Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
SwiftBoat Vet Exposed! LMAO!
- Thread starter WODIN
- Start date
p0ink
New member
ok, who made vietnam the center of their campaign here? john kerry himself.
whose story keeps on changing in regards to vietnam? the swift boat vets or john kerry? john kerry? last i checked, kerry had 5 explanations for his "cambodia experience".
why doesn't john kerry dispute what they are saying, rather than trying to smear the vets? why wont he release his vietnam records?
why is everyone lamenting we are talking about vietnam now? no one was upset when people were saying bush went AWOL. they only get upset when kerry's record is questioned.
if kerry saw such atrocities (and took part in them) why didnt he report them to his supervisors when it was happening, rather than waiting till he got home to see which way the political wind was blowing?
why is kerry and the DNC threatening to sue the tv stations running these ads? why are they trying to get the publisher to stop publishing 'Unfit for command'? does he think this is communist china or cuba, where stuff like this happens? wasn't howard dean who said bush was going to start burning books if he was elected, when it is actually kerry and the DNC who believe in censorship.
why would the swift boat vets make baseless claim and personal attacks if they weren't legitimate claims, since kerry has the money and the resources to sue every last one of them from now till the end of time. do you really think these people would set themselves up for legal battles, to lose all they worked for, their credibility, their reputation, etc, if they knew they couldnt prove their charges in court?
do you really think republicans don't want to discuss actual issues with this man, who has the worst record when it comes to defense and intelligence in all of the senate? do you really think they just want to give him a pass in regards to these issues?
whose story keeps on changing in regards to vietnam? the swift boat vets or john kerry? john kerry? last i checked, kerry had 5 explanations for his "cambodia experience".
why doesn't john kerry dispute what they are saying, rather than trying to smear the vets? why wont he release his vietnam records?
why is everyone lamenting we are talking about vietnam now? no one was upset when people were saying bush went AWOL. they only get upset when kerry's record is questioned.
if kerry saw such atrocities (and took part in them) why didnt he report them to his supervisors when it was happening, rather than waiting till he got home to see which way the political wind was blowing?
why is kerry and the DNC threatening to sue the tv stations running these ads? why are they trying to get the publisher to stop publishing 'Unfit for command'? does he think this is communist china or cuba, where stuff like this happens? wasn't howard dean who said bush was going to start burning books if he was elected, when it is actually kerry and the DNC who believe in censorship.
why would the swift boat vets make baseless claim and personal attacks if they weren't legitimate claims, since kerry has the money and the resources to sue every last one of them from now till the end of time. do you really think these people would set themselves up for legal battles, to lose all they worked for, their credibility, their reputation, etc, if they knew they couldnt prove their charges in court?
do you really think republicans don't want to discuss actual issues with this man, who has the worst record when it comes to defense and intelligence in all of the senate? do you really think they just want to give him a pass in regards to these issues?
S
Spartacus
Guest
Instead of investigating the accuracy of the allegations, they attack the accusers. Classic lawyer trick.p0ink said:
S
Spartacus
Guest
You know,Its the "she shouldn't have been wearing that skirt" defense.
S
Spartacus
Guest
In just one week the SBVfT have gotten the Kerry campaign to reverse 3 lies:
1) Kerry was not in Cambodia even though it was seared into his memory.
2) Kerry admitted to meeting with the North Vietnamese when he was an anti-war activist.
3) His "No Man Left Behind Speech" at the DNC where he claimed all the swiftboats ran away and he then went back for the Navy Seal in the water was a fabrication. They admitted yesterday that Kerry's boat was the only one that ran and the other three stayed with the vessel that hit the mine.
The last one is a great example of the trouble Kerry's in because in their attempt to discredit Thurlow, they made the mistake revealing the truth about Kerry leaving the scene. It's tough for him to keep track of everything he says.
The most interesting thing to me in this is that it's mostly the guys that served under him that back his stories. (Although, they didn't back him on the Cambodia issue.) The reason that's interesting is that when Kerry took his 3 & out, he made sure his men got "safe" assignments. They may feel they owe him for that.
Kerry's early departure meant that he was leaving behind a crew that had suffered through many bloody battles with him. Worried that crew members would be killed, he arranged for them to receive a safer assignment. When one crew member, Medeiros, tried to stay, Kerry "came and talked to me and said, `I really would like you to go. ... I'd like to know you are safe, or safer."'
From a pro-Kerry article:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml
There were 5 swift boat commanders on the scene when Rassman was pulled out of the water, only 1 says they were under enemy fire; 4 say the only attack from the enemy came from the mine. Rassman says he was being shot at but he also admits he kept going underwater to avoid being shot. It seems plausible to me that he mistook the covering fire of the 3 boats for enemy fire. What's amazing to me is that people will take the word of such a proven political opportunist (Kerry) over 4 other Naval officers. BTW - Even though Kerry supposedly rescued Rassman while under "extreme" enemy fire, there were no bullet holes in any of the boats according to the men there.
OTOH, when it was GWB's service in question, they believed any crap thrown. This is the latest of constant examples that prove the bias of the mainstream media.
1) Kerry was not in Cambodia even though it was seared into his memory.
2) Kerry admitted to meeting with the North Vietnamese when he was an anti-war activist.
3) His "No Man Left Behind Speech" at the DNC where he claimed all the swiftboats ran away and he then went back for the Navy Seal in the water was a fabrication. They admitted yesterday that Kerry's boat was the only one that ran and the other three stayed with the vessel that hit the mine.
The last one is a great example of the trouble Kerry's in because in their attempt to discredit Thurlow, they made the mistake revealing the truth about Kerry leaving the scene. It's tough for him to keep track of everything he says.
The most interesting thing to me in this is that it's mostly the guys that served under him that back his stories. (Although, they didn't back him on the Cambodia issue.) The reason that's interesting is that when Kerry took his 3 & out, he made sure his men got "safe" assignments. They may feel they owe him for that.
Kerry's early departure meant that he was leaving behind a crew that had suffered through many bloody battles with him. Worried that crew members would be killed, he arranged for them to receive a safer assignment. When one crew member, Medeiros, tried to stay, Kerry "came and talked to me and said, `I really would like you to go. ... I'd like to know you are safe, or safer."'
From a pro-Kerry article:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml
There were 5 swift boat commanders on the scene when Rassman was pulled out of the water, only 1 says they were under enemy fire; 4 say the only attack from the enemy came from the mine. Rassman says he was being shot at but he also admits he kept going underwater to avoid being shot. It seems plausible to me that he mistook the covering fire of the 3 boats for enemy fire. What's amazing to me is that people will take the word of such a proven political opportunist (Kerry) over 4 other Naval officers. BTW - Even though Kerry supposedly rescued Rassman while under "extreme" enemy fire, there were no bullet holes in any of the boats according to the men there.
OTOH, when it was GWB's service in question, they believed any crap thrown. This is the latest of constant examples that prove the bias of the mainstream media.
John C Calhoun
New member
This is complete BS - I can't believe people debate shit like this. While people may not like everything JK votes for, wants to do etc. He did the right thing and served honorably even though he could have easily avoided it. Were at war and one of these guys will lead our country; pull your heads out of your butts and start acting like Americans rather than republicans versus democrats.
Similar threads
