Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Did Kerry opt for Swift boats to AVOID combat...

In view of the many derogatory comments made both by him and certain members here regarding Bush and his choices this is interesting.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37453

If there is any consistency in Kerry's political career, it is his in-your-face use of that four-month stint in Vietnam. He enlisted like many other young men of privilege, trying to serve without going to the front lines. When in 1966 it looked like his draft number was coming up during his senior year at Yale University, and already having spoken out in public against the war, Kerry signed up with the Navy under the conscious inspiration of his hero, the late President John F. Kennedy.

As a lieutenant junior grade, Kerry skippered a CTF-115 swift boat, a light, aluminum patrol vessel that bore a passing resemblance to PT-109. He thought he'd arranged to avoid combat.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," he later would tell the Boston Globe. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling, and that's what I thought I was going to do."


The rest is pretty interesting too.

As with Kerry's Senate testimony, which contained wild and unsubstantiated allegations of deliberate U.S. atrocities throughout the ranks, many of them disproved, the mission outweighed the truth. His VVAW sidekick Hubbard identified himself as an Air Force captain, a pilot, when in reality he was an ex-sergeant who had never served in Vietnam.

That is what the vast majority of the VVAG members were--veterans who had never been in Vietnam and most of the few who had been were NOT combat arms.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Did Kerry opt for Swift boats to AVOID combat...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Did Kerry opt for Swift boats to AVOID combat...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
And the smear continues.

In reply to: Did Kerry opt for Swift boats to AVOID combat...

Next thing, you'll try to dig out some medals Bush won for examplary loafing!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) That's ''exemplarary,'' Dave. ;-)

In reply to: And the smear continues.

.

Collapse -
SMEAR? Since those are HIS WORDS you think he smears himself?

In reply to: And the smear continues.

You are truely a strangely divorced from reality type of person.

Was he lying Dave? Has he quit lying?

Didn't even read it did you.

Collapse -
Actually I could. BOTH Kerry and Bush received ...

In reply to: And the smear continues.

the NDSR for just about exactly that. Bush would have also received a GCM but Kerry wasn't qualified for one with his 6 month early discharge.

Let's see now, you also didn't earn either one did you.

Collapse -
Yeah, Dave!

In reply to: Actually I could. BOTH Kerry and Bush received ...

You were never in the army so you can't talk about army stuff!

And you were never an elk so you should go back and delete all your posts from the elk thread.

Dan

Collapse -
Re:And the smear continues.

In reply to: And the smear continues.

No smear, his words!

Nobody would have even thought to question Kerry's military record had he not displayed such absence of character in not (a) denouncing the scurilous AWOL charges hurled at Bush or (b) implied that Bush's "choice" to go Guard was equivalent to choosing jail time or Canada. He is the one who arrogantly states that "he served" while insinuating Bush didn't. Given his almost unending references to Vietnam and reliance on his war hero status, it seems analysis of what that 4 month career really entailed is certainly worth looking into. His words, and his record if he were to release it speak for themselves. It's not our fault that he is his own worst enemy so often and so blatatantly.

I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 4 months in combat as a Junior officer over 3 decades ago is any indicator of ability to lead this great nation today in this war on terror.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:And the smear continues.

In reply to: Re:And the smear continues.

Hi, Evie.

>>I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 4 months in combat as a Junior officer over 3 decades ago is any indicator of ability to lead this great nation today in this war on terror.<<
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it." -- Richard Clarke

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
He also said, Dave...

In reply to: Re:And the smear continues.

Dave, he also said in an interview with Fox in 2002: "that process which was initiated in the first week of February, ah, decided in principle, uh, in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action five fold to go after Al Qaeda. The sixth point, the newly appointed duputies, and you had to remember,the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, un, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out the principals. Over the course of the summer,last point, they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on Northern Alliance assistance. And then they changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the time line.".
With that standard reply/charge do you think Dave will respond, Gang, KonkelSays

Collapse -
Now, there's a book seller worth quoting!

In reply to: Re:And the smear continues.

He couldn't even get away with smearing Condi Rice.

Collapse -
Do you have a credible source? Clarke, by his own words isn't one...

In reply to: Re:And the smear continues.

as he can't keep straight what he said earlier (J already provided specifics) nor is his current "testimony" (more properly called story telling) in step with the book.

I find it outrageous that you accept the word, without question, of someone who has conflicting statements and is mad because he was demoted by his female boss. Is the chauvinist hidden deep inside finally coming out the available *****?

Collapse -
Re: Clarke

Hi, Ed.

