Who Do You Believe?
Posted By John Moore on August 8, 2004
On the one side we have former Commander George Elliott who claims that the Globe’s Michael Kranish misquoted him as retracting his charges against John Kerry. George Elliott is a combat veteran.
On the other side, we have Michael Kranish, who has long written about Kerry, should know his subject well, and yet reported that Kerry received an Honorable Discharge in 1970, conveniently before most of his anti-war activities. In fact, as was revealed when some of Kerry’s military records were posted, Kerry didn’t get his Discharge until 1978, and thus was in the Navy Reserve from 1970 until 1978, including the years he met with the enemy and defamed his “brothers in arms” and all Vietnam Vets. Oh, and apparently until it came out, Kranish was going to write the intro to the campaign book for Kerry/Edwards.
I know where my trust would go.
John….
George Elliott is being made to look like some dementia afflicted, brain damaged old fart by the media. After reading his affidavit, I’m with you.
http://www.swiftvets.com/Elliottaffidavit08062004.pdf
At this point Again its us against them, the Kerry types and the liberal media, this time we will be ready for them.
I believe the Swifties.
Mark
I know who I believe, but I know also that, in this twisted world, standards of proof do NOT favor us.
I was once asked by a friend, a philosopher that if I know the outcome was not in my favor in Vietnam, would I do the same thing I did before?
The answer is always the same, then what we are living for? If we fight on the side to win then was it automatically we would be on the same side with Stalin, Hitler because at one point they have won. Would we just abandon our principle because we have no chance to win then what this phrase really mean to you “I rather die on my feet than living on my knees”?
It is the spirit of people who yield nothing to idiots inspiring the younger generation that made human progress possible. Even if we have to give up everything.
I am with you on what happened looks pretty bad for George Elliot. Isn’t he the officer that signed off on Kerry’s Silver Star award papers and in 1996 supported Kerry in that year’s political campaign?
It might seem to balanced thinkers that Elliot sold himself out by turning around and sticking it to Kerry now. Perhaps some of the Swiftvets took George out to dinner and wine and he got confused about what he was doing when asked to sign the 1st affidavit? The retraction looks like a swearing contest between a perhaps confused individual and a reporter who takes notes. A pretty one sided contest there. Then he retracts his retraction? Whatever else is said, it doesn’t look to me like Elliot is credible, maybe he is a drunk. After all these years and after signing the Silver Star recommendation and all he is about as believable as Saddam H.
Is Elliot saying in his 1st affidavit that he didn’t act according to Navy rules by signing the recommendation (or whatever)for Kerry’s Silver Star when he didn’t beleive Kerry should have been awarded the Silver Star? Another thing that bothers me is that if Elliot is signing an affidavit which say “under penalty of perjury,” isn’t he perjuring himself by telling two different stories and subject to some kind of legal penalty. I mean he can’t have it both ways now can he.
All this leads me to believe that others who signed the affidavit may also have credibility problems as well as the officer who wrote the book. Obviously, the book is not history, but a partisan attempt to influence the presidential election. Would it be proper to ask all these guys their back grounds and why they were taking the low road by their partison attacks.
Since none of the affidavit signers were shipmates with Kerry and not on his vessel during the gun battles it seems kind of ludicrious to think they would have the time and inclination to be watching what Kerry was doing in the middle of a gun battle. Oneill seems to have come along several months after Kerry gave up his command, so he can’t honestly say what the facts are; anything he says or writes is hearsay (Oneill will know what that means if he is a half way decent lawyer.) Not very credible material. In any case, are there ANY written material by the Swiftvets that are contemporary with the actual events. All I can see are the contemparary records supporting the awards of 5 metals earned under fire.
In the last line it should be “medals.”
Thugge:
While your post has a well-considered, reasonable and insightful quality to it, I’m suspicious.
My complaint is that you bring all these good qualities to bear upon a relatively small piece of the case against Kerry (Elliot). Your doubts about Elliot blossom in your fourth paragraph,where you question “others” (meaning all of them) who signed the affidavit. This gives you a clear shot.
You then dismiss the case entirely as “partisan” (LeftSpeak for “danger ahead”) and conclude the paragraph with a question which you have already answered for yourself. This is clever, maybe unintentional, but reminds me very much of someone with legal training, or someone already inclined to support Kerry whatever the evidence.
In your final paragraph you dismiss as “kind of ludicrous” something which you have no way of evaluating unless you’re a combat veteran (and you are wrong about it, BTW). You then locate O’Neill in a time frame which portrays the entire Swiftboat case as hearsay.
Yours is the “missed a spot” variety of disputation, where inconsequential things are magnified with intent and pressed hard upon the entire case. If you actually “think” this way, the truth will always evade you. If you did it on purpose, then the truth doesn’t matter to you.
I think the truth doesn’t matter to you. Your technique is Debate-101. Don’t develop a truth of your own, dispute your opponent’s version.
I believe the Switboat vets. Kerry has tooted his own horn too much to be believable.
So the case has gotten down to which Swift boat veteran do we believe?
Maybe I’m a master of the obvious, but the numbers don’t seem to lie: the vast majority (I’ve heard it expressed as 17-3) question Kerry’s version of the way things were in “his” Vietnam.
The quality of those coming out against Kerry should tell the tale here: all of his commanders.
Kerry has a hard time disputing the fact that all of the commanders who oversaw his short tour say the same thing, i.e. that he was a cowboy and not a team player, and that he didn’t have warfighting foremost on his mind when he was on his boat.
People, quit getting sucked in by the minutiae of the dispute when the basic premise is indisputable: Kerry lied broadly about his service.
Give the Devil his Due: the guy DID volunteer for the duty and he didn’t panic or hide when the enemy rounds came his way. He obviously has personal courage in some degree.
What we CAN’T give Kerry is his contention that because he demonstrated some personal courage under fire for four months in Vietnam, he is automatically qualified to be the best judge of how to lead the entire US military. We also can’t let his personal courage under fire translate into a blessed forgiving of all his antiwar and anti-military stands over the years.
As far as not cutting and running when the bullets are flying, we have a lot of gangsters running our streets that have that “quality”, so the quality in and of itself proves nothing.
It’s leadership we are looking for here, and Kerry’s being able to face bullets doesn’t demonstrate leadership. In fact, when his tactical exploits are examined, he is usually found to have used or advocated the use of the wrong tactics, almost every time.
There are a lot of us Veterans in this country who have faced the bullets of combat, and worse. Kerry is just one of our millions.
What Kerry Advisors are thinking
This is a continuation of my efforts to show my Republican pals what the Democrat intelligentsia is thinking so we can A- incorporate any good ideas they might have and B – defeat them in debate and ultimately, the election.
They admit that kerry is “hilariously mediocre” while they continue to misunderstand and lie about W’s policy successes which, I remind you, are;
1 – The “tax cut for the rich” is exactly the right kind of tax cut to goose the economy in the short term and increase the slope of the economic growth curve and job creation in the long term.
2 – President Bush has created two nascent democracies in the middle east where there were terrorist supporting dictatorial regimes. No democrat would ever have the nerve and balls to make such an undertaking although they now say it is a good idea but they would have done better by being more “sensitive.”
3 – Bush, Ascroft, Rumsfeld and Ridge should be honored for protecting America so well that there have been no more successful attacks on America since 9/11. Does any thinking individual believe Gore et al could have managed that superhuman feat?
