PDA

View Full Version : Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief say colleagues


Drbio
05-03-2004, 10:20 AM
Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief', Say Former Military Colleagues
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 03, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com . The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, currently a Houston, Texas, based attorney, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States. Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any sailor who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures will educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander-in-chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander-in-Chief'

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign.

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.

O'Neill hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

'Real John Kerry'

B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"The American people do not know John Kerry and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he added.

Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment.

reeds
05-03-2004, 02:42 PM
ya, I would much rather have a National Guard whimp leading this country than someone who earned medals in NAM.....what was I thinking?lol..

FishForLunch
05-03-2004, 04:25 PM
Me too, I would rather have a Commander in Chief who back stabbed his collegues after 4 months stint in Vietnam.

reeds
05-09-2004, 10:43 PM
4 minutes in Nam is harder than what Bush's war record is

FishForLunch
05-09-2004, 10:59 PM
Lurch served in Nam and then came back to stab his fellow soldiers in the back

madape
05-10-2004, 09:55 AM
Kerry has admitted to committing "atrocities" while in Vietnam. Maybe Bush can assign him as the new prison guard at Abu Ghraib after he loses this fall. He should feel right at home.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 10:11 AM
John O'Neill has been carrying the water for WH republicans since he did so for those whose names live in infamy...Dick Nixon and Chuck Colson, two criminals who recruited O'Neill to debate Vietnam with a young John Kerry.

O'neill didn't learn his lesson back in the 70's about being used by the WH. One would think he was smarter today, but clearly he isn't.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
John O'Neill has been carrying the water for WH republicans since he did so for those whose names live in infamy...Dick Nixon and Chuck Colson, two criminals who recruited O'Neill to debate Vietnam with a young John Kerry.

O'neill didn't learn his lesson back in the 70's about being used by the WH. One would think he was smarter today, but clearly he isn't.

Ahh yes, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

madape
05-10-2004, 10:41 AM
Mavdog, what "lesson" should O'Neil have learned?

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by: madape
Mavdog, what "lesson" should O'Neil have learned?

O'Neill was a foil for the Nixon WH in the early 70's and, here we are over 30 years later, and he's back at it again. O'Neill makes sheep look like independent thinkers...

madape
05-10-2004, 11:35 AM
It sounds to me like a man giving his opinion to me. Sure, Kerry's political opponents may have encouraged him a little to speak out over the years, but it's not like the man is compromising himself for political gain. He truly beleives Kerry is a scumbag, and he's not afraid to say so.

I still don't see what lesson he should have learned from all of this.

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 11:37 AM
It doesn't sound like O'Neill is the only guy involved in this protest.

Drbio
05-10-2004, 02:40 PM
"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

This pretty damning. It is hardly just one person. If you can't refute the message like kg alluded to, maybe you should just move on to the next thread. This one is pretty obvious.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

This pretty damning. It is hardly just one person. If you can't refute the message like kg alluded to, maybe you should just move on to the next thread. This one is pretty obvious.

Here's acounter to O'neill:

The Veterans Brigade has been a powerful weapon in helping John Kerry charge to the front of the pack. Led by some of the crew from his swift boat tours in Vietnam, veterans have been traveling from state to state, getting on the phone, vet-to-vet, to turn out their fellow vets for caucuses and primaries.

WATE TV in east Tennessee broadcast an insightful piece about two members of the Veterans Brigade, Del Sandusky and Gene Thorson, who were visiting the state before Tuesday's primary.

Del and Gene both served under Kerry's command. On this video, Del and Gene make a very strong case for John's candidacy. Thorson is crystal clear about what Kerry's campaign means to him: "We care for the man. We believe in what he is doing. It's like I tell people back home, if I can do one iota for this man to be president, I will do it, and I will try my best.

Apparently O'Neill doesn't ahve all of Kerry's fellow soldiers on his side...

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 03:49 PM
Two guys versus hundreds of former commanders and colleagues.

I'll take the word of the hundreds.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Two guys versus hundreds of former commanders and colleagues.

I'll take the word of the hundreds.

Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?

I woder how many people who served with GWBush endorse him as Commander in Chief.

Oh, wait, nobody served with GWBush did they...guess we won't hear from them will we?

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Two guys versus hundreds of former commanders and colleagues.

I'll take the word of the hundreds.

Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?

The first line of the article cited at the start of this thread states, "Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."

Simple math, indeed.


I woder how many people who served with GWBush endorse him as Commander in Chief.

Oh, wait, nobody served with GWBush did they...guess we won't hear from them will we?

Nice reeds-like comeback. Irrelevant and corny.

Mavdog
05-10-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Two guys versus hundreds of former commanders and colleagues.

I'll take the word of the hundreds.

Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?

The first line of the article cited at the start of this thread states, "Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."

Simple math, indeed.

This article came out on Monday (5/3), they state the letter/press conference detailing the signators was to be Tuesday (5/4), here we are a week later(5/9) and nothing from the reported "hundreds". Perhaps they couldn't count...


I woder how many people who served with GWBush endorse him as Commander in Chief.

Oh, wait, nobody served with GWBush did they...guess we won't hear from them will we?

Nice reeds-like comeback. Irrelevant and corny.

however it is factual.
The attempt to discredit Kerry's ability in 2004 to be a leader of our nation based on O'Neill's obsession with his failure in a debate with Kerry 33 years ago is actually what is "Irrelevant and corny".

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 04:57 PM
This article came out on Monday (5/3), they state the letter/press conference detailing the signators was to be Tuesday (5/4), here we are a week later(5/9) and nothing from the reported "hundreds". Perhaps they couldn't count...

I get it. Whenever facts begin to be presented, you just start with the petty insults.

Nice backpedal, by the way.


however it is factual.

So you admit to spouting irrelevant facts.

Thank you.


The attempt to discredit Kerry's ability in 2004 to be a leader of our nation based on O'Neill's obsession with his failure in a debate with Kerry 33 years ago is actually what is "Irrelevant and corny".

I love your repeated attempts to minimize facts that go against your man Kerry. This isn't "O'Neill's obsession". This, apparently, runs much deeper than that.

reeds
05-10-2004, 05:36 PM
"Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?
I woder how many people who served with GWBush endorse him as Commander in Chief.
Oh, wait, nobody served with GWBush did they...guess we won't hear from them will we? "

Classic....

kg_veteran
05-10-2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
"Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?
I woder how many people who served with GWBush endorse him as Commander in Chief.
Oh, wait, nobody served with GWBush did they...guess we won't hear from them will we? "

Classic....

Classic that you would enjoy the comment that sounds like it came straight out of your mouth.

And that's not a compliment, in case you were wondering.

dude1394
05-10-2004, 07:05 PM
Swift Boat Veterans (http://www.swiftvets.com/) Looks like a nice commercial waiting to be made. Also looks pretty damning to me.

We believe it is incumbent on ALL presidential candidates to be totally honest and forthcoming regarding personal background and policy information that would help the voting public make an informed decision when choosing the next president of the United States.

Now that Senator John Kerry is the presumptive nominee of his Party for president, numerous questions have been raised concerning Mr. Kerry’s service in Vietnam and concerning his subsequent antiwar activities. Our mission is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry’s abbreviated tour of duty as a member of Coastal Division 14 and Coastal Division 11. Since many who are involved with Swiftvets.com themselves had swift boat duty and knew John Kerry personally, they are in a unique position to provide such information.

