Bringing. It. On.
Dean
Senator Kerry, who talked at length and with great pride about his service in Vietnam when he gave his acceptance speech last week, has loudly and repeatedly said that anyone who wants to question his service record in Vietnam should "BRING. IT. ON." That is an exact quote. It also appears to have created a problem: the growing number of Democratic, Republican, and Indendent Vietnam veterans who are, in fact, bringing "it" on.
You may remember that last week, I posted the following photo--a photo which the Kerry campaign has used in its ads--which shows most of the officers who served alongside Kerry (that's Kerry in the top middle, by the way), and noted that only two of them actually support Kerry's bid for the Presidency. Well, the situation appears to be worsening.
Last week, only two of the above men supported Kerry. Now, according to Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, one of those two men, Ralph Dobson, has turned his back on Kerry, and also says Kerry is unfit to command.
Which means, of this photo of 20 of Kerry's closest companions from Vietnam, we have the following:
1 who supports him
2 dead
4 refusing to say anything publicly
12 state flatly that he is unfit to be Commander In Chief.
Bring it on, Senator? That's 12 to 1 who served with you who say you're unfit to command, that you were a lousy officer, a liar, and that you even cheated to get your medals. And utilized a loophole that no honorable officer would use in order to get out of combat duty 8 months early.
Furthermore, these guys have a book out all about you, Senator, and it's called "Unfit To Command," and it is already #1 on Amazon. Furthermore, you can get a free chapter online. (Note: I've read it and while it's full of very specific facts, it's also got some uncorroborated allusions and speculations that make me uncomfortable.)
The Swift Boat vets, who include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, claim to be unaffiliated with any political party or campaign, and are merely united in their desire to stop a single individual they detest.
I suppose they could all be lying, or well-paid dupes. Maybe they're all people willing to just sell out a fellow Vietnam vet for money. Do you think that could be it? Or do you think these guys might honestly believe what they're saying?
Anyway, it's interesting that Dobson has turned his back on Kerry and now says Kerry is unfit. I wrote to the Swift Boat Vets and asked them if they could explain this change of heart, and was told that it was recent. They offered me an interview, and I took them up on it.
More as it develops. In the meantime, you might want to check out this commercial--the Swift Boat Vets commercial. It's devastating. For you have to believe that these men are all dishonorable, unpatriotic liars, or that many of the people who served with Kerry simply despise him.
I hope I can get that interview this week. I'll let you all know.
(By the way, for the record, if after this evidence is out before the public, the American people still vote in Kerry as President, he will have my respect and support as Commander In Chief. I will also assume, if he is elected, that he is a patriot who is trying to do the best by the country, whatever my issues with his past. I loathe scandalmongering. But if this is the resume he is presenting to the American people, then we all have an obligation to look at it.)
* Update * Sharp As A Marble, no Bush fan, says that a bat to the crotch would be less painful than this ad.
* Update 2 * Ace says, "Blistering."
Spoons says "I can easily see it backfiring."
Donald Sensing: "Senator, if it's Vietnam you want, it's Vietnam you got."
Powerline: "John Kerry chose to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Now he may have to live with the consequences."
Bill Quick: "...isn't going to help Johnny Fonda much...."
Q and O: "It is, quite simply, devastating."
Instapundit: "And Kerry played right into this with all the stuff about Vietnam and medals."
The men in the photo are all officers who served next to him or above him.
Although some enlisted men who served under him have also joined the Swift Boat Vets for Truth who are opposed to him.
At the moment, therefore, it appears that a majority of his fellow officers despise him, while some of the men who served under him like him and others who served under him despise him.
Draw your own conclusions as to what that means.
OUCH!!!
Just read their FAQ and draw your own conclusions.
I love a soldier that served two tours of duty in Viet Nam and is absolutley a highly decorated former Green Beret. This man did get angry years ago when Kerry mentioned the slaughter of civilians. This soldier I am speaking of absolutely was very aware of not hurting civilians not only as a soldier over there but he was also a good and decent man and just his own personal feelings regarding civilians tells me the truth. One more thing, when civialians were killed it bothered him just like it bothered his brothers serving in Viet Nam.