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/what_kerry
I am with you Rhod. Thugge post “sounds” reasonable but actually it is thinly veiled when all of his premises are logically flaw and inconsistent
1. Credibility: if credibility is the main issue so character is also the main issue. Then why it’s not OK for George Elliot to change his mind and others, in this case Thugge, can changed his mind a zillion time in his past without any problem. Would it be automatically that the process applying to George Elliot also applicable to Thugge that he has no credibility to say anything about anybody or is it the leftist phenomena that case applicable for anyone else but not for me? How do you get out of this inconsistency in your foundation of thought unless, you do it the right way - judge other in his context instead of his credibility.
This is one remarkable aspect of a confused and uncritical mind that the more they talk, the more inconsistency they show.
2) Fallacy of composition: The Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing. Thugge said:
“All this leads me to believe that others who signed the affidavit may also have credibility problems as well as the officer who wrote the book. Obviously, the book is not history, but a partisan attempt to influence the presidential election. Would it be proper to ask all these guys their back grounds and why they were taking the low road by their partison attacks.”
There are quite a few more in your post Thugge but I would rather show you a place to study some more about logic and composition and come back here after you learn something you should learned in high school or at 1st year college level (and I assume you did go to high school and college)
Here is the link for you to improve your level of competency.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#composition
Although never active duty I served 8 years in the active Naval Reserves. I was honorably discharged and I never went beyond the rank of E-3 as was common for reservists like me who lacked experience and never attended a school for my rating. I was caught up in higher tenure and so it was that the NavRes wanted guys like me out. That was not ok with me, but so it goes. The problem was all of my previous yearly evals were very good to excellent; so on last wknd of my enlistment my CO (a maverick – an officer that was formerly an enlisted man) handed me an eval for me sign that was far from favorable (it had to fit the higher tenure threshold to boot meout). I would be given an honorable discharge, but because I did not advance in rank and in his opinion was not making progress toward advancement I was being “not recommended for retention”. When presented the evaluation, I verbally noted to the CO that the eval notes made reference that in the most recent previous year I had in his observation [(my words) "really started to slide" ] and despite his attempts at intervention I had not made a positive change in course and so a well below average yearly eval was justified. I asked the CO where were the supporting documents, the memos, or other documents throughout the previous year that would support his claim. He started looking a bit uncomfortable. He was the type of fellow who really did not fit in with the officers or the enlisted men. He liked to have a forced lighthearted repore with the men underhim and frankly he was respected as to rank only by his subordinates. So after pointing out to him that his eval lacked sufficient documnented evidence to support his “subjective” reason for non-retention I “lightheartedly” told him that I “would nail him” on these points when this went before an officers review and would not sign but contest his eval. He knew I was right and returned less than an hour later with a revised eval that appeared less harsh and did not make the undocumented claims concerning things iike past observation and counseling of me – because they were simply not true. I refused to sign this eval as well and had made copies of both. An hour before my last drill wknd was over I approached by 2 master at arms who handed me the revised eval and told me to sign it or I would be arrested for insubordination for telling an officer, “I am going to nail you”.
Of course I refused was placed under arrest and taken upstairs to a room by the two reservists MAA’s. They looked very uncomfortable. Mind you this was a Reservist Station in Springfield, Mo on a Sunday afternoon.
I asked to see the CO of the reserve center and I really let her know how I felt and HOW I KNEW THAT SHE AND THE OTHER OFFICER’S IN THAT RESERVE CENTER KNEW THAT MY CO WAS ESSENTIALLY UNFIT REALLY A SCREWBALL. I was painfully upfront – she never said a word that was negative about my commanding officer (she was a captain-he was a Lt.}. She was polite and smiled seemed amused at my description of my CO, but in the end I was let go. I don’t remember if I even signed the eval–I know that there were never any officaly charges made or executed against me.
This was 11 years ago and honestly I really like having my wknds. OH, AND ABOUT MY COMMANDING OFFICER WHO AUTHORED SUCH A DISMAL EVAL AND HAD ME PLACED UNDER ARREST. HE SERVED ONE MORE YEAR AND HAD TO GO — ANOTHER HIGHER TENURE VICTIM. {NOT SO GOOD TO BE A Lt. and be 45 yrs old or so.)
So long
Bill Gremm
Although never active duty I served 8 years in the active Naval Reserves. I was honorably discharged and I never went beyond the rank of E-3 as was common for reservists like me who lacked experience and never attended a school for my rating. I was caught up in higher tenure and so it was that the NavRes wanted guys like me out. That was not ok with me, but so it goes. The problem was all of my previous yearly evals were very good to excellent; so on last wknd of my enlistment my CO (a maverick – an officer that was formerly an enlisted man) handed me an eval for me sign that was far from favorable (it had to fit the higher tenure threshold to boot meout). I would be given an honorable discharge, but because I did not advance in rank and in his opinion was not making progress toward advancement I was being “not recommended for retention”. When presented the evaluation, I verbally noted to the CO that the eval notes made reference that in the most recent previous year I had in his observation [(my words) "really started to slide" ] and despite his attempts at intervention I had not made a positive change in course and so a well below average yearly eval was justified. I asked the CO where were the supporting documents, the memos, or other documents throughout the previous year that would support his claim. He started looking a bit uncomfortable. He was the type of fellow who really did not fit in with the officers or the enlisted men. He liked to have a forced lighthearted repore with the men underhim and frankly he was respected as to rank only by his subordinates. So after pointing out to him that his eval lacked sufficient documnented evidence to support his “subjective” reason for non-retention I “lightheartedly” told him that I “would nail him” on these points when this went before an officers review and would not sign but contest his eval. He knew I was right and returned less than an hour later with a revised eval that appeared less harsh and did not make the undocumented claims concerning things iike past observation and counseling of me – because they were simply not true. I refused to sign this eval as well and had made copies of both. An hour before my last drill wknd was over I approached by 2 master at arms who handed me the revised eval and told me to sign it or I would be arrested for insubordination for telling an officer, “I am going to nail you”.
Of course I refused was placed under arrest and taken upstairs to a room by the two reservists MAA’s. They looked very uncomfortable. Mind you this was a Reservist Station in Springfield, Mo on a Sunday afternoon.
I asked to see the CO of the reserve center and I really let her know how I felt and HOW I KNEW THAT SHE AND THE OTHER OFFICER’S IN THAT RESERVE CENTER KNEW THAT MY CO WAS ESSENTIALLY UNFIT REALLY A SCREWBALL. I was painfully upfront – she never said a word that was negative about my commanding officer (she was a captain-he was a Lt.}. She was polite and smiled seemed amused at my description of my CO, but in the end I was let go. I don’t remember if I even signed the eval–I know that there were never any officaly charges made or executed against me.
This was 11 years ago and honestly I really like having my wknds. OH, AND ABOUT MY COMMANDING OFFICER WHO AUTHORED SUCH A DISMAL EVAL AND HAD ME PLACED UNDER ARREST. HE SERVED ONE MORE YEAR AND HAD TO GO — ANOTHER HIGHER TENURE VICTIM. {you can’t be a Lt. forever)
So long
Bill Gremm
Sorry for the typos and double posting. Maybe my ex-co should have slammed me for egregiously lacking in attention to detail.
I’m taking another approach in my emails to FoxNews (forget the other networks!!). Fox is fast losing its fair and balanced image but there are still a couple people on board who are realists.