List of Signees
Roy Alexander
Kenneth J. Andrews, Lt.
Dan V. Armstrong, BM2
Ray Lewis Ballew
Alexander Bass
George “M.” Bates
Richard Beers
Paul L. Bennett, Cdr., USN
Edward J. “Lord Mort” Bergin, Capt., USNR Ret.
Henry “Buddy” Berman, QM2
Barry Bogart, EN2
Bob Bolger Cdr., USN Ret.
M.T. Boone
David Borden
Vern Boyd
David M. Bradley, LCdr.
Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant, Cdr. USN (Ret.)
Kenneth Briggs
Carlyle J. Brown , EN2
Kenneth “Buck” Buckholz, GMM3
Michael C. Burton
Joe Cahill, Jr., Lt.
Jack L. Carlson, Lt., USNR
Billy Carwile, EN3
Jack Chenoweth
William Colgan, RD3
Bill Collins
Daniel K. Corbett, Lt., USNR
James M. Corrigan, QM3
Terry Cosstello
John H. Davis, Lt.
William K. Daybert, Cdr.
James Deal
John Dooley, Cdr., USN, Ret.
Dale Duffield , BM1, USN, Ret.
Robert G. Elder, Lt.
George M. Elliott, Capt. USNR, Ret.
Wallace Benjamin Foreman, QM1, USN, Ret.
William T. Ferris, Capt. USNR, Ret.
William E. Franke, LT.jg
Robert L. Franson, BMCS (SW)
Alfred J. French, III, Capt., JAGC, USNR, Ret.
Paul F. Fulcomer, RD3
Ray Fuller, GMG3
Steve Fulton, Cdr., USN, Ret.
Mike Gann, Capt., USNR, Ret.
Steve Gardner
Bill Garlow
Les Garrett
Tony Gisclair
Robert Gnau, QM2
Donald Goldberg
Morton Golde, Cdr. USN, Ret.
Kenneth Golden
Gerald L. Good, Lt. USN
John C. Graves
Charles E. Green, ENCM, USN Ret.
Dennis L. Green, GMG
H.C. Griffin, Jr., Lt. USNR
I.B.S. (Boyd) Groves, Jr.
Charles R. Grutzius, Capt. USNR, Ret.
F.L. Skip “Mustang Sally”
Gunther, Lt. USN
Bill Halpin, Lt. USNR, Ret.
Don C. Hammer, Lt.
Rock Harmon
Keith C. Harris, RD2
Stewart M. Harris, Lt., USN
Gene Hart, RD3
Bob Hastings
Curt Hatler
John Hecker , RD3
Chuck Herman, RD3
Raul Herrera
Tom Herritage
Grant (Skip) Hibbard
Rocky Hildreth
Roy Hoffmann, Adm., USN, Ret.
William P. Holden, Capt., USN Ret.
Wayland Holloway, Lt. USNR
Robert Hooke, Lt.
Andy Horne
John Howell
Warren Hudson
Charles W. Hunt, EN3
Robert Hunt
Gail E. “Ike” Ikerd, Cdr. Ret.
John Paul Jones, QM3
Tom Jones
Eddie Kajioka ENCS, USN Ret.
John L. Kipp, Cdr., USN, Ret.
Thomas H. Klemash
Kenneth Knipple, EN1
Robert Koger, QM2
Mike Kovanen, RD3
Bob Kreyer, GMG2
Jack K. Lane, GMG3
William T. Langham
William Lannom
Joseph R. Lavoie, II CWO2 (BOSN), USN Ret.
Louis Letson, LCdr., USN, Ret.
Jim Madden, RD3
William S. Mann, Jr., LT.jg
Jim Marohn, GMG3
Douglas Martin, Lt. USNR
Tom Mason, Lt.
Donald Matras, EN2 Ret.
Thomas Mason, Lt.
Louis Masterson
Richard McFarland, Lt. USNR
Kenneth B. McGhee
James McNeal, ENC
Larry Meyer
Jack Merkley, Lt.
James M. Miller
Martin Miller, ENC, Ret.
Marc Milligan, GMG2
Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3
Bub Morgan, LT.jg
Edgar (Ed) M. Morrill, Jr.
Tom Morrill, EN3
Wayne H. Moser
Kurt Moss, Lt. J.G.
Frank Mueller
Marc Mulligan, GMG2
Ed Mundy
Richard Olsen, Lt.
John O’Neill
Albert Owens
Tedd Peck, Capt. USNR, Ret.
Robert Phalen, GMG2
Joseph L. Ponder, GMG-2, USN Ret.
Charles Plumley
Chuck Rabel
Bill Rogers , Lt.
Jennings Rogerson II, Capt. USMC Ret.
Patrick Sage GMG3
Gary W. Sallee, BM2
Joe Sandoval, GMG3
Jimmy W. Sanford, RD3
Robert “Bob” Sattergood
Jim Schneider, EN2
Clair J. (Pete) Schrodt, Capt. USN, Ret.
Jack Shamley
Patrick Sheedy, Cdr., USN, Ret.
Paul Shepherd, QM2
Robert B. Shirley, Lt.jg
William Shumadine
Stanley G. Simonson, GMG2
Darryl Skuce, GMG2
John J. Skura
Gerald H. Smith
Roy Smith
B. Tony Snesko BM2
Mike Solhaug
Jack Spratt, LCDR
Stirlin Harris, BM2
Fred E. Stith, USN, (Ret.)
David R. Stefferud, Capt., USN Ret.
James Steffes
Lawrence Stoneberg, Lt. USN Ret.
Weymouth Symmes
W.P. (Sonny) Taylor
James P. Thomas
Eldon Thompson, LT.jg
Charles R. Tinstman, ENC
Gary E. Townsend
William F. Trainer
Michael Turley, BM2
Chris J. Vedborg, RD3
Jeffrey M. Wainscott, LT. jg
David Wallace
Greg Ward, EN2
Larry J. “Waz” Wasikowski,
Cdr. U.S. Naval Reserve
Pete Webster
Robert T. Wedge, Jr., QM1, USN Ret.
Steven Weekley, GMG, QM3
George H. White, II
R. Shelton White, Lt.
Gary K. Whittington, EN3
James D. Wiggins
Dennis D. Willess, EN3
Thomas A. Withey, Lt.
Barnard Wolff
Thomas W. Wright , Cdr., USN Ret.
John Wyatt, GMG
John Yeoman, Lt.
Ex Officio:
Verne DeWitt
David P. Marion , CPT Infantry, US Army
Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3
Cordelia Ogrinz, in memory of her brother Alexander J. Ogrinz, III, Lt.
Rex Rectanus, VADM, USN, Ret.
Skip Ridley
Emmett Tidd
James M. Zumwalt in memory of Elmo Zumwalt, Sr. and Elmo Zumwalt, Jr, his father and father

reeds
05-10-2004, 07:50 PM
it didnt come out of my mouth..but I will endorse the comment anyway...

dude1394
05-11-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Two guys versus hundreds of former commanders and colleagues.