I'm getting really tired of the "anybody that hates Bush isn't credible" nonsense. Clarke has worked for four Presidents over three decades -- only one of them was a Democrat, but because he says the emperor has no clothes, he's got a partisan agenda. O'Neill is Republican through and through, yet he can't be trusted either. Their stories agree, Ed. I pity the parties involved if you ever end up on a jury!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Clarke contradicts himself ...

In reply to: Re: Clarke

... much like Kerry, in his own words.

* in his statements quoted in Losing Bin Laden by Miniter
* in his 2002 statements now released from a press background conference call
* in his letter of resignation

but most spectacularly, apparently in his 15 hours of closed door testimony before the 9-11 commission.

Why isn't the press clamoring for this to be made public?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Oh! and a p.s.

In reply to: Clarke contradicts himself ...

Clarke was the "author" of that supposed detailed plan to invade Afghanistan in Spring 2001 you have oft mentioned. HE says there was no such plan so can we trust this is the last we hear of that charge? Backed up BTW by Madeline Albright in her 9-11 Commission testimony.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
I don't think we better think we won't heaqr it again...

In reply to: Oh! and a p.s.

I am keeping the "article" readily available.

Collapse -
Re: Clarke contradicts himself ...

In reply to: Clarke contradicts himself ...

Hi, Evie.

When you're a member of a team, you play with the team in press briefings, or you're not a member of the team any longer. Similarly, when you want a recommendation, you usually don't slam the door behind you on the way out. Surprisingly, Pat Buchanan indicated on this week's McLaughlin Group that he felt Clarke's "inconsistency" is a bad rap, saying "you goot accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative" (and even correcting one of the other panelists who spoke of "downplaying the negative."

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
These two hate Bush? That is another reason they lack credibility, but there are others.

In reply to: Re: Clarke

1. Both were either demoted or fired by President Bush for poor performance. It's payback time.
2. Both are flacking their books which have been published in the middle of an election campaign.
3. Both chose to publish their charges during an election campaign rather than when the events in question transpired. They should, at least, have made their charges much earlier.
4. According to you, both hate President Bush. This fatally clouds their objectivity.
5. Clarke has contradicted himself first defending, then attacking the Bush Administration. O'Neil presents himself as either a simpleton or as disingenuous. Neither enhances his credibility.
6. On the other side are people of unquestioned integrity and intelligence including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice who support President Bush, his actions, and his policies.

Maybe you choose to believe O'Neil and Clarke, but I sure don't. I wonder how many other Republicans and Independents will reach the same conclusions.

Collapse -
Which versions of their 'stories" agree Dave?

In reply to: Re: Clarke

both have more than one and they contradict themselves.

O'Neill's words that you set so much store by were flat out misrepresentations of what he actually said as stated in his own words in links you have repeatedly ask for but never bothered your little head with reading.

I am more than a little tired of your refusal to actually read the links you ask for then by never posting further trying to claim that they have never been made available for you.

O'Neill stated that he copuldn't understand why the media misrepresented what he actually said and you refuse to believe him. Kerry tells about his reasons for putting in for Swift Boat duty and you call it a smear campaign--you need to avoid Alice and that White Rabbit for a while and the Caterpiller and his mushroom will keep your thinking ability less than clear.

PS - Clarke's own stories do not agree with his earlier comments to the Senate nor to the media in past years nor to the material in his book. What agreements are you so impressed with?

Collapse -
Re:Re:And the smear continues.

In reply to: Re:And the smear continues.

I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 4 months in combat as a Junior officer over 3 decades ago is any indicator of ability to lead this great nation today in this war on terror.

Well, it may not be much but it's 4 months more combat experience than our incumbent President has, or even the incumbent Vice President. It may not be a singular indicator of ability to lead, but I betcha it's enough that Kerry would know better than to egg the enemy on with taunts like "Bring it on."
Collapse -
Highly doubtful as Kerry's commanders were...

In reply to: Re:Re:And the smear continues.

happy to get him out of the theater as he tended to disobey orders and regulations and endangered his men and equipment.

His commander was of a mind and mentioned courtsmartial for Kerry's actions but I personally (and yes, this is PERSONAL OPINION) believe that Kerry's influential family and friends are all that prevented the commander from doing his duty and taking USMJ action.

Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:And the smear continues.

In reply to: Re:Re:And the smear continues.

Hi Josh,

He has active military combat experience. Granted. But he was a junior officer -- basically taking orders, and apparently not very well. When has he demonstrated leadership since then? Certainly not in the Senate, unless you want to count his successful thwarting of the passage of the act condemning human rights violations by Vietnam.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Re:And the smear continues.

In reply to: Re:Re:Re:And the smear continues.