This email will be critical of their lack of investigative reporting. These interviews we see on Fox of Kerry supporters and non-supporters are brief and non-informative; their sincerity and credibility, or lack of it, doesn’t come across to the viewer as it should. Fox needs to investigate rather than attack outright when new or revealing information is brought out that counters the common belief among the public. This Swift Boat ad is the best example I’ve seen in a long time of how supposed reasonable people react to hearing an opposing and even damning viewpoint that shatters their perception of fact. Fox blew it and they need to be told in the strongest words possible that they have a responsibility to report the truth to Americans, no matter how damaging it may be. If what the Swift Boat vets are telling is even partially factual, it needs to be told; if there are fabrications in their stories, that also has to come out, but none of it should be dismissed as “dishonest and dishonorable” as has been done. We need factual information from good investigative reporting, not a bunch of pseudo-analysts sitting around trying to dissect an issue they know nothing about.
My email will be sent to Brit Hume as the primary addressee and it will be CC’d to a bunch more on their staff, including management. I will note to them that my faith in their ability to report the news honestly, fair and balanced has diminished over the past few months, and their attack on the Swifties just reinforced my feelings.
How can you serve 8 years in the USNR and never go on active duty. My deal was 2 years active, 3 active reserve, 1 inactive reserve.
Also – Mustang, not Maverick for that most dangerous of creatures, the officer who previous was an enlisted man.
From Robert Novak column
“I have read the book and found it is neither the political propaganda nor the urban legend that its detractors claim. It is a passionate but meticulously researched account of how Kerry went to war, what he did in the war and how he conducted himself after the war. The very serious charges by former comrades deserve answers but so far have produced only ad hominem counterattacks.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040809.shtml
I will try to dispose of some of your contentions quickly then deal with the more substantive ones later.
I consider your attempts to give reasoned replies helpful, although I do wonder about good faith of those who write the attacks on me without trying to explain your “truths” in this matter.
Firstly, ONeill, by all the records and reports I have seen, did not arrive on the scene in VN with Kerry’s swiftboat unit until some 2 months after Kerry left his ship. True or not?
If true, it would be impossible for ONeill to have first hand knowledge of any of the actions of Kerry on the battle field.
Is it true that ONeill was an antagonist of Kerry in the 1970s as at the behest of the GOP or Nixon? If so, I would call him an attack dog. If so, isn’t it possible now he is just doing the same thing in writing the book? From what I have seen it does not seem ONeill is interested in the truth as evidenced by the timing of the book’s publication. Isn’t he just writing it to attack Kerry in hopes of re-electing Bush?
Now that I have read the transcript of the Kerry/ONeill debate on the Dick Cavett show I am confirmed in my opinion that ONeill was there to attack Kerry period. Kerry held his own very well and his cool after being baited by ONeill. For me ONeill self destructed his own credibility. I have seen a lot of bullshit in trials pulled by witnesses and other lawyers. ONeill pulls the worst of lawyer tricks to try to throw Kerry off balance and try to keep the debate from being enlightening.
Rhod you deserve my responses as you try to reason this thing out. But remember the weakest position is to attack your opponent and not the merits of the argument as it shows you have nothing strong to say about the merits of your own position.
“small piece of the case against Kerry only”
Not having seen or read ONeills polemic book about Kerry and not having spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN and the antiwar people, I had to start at a common point for discussing these issues on this blog. I have read this blog and decided to discuss one area of the situation as a start to see what the truth of the situation is, as part of the process of developing whatever the truth might be. Looking at and discussing one area of the controversy has value in the event that the ONeill book or the statements of the Swiftvets are factually erroneous, untrue or lack credibility on that specific issue. If that is the case it would impact not only the believability of all of the arguments on that specific issue, but also throw into question of the truth of the rest of the argument made by ONeill and the Swiftvets, especially if the arguments are being challenged with contrary facts and opinions.
I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?
“doubt about the others”
Well I have a healthy skepticism about self-appointed “truth tellers.” One and all of them, including ONeill and the affidavit signers, need to be tested if they are making public statements asking the voters to believe them.
“partisan position”
Is the Swiftvets affidavit not a partisan attempt to change voters’ opinions for a political purpose? If not, why wasn’t the affidavit done and book written 20 or 30 years ago?
As you have tried to guess, I am an attorney. That does not disqualify me from being an u.S. citizen or from being concerned about OUR America. If you bloggers have your own agenda you might very well fell uncomfortable with my questions and statements in pursuit of the truth here. On the other hand you all might learn something by this exercise.
Technique or what ever you want to call it, cross-examination is the greatest means devised by man to get at the truth. I know whereof I speak and that’s no hot air.
“kind of ludicrous”
You who have been at the battle fields can answer the question. It is not smart to deny outright about is commonsense. If you are trying to survive an enemy attack and to counter attack, how in the world do you have time to watch Kerry on a separate boat some yards away from you? ONeill, on the Dick Cavatt debate with Kerry, said, “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.”
I have to cur this short now, but will continue my response later.
I will try to dispose of some of your contentions quickly then deal with the more substantive ones later.
I consider your attempts to give reasoned replies helpful, although I do wonder about good faith of those who write the attacks on me without trying to explain your “truths” in this matter.
Firstly, ONeill, by all the records and reports I have seen, did not arrive on the scene in VN with Kerry’s swiftboat unit until some 2 months after Kerry left his ship. True or not?
If true, it would be impossible for ONeill to have first hand knowledge of any of the actions of Kerry on the battle field.
Is it true that ONeill was an antagonist of Kerry in the 1970s as at the behest of the GOP or Nixon? If so, I would call him an attack dog. If so, isn’t it possible now he is just doing the same thing in writing the book? From what I have seen it does not seem ONeill is interested in the truth as evidenced by the timing of the book’s publication. Isn’t he just writing it to attack Kerry in hopes of re-electing Bush?
Now that I have read the transcript of the Kerry/ONeill debate on the Dick Cavett show I am confirmed in my opinion that ONeill was there to attack Kerry period. Kerry held his own very well and his cool after being baited by ONeill. For me ONeill self destructed his own credibility. I have seen a lot of bullshit in trials pulled by witnesses and other lawyers. ONeill pulls the worst of lawyer tricks to try to throw Kerry off balance and try to keep the debate from being enlightening.
Rhod you deserve my responses as you try to reason this thing out. But remember the weakest position is to attack your opponent and not the merits of the argument as it shows you have nothing strong to say about the merits of your own position.
“small piece of the case against Kerry only”
Not having seen or read ONeills polemic book about Kerry and not having spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN and the antiwar people, I had to start at a common point for discussing these issues on this blog. I have read this blog and decided to discuss one area of the situation as a start to see what the truth of the situation is, as part of the process of developing whatever the truth might be. Looking at and discussing one area of the controversy has value in the event that the ONeill book or the statements of the Swiftvets are factually erroneous, untrue or lack credibility on that specific issue. If that is the case it would impact not only the believability of all of the arguments on that specific issue, but also throw into question of the truth of the rest of the argument made by ONeill and the Swiftvets, especially if the arguments are being challenged with contrary facts and opinions.
I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?
“doubt about the others”
Well I have a healthy skepticism about self-appointed “truth tellers.” One and all of them, including ONeill and the affidavit signers, need to be tested if they are making public statements asking the voters to believe them.
“partisan position”
Is the Swiftvets affidavit not a partisan attempt to change voters’ opinions for a political purpose? If not, why wasn’t the affidavit done and book written 20 or 30 years ago?
As you have tried to guess, I am an attorney. That does not disqualify me from being an u.S. citizen or from being concerned about OUR America. If you bloggers have your own agenda you might very well fell uncomfortable with my questions and statements in pursuit of the truth here. On the other hand you all might learn something by this exercise.
Technique or what ever you want to call it, cross-examination is the greatest means devised by man to get at the truth. I know whereof I speak and that’s no hot air.