I'll take the word of the hundreds.

Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?

SEE ABOVE

Mavdog
05-11-2004, 10:09 PM
So we should let these few (doesn't look like "hundreds" BTW) people decide?

I think not..

dude1394
05-11-2004, 10:24 PM
~153. Of course they don't decide, but they know him a heck of a lot better than you or I and they say he's unfit. Of course on the left their is Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy etc. I'll put my moolah on the vets.

Mavdog
05-11-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
~153. Of course they don't decide, but they know him a heck of a lot better than you or I and they say he's unfit. Of course on the left their is Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy etc. I'll put my moolah on the vets.

no, they said they knew Kerry over 30 years ago...or at least the ones who signed, rather than the ones who were deceased and their descendants put their name down (which is pretty creepy if you ask me)

dude1394
05-11-2004, 10:34 PM
So YOU know him better than these guys?

Mavdog
05-12-2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
So YOU know him better than these guys?

Nope, and I never claimed to. They are the one's who are making the public statements...

Drbio
05-12-2004, 09:01 AM
Mavdog- ignoring facts like you are doing in this thread is pathetic. You consistently bring up W.'s military record and then spew out that these guys knew him 30 years ago. Give it a rest. You cannot play both sides of the fence.

kg_veteran
05-12-2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
So we should let these few (doesn't look like "hundreds" BTW) people decide?

I think not..

First you implied I was making up these people.

Then you implied that they didn't really sign anything.

Now that you were proven wrong on both counts, your response is to summarily dismiss their opinions?

Talk about backtracking.

I'll still take the word of 153 or so over the word of 2.

Mavdog
05-12-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog
So we should let these few (doesn't look like "hundreds" BTW) people decide?

I think not..[/i]

[quote]
First you implied I was making up these people.

I di not "imply" anything like that.


Then you implied that they didn't really sign anything.

No, I did not. Are you reading this thread?


Now that you were proven wrong on both counts, your response is to summarily dismiss their opinions?

Since I didn't imply what you accuse me of, I can't be "proven wrong" as you suggest. I can however dismiss their opinions as their opinions are just that...opinions. Did someone make these people the ultimate decisionmakers about Kerry's abilities? No.


Talk about backtracking.

Talk about lack of comphrehension.


I'll still take the word of 153 or so over the word of 2.

hmm, what happened to the "hundreds"?

As for myself, I don't follow the directives of a small group of people who claim to know what a person is made of by their limited (if any)interaction with that person over 30 years ago.

You certainly can follow their directive if you wish, or you can think independently. It's your choice...

kg_veteran
05-12-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

[quote]
First you implied I was making up these people.

I di not "imply" anything like that.

Your words: "Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?"



Then you implied that they didn't really sign anything.

No, I did not. Are you reading this thread?

Not only am I reading this thread, I've been conversing with you in this thread. It just appears that you forget what you say from one day to the next.

Again, your words: "This article came out on Monday (5/3), they state the letter/press conference detailing the signators was to be Tuesday (5/4), here we are a week later(5/9) and nothing from the reported "hundreds". Perhaps they couldn't count..."

The clear implication was that no letter was, in fact, signed.



Now that you were proven wrong on both counts, your response is to summarily dismiss their opinions?

Since I didn't imply what you accuse me of, I can't be "proven wrong" as you suggest. I can however dismiss their opinions as their opinions are just that...opinions. Did someone make these people the ultimate decisionmakers about Kerry's abilities? No.

I love your choice of words. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I simply read what you said. You did imply the things I said you did, and you were wrong...each time.

The bottom line is that you started out in this thread by trying to act like O'Neill was some lone wolf out there voicing his dissenting opinion against Kerry because of some bitterness he had from a 30 year old grudge. The fact of the matter is, there are a LOT of people who personally served with and were associated with John Kerry in Vietnam, and they don't think he's fit to be Commander-In-Chief.

You were wrong. I know it pains you to admit it, but if you want to have any credibility, you'll just do that and move on.



Talk about backtracking.

Talk about lack of comphrehension.

I enjoy it when you try to insult my intelligence. It's a sign of defeat.


As for myself, I don't follow the directives of a small group of people who claim to know what a person is made of by their limited (if any)interaction with that person over 30 years ago.

How do you know whether their interaction was limited? How do you know what they saw? The article indicates that the list includes every commanding officer Kerry had in Vietnam and 19 of 23 officers who served with him. Those sound like people who knew him pretty well and saw him in action.

If they have strong enough reservations about him that they have declared him "unfit" to be Commander-In-Chief, well, I think those are legitimate opinions to which we should pay attention.


You certainly can follow their directive if you wish, or you can think independently. It's your choice...

I like how you try (unsuccessfully) to make it sound like thinking independently is mutually exclusive from giving credence to the opinions of the people who signed this letter.

Mavdog
05-12-2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Originally posted by: Mavdog
[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

[quote]
First you implied I was making up these people.

I did not "imply" anything like that.[/i]

Your words: "Interesting math, where do you come up with "hundreds"?"


[quote]
Then you implied that they didn't really sign anything.

No, I did not. Are you reading this thread?


Not only am I reading this thread, I've been conversing with you in this thread. It just appears that you forget what you say from one day to the next.

so my asking "where do you come up with hundreds" is suggesting that "they didn't sign anything"? Interesting interpertation, but not accurate to say the least.


Again, your words: "This article came out on Monday (5/3), they state the letter/press conference detailing the signators was to be Tuesday (5/4), here we are a week later(5/9) and nothing from the reported "hundreds". Perhaps they couldn't count..."

The clear implication was that no letter was, in fact, signed.

The "clear implication" was that there was no letter produced. You made the (incorrect) leap to your own conclusion.



Now that you were proven wrong on both counts, your response is to summarily dismiss their opinions?

Since I didn't imply what you accuse me of, I can't be "proven wrong" as you suggest. I can however dismiss their opinions as their opinions are just that...opinions. Did someone make these people the ultimate decisionmakers about Kerry's abilities? No.

I love your choice of words. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I simply read what you said. You did imply the things I said you did, and you were wrong...each time.

oh, but you did "accuse" me of stating "I was making up these people." (wrong) and that I "implied that they didn't really sign anything" (wrong again). Short memory eh?
Of course, they still don't total the "hundreds" you and the article referenced BTW.


The bottom line is that you started out in this thread by trying to act like O'Neill was some lone wolf out there voicing his dissenting opinion against Kerry because of some bitterness he had from a 30 year old grudge.

really? Did I say he was a "lone wolf" (no)? I stated he was being used, just like he was 30 years ago. You do not read well do you?


The fact of the matter is, there are a LOT of people who personally served with and were associated with John Kerry in Vietnam, and they don't think he's fit to be Commander-In-Chief.

There are some who signed this letter. Do they have the personal knowledge of John Kerry today? What are their motivations? Are they involved with the Republican Party? Did they sign the letter or just give O'Neill their permission to use their names? Do they believe that Bush is better qualified? Why do they believe that? Do they have the ability to qualify an individual as capable to be Commander in Chief? How do they base their evaluation? Are they of sound mind?
Who knows...


You were wrong. I know it pains you to admit it, but if you want to have any credibility, you'll just do that and move on.