There are always innocent civilians killed in any war. Believe what you will, but I put my faith in those veterans that served and during that time in our hstory were doing the right thing.
BTW, did Kerry ever release his military records? Last I heard, he had refused. Has that changed?
First of all Bush "did his time" protecting Texas from the Russians. Sure he may have been drunk most of the time he was off duty, but so what?
Second of all, the Russians never invaded Texas, whereas we lost in Vietnam, where Kerry was supposedly doing a poor job. Draw your own conclusions.
:)
What many people don't understand is, back then, most Air Force pilots were drunk all the time they weren't flying. That's part of being a pilot. How much can you drink tonight and still go out an fly like hell tomorrow?
But very good humor.
You probably want to look at what they're saying carefully. It's pretty bad.
Since the vast majority of the men in the group photo now actively oppose him, I'd stop using that photo ASAP, were I running his campaign.
The calculated nature, and meticulous recording, of his Vietnam adventures scares me to death. The Oval Office has been his single-minded goal since he was young. Remember Dean's post on narcissism? I keep thinking of the Presidential candidate from King's book, "The Dead Zone." The swiftboat veterans are our Johnny Smiths.
None of them actually served with Kerry. This is all he said-she said. Let them provide hard, documentary evidence. And let them explain why it took them thirty years to come forward with these allegations of fraud and lying. To apply Dean's standard, if they're going to call Kerry a liar, let them prove it with evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
I'd rather believe the men who actually did serve with Kerry rather than these "Swift Boat Veterans" who simply served around the same time.
Adm. Roy Hoffman's comment that you cite is true, and also completely beside the point. Swift Boat Vets for Truth consists of his fellow officers—swift boat commanders like himself, and also his immediate superiors. The mere fact that they were not crewmen on his boat has no relevance. These men were in a position to observe him in action and to assess his performance. You are flat-out incorrect when you say that it took them 30 years to come forward. One of their number, named O'Neill, was on Meet the Press contemporaneously with Kerry, exposing the lies he told in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Kerry's testimony was mostly hearsay, based on tales told by a rent-a-mob called Winter Soldiers. Most of them were never in the military. Of those who were, few ever served in Vietnam. The abject fakery of Kerry's testimony—keep in mind that he testified that American soldiers routinely committed atrocities in VN and did so with the full knowledge and approval of high-ranking officers—is exposed in a book by B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley published in 1998 and titled Stolen Valor. Get it, read it, and learn what Kerry is.
This smacks of political opportunism. To paraphrase Dean, if they can't show the hard evidence, they should keep quiet.
The book explains who these veterans are, and how they knew John Kerrey. The fact that they are officers on other boats that served alongside Kerrey's boat makes them both more objective and more qualified to judge his actions than the men on his boat.
I have not served in the military, but I've been in highly stressful situations where someone's life is hanging in the balance, and the view from those in charge is usually quite different from those who are not.
His commanding officers don't think highly of him, either. When he tried to apply for his first purple star, he was turned down and told not to try it again, or risk a reprimand. He just transferred to another unit and reapplied. That time, it got through.
As I said, read the book. I will.
A non-partisan group?
Most of their money comes from a major Republican donor. Totally understandable, but it makes one question how non-partisan they are.
Neither factor, however, matters one whit today, any more than it did when "Draft Dodger" Clinton ran (and won) against two WWII vets, each with service records that by themselves shame Kerry and (W) Bush put together.
What matters is what they will do as President, and (by extension) what they have done recently to show what they will do as President. If Kerry wins on any other basis, I pity him for the abuse he will suffer as President.
I should point out to Kerry supporters how well slandering Bush's record worked in 2000. Now, it's worse; for bringing up a dead horse that's already been beaten, they legitimize the tactic of slandering people's military records, having nominated a candidate with an eminently slanderable record. And they have the gall to call Bush stupid?