“kind of ludicrous”
You who have been at the battle fields can answer the question. It is not smart to deny outright about is commonsense. If you are trying to survive an enemy attack and to counter attack, how in the world do you have time to watch Kerry on a separate boat some yards away from you? ONeill, on the Dick Cavatt debate with Kerry, said, “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.”
I have to cur this short now, but will continue my response later.
I will try to dispose of some of your contentions quickly then deal with the more substantive ones later.
I consider your attempts to give reasoned replies helpful, although I do wonder about good faith of those who write the attacks on me without trying to explain your “truths” in this matter.
Firstly, ONeill, by all the records and reports I have seen, did not arrive on the scene in VN with Kerry’s swiftboat unit until some 2 months after Kerry left his ship. True or not?
If true, it would be impossible for ONeill to have first hand knowledge of any of the actions of Kerry on the battle field.
Is it true that ONeill was an antagonist of Kerry in the 1970s as at the behest of the GOP or Nixon? If so, I would call him an attack dog. If so, isn’t it possible now he is just doing the same thing in writing the book? From what I have seen it does not seem ONeill is interested in the truth as evidenced by the timing of the book’s publication. Isn’t he just writing it to attack Kerry in hopes of re-electing Bush?
Now that I have read the transcript of the Kerry/ONeill debate on the Dick Cavett show I am confirmed in my opinion that ONeill was there to attack Kerry period. Kerry held his own very well and his cool after being baited by ONeill. For me ONeill self destructed his own credibility. I have seen a lot of bullshit in trials pulled by witnesses and other lawyers. ONeill pulls the worst of lawyer tricks to try to throw Kerry off balance and try to keep the debate from being enlightening.
Rhod you deserve my responses as you try to reason this thing out. But remember the weakest position is to attack your opponent and not the merits of the argument as it shows you have nothing strong to say about the merits of your own position.
“small piece of the case against Kerry only”
Not having seen or read ONeills polemic book about Kerry and not having spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN and the antiwar people, I had to start at a common point for discussing these issues on this blog. I have read this blog and decided to discuss one area of the situation as a start to see what the truth of the situation is, as part of the process of developing whatever the truth might be. Looking at and discussing one area of the controversy has value in the event that the ONeill book or the statements of the Swiftvets are factually erroneous, untrue or lack credibility on that specific issue. If that is the case it would impact not only the believability of all of the arguments on that specific issue, but also throw into question of the truth of the rest of the argument made by ONeill and the Swiftvets, especially if the arguments are being challenged with contrary facts and opinions.
I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?
“doubt about the others”
Well I have a healthy skepticism about self-appointed “truth tellers.” One and all of them, including ONeill and the affidavit signers, need to be tested if they are making public statements asking the voters to believe them.
“partisan position”
Is the Swiftvets affidavit not a partisan attempt to change voters’ opinions for a political purpose? If not, why wasn’t the affidavit done and book written 20 or 30 years ago?
As you have tried to guess, I am an attorney. That does not disqualify me from being an u.S. citizen or from being concerned about OUR America. If you bloggers have your own agenda you might very well fell uncomfortable with my questions and statements in pursuit of the truth here. On the other hand you all might learn something by this exercise.
Technique or what ever you want to call it, cross-examination is the greatest means devised by man to get at the truth. I know whereof I speak and that’s no hot air.
“kind of ludicrous”
You who have been at the battle fields can answer the question. It is not smart to deny outright about is commonsense. If you are trying to survive an enemy attack and to counter attack, how in the world do you have time to watch Kerry on a separate boat some yards away from you? ONeill, on the Dick Cavatt debate with Kerry, said, “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.”
I have to cur this short now, but will continue my response later.
I will try to dispose of some of your contentions quickly then deal with the more substantive ones later.
I consider your attempts to give reasoned replies helpful, although I do wonder about good faith of those who write the attacks on me without trying to explain your “truths” in this matter.
Firstly, ONeill, by all the records and reports I have seen, did not arrive on the scene in VN with Kerry’s swiftboat unit until some 2 months after Kerry left his ship. True or not?
If true, it would be impossible for ONeill to have first hand knowledge of any of the actions of Kerry on the battle field.
Is it true that ONeill was an antagonist of Kerry in the 1970s as at the behest of the GOP or Nixon? If so, I would call him an attack dog. If so, isn’t it possible now he is just doing the same thing in writing the book? From what I have seen it does not seem ONeill is interested in the truth as evidenced by the timing of the book’s publication. Isn’t he just writing it to attack Kerry in hopes of re-electing Bush?
Now that I have read the transcript of the Kerry/ONeill debate on the Dick Cavett show I am confirmed in my opinion that ONeill was there to attack Kerry period. Kerry held his own very well and his cool after being baited by ONeill. For me ONeill self destructed his own credibility. I have seen a lot of bullshit in trials pulled by witnesses and other lawyers. ONeill pulls the worst of lawyer tricks to try to throw Kerry off balance and try to keep the debate from being enlightening.
Rhod you deserve my responses as you try to reason this thing out. But remember the weakest position is to attack your opponent and not the merits of the argument as it shows you have nothing strong to say about the merits of your own position.
“small piece of the case against Kerry only”
Not having seen or read ONeills polemic book about Kerry and not having spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN and the antiwar people, I had to start at a common point for discussing these issues on this blog. I have read this blog and decided to discuss one area of the situation as a start to see what the truth of the situation is, as part of the process of developing whatever the truth might be. Looking at and discussing one area of the controversy has value in the event that the ONeill book or the statements of the Swiftvets are factually erroneous, untrue or lack credibility on that specific issue. If that is the case it would impact not only the believability of all of the arguments on that specific issue, but also throw into question of the truth of the rest of the argument made by ONeill and the Swiftvets, especially if the arguments are being challenged with contrary facts and opinions.
I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?
“doubt about the others”
Well I have a healthy skepticism about self-appointed “truth tellers.” One and all of them, including ONeill and the affidavit signers, need to be tested if they are making public statements asking the voters to believe them.
“partisan position”
Is the Swiftvets affidavit not a partisan attempt to change voters’ opinions for a political purpose? If not, why wasn’t the affidavit done and book written 20 or 30 years ago?
As you have tried to guess, I am an attorney. That does not disqualify me from being an u.S. citizen or from being concerned about OUR America. If you bloggers have your own agenda you might very well fell uncomfortable with my questions and statements in pursuit of the truth here. On the other hand you all might learn something by this exercise.
Technique or what ever you want to call it, cross-examination is the greatest means devised by man to get at the truth. I know whereof I speak and that’s no hot air.
“kind of ludicrous”
You who have been at the battle fields can answer the question. It is not smart to deny outright about is commonsense. If you are trying to survive an enemy attack and to counter attack, how in the world do you have time to watch Kerry on a separate boat some yards away from you? ONeill, on the Dick Cavatt debate with Kerry, said, “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.”
I have to cur this short now, but will continue my response later.
I will try to dispose of some of your contentions quickly then deal with the more substantive ones later.
I consider your attempts to give reasoned replies helpful, although I do wonder about good faith of those who write the attacks on me without trying to explain your “truths” in this matter.
Firstly, ONeill, by all the records and reports I have seen, did not arrive on the scene in VN with Kerry’s swiftboat unit until some 2 months after Kerry left his ship. True or not?
If true, it would be impossible for ONeill to have first hand knowledge of any of the actions of Kerry on the battle field.
Is it true that ONeill was an antagonist of Kerry in the 1970s as at the behest of the GOP or Nixon? If so, I would call him an attack dog. If so, isn’t it possible now he is just doing the same thing in writing the book? From what I have seen it does not seem ONeill is interested in the truth as evidenced by the timing of the book’s publication. Isn’t he just writing it to attack Kerry in hopes of re-electing Bush?