Wrong about what exactly? That O'Neill was a stooge for Nixon and Colson? That he still bears bitterness towards Kerry? I haven't been shown to wrong on those points which are the basis of my responses.



Talk about backtracking.

Talk about lack of comphrehension.

I enjoy it when you try to insult my intelligence. It's a sign of defeat.

Glad to bring you some enjoyment. Typically when someone shows how you're mistaken it is not a "sign of defeat".


As for myself, I don't follow the directives of a small group of people who claim to know what a person is made of by their limited (if any)interaction with that person over 30 years ago.

How do you know whether their interaction was limited?

The facts say such. kerry served in Vietnam 4 months. And that was over 30 years ago.


How do you know what they saw? The article indicates that the list includes every commanding officer Kerry had in Vietnam and 19 of 23 officers who served with him. Those sound like people who knew him pretty well and saw him in action.

As we have seen the article has trouble with numbers.


If they have strong enough reservations about him that they have declared him "unfit" to be Commander-In-Chief, well, I think those are legitimate opinions to which we should pay attention.


You certainly can follow their directive if you wish, or you can think independently. It's your choice...

I like how you try (unsuccessfully) to make it sound like thinking independently is mutually exclusive from giving credence to the opinions of the people who signed this letter.

I don't know these people, do you? I do know who O'Neill is, and those he worked for who include Nixon and Colson, therefore I would discount any opinion he has on John Kerry.

LRB
05-12-2004, 11:53 AM
Wow Mavdog I'm wondering are you stupid or just dishonest? I mean you say thing that most people could very easily interpret to mean what KG has interpreted them as. And even when he calls you on them, you continue with the ambigious sayings. Maybe just just don't know how to write and communicate any more clearly. Perhaps stupid is overly harsh and maybe I should replace it with ignorant. You just flat out don't know how to adequately communicate. The alternative is that you do know that it is highly likely that your posts will be taken the "wrong way". Yet you continue to post in this manner to continue with the "inadvertant" deception of those who you are arguing with. This is a common tactic of politicians. Say something that leaves you loopholes to come back and say that you really didn't mean the impression that you knowingly gave people.

So here's your chance. Restate your opinions in clear and unambigious terms. Then stick by that or apologize for being wrong if overwhelming facts are produced. The fact that you might be wrong over a fact, doesn't mean that your side of the general argument is wrong. It only means that you were misinformed over a smaller fact. Much of the argument is opinion anyways.

Personally I think if 90% of the surviving members of those who served with Kerry in Vietnam feel so strongly about his inadequacies that they have come forward in a highly public manner to condemn him would be a very motivating fact to me to question Kerry's ability to lead our armed forces. However, even if this is a completely true and undisputed fact, it could still be argued that the Kerry of today would be more than adequate as commander in chief. I don't believe that, but I certainly see how it could be argued. But to ademantly refuse to admit ones mistakes in the face of overwhelming evidence tends to lead others to discredit your opinions as nothing but partisan spin doctoring and to contain nothing of the independent thinking that you so claim to have. You may be one of the most independent of thinkers on this board, but your refusals to even admit the smallest of errors in communication in this thread alone, do not put you in the most favorable light to be viewed as an independent thinker.

madape
05-12-2004, 11:55 AM
The article mentions a list of hundreds of commanders and collegues of Kerry who think he's unfit to serve. Dude provided a list of 196 names, which certainly confirms that the number is in the realm of what could be described as "hundreds". The article also mentions that 25-30 of those on the list were officers. It seems the only party that has a problem with numbers here is Mavdog.

madape
05-12-2004, 11:59 AM
A new word is about to be added to the astounding Mavdog lexicon

hun·dreds ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hndrds)
The numbers between 100 and 999: an attendance figure estimated in the hundreds.

Mavdog
05-12-2004, 12:29 PM
hun·dreds ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hndrds)
The numbers between 100 and 999: an attendance figure estimated in the hundreds.

Then I use "hundreds" incorrectly. To me, when it is less than 200 I call it a "hundred and x", 200 and over is the multiple "hundreds and x". Do you say "one hundreds and ninety-eight"?

Wow Mavdog I'm wondering are you stupid or just dishonest? I mean you say thing that most people could very easily interpret to mean what KG has interpreted them as. And even when he calls you on them, you continue with the ambigious sayings

Funny, what I see written was that O'Neill has a bone to pick with Kerry, that any statement about the capacity of Kerry to be Commander in Chief should be evaluated in that context, and I for one question who actually are the people behind the press release.

I did not as KG stated "implied I was making up these people." nor did I "implied that they didn't really sign anything". I did imply that O'Neill has been/is a tool of others (and not too honourable people at that), that he has a grudge from 33 years ago and that I discredit the whole thing because of such.

Pretty simple to me...

LRB
05-12-2004, 12:47 PM
I did not as KG stated "implied I was making up these people." nor did I "implied that they didn't really sign anything". I did imply that O'Neill has been/is a tool of others (and not too honourable people at that), that he has a grudge from 33 years ago and that I discredit the whole thing because of such.


Yet whether you implied it or not, you posted a statment that could easily be taken to mean what KG percieved that you implied. The question then remains why do you write in such an ambigious way and not at least apologize for it? Even if you admit to making a personal mistake, that in no way invalidates your argument, but only lends credibility to you as a debater who will admit when they are wrong. Maybe you had no intention at all of implying what KG perceived that you implied. But at the very least your post was ambigious enough to be taken to mean something different than what you say you intended. An independent minded person would readily admit to this IMO, however on who just spews their political idealogy without regard to the established facts would not.

You can split hairs on hundreds as to whether if 4 more people had signed instead of just 196, that it would be hundreds. But that argument sounds extremely petty and close minded. Better to admit that you were wrong here and continue with the stronger parts of your argument. I know there are ones, because even if I don't believe your position to be right, there are points that can be brought up that better defend your position. Being wrong of such a minor point really does little to damage credibility. However, adamantly using split hair arguments to try and defend yourself does hurt your credibility. In the long run it matter little whether there were 196 or 200 who signed. Why spend such a great deal of bandwidth refusing to admit a mistake on an irrelevant point? Just move on to the more important ones.

madape
05-12-2004, 12:53 PM
Mavdog, as your initial arguments have been battered and beaten, you have retreated into syntactical interpretation. With the absense of any credible points, you have resorted to defending the use of certain words early on in your debate.

Now that even THOSE pathetic arguments have been thrown in your face, I have but one question for you...

Why are you still talking?

kg_veteran
05-12-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
so my asking "where do you come up with hundreds" is suggesting that "they didn't sign anything"? Interesting interpertation, but not accurate to say the least.

Come on, man. I quoted your own words back to you. And those weren't even the words I quoted back to you. Stop playing dumb.


The "clear implication" was that there was no letter produced. You made the (incorrect) leap to your own conclusion.

I see. You meant that the letter had been signed but was being hidden from the rest of the world. Right.

Either way, you were wrong.



The bottom line is that you started out in this thread by trying to act like O'Neill was some lone wolf out there voicing his dissenting opinion against Kerry because of some bitterness he had from a 30 year old grudge.

really? Did I say he was a "lone wolf" (no)? I stated he was being used, just like he was 30 years ago. You do not read well do you?