And
The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are too fishy. This is a smear job.
Damn, I can't wait for this *(&!^# election to be over.
You know:'Bring It On', 'Reporting for Duty, 'War Hero'...blah,blah,blah
Now that other veterans wish to speak; change the subject to other matters.
Maybe they can get Senator McCain to condemn these ads. Oh, wait he already did.
Well, that ought to shut them up.As McCain says:
"...it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal"
This sure is a bad time to discuss Kerry's
veteran problem.
Nice try on the cherrypicking. Please note, everyone, that the quote from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is not a direct quote from Adm Hoffman, but a paraphrase.
It's really funny; everytime 'zilla trys to whip out a debunk, someone smashes it! Then 'zilla moves the goalposts in typical lefty fashion to duck rejoinders. Case in point: the original Clintonian claim that the ad was lie because the men in question didn't server with Kerry; i.e. they didn't serve on the same boat at the same time. No, but they were in the same outfit.
The rest of the debunks are equally lame. My own contribution: the debunk that "another doctor, J. C. Carreon, signed Mr. Kerry's treatment record." Typical lefty sneaky dishonesty. Carreon did the paperwork, but Letson treated the wound.
Dolt.
These men are accusing Kerry, but have not shown any hard evidence. They should show the evidence, if they have any.
These men ARE the hard evidence. They are eyewitnesses. Look around a bit before you post. All your points have been debunked, mostly on the Swift Vets site.
Yours,
Wince
So, tell us what the hell Kerry was doing runnning around the country after military service cut short six months to run for Congress in mock military clothes with Jane Fonda, faking throwing his medals over the fence in a war protest, and making an anti-war asshat out of himself ? At what point in his military or political career has he ever been of an opinion regarding military
"victory." HIs acceptaqnce speech never mentions the word victory. He is a political equivocator.
Kerry believes in half a victory, no victory or and throwning the white flag of surrrender. Did it ever occur to you that the vets who speak up for him are the ones he recommended for battle medals
while he was getting two more scratch wound purple heartaches.
Regarding positive military comments:
Go to SwiftVets.com for other military veteran opinions.
Let the veterans speak.....
IRS Filing showing Perry contributing $100,000 For support of the other things I've mentioned, check the links in the comments above.
Oh yes, and the eyewitnesses who actually served on Kerry's boat say that the "Swift Boat Veterans from Truth" are lying. How do you honestly reconcile their statements with that of the "Swift Boat Veterans from Truth?" who didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry?
So where does that leave us? Listening to Louis Letson who claims that he treated Kerry, but somehow got another doctor, J. C. Carreon, to sign the papers?
To Larry Thurlow, who claimed on Inside Politics today that in a mission where Kerry got a bronze star, the one where Kerry saved Rassmann, that they didn't actually take any fire? Thurlow, who received a Bronze star FOR THE VERY SAME MISSION? The mission in which he now claims they didn't actually take any fire?
To the founder of the group, John O'Neill, who states that he took over Kerry's boat only two months after Kerry left and who never met Kerry until their appearance together on the Dick Cavett show?
To Ray Hoffman, who admits that he had no first-hand knowledge and that he really didn't really know Kerry very much personally?
Who to believe? The men who actually served under Kerry, or the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"
Catch 22 says:So you question the motives of the veterans who support Kerry but not the veterans who don't. Could that be because the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are telling you what you want to hear?
No. I accept Mr. Kerry's military service to the degree that it is accurate. Its his actions AFTER leaving the military that bring up questions of his character. He left Viet Nam eight months early. He requested early discharge and his commander allowed him six months early discharge after Kerry requested early out for the purpose of running for Congress. What did he do then. Well, put on bogus military clothes, marched with Jane Fonda, joined anti-war protests, faked throwing military medals over the fence, bad-mouthed active duty personnel. These are issues of character. Voters need to know that. Ordinarily such things are un-important. But Kerry is running for President and many believe he is very unfit to prosecute any war on terrorism. His political records demonstrates multiple positions on both sides of most all political issues over a long period of time.