Now that I have read the transcript of the Kerry/ONeill debate on the Dick Cavett show I am confirmed in my opinion that ONeill was there to attack Kerry period. Kerry held his own very well and his cool after being baited by ONeill. For me ONeill self destructed his own credibility. I have seen a lot of bullshit in trials pulled by witnesses and other lawyers. ONeill pulls the worst of lawyer tricks to try to throw Kerry off balance and try to keep the debate from being enlightening.
Rhod you deserve my responses as you try to reason this thing out. But remember the weakest position is to attack your opponent and not the merits of the argument as it shows you have nothing strong to say about the merits of your own position.
“small piece of the case against Kerry only”
Not having seen or read ONeills polemic book about Kerry and not having spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN and the antiwar people, I had to start at a common point for discussing these issues on this blog. I have read this blog and decided to discuss one area of the situation as a start to see what the truth of the situation is, as part of the process of developing whatever the truth might be. Looking at and discussing one area of the controversy has value in the event that the ONeill book or the statements of the Swiftvets are factually erroneous, untrue or lack credibility on that specific issue. If that is the case it would impact not only the believability of all of the arguments on that specific issue, but also throw into question of the truth of the rest of the argument made by ONeill and the Swiftvets, especially if the arguments are being challenged with contrary facts and opinions.
I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?
“doubt about the others”
Well I have a healthy skepticism about self-appointed “truth tellers.” One and all of them, including ONeill and the affidavit signers, need to be tested if they are making public statements asking the voters to believe them.
“partisan position”
Is the Swiftvets affidavit not a partisan attempt to change voters’ opinions for a political purpose? If not, why wasn’t the affidavit done and book written 20 or 30 years ago?
As you have tried to guess, I am an attorney. That does not disqualify me from being an u.S. citizen or from being concerned about OUR America. If you bloggers have your own agenda you might very well fell uncomfortable with my questions and statements in pursuit of the truth here. On the other hand you all might learn something by this exercise.
Technique or what ever you want to call it, cross-examination is the greatest means devised by man to get at the truth. I know whereof I speak and that’s no hot air.
“kind of ludicrous”
You who have been at the battle fields can answer the question. It is not smart to deny outright about is commonsense. If you are trying to survive an enemy attack and to counter attack, how in the world do you have time to watch Kerry on a separate boat some yards away from you? ONeill, on the Dick Cavatt debate with Kerry, said, “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.”
I have to cur this short now, but will continue my response later.
I will try to dispose of some of your contentions quickly then deal with the more substantive ones later.
I consider your attempts to give reasoned replies helpful, although I do wonder about good faith of those who write the attacks on me without trying to explain your “truths” in this matter.
Firstly, ONeill, by all the records and reports I have seen, did not arrive on the scene in VN with Kerry’s swiftboat unit until some 2 months after Kerry left his ship. True or not?
If true, it would be impossible for ONeill to have first hand knowledge of any of the actions of Kerry on the battle field.
Is it true that ONeill was an antagonist of Kerry in the 1970s as at the behest of the GOP or Nixon? If so, I would call him an attack dog. If so, isn’t it possible now he is just doing the same thing in writing the book? From what I have seen it does not seem ONeill is interested in the truth as evidenced by the timing of the book’s publication. Isn’t he just writing it to attack Kerry in hopes of re-electing Bush?
Now that I have read the transcript of the Kerry/ONeill debate on the Dick Cavett show I am confirmed in my opinion that ONeill was there to attack Kerry period. Kerry held his own very well and his cool after being baited by ONeill. For me ONeill self destructed his own credibility. I have seen a lot of bullshit in trials pulled by witnesses and other lawyers. ONeill pulls the worst of lawyer tricks to try to throw Kerry off balance and try to keep the debate from being enlightening.
Rhod you deserve my responses as you try to reason this thing out. But remember the weakest position is to attack your opponent and not the merits of the argument as it shows you have nothing strong to say about the merits of your own position.
“small piece of the case against Kerry only”
Not having seen or read ONeills polemic book about Kerry and not having spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN and the antiwar people, I had to start at a common point for discussing these issues on this blog. I have read this blog and decided to discuss one area of the situation as a start to see what the truth of the situation is, as part of the process of developing whatever the truth might be. Looking at and discussing one area of the controversy has value in the event that the ONeill book or the statements of the Swiftvets are factually erroneous, untrue or lack credibility on that specific issue. If that is the case it would impact not only the believability of all of the arguments on that specific issue, but also throw into question of the truth of the rest of the argument made by ONeill and the Swiftvets, especially if the arguments are being challenged with contrary facts and opinions.
I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?
“doubt about the others”
Well I have a healthy skepticism about self-appointed “truth tellers.” One and all of them, including ONeill and the affidavit signers, need to be tested if they are making public statements asking the voters to believe them.
“partisan position”
Is the Swiftvets affidavit not a partisan attempt to change voters’ opinions for a political purpose? If not, why wasn’t the affidavit done and book written 20 or 30 years ago?
As you have tried to guess, I am an attorney. That does not disqualify me from being an u.S. citizen or from being concerned about OUR America. If you bloggers have your own agenda you might very well fell uncomfortable with my questions and statements in pursuit of the truth here. On the other hand you all might learn something by this exercise.
Technique or what ever you want to call it, cross-examination is the greatest means devised by man to get at the truth. I know whereof I speak and that’s no hot air.
“kind of ludicrous”
You who have been at the battle fields can answer the question. It is not smart to deny outright about is commonsense. If you are trying to survive an enemy attack and to counter attack, how in the world do you have time to watch Kerry on a separate boat some yards away from you? ONeill, on the Dick Cavatt debate with Kerry, said, “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.”
I have to cut this short now, but will continue my response later.
Attorney Thugge:
It would be difficult to shake all the fallacies out of your post, because they’re imbedded in your martyrdom, inelegant self-regard, prejudices and sentimentality about yourself and your talents.
I didn’t “try” to guess that you were an attorney, I guessed it. Your following claim that this doesn’t disqualify you from citizenship or honest patriotism proves you’re trying to squeeze a few tears out of the jury.
I’ve read your post over and over, and it’s clear that your spurious fairness and self-satisfaction has merged neatly with the modern Democratic Party’s lofty disregard of any opposition, particularly conservative opposition.
You’re going to “dispose of (my) contentions quickly”, my thoughts are “helpful”, you are going to help us “bloggers” “learn something by the exercise”. It’s clear that you’re slumming here and the serfs on your intellectual estate are growing restive.
The most offensive feature of your phony “good faith” is the standard Lefty tactic of diminishing a point of view by the depth of feeling attached to it. O’Neill is a partisan “attack dog”, an expression a truly creative lawyer would probably not have used. Anyway, it doesn’t work with me. Your false claim to controlled rationalism is contaminated by your “partisanship”, and we know where we stand.
You’re either very skillful or just an amateur, probably the latter. Your temper is showing; you oscillate back and forth from apparent genuine interest in the issue to petulance to dismissive and classless self-importance.
Say whatever you wish. You’ve revealed yourself in ways which transcend the Swiftboat issue.
Attorney Thugge:
It would be difficult to shake all the fallacies out of your post, because they’re imbedded in your martyrdom, inelegant self-regard, prejudices and sentimentality about yourself and your talents.
I didn’t “try” to guess that you were an attorney, I guessed it. Your following claim that this doesn’t disqualify you from citizenship or honest patriotism proves you’re trying to squeeze a few tears out of the jury.