There you go again, trying to insult my intelligence. We both know what that means.


There are some who signed this letter. Do they have the personal knowledge of John Kerry today? What are their motivations? Are they involved with the Republican Party? Did they sign the letter or just give O'Neill their permission to use their names? Do they believe that Bush is better qualified? Why do they believe that? Do they have the ability to qualify an individual as capable to be Commander in Chief? How do they base their evaluation? Are they of sound mind?
Who knows...

We can only look at what we do know, which is that 196 people, including all of his former commanders and 19 out of 23 officers he served with, think he's unfit to serve. I suppose you can try and attribute ulterior political motives to all 196 of them. Not a very solid argument, but if that's the best you've got, I guess you've got to go with that.



How do you know whether their interaction was limited?

The facts say such. kerry served in Vietnam 4 months. And that was over 30 years ago.

I see. John Kerry gets to trumpet the fact that he served in Vietnam for 4 months over 30 years ago as proof that he's qualified to be President/Commander-in-Chief. You get to mock George W. Bush's service record because he didn't see active combat. But people who were WITH John Kerry during his service and actually knew/know him and saw him in action don't have very relevant opinions.

That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


I don't know these people, do you? I do know who O'Neill is, and those he worked for who include Nixon and Colson, therefore I would discount any opinion he has on John Kerry.

Discount O'Neill's opinion if you want. There are still 195 other people.

I don't know them, but they knew/know John Kerry. I'm interested in why they would feel strongly enough about the subject to attribute their name to a letter declaring him unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. As much as you want to minimize and discredit their opinions, those opinions are HIGHLY relevant.

Drbio
05-12-2004, 04:48 PM
hhhmmm......maybe I can summarize this thread. Feel free to follow along post by post...none were excluded.










Doc: Hundreds of former servicemen who served with, over or under Kerry have expressed concern that he is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.


reeds: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.......

FishFL: here is a tissue you whiney b*tch...I love W.


reeds: waaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaah waaaaaaah.....bush 30 years ago didn't go Nam....waaaaaaaahhh......

FishFL: You mean like your boy Kerry who disrespected every serviceman since the day he put on a uniform? Your boy Hanoi Kerry?

madape: Kerry is a fool and he admits to committing atrocities...the type of which he now condemns for political profit

Mavdog: **TOTALLY IGNORING THE FACT AND TOPIC** waaaaaaah....Nixon did this....Colson did that.....O'Neill is conspirator......wah!

kg_vet: If you can't refute the facts....attack the messenger.....dork

Ape: (Accomodating the off-topic Mavdog unecessarily) Tell us about O'Neill....

Mavdog: I cannot....I can only spew liberalese until your ears bleed.

Ape: O'Neill is right and you need a diaper change

kg_vet: O'Neill is but one of hundreds apparently accroding to the printed article.

Mavdog: Waaaaaaaaaaaah.....I can produce a list with singles of names supporting Kerry. Is 2 singles? What exactly do you call individual digits? As always, I am so confused.


kg_Vet: singles < hundreds. I'll go with the obvious.


Mavdog: *sniff* excuse me while I attempt to symantically confuse you with inuendo. Can someone please define "Is"? By the way...did I mention what GWB did 30 years ago?



kg_vet: Cites accurately the use of the "hundreds", defines the word "Is" and b*tchslaps a less prepared liberal foe.


Mavdog: waaaaaah.....it is factual because I say it is. Did I use "Is" correctly. Again...I am confused.


kg_vet: Indeed, you are confused. (additionally, kg points out the backpedal here and throws his hands in the air)


reeds: waaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah


kg_vet: reeds....I'd call you a moron but you wouldn't get it.


dude: Here are 196 names and references to others.....hundreds is supported. For those slow liberals...once again.....hundreds is more than singles.


reeds: even though you thoroughly explained it, I insist on being a retard.


dude: Mavdog, I have shown you the hundreds. Can I recommend a good math tutor?


Mavdog: *retreat...retreat...retreat*


dude: so you will take the word of two (and a few radical muslims probably) over hundreds of men who served with Kerry and understand his character?


Mavdog: waaaaaah waaaaaaaah waaaaaaah. These guys knew him over 30 years ago. It doesn't count. The only thing that happened 30 years ago that matters is GWB not going to Nam.


dude: You know Kerry better then?


Mavdog: Of course I do.


Drbio: Stop playing both sides of the 30 years ago issue Mavdog you mental midget.


kg_vet: b*tchslap!


Mavdog: *backtrack*


kg_vet: b*tchslap!!!!


Mavdog: *backtrack*

kg_vet: b*tchslap!


Mavdog: *backtrack*


kg_vet: b*tchslap!!!!


Mavdog: *backtrack*


LRB: Stupid Ignoramus.....here, let me give you a respectable way out of this unfortunate conundrum that you have put yourself in.


Madape: That idiot will never be a math professor


Madape: However, he may one day work as a wordsmith for Webster's Inc.


Mavdog: Define "Is" again for me please? I don't quite understand even though you all speak plain english.


LRB: FOOL! I gave you a way out dammit.


Madape: Please...for the love of god man....stop talking. Even reeds is crying for you.



kg_vet: You have been completely exposed as inferior.








To be continued?

reeds
05-12-2004, 05:16 PM
I am a retard- and I approve this message... I will be a proud retard every day of my life if the alternative is being a right winged blind replubican like the majority of this board..thank god Dallas isnt any bigger, or this country would really be screwed...

DRBIO- my hero...I sure wish I had 22 thousand perfect posts like you...someday..perhaps...who is the real retard...hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

kg_veteran
05-12-2004, 05:23 PM
who is the real retard...hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

Hmmm. Let me think about that one for a minute...



Yeah, I'll go with the guy who repeatedly employs typewritten laughter in lieu of an actual point.

dude1394
05-12-2004, 06:34 PM
Damn....that was funny doc... Damn....I'm still chuckllng.

reeds
05-12-2004, 08:01 PM
an actual point from your point of view....priceless

dude1394
05-12-2004, 08:12 PM
huh?

Mavdog
05-12-2004, 08:16 PM
Very Orwellian doc. totally ficticous, but at least well thought out.

Watch out, people may think you're "implying" something other than what you are saying...

Drbio
05-12-2004, 08:54 PM
I love this section.

LRB
05-13-2004, 12:13 AM
Doc you should be the official play by play man for the Polictical Arena. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

kg_veteran
05-13-2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Very Orwellian doc. totally ficticous, but at least well thought out.

Watch out, people may think you're "implying" something other than what you are saying...

God forbid that "people" infer anything from the comments of others. We should all just read everything literally. Throw sarcasm, nuance and other subtleties out the window.

Better yet, let's insult people when they infer something from what we said. After all, they must lack reading comprehension if they infer something from our comments. After all, we only expect people to literally interpret our comments on this message board, right?

OR, we could stop arguing about who said or meant what and have an actual, substantive discussion/debate. So I'll wrap this discussion up with what we KNOW, and we can move on to the next topic.

