Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief say colleagues

[Drbio]

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]

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]

Me too, I would rather have a Commander in Chief who back stabbed his collegues after 4 months stint in Vietnam.

[reeds]

4 minutes in Nam is harder than what Bush's war record is

[FishForLunch]

Lurch served in Nam and then came back to stab his fellow soldiers in the back

[madape]

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]

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]

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]

Mavdog, what "lesson" should O'Neil have learned?

[Mavdog]

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]

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]

It doesn't sound like O'Neill is the only guy involved in this protest.

[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.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio

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]

Two guys versus hundreds of former commanders and colleagues.

I'll take the word of the hundreds.

[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"?

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]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

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]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

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...

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]

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]

"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]

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]

Swift Boat Veterans 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]

it didnt come out of my mouth..but I will endorse the comment anyway...

[dude1394]

[quote]
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"?

SEE ABOVE

[Mavdog]

So we should let these few (doesn't look like "hundreds" BTW) people decide?

I think not..

[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.

[Mavdog]

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]

So YOU know him better than these guys?

[Mavdog]

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]

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]

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]

[quote]
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]

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]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I di not "imply" anything like that.

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

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.

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 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]

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

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"?"

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.

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?