I’ve read your post over and over, and it’s clear that your spurious fairness and self-satisfaction has merged neatly with the modern Democratic Party’s lofty disregard of any opposition, particularly conservative opposition.
You’re going to “dispose of (my) contentions quickly”, my thoughts are “helpful”, you are going to help us “bloggers” “learn something by the exercise”. It’s clear that you’re slumming here and the serfs on your intellectual estate are growing restive.
The most offensive feature of your phony “good faith” is the standard Lefty tactic of diminishing a point of view by the depth of feeling attached to it. O’Neill is a partisan “attack dog”, an expression a truly creative lawyer would probably not have used. Anyway, it doesn’t work with me. Your false claim to controlled rationalism is contaminated by your “partisanship”, and we know where we stand.
You’re either very skillful or just an amateur, probably the latter. Your temper is showing; you oscillate back and forth from apparent genuine interest in the issue to petulance to dismissive and classless self-importance.
Say whatever you wish. You’ve revealed yourself in ways which transcend the Swiftboat issue.
I,m stepping out on a limb, but it seems to me that this alleged attorney may be sponsored by the ford foundation and/or the aclu(which to no ones’s dismay) are front organizations for the communist party. Could be wrong, but it is worth verifying.
From what I have been researching over the last months, this is their initial method or agenda to begin to attack and to discredit the accounts of an individual.
Rick
Thugge,
Is it so tough about answering my 2 points of your post. You can’t can you because removing credibility out of you ad-homenem attack, then what would be the substance of your post?
Attorney Thugge may or may not know that the enemy of credibility is unorginality. If you carry a voodoo doll, people can assume voodoo, if you speak the lingua franca of The Left, we can assume you are of The Left. Thugge is defending Kerry, and while we are honest enough to admit our “partisanship”, Thugge is not.
The problem with Mr. Thugge’s juridical approach to this issue is that it is infused with regulation Lefty boilerplate. Over the years the Left has pathologized disagreement in the same way that The Church used the charge of heresy. Democrats are never wrong, otherwise the same standards Thugge applies to the Swiftvets would be necessarily applied to Kerry. If the truth is a synthesis, part of it in Thugge’s world is already in place. Kerry’s view.
The vocabulary has been debased as well, so that “agenda” is both mistaken loyalty AND evil, variations on the word “partisanship” only apply to those who disagree with The Left, and “attack dog” is a slur which associates emphatic dissenting views with bad character, but only on The Right. One wonders what would qualify for attack doggedness on the Democrat side, or for that matter, what does The Left substitute for partisanship and agendae?
Thugge probably intentionally misinterpreted Rhod about a “small piece of the case against Kerry”.
Rhod referred to Elliot and Thugge substituted O’Neill. And then we have simply silly paragraphs such as those beginning with the quoted phrases “doubt about others” and “partisan position”. What do they mean?
First causes are important, and usually obvious. Thugge’s pretense to fairness and objectivity is actually partisanship. It’s agenda-driven and subjective. And that’s okay. Just admit it.
Kingsmill,
In essense, the typical liberal left (the worst of both kind, liberal + left) are the most ardent supporter of inequality in process. This kind of mindset has plenty of examples in elitists, sophists, dictators, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. They are the fake supporter of other’s liberty.
There is something too predictable about Thugge’s presence here. He’s a bit too credulous on the one hand, and a bit too hardened on the other.
He has the lawyer’s hand at planting doubts and cleverly diminishing others…his remark that being a lawyer doesn’t disqualify him from citizenship or patriotism was a way to imply an accusation that didn’t even occur.
He also indicates that he hasn’t “spent the last 30 plus years harboring negative thoughts about the VN (sic) and the antiwar people”, which accomplishes two things:
1. It tars the opposition with bitterness and implies small and mean motives for criticizing Kerry.
2, Thugge lifts himself above the implication he just made. Objectivity and all that.
Thugge has nary a word to say about Kerry’s 1971 book, which has all the faults he attributes to the Swiftvets’ book. On that subject, if the amount of effort devoted to discrediting the Swiftvets had been devoted to Kerry’s 1971 fantasies, Kerry today would be a low-paid public defender (Boston College Law degree. Wow.) in Natick.
Mr. Thugge builds a case out of red herrings, insinuations, and alarms, but it’s all an empty shell.
He says that Unfit for Command’s purpose is to reelect GWB and asks why the Swift Boat Vets didn’t speak up 30 years ago. He complains that John O’Neil was just a Republican attack dog 30 years ago, financed by partisan interests. He says that Kerry was cool when he and O’Neil debated on the Dick Cavitt show, and asks how any of the other Swift Boat commanders could have had a chance to observe JFKy’s performance.
First: Re-electing Bush doesn’t exhaust possible purposes for UoC. There are many possibilities, but from all I’ve read, it seems obvious to me that the purpose is to prevent the election of JFKy.
Second: He complains about O’Neil’s doing the very thing that a sentence before he was complaining he didn’t do, viz., speak out against JFKy 30 years ago. In 1970-71, Kerry wasn’t running for President on a platform of being a highly decorated Vietnam veteran. He was leading the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and declaring on the basis of utterly fraudulent Winter Soldier testimony and his own witness that US soldiers in Vietnam were daily and everywhere committing the most callous of war crimes.
It was to protest and refute Kerry’s slanders that John O’Neil and others formed the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace [I was active in the VVJP in 1971-72]. Thugge points out the obvious, that the VVJP got support from sympathetic political contributors. Is this something that anyone should be defensive about? It is no more surprising than that the VVAW got support from left-wing political contributors and a lot less surprising than the fact that Kerry’s statement before the Senate Foreign Relations committee was written by a left-wing Democratic speechwriter. Yet Thugge does bring it up and implies that it discredits anything O’Neil or anyone else says about Kerry.
Thugge asks why O’Neil didn’t do what he in fact did do, and then find fault with the fact that O’Neil did it. He brings up the question of funding, a complete irrelevancy and blatant attempt at ad hominem argument. Talk about wanting to have all the cards on your side! These sorts of shady argument may be good technique in a courtroom cross-examination, but in a civil debate they make me wonder at Thugge’s good faith or his competence.
Third: Thugge is right that Kerry maintained his cool against O’Neil on the Cavitt show (my own encounter with Kerry’s cool is related at Kerry an Empty Suit). But style isn’t substance. Kerry wasn’t able to provide a single instance of a war crime. When pressed by O’Neil, he finally mentioned some damaged civilian structures as evidence of US war crimes. O’Neil’s response was the statement that Thugge quoted: “from going into Ku Alon River until leaving Bodie, you’re receiving continuous fire the entire time.” In other words, the buildings were damaged in combat, not as the result of criminal assault on civilian property. As I recall the exchange, O’Neil was saying that often the VC fire was coming from the buildings. Thugge’s use of this quotation is obtuse, blinded by partisanship, disingenuous, or dissembling.
Fourth: Thugge cited the quotation to cavil at the possibility that any of the Swift Boat commanders could have any knowledge about JFKy’s actions. Really! Sailors gossip. Kerry had to file after-action reports. During actions, commanders give situation reports on the radio and talk to other units. Sometimes when you are under fire there is nothing you can do but sit tight and look around you. Sometimes when Team A is getting the s*** shot out of them, Team B is out of range.