Well let's see. In those 4 months, he managed to earn the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart (three times), the National Defense Service Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, two Presidential Unit Citations for Extraordinary Heroism, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal. Not too shabby for a guy who didn't do his job very well, eh?

The Vietnam Human Rights Act basically tied US aid to Vietnam to accountability by the Vietnamese for progress with human rights. On Kerry's position on that act:

http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter22/in081502vn.html

The Vietnam Human Rights Act, a bill passed in the House of Representatives last September by a vote of 410 to 1, would restrict nonhumanitarian aid such as economic and agricultural development unless President Bush and the US Department of State certifies that Vietnam is making progress on human rights.

Kerry and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, have used parliamentary maneuvers to prevent the full Senate from considering the measure. The pair, veterans of the Vietnam War and visitors since then, say the bill undermines the US government's ability to promote economic reforms. Kerry said that ongoing relations with Vietnam will promote greater political freedom.

"John McCain and I ... fear it may hinder rather than advance the cause of human rights in Vietnam,'' Kerry said in a letter. ''We are concerned that denying aid to Vietnam would actually slow human-rights improvements."


From what little I know about this, I'd say that I would disagree with the Kerry/McCain position on it but can understand their point of view.

Collapse -
Which REALLY makes one wonder ...

In reply to: Re:Re:Re:Re:And the smear continues.

... why if he is running on that record he won't release his records?

My point is that Bush is tested as Commander in Chief. I see nothing in Kerry's record, military or otherwise, that demonstrates the #1 requisite of solid leadership.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Which REALLY makes one wonder ...

In reply to: Which REALLY makes one wonder ...

There are many ways in which one can demonstrate leadership. Being an incumbent is obviously one of them. If you think he demonstrates better leadership qualities than Kerry has, then by all means vote for him (not that you won't anyway).

As far as military records go, Bush didn't release his until three years into his Presidency. Why the urgency?

Collapse -
Why the urgency???

In reply to: Re:Which REALLY makes one wonder ...

Scurilous AWOL charges seem to come to mind.

Can you point me to where Kerry has shown leadership of any sort or measure in the Senate? Apparently you seem to be set to vote for him because he is not Bush. I still haven't seen any reason to vote for him. He served in Vietnam as a junior officer many decades ago would seem to qualify thousands more. What distinguishes him??

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Why the urgency???

In reply to: Why the urgency???

Well, not being Bush is a biggie. Wink

I meant why the urgency in wanting Kerry's military records released when you were willing to wait for Bush's until well after he took office?

Collapse -
For one, Josh...

In reply to: Re:Why the urgency???

For one, Josh, I'd like to see those citations for those Purple Hearts. Three reasons, I'd like to see who put him in for them, when, and how long it took for them to go thru an compared to other people who earned that award. Needless to say, I'd also like to see the medical records to learn the severity of those wounds that let him go stateside and leave his men over there.
The Democrats started the reveal the records call. Now you say why the urgency? Because, Josh, it's not urgency, it's obvious that Kerry is avoiding releasing his records, as he does not want them "in play" before the November election.

Collapse -
Re:For one, Josh...

In reply to: For one, Josh...

Let's say for the sake of argument that everything you suspect is true. There was a lot of controversy over Bush's service records during the 2000 campaign, and I don't recall you being among those calling for the release of those records. Why not?

Collapse -
In 2000, to their credit ...

In reply to: Re:For one, Josh...

... the candidate and his spokesmen didn't pay lipservice to the scurilous AWOL charge. It was only those at the fringe who were indulging it. I don't think anyone really wanted his records released in 2000 because then Gore would have had to release his.

Now he may not have signed on to the AWOL charge directly, but Kerry couldnt' take the high road on that issue and denounce the AWOL charges. Other candidates were signing on to it to varying degrees -- Dean mostly, but Clark as well. Bush called their bluff by releasing his records.

Kerry wants us to use his Vietnam service as a qualification for the Presidency. I don't recall Bush running on his guard service, although now that the records are public they go quite far in dispelling this notion that he is some moron easily controlled by puppetmasters. His leadership was cited and praised during his military service.

If Kerry wants to run on his military experience as qualification for holding the leadership position of President of the US, one would think releasing those military records would be an obvious move.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.

In reply to: In 2000, to their credit ...

Collapse -
Very well written example of a double-standard at work!

In reply to: In 2000, to their credit ...

Bush didn't run on his service record in 2000 because he didn't dare (Gore is a Vietnam vet), and he wouldn't dare put his record up against Kerry's this year. The aircraft carrier stunt ought to come up in one of the debates I imagine.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

DEALS, DEALS, DEALS!

Best Black Friday Deals

CNET editors are busy culling the list and highlighting what we think are the best deals out there this holiday season.