Without inferring anything, we know the following:

1. All of John Kerry's former commanders from Vietnam and 19 of the 23 officers he served with in Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

3. The individuals referred to in No. 1 and No. 2 total 196 people in all;

4. 196 qualifies as "hundreds" under the dictionary definition of the word;

5. There are 2 guys who served under Kerry who are campaigning for him and believe he should be President; and

6. Military service is something that you should be proud of and brag about unless a bunch of people who served with you criticize you and declare you unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, in which case military service is really pretty inconsequential, happened 30 years ago, and should be disregarded when evaluating qualifications to serve as President.

Mavdog
05-13-2004, 10:24 AM
God forbid that "people" infer anything from the comments of others. We should all just read everything literally. Throw sarcasm, nuance and other subtleties out the window.

God forbid a person actually admit that they (horror of horrors!) misinterpreted a point. Too much for you to admit?


Better yet, let's insult people when they infer something from what we said. After all, they must lack reading comprehension if they infer something from our comments. After all, we only expect people to literally interpret our comments on this message board, right?

Better yet, let’s all have such thin skin that when called out for their failure to understand a point- a lack of comprehension (oh, what a horrible accusation!)- that they react as if their honor was questioned.


OR, we could stop arguing about who said or meant what and have an actual, substantive discussion/debate. So I'll wrap this discussion up with what we KNOW, and we can move on to the next topic.

Without inferring anything, we know the following:

1. All of John Kerry's former commanders from Vietnam and 19 of the 23 officers he served with in Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

NO, we don’t “know” that. The press release states so (the one by O’Neill, the guy with the grudge) yet there are some notable names missing...like all of his crew.


2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's fit to be the Commander-in-Chief


3. The individuals referred to in No. 1 and No. 2 total 196 people in all;

No, the count is 188....strangely, some who are dead have their names on the list. Odd, to say the least, to see a deceased person’s name as if they voiced an opinion, which frankly is impossible.


4. 196 qualifies as "hundreds" under the dictionary definition of the word;

Yeah, that’s really important, that (incorrect BTW) one hundreds and ninety six names…


5. There are 2 guys who served under Kerry who are campaigning for him and believe he should be President; and

There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.


6. Military service is something that you should be proud of and brag about unless a bunch of people who served with you criticize you and declare you unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, in which case military service is really pretty inconsequential, happened 30 years ago, and should be disregarded when evaluating qualifications to serve as President.

Oh, so you know this as a truism? Not likely… here’s the factual statement:
Military service is something that one should be proud of and other citizens should be respectful of, especially when one was placed in an environment where there was a high degree of risk to their life. When there are a group of partisan individuals, some who have an old grudge against you as well as have associations with the most infamous people to ever occupy the White House, attack and belittle that service to ur country for political gain it should be dismissed for what it clearly is.

Here’s a multi part article about John Kerry’s life. Of all the many military people interviewed and quoted in this article, 1- that’s ONE- is on this list. NONE of the crew who were with Kerry have their name on the list, and who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him?

Kerry bio (http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml)

LRB
05-13-2004, 10:49 AM
There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.

Names please? I mean you do know who these people are, is that a correct assumption? However, just because there names aren't on a list saying that they think that Kerry isn't fit to be commander in chief, doesn't mean that they do think that he is fit. So what manner of proof do you have that they do support Kerry?

Your opponents have done a very good job of citing sources, yet I haven't seen you cite any to the "many" supposed followers of Kerry. Of course maybe 2 is "many". At least KG qualified the number for "hundreds" and even if you want to throw out 8 who are deceased but whose decendents are supposedly conveying the thoughts that were shared with them by the deceased. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. We have a documented 188 against Kerry to a documented 2 for him. Maybe the people for Kerry are just too ashamed to have their names associated with him?

kg_veteran
05-13-2004, 11:38 AM
God forbid a person actually admit that they (horror of horrors!) misinterpreted a point. Too much for you to admit?

Without getting BACK into the argument of what you meant, I think it was abundantly clear that I didn't misinterpret anything.


Better yet, let’s all have such thin skin that when called out for their failure to understand a point- a lack of comprehension (oh, what a horrible accusation!)- that they react as if their honor was questioned.

I don't have thin skin, Mavdog. I have thick skin. I just think that for a person capable of rational debate, it's a bit beneath you to resort to petty insults. The insults don't offend me; they just detract from a meaningful discussion.



OR, we could stop arguing about who said or meant what and have an actual, substantive discussion/debate. So I'll wrap this discussion up with what we KNOW, and we can move on to the next topic.

Without inferring anything, we know the following:

1. All of John Kerry's former commanders from Vietnam and 19 of the 23 officers he served with in Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

NO, we don’t “know” that. The press release states so (the one by O’Neill, the guy with the grudge) yet there are some notable names missing...like all of his crew.

Okay, then give me the names of the former commanders from Vietnam and the names of the officers he served with in Vietnam that are missing from this list. If you can't do that, you have no basis (other than an ad hominem attack) to dispute the information cited in the article.



2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's fit to be the Commander-in-Chief

Give me their names.



3. The individuals referred to in No. 1 and No. 2 total 196 people in all;

No, the count is 188....strangely, some who are dead have their names on the list. Odd, to say the least, to see a deceased person’s name as if they voiced an opinion, which frankly is impossible.

To be honest, I never counted the names on the list. I relied upon Dude being correct in his count. When you mentioned this, I went back and counted. You're right that 8 of the names are on the list "ex officio". That makes 188. So let's throw out the "ex officio" people if you want.

188 is still a lot more than the 2 you have cited so far.



5. There are 2 guys who served under Kerry who are campaigning for him and believe he should be President; and

There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.

Wait just a minute. We KNOW what these people think, because they've stated their opinion (via this letter). We DON'T know what those who have not voiced their opinion believe.



6. Military service is something that you should be proud of and brag about unless a bunch of people who served with you criticize you and declare you unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, in which case military service is really pretty inconsequential, happened 30 years ago, and should be disregarded when evaluating qualifications to serve as President.

Oh, so you know this as a truism? Not likely…

It's called sarcasm, Mavdog.


here’s the factual statement:
Military service is something that one should be proud of and other citizens should be respectful of, especially when one was placed in an environment where there was a high degree of risk to their life. When there are a group of partisan individuals, some who have an old grudge against you as well as have associations with the most infamous people to ever occupy the White House, attack and belittle that service to ur country for political gain it should be dismissed for what it clearly is.

If you're going to try and put together a factual statement, it needs to contain facts. You don't KNOW (one of the points I made in a prior post) that the entire group of individuals that signed this letter are "partisan". You just don't. I'll accept for the purposes of this discussion that O'Neill is acting based upon partisan motives; that doesn't account for the rest of those people.


Here’s a multi part article about John Kerry’s life. Of all the many military people interviewed and quoted in this article, 1- that’s ONE- is on this list. NONE of the crew who were with Kerry have their name on the list, and who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him?

Kerry bio (http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml)

That's right. Who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him -- like his former commanders, and the officers that served with him.

See? We agree.

Mavdog
05-13-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Okay, then give me the names of the former commanders from Vietnam and the names of the officers he served with in Vietnam that are missing from this list. If you can't do that, you have no basis (other than an ad hominem attack) to dispute the information cited in the article.

The entire crew of his boat are missing, Schachle, Whitlow, Zaladonis, Thorson, Sandalusky, Mederis, Short and Gibson.