Yes, I do question the motives of veterans that support Kerry. Voters are looking for the facts.
So I'll let the SwiftVets speak as well. For myself, I am an observer of the scene. I served US military 1962 to 1970. I've had my uniform mocked in SF. Mr. Kerry is too far out in left field beyond the stands.
"For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency, we have resolved to end our silence."
So, I know enough to make an informed judgement.
I challenge his qualifications for high office. So let the vets speak...They just might have something to say.
John McCain said, "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable."
John McCain did not say that the White House should stop saying that Kerry was not deserving of his awards and service in Vietnam because the White House never made those comments.
It was a good try, Tim.
I consider the eyewitness accounts of the officers who served with him, the doctor who treated him for the wound that got him one of his purple heart, to be hard evidence.
There are things in the Swift Boat claims that are merely insinuation. Other things are hard fact. You can decide for yourself how seriously you take them.
I do note that Malshizilla's claims changed. First, it was that these guys must be saying medals were just given away, when what they're saying was that Kerry faked the paperwork. Then it was that they didn't serve with him, when in fact most of them did. Then it was that they should have come forward with these charges before, but it turns out that they've come out with all of them before. Then it was that they were Republicans, when in fact all we have is that the leader of the group is a Republican.
What it all looks like, to me, is a desperate attempt to attack these guys without first looking at their evidence. Which is kind of sad. Why not look at the evidence first, think hard about it, then respond?
There's nothing new in these allegations. Democrats should have been asking about them sooner than this, and have only themselves to blame if they suddenly don't like what they see in their nominee. And objecting that it's nasty? Uh, gee. You can't blame the President, he didn't authorize these ads.
Knee jerk reaction number two, McCain
And now knee jerk reaction number three, Bush
"Bush urges immediate end to 'soft money' ads"
Looks like its beat up on the veterans week.
Please Republicans, keep on attacking Kerry for serving. Bush looks so good by comparison.
Republicans - or anti-Kerries - are so excited that this vindictive commercial has aired.
Me too - because Kerry has a track record of smacking people down who think they've got the upper edge.
And please do more research into O' Neill. He is a complete and utter tool. I don't know about the rest, but Gardner also is a complete drunk hack (according to what I've read).
This shit is so sad. American politics is the worst bully to principle, honesty and trust. The country survives DESPITE it.
Now, suddenly, the Democrata have developed this strong moral fiber. Heh.
It isn't as if the recent ad has sunk as low as the Dems' stuff has; Dean is right. The statements made in that ad would be considered legal evidence, as opposed to (say) insubstantial allegation and innuendo. I'm just amused that the Dems can dish it out, but can't take it.
Andrew, the only think Kerry has a record of is finking out and stabbing other people in the back. Well that, and the highest ADA liberal rating in Congress. But I repeat myself... :)
When the Dems take Lord Pork Pork out into a very public courtyard, and vigorously scourge his large, repulsive ass with frat-boy paddles for about six hours, then roll the resulting mess of smelly, quivering suet into a large vat of scorpions, and unmistakably repudiate that lying blob of fecal matter.
I don't recall who said it first, here, but I agree: let's lose all of the idiot "campaign finance reform" laws. Each one is worse than the last, and no one seems to remember how we got along just fine for nearly two centuries without such claptrap.
In fact I'll say that the Donks and the Derms would be a lot less trigger-happy if the public could pin attack ads directly on the parties, instead of "independant" "non-profit" orgs.
I don't see how. It's a politically independent organization and, according to the campaign finance "reform" rules, he's not even allowed to have any communication with them. I suppose he could come out publicly and denounce them--but he's already done that, hasn't he?
No Andrew, you're living in a fantasy land. These independent groups have been created by the campaign finance "reform" laws, and by iron law they are independent of the parties or the candidates. Furthermore, these guys are no different, AT ALL, from groups like MoveOn and others that have been orchestrating the most vicious attacks on a sitting President of my lifetime or yours. Now you want to whine that groups are going after your favorite candidate?