Then there are the medical records. Oh, sorry, Kerry won’t release those. But his own comments and the recollections of the doctors who treated him make it clear that at least two of Kerry’s Purple Hearts were ludicrously trivial. To receive a Purple Heart one must be injured seriously enough to require treatment by a medical officer. Treatment for two of Kerry’s war wounds consisted of Bactine and a band-aid. Kerry has spoken modestly of the severity of his injuries as requiring in total only a couple of days away of duty. That’s what it would have taken to hunt up medical officers to apply the Bactine and a band-aid, and, voila, qualify the scratches for a Purple Heart. You can read about it in a chapter of O’Neil book,
The Purple Heart Hunter . The chapter also reports how Kerry complained loudly and incessantly when his unit was transferred from relative quiet off-shore duty to the very hot riverine patrols.
Posted by thugge
“I am not writing these comments to say my guy is better than yours, but to bring some light on the subject of credibility, which was J Moore’s point in the first place, no?”
So according to the ‘Slug’ kerry is the man to vote for,He is honest, forthright, sincere has never lied to his constituents, upstanding and a regular guy just like me only difference is he has a Boston Accent, and Married lots of money. The swift Vets are all liars and the democrats are the good guys. Gee that was easy, Now slug all you have to do is to convince the people that John kerry is not just an opportunist politician.
Now he is taking to task O’neill, and O’neill used cheap legal tricks. That pretty, good for a busines man.
Yes Mr. Lawyer I have harbored a gurdge for 30 some years and I will not forget what John Kerry has done for his country. Like his glorious testamony before the Senate, where he turned everyone of us into War Criminals.
Wearing ribbons, he supposedly threw over the white house fence four days before the hearings. Protesting Nixon’s war. Well Mr attorney Nixon inherited from John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson both democrats.
But according to the deomcrats kerry will be tough on defense, however had kerrys voting record says he voted against every decent weapon system they now have, with that kind of record how is he going to be a President tough on defense of this nation?
But the real reason Thuggie is here, is because of the Swift-Vets. This is damage control for the democrats. Smear the Swifties before too much gets out about the real John F’ing Kerry.
John Kerry the wonderful man who said the National Guard was the Back door draft, disavowing the 6000+ names on the wall of National Guardsmen and Reserves. The same kerry who says he is going to tax the ‘evil Rich’(except himself of course and all the ’slip and fall’ lawyers) and turn them into middleclass, What a guy, how in the hell is that going to help anybody.
We as Veterans are a definite punch in the kidneys, but the ‘Swifties’ are a sucking chest wound that won’t go away.
Being a Marine I never had much use fot Sailors but God Bless the Navy and the Swift-Vets.
Mark
My Turn…
That other commanders couldn’t watch Kerry during combat is very wrong. They had a duty to keep a situational awareness and that included where every friendly and hostile was and what they were doing.
Regarding O’Neil not being present with Kerry. What O’Neill brings to this is a year’s experience crewsing Kerry’s boat after Kerry boogied, a knowlege of many of the personnel, a deep worry that Kerry will win (O’Neil told me and others that he was an Edwards man – NOT a Bushie), and the skills of a long practicing highly regarded civil litigator. With that background, he conducted a large number of interviews with swift boat veterans. While that may not make him a legal witness, he’s got their affidavits.
After he returned home, he gave some speeches and was chosen to debate Kerry on Dick Cavette. I have the video, and O’Neill did fine. He was of course there to defeat Kerry’s assertions. Kerry had been running around the country casting great lies about Vietnam, which O’Neill felt it his duty to counter. He impressed Colson who suggested that Nixon bring him in for a visit to pump up his enthusiasm.
The skepticism about truth tellers should take into account the extreme circumstances here. On one side, we have a man running for president as a warrior. On the other side, we have a lot of other warriors who believe he screwed up, both in country and especially in the anti-war movement. As such, they have an incentive to tell what really happened.
Unlike some press statements, he hasn’t been hounding Kerry ever since then. He went on to a normal life, as did most veterans. I suspect he has appeared now because, of the Swift Boat vets, he is a natural leader.
I failed to attend to Atty Thugge’s question about the fog of combat (in re Kerry’s conduct) chiefly because I was a foot soldier and river action would be entirely different.It would have been simple enough to speculate, because every event requires some sort of record, but I knew that someone else would provide the answer. John Moore did.
I know that types of action induce a sort of amnesia which you recognize only when you search for an accounting of what happened…even if it is the same day. Even then, there is never a total void of awareness, but these sorts of impressions wouldn’t pass the test of a cross examintion.
This, however, is true. Being in one platoon or company does not mean one “did not serve” with others in other platoons and companies in the same battalion or regiment. It’s impossible to escape gossip, the jungle network, friendships or the reverse, and open observation of every man around you. Rules of engagement, tactical maneuvers and training contribute to this expansion of knowledge.
I would suppose that a Swiftboat cluster would have similar rules, similar requirements, and that commanders, gunners and other seamen would work as a group, where possible, and not swirl around in open water firing in all directions. Kerry wouldn’t, under these conditions, enjoy any anonymity. Indeed, the very charge that men who were not on Kerry’s boat “did not serve with Kerry” signifies the stupidity of the anti-military Left. They’re absolutely and totally clueless about the subject.
I know now where my trust will go.
I have changed my mind as to continuing a dialogue on the Swiftvets and their ad. It appears it is a set up job by one of Texas’ millionaire Repukes. The name of the organization “.. for Truth” belies its nature as a mouthpiece for its hate of Kerry and support for another lying, Texan asshole.
Go to factcheck.org and spinsanity.org to see how the Swifty ad and the affidavits look to neutral onlookers. This blog responses to my comments has to be an attempted con-job, using big words, incorrectly I might add in several instances, slaboring with nice. I didn’t do it myself, but those who pay closer attention to these political things have found the Swifties out and in the end crucify them with their own words and deeds as liars.
Hey pour your hate out. I will check back another day.
“neutral onlookers’ ROFLMA
I know some of the Swifties. This is a genuine grass roots organization. They had to get some money somewhere (254 guys aren’t going to be able to afford an ad buy). And of course, since the ad wll hurt Kerry, Republican types will provide the cash. You didn’t expect George Soros to provide it, did you? He’s busy financing a lot of “neutral onlookers.” THen there’s Michael Moore.
Let me see if I understand this… a group of combat veterans want to get out the word that only they can give, and since they have to get money, they are liars.
Right.
Care to describe exactly what is a lie?
Atty Thugge:
You’ll check back right away to see what we have to say about you. There is an irony in a post criticising your opponents’ writing abilities, when you use the word-salad expression “slaboring with nice”. Did that come from Blackstone, or did you invent it yourself?
For one thing, if your last post is an indication of your professional talents, you’re not prepared to teach Middle School Civics. An angry and unstable “lawyer” is a sight to see. I’ll give you the degree, but you’re a perpetual amateur and should be doing real estate cases.
And by the way, you couldn’t prepare a case brief with your writing ability, much less work your way through an issue more complicated than a animal complaint. You’re a pretentious, dishonest poorly-educated, diploma mill Lefty.
You also don’t deal well with being refuted, which is a give-away about your courtroom abilities. We smoked you out in a few posts, which furthermore indicates that you’re not in control of yourself, in control of your facts, in command of the issue, period.
In conclusion, when I described you as an inelegantly self-regarding fool, that was a compliment, but it puts you in the circle with Kerry. Vote for him, jackass, and start reading those law books.
Thugge was sent, or volunteered, to enter The Belly of the Beast. He came with the usual insular and primitive assumptions about people who oppose Kerry. When he ran into some difficulty, he reverted to type, which is that of an infantilized adult. A temper tantrum.
Thugge’s world is fantastic, by definition, with monsters under the bed and gremlins in the closet (us). Kerry is the nightlight; he reassures The Left that their special world will go on forever, that they can remain in their soft cradles of self-deception and illusion. Without these things, The Left is nothing but an undisciplined urge to escape from reality.