2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's fit to be the Commander-in-Chief


Give me their names.

See above.



3. The individuals referred to in No. 1 and No. 2 total 196 people in all;

No, the count is 188....strangely, some who are dead have their names on the list. Odd, to say the least, to see a deceased person’s name as if they voiced an opinion, which frankly is impossible.


To be honest, I never counted the names on the list. I relied upon Dude being correct in his count. When you mentioned this, I went back and counted. You're right that 8 of the names are on the list "ex officio". That makes 188. So let's throw out the "ex officio" people if you want.

188 is still a lot more than the 2 you have cited so far.

There were literally thousands of fellow servicemen who served. This is a small minority of those thousands. Don't you find it incredibly dishonest for a person who is deceased to be placed on the list? I certainly do.
BTW Dude's count was 153



5. There are 2 guys who served under Kerry who are campaigning for him and believe he should be President; and

There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.

Wait just a minute. We KNOW what these people think, because they've stated their opinion (via this letter). We DON'T know what those who have not voiced their opinion believe.

A lack of their signing the press release is indicative of their decision to NOT endorse O'Neill's effort.


here’s the factual statement:
Military service is something that one should be proud of and other citizens should be respectful of, especially when one was placed in an environment where there was a high degree of risk to their life. When there are a group of partisan individuals, some who have an old grudge against you as well as have associations with the most infamous people to ever occupy the White House, attack and belittle that service to ur country for political gain it should be dismissed for what it clearly is.

If you're going to try and put together a factual statement, it needs to contain facts. You don't KNOW (one of the points I made in a prior post) that the entire group of individuals that signed this letter are "partisan". You just don't. I'll accept for the purposes of this discussion that O'Neill is acting based upon partisan motives; that doesn't account for the rest of those people. [/quote]

The very act of adding their names to the letter make them partisan by definition.


Here’s a multi part article about John Kerry’s life. Of all the many military people interviewed and quoted in this article, 1- that’s ONE- is on this list. NONE of the crew who were with Kerry have their name on the list, and who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him?

Kerry bio (http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml)

That's right. Who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him -- like his former commanders, and the officers that served with him.

See? We agree.[/quote]

His crew knew him best, some of those who signed the letter didn't actually serve WITH him they served at the same time. Therefore if you want the opinion of those who actually served WITH Kerry, it is his crew. Not ONE of his crew endorse the letter, therefore from the above you must agree with their perspective, right?

LRB
05-13-2004, 01:16 PM
A lack of their signing the press release is indicative of their decision to NOT endorse O'Neill's effort.


Not signing means only that they didn't sign it. Anything else that you assume from this is conjecture. You've shown on evidence that they were even contacted. Even if contacted they could have refused for a large number of reasons. They may not have wanted to hurt Kerry's feelings. They may have been threatened by the Kerry camp. They could be dead. They may have wanted to sign but just procrastinated doing it. They may have had to take care of a sick kid or spouse or any number of things. Sure maybe they do indeed support Kerry, but it seems strange that they didn't sign a similar letter in support of Kerry. What does that say? That they aren't as passionate in Kerry's defense as his detractors are? Possible, but we just don't know. So I won't assume here.


His crew knew him best, some of those who signed the letter didn't actually serve WITH him they served at the same time. Therefore if you want the opinion of those who actually served WITH Kerry, it is his crew. Not ONE of his crew endorse the letter, therefore from the above you must agree with their perspective, right?

Well the commander in chief doesn't server personally with many of the troops, so while his crew could measure some aspects, they're not necessarily best for all. Still we don't know the opinion of Kerry's crew, because to the best of my knowledge they haven't come forward with any type of letter supporting Kerry. Maybe they hat Kerry so much that they can bear the pain of thinking of him long enough to just sign the letter condemning him. Maybe they object because the letter wasn't strong enough in its condemnation. Who knows what their opinions are when they haven't made them public. We don't even know if they refused to sign the letter of were not given the choice to do so or were unable to do so by circumstances not entirely in their control.


The very act of adding their names to the letter make them partisan by definition.


This is an incredibly stupid statement IMO. Because according to your definition anyone who speaks for or against John Kerry is partisan. So all your posts are purely partisan because you support Kerry. The only nonpartisan people are those who refuse to speak out at all. So it would be impossible to obtain a nonpartisan opinion other than "I don't know" or "I don't care" or "no comment". i/expressions/rolleye.gif

kg_veteran
05-13-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Okay, then give me the names of the former commanders from Vietnam and the names of the officers he served with in Vietnam that are missing from this list. If you can't do that, you have no basis (other than an ad hominem attack) to dispute the information cited in the article.

The entire crew of his boat are missing, Schachle, Whitlow, Zaladonis, Thorson, Sandalusky, Mederis, Short and Gibson.

Objection, nonresponsive.

Give me the names of the former commanders from Vietnam and the names of the officers he served with in Vietnam that are missing from this list.




2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's fit to be the Commander-in-Chief


Give me their names.

See above.

I realize that two of those individuals (Thorson and Sandalusky) are the two that you've previously identified as campaigning for Kerry. We have no idea what the others think. You certainly haven't produced any evidence of what they think.


188 is still a lot more than the 2 you have cited so far.

There were literally thousands of fellow servicemen who served. This is a small minority of those thousands. Don't you find it incredibly dishonest for a person who is deceased to be placed on the list? I certainly do.
BTW Dude's count was 153

You can try and minimize all you want. That's about the best you can do, since you can only come up with 2 actual names.

I don't find it incredibly dishonest to put a deceased person on the list when you identify them as deceased. As LRB pointed out, perhaps their family was conveying how the opinions they had expressed before they died. I don't know. Either way, the letter was honest and said they were deceased.

Also, I don't mean to disparage Dude's counting ability, but his first count was 153 and his second count was 196. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif I copied and pasted the list into a spreadsheet and let it do the counting for me. There are 196 names on the list.


Wait just a minute. We KNOW what these people think, because they've stated their opinion (via this letter). We DON'T know what those who have not voiced their opinion believe.

A lack of their signing the press release is indicative of their decision to NOT endorse O'Neill's effort.[/quote]

LRB addressed this point pretty well. There are MANY reasons a person might not sign the press release yet still not support Kerry. They may not have been contacted. The article indicates that only 12 people contacted declined to sign. They may just not have wanted to get involved at all, for any number of reasons. It's a HUGE logical leap on your part to presume what they think or believe.


If you're going to try and put together a factual statement, it needs to contain facts. You don't KNOW (one of the points I made in a prior post) that the entire group of individuals that signed this letter are "partisan". You just don't. I'll accept for the purposes of this discussion that O'Neill is acting based upon partisan motives; that doesn't account for the rest of those people.

The very act of adding their names to the letter make them partisan by definition.[/quote]

No, it makes them people with opinions that you don't like. For all you know, many of them may be Democratic voters.

Say it with me, Mavdog. "Just because someone has an opinion I don't agree with, it doesn't automatically make them "partisan".


That's right. Who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him -- like his former commanders, and the officers that served with him.

See? We agree.

