I showed you that Kerry tried the same thing, then all of a sudden that's not an issue anymore.
Will you demean Kerry for trying to dodge the draft and failing ?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:03:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  C'mon hif. What do you want?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:09:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>C'mon hif. What do you want?
>
money, women, and power !


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:15:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You won't get any of those arguing with me, so there must be something else.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]