That’s what we saw in Thugge’s last post.
Good one ,Slug, now W. is a Texas Million, and a liar too, good come back.
We all know where W.s money came from. Where did kerrys money come from ? The giggolo from Boston.
We all know who the liar is here and it aint GWB, but what is kerrys really like, he falls down on the slopes and blames the secret service, he falls off his Bike, because there were no training wheels, and he blames someone else, what this sounds like is a man who cant accept responsibility, and will lie to convince anyone who will listen that the real john kerry is a hero, but when the truth be known he is a putz.
John Kerry is the ‘Barney’ of the democrat party. This just shows how little you, Thugge, and the rest of your ‘ilk’ really thing of your own country. That you would put it at risk by electing an empty suit for president. But as I have said before the only reason you are here is damage control for the democrats, the Swifties are getting too close for kerrys comfort and people are beginning to listen to them and believe what they are saying.
I just love it when a plan comes together.
But lets put aside kerrys supposed 4 month tour. Why dont we talk about his Anti-War activities, his running off to Paris to meet with the Communists from North Viet Nam. Now why would an American hero do that ? Comparing kerry to Audie Murphy would not be a stretch for YOU democrats, so why would kerry meet with the enemy ? I cant even mention Murphy in the same sentence with kerry, that is an injustice to Murphy. Back to kerry why would this supposed ‘Hero’ protest the war here in his own country when his fellow swifties are still in country ? He had to know that any subversive measures here in the states would adversely affect the troops still over there. He called it Nixons war, Nixon didnt get the US into the war it was another JFK and an LBJ wasnt it. Why is that never brought out.
Perhaps its selective journalism or flat out lies. But it is kerrys book that he wrote with the picture on the cover ‘mocking’ the flag raising on Iwo Jima that is really offensive, and this is the guy who should be president ? ( and why isn’t there any copies left in print, is it true kerry bought up any remaining copies ?) I wouldn’t buy a used car from john kerry, let alone vote for this putz.
Thugge you are wasting your time here but as a rich trial lawyer your fortunes ‘lie’ in the promise of a kerry election victory.
Mark
Rich trial lawyer? I envision this guy in a 1984 Cavalier with a doughnut spare on the front.
Thugge is the same type of leftist that tried shutting and shouting down Whitaker Chambers revelations about Communists in all levels of our government back in the 40’s and 50’s. He was proven right but that doesn’t matter to the Left, even today; the man Chambers zeroed in on, Commie agent Alger (Ales) Hiss, one of FDR’s confidants, is still considered a hero by the NY Times and the Left in academia.
That ‘84 Cavalier just went by but disappeared like a fart in a gale.
While we were excoriating Mr. Thugge yesterday, former Green Beret James Rassmann had a WSJ op-ed piece telling how John Kerry saved his life. His account blends the different versions of his rescue noted above. It is a well-, even slickly, written essay. If Rassmann wrote it himself, I am sure that it got a good deal of professional polishing.
I say this not just because the piece is coherent and grammatical, but because of the rhetorical features. The bulk of the essay is standard Kerry boilerplate of guilt by association with Republicans and insinuations that any one who takes an anti-Kerry position has thereby demonstrated bad faith. He even tries to conflate anti-McCain ads in 2000 and anti-Kerry ads in 2004 into some sort of “strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans”. [see below]
His conclusion is particularly nasty:
You will notice that this rejoinder is not argument, but false assumptions, personal invective, and emotional appeals that are not only irrelevant but preposterous. In fact, Nixon had won the war, but the Democrats threw Vietnam and Cambodia to the wolves; Nixon never knew about John O’Neil and other Kerry-truth-squad activists until they began to get attention; they objected not to Kerry’s policy stance so much as his slanders; and the ad says nothing about Mr. Rassmann or Navy records. Further, can Mr. Rassmann seriously maintain that the Swift Boat veterans “don’t understand the bond of those who serve in combat”, but that John Kerry does—John Kerry, who falsely accused his comrades of being war criminals and treated with his nation’s foreign and domestic enemies? If Mr. Rassmann, who presents himself as a retired police officer and orchid enthusiast, can write this kind of facile poison, he missed his calling.
An egregious example of the highly partisan, dissembling rhetoric in Rassmann’s piece is his reference to “some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush”. Of course, we know that the group is “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”. Making up mocking parodies of opposing groups’ names is all very well, but it is typical Leftist chutzpah to twist the facts and present them bald-faced as the truth.
They did the same thing back in the early ’70s. The press and left-wing flacks quickly took to referring to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War as the “Vietnam vets”, as though every one who had served in the SE Asia Theatre were monolithically united.
This snapped back on them in ironic ways, because they believed their own propaganda lies. For instance, one time before a TV debate, the ACLU rep came up to me and began to chat in a friendly way, assuming that since I was a “Vietnam vet” I was on his side. The “for a Just Peace” probably hadn’t registered with the assistant producer who had briefed him. It probably didn’t hurt that I was bearded, had hair to my shoulders, wore dark glasses, jeans, and a jungle fatigue jacket, and did yoga exercises before the show (part of my loosen up/calm down routine as a competitive fencer).
A personal note: Mr. Rassmann: The first national figure to welcome us back from Vietnam was Ronald Reagan, after the Democrats, following John Kerry’s lead, had spent a decade suggesting we were emotional cripples who needed to stay drugged up to deal with our Army-induced addictions to murder and rape.
John, why are you cutting me off? Can’t you live with the real truth? Actually, I know it does not matter to you as you all are Repuke attack poodles and intellectual prostitutes, especially ONeill and Seen F. How can you all get into bed with that loon, bigot Corsi, unless of course you all are of the same ilk. You are what your mouthpieces say.
With you guys claiming the truth and nothing but the truth (wait a minute, have you said that under oath) my country is in deep trouble. More trouble than you seem able to grasp with a lying Pres and VP and sycophants for advisors.
I’m not cutting you off – yet.
But if continue to lace your postings with a bunch of insults, I may do so.
There is a limit to the amount of gratuitous slander and foul attacks that I will put up with. You say we are all bigots. That’s name calling and I won’t put up with it for long.
I know people involved in this. I have reason to know who to believe. You give me no reason to believe that you are anything other than a troll, combing here to spew insults.
You can dispute the issues. But your manner is offensive. If you find you can’t post any more, you’ll know that you crossed my threshold. I have a low tolerance for assholes.
Rhod,
Remember the cartoon about hidden identity on internet few years ago? A big fat ugly man can appear as a handsome rich gentleman.
You’re too kind on Thugge, Rhod.
Thank you Lan:
I’m bothered by all this. The most sinister thing “they” have done – with the culture – is that they have pathologized disagreement with them. They’ve pathologized other things, too, such as religion, and if you give it some thought, they’ve pathologized belief in anything. Perhaps its another piece of The Left’s obsession with deconstruction,
or symptom of it, maybe intentional. I don’t know.
When intense disagreement with the left, the willingness to fight them and their corruption and fraudulence, is portrayed as a character disorder, or the mark of instability, then debate is over and a type of warfare begins.
They’ve set news terms of argument, and when they get what they provoke, they then use our reactions against us. Thugge and several others probably do this habitually, because none of them here, especially Thugge, is bright enough or insightful enough to understand their ideas or themselves.
Thugge seemed to be a peacock without a tail, but he didn’t know it, and combined arrogance with ignorance in a new way. Thugge also ignored you, I think, because you were the rational one who had him by the neck. He couldn’t wiggle free of you.