His crew knew him best, some of those who signed the letter didn't actually serve WITH him they served at the same time. Therefore if you want the opinion of those who actually served WITH Kerry, it is his crew. Not ONE of his crew endorse the letter, therefore from the above you must agree with their perspective, right?[/quote]

I know the perspective of two of the crew members. I don't know the perspective of the rest of them.

I also know the perspective of all of his former commanders and 19 of the 23 officers he served with (not merely at the same time as).

reeds
05-13-2004, 03:11 PM
BOTTOM line- Reeds is still a retard- but it beats living in Dallas...

Drbio
05-13-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
BOTTOM line- Reeds is still a retard- but it beats living in Dallas...

At least you got the first part right reeds. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

MavKikiNYC
05-13-2004, 05:50 PM
Playin' the dozens, or the 'hundreds' as it were, D-mavs.com style

dude1394
05-13-2004, 06:49 PM
Well here is another of the folks who were in 'Nam with Kerry. This guy was his officer in charge (can't let md start parsing the titles now. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif and finally asked him to be transferred. Another vet who isn't quite enamored of Kerry. He's on the list and I guess thought he would elaborate.

Boston Strangler (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3539)

Call sign: Boston strangler
May 13th, 2004

Thomas Wright was one of John F. Kerry's fellow Swift boat officers in Vietnam. Since Wright outranked Kerry, he was Kerry's sometime boat group Officer-in-Charge, so Wright had occasion to observe Kerry’s behavior and attitudes, and the circumstances surrounding his early departure from the war zone. The intervening years have not dimmed his memories.

When the Swift boats of Coastal Division 11 sailed into harm’s way from their Phu Quoc Island base of An Thoi, for missions along the rivers of Vietnam’s southwesternmost Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces, they communicated by radio. When they did, boat captains adopted distinctive, often humorous call signs for identification purposes. Eldon Thompson was “Mary Poppins,” William Schachte was “Baccardi Charlie,” James T. Grace was “Twiggy,” and Tom Wright was “Dudley Do-Right.” When John Kerry radioed another Swift boat, he used the call sign, “Boston Strangler.”

Lieutenant Thomas W. Wright heard that call sign frequently. As OIC (Officer-in-Charge) of PCF-44, he operated with LT (j.g.) Kerry’s 94 Boat on a fairly regular basis. A 1966 graduate of the University of North Carolina’s NROTC program, Wright had served as communications officer aboard the destroyer USS Robert A. Owens before beginning Swift boat training in November 1967. He had already served for eight months with Qui Nhon’s Coastal Division 15 when the monsoon season forced its boats to be shifted to the more protected, and more challenging waters off An Thoi. He decided to extend his tour and follow his disciplined, veteran crew to the new base. As the relatively senior lieutenant there, he was the OTC, or Officer-in-Tactical Command for the majority of the 3-to-6-boat missions. On most of them he commanded 44 Boat.

The rivers and canals of Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces were the targets of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Rear Adm. Elmo Zumwalt’s aggressive SEALORDS operations. Looking back after all these years, Tom Wright, now a retired Commander, recalls: “We planned missions locally to try to dominate the area and disrupt the enemy’s movements. We faced significant challenges every day, every night. We would respond to intelligence reports as appropriate. It took great imagination and determination to work effectively in the rivers, and we remained deployed until material damage and casualties reduced our effectiveness. We would then rotate back to An Thoi for repair and re-arming.”

For Tom Wright and most other Swift boat officers, there were two commandments: 1. Protect the crews. 2. Win. As for Tom Wright’s 44 Boat; “we won every engagement, start to finish. I got the crew home; a few nicks, but we made it.”

Working with call sign “Boston Strangler” became problematical. “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.”

In Wright’s view, it was important that the enemy understood that Swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location. To do that, you also had to control the people and their actions; to have them accept Swift boat crews and their authority. You couldn’t achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free fire zones.

It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. “I had an idea of his actions but didn’t have to be responsible for him.” Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”

As for medals, Commander Wright holds strong views: “No one was recognized for completely overwhelming the enemy with skill, courage and bravery. No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart. Everyone who served is equally important, regardless of rank or awards.

John B. Dwyer is a military historian, and Vietnam veteran, who served in the Fourth Infantry Division


John B. Dwyer

Drbio
05-14-2004, 08:13 AM
Now THAT is very interesting.

LRB
05-14-2004, 11:02 AM
Wow if that story is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't at this point, then it is much more damning of Kerry than I had thought this fellow servicemen's statements would be.

Mavdog
05-14-2004, 11:50 AM
Ambush in the Mekong Delta

This exhausting and harrowing week was only the beginning for Kerry. On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for ... I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.

Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it. ... It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."

Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, `How the hell did we get out of that alive?"' Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing."

When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, `John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,"' Elliott recalled in an interview.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy -- my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."

Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.

"I don't think they were exactly ready to court-martial him," said Wade Sanders, who commanded a swift boat that sometimes accompanied Kerry's vessel, and who later became deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. "I can only say from the certainty borne of experience that there must have been some rumbling about, `What are we going to do with this guy, he turned his boat,' and I can hear the words, `He endangered his crew.' But from our position, the tactic to take is whatever action is best designed to eliminate the enemy threat, which is what he did."

Indeed, the Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's performance on that day was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. ... The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."

Michael Bernique, who was revered as one of the gutsiest swift boat commanders, marveled at Kerry's brazen approach to battle. Bernique recalled how Kerry one day "went ashore in an area that I thought might be mined. I said, `Get the blankety-blank out of there.' John just shrugged his shoulders and left. John just was fearless.

"If you are asking, `Was he foolhardy?' -- he survived," Bernique said. "I don't recall anybody saying they didn't want to serve with him. I would not have worried about my back if John was with me."

Roy Hoffmann, who commanded the coastal division in which Kerry served, worried about Kerry, at least at the beginning. He said Kerry and some other skippers initially "had difficulty carrying out direct orders. You know, they were playing the cowboy a little bit. John Kerry was one of them. You don't go out on your own when you are given certain type of patrols, and we were having difficulty with that."

Hoffmann said the problem was corrected and he supported the actions on the day Kerry won the Silver Star. "It took guts, and I admire that," Hoffman said.

dude1394
05-15-2004, 09:50 AM
Good shooting john, wish you hadn't stabbed the same guys in the back when you got back.

dude1394
05-27-2004, 11:13 PM
From Den Beste.. DenBeste (http://www.denbeste.nu/)


Real heroes know that decorations are only given to those who were lucky enough to be heroic while someone important was watching. Real heroes will have seen many other heroic acts which were never acknowledged by anyone, except by the other members of the team. And ultimately is the only acknowledgement they truly value, for only their teammates really understand what they went through.

A man who brags about his heroism is no hero. And the men who served with him (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200405/SPE20040503a.html) will know it.

madape
06-01-2004, 10:50 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/31/225546.shtml

Kerry gives veterans the middle finger at Vietnam memorial... in front of children!

Drbio
06-01-2004, 10:00 PM
Wow. Kerry should just withdraw.

dude1394
06-01-2004, 10:32 PM
Kerry meets communist party secretary (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738)

A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi.

A snapshot of the display in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum" – was acquired over the weekend by Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth, a group opposing Kerry's campaign for the presidency.

.......

"The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory," he said. "This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/kerrymuseum1.jpg