By the way, Andrew, when is John Kerry going to denounce Michael Moore, huh? When will that be happening, Andrew? For that matter, when will YOU denounce Michael Moore? Any honorable man of the left would.
John Kerry publicly and repeatedly said "BRING. IT. ON." to anyone who wanted to question his record. Now a group of political independents, combat veterans all, has done just that. Are some of them Republicans? Yep. And some Democrats and some Independents. And after all your applauding of the MoveOns, the Howard Deans, the Michael Moores, you want to whine about this, and hold Bush accountable for ads that, by law, he cannot possibly have any influence over? According to campaign finance laws that the left was the biggest part of enacting?
Jeez. When you denounce Michael Moore get back to me. By comparison, what these guys are doing--just reporting what they claim they actually saw in Vietnam, and/or how they felt about Kerry's actions after Vietnam, isn't one tenth as vicious as Michael Moore's hate-film, and your party WELCOMED HIM TO THEIR CONVENTION and SAT HIM NEXT TO A FORMER PRESIDENT.
Disgusting? Ugh. You said it.
But you don't need to hate Moore to be honorable - nice brush there.
Moore waddled his fat ass into Carter's convention box without an invitation. Know any other "truths?" And what the hell has that got to do with what we were talking about?
Legally, no of course Bush couldn't stop them. I didn't say that. But he could stop them. Got off on a little rant there didn't you? Talked about lots of things I wasn't talking about.
Look, like I said, run with this all you want. I just think it's shameful. With the level of drooling glee this has generated, it's almost as if this is the only thing that has given Bush supporters hope these last few months.
Tim: thanks. I don't have Kerry. I don't think he's a traitor, etc., although I wish he would apologize to the vets for his "Winter Soldier" testimony. You know, some sort of "I acted in good faith, but I was wrong" sort of thing. I really think that apology would help him a lot.
I am very irked by Kerry's touting of his Vietnam service ("Kerry, who -by the way- served in Vietnam..."). Feh. I'll be willing to drop Kerry's record as soon as he stops banging on Bush's record, but Kerry has made his "decorated service" a centerpiece.
The worst thing is that -despite "common wisdom"- previous military service really isn't a good predictor for Presidential war direction.
If nothing else, let's look at the level of experience. Let's posit that Kerry was the Boy Scout of Vietnam; honest, pure, etc., etc. Let's assume that he earned all his decorations very, very honorably without cavil.
The point is that it still doesn't matter! He's still leaving the service as a lousy Lt (jg). Since when does commanding a river boat make you qualfied to be the President during a war? Same objection for an eleven-bush platoon leader, or a guy in charge of a 105mm howitzer.
They all experienced war in the worst way, but at the lowest level. Does this make them great war leaders? Then a mail-room clerk can run P&G just fine, thank you! Ok. Tim will probably agree with that last. Heh.
Hell, even combat generals aren't necessarily qualified, since they specialized in artillery, infantry, armor, Marines, (whatever) a long time ago. Only one general (Washington) was a great general and a great political leader, and I think we can agree he was a very special case.
Look at Grant. Excellent General of the Army, lousy President.
Consider Lincoln. 5 weeks militia service, one of the best war presidents ever.
Consider FDR. The closest he ever got to service was Assistant Undersecretary to the Navy, but an incomparable war leader.
Consider Hitler. Served honorably and well in a Bavarian regiment, and was awarded the Iron Cross, first class. He was wounded more than once, including mustard gas. A terrible war leader...
Consider Mao Zedong. Started out as a librarian. Made history as one of the originators of "asymmetrical warfare." One of the worst murderers of all time.
Consider General Giap. Started out as a history teacher. Whipped the French at Dien Bien Phu. Helped build Communist Vietnam, and instigate the flight of millions of Vietnamese.
Historically speaking, good warriors make lousy politicians, and vice versa. There's a reason for that, if you think about it...
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.