Understood excepting one important fact...I did not engage in personal attacks...MichiganMat I in no way accused of being a Soddomite...The joke was on the the bay area that is notoriously a bastion for radical homosexuality/anti-Christianity, not a slight of Mat...Michigan being a locale, Soddom being a locale, was how the joke was intended.

Whoever is doing the complaining (I have my suspicions) is overreacting and viewing the world through a prism of their own prejudice.

just my 2cents.

If only it were this simple... my first post to this thread says that I think the truth lies in the middle. I don't see that many "facts" just SBV word against Kerry word.

Look at a preponderance and motivations Cam...The totality of the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Swifties as more credible.

The Swifties are not financially gaining here...Kerry is...The Swifties are sticking to their story...Kerry isn't...Kerry is attempting to destroy the Swifties...The Swifties only want answers...Kerry WANTS power...The Swifties are getting dragged through the mud.

Kerry has been caught lying intentionally...That says it all doesn't it?...He is power hungry and capable of any kind of evil to attain that power.

The tactics Kerry and the media are using are kissing cousins to fascist tactics...Demonize and destroy dissenters and amass power.

O'Neills got a book out now... and is probably not far from his third decade of carrying on a vendetta against people challenging the Vietnam war.

The SBV fought a war in Vietnam (for no financial gain) and now, with equal energy, they seem to be fighting a war against a guy who believes that war was a failure.

They might think that Kerry is "Unfit to Command" --> but this is based on his actions 35 years ago when he was younger than both of us. The sole reason that this issue has traction is because Kerry has made Vietnam a key part of his election campaign.

But while the issue has become fair game, even IF he is proven to have embelished events, I don't think it has a bearing on Kerry's ability to run the country (for instance, I'd consider it much more serious if Bush still had a drinking problem).

I still don't think the preponderance of evidence favours the SBV or Kerry. Both have their stories - Kerry actually has more documentary proof, while the SBV have weight of numbers and a weight of (startling clear :rolleyes:) 35 year old memories.

The media don't know how to deal with this issue - there aren't enough facts. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000617053

BTW. O'Neill managed a close shave with Cambodia too:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/25/politics1857EDT0754.DTL

Mul, why would he mention how brutal the communists were? He was trying to save American lives.

The communists did take Vietnam. They did horrific things. We expect the communists to do horrific things. That doesn't mean we unthinkingly do the same. We're supposed to be better than them.

As a supposed Christian, you should understand the notion of moral leadership.

The final comment is completely devoid of context, but I suspect it means that the soldiers were doing as ordered (as Kerry was).

The reference he made to Nuremburg was highly appropriate. And again very timely in the context of the current Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals.

Yeah, George was a raving drunk at the time. But we can't ctiticize that. In fact, GWB says he's not responsible for anything he did before he was what, 42? Those are 'youthful indiscretions' and the press gives him a big fat pass.

Kerry, at 26 was in the theater of war for 9 or 10 months. Apparently now, two wounds and one Silver Star are uncontested? (I've lost track on the '-star' part of it.)

People here are seeing a conspiracy in Kerry's wanting to be like the 'other JFK' (I still can't see what's wrong with that); his early enthusiasm for the war (lots of guys whose knowlege of is similar to that of some on this BBS are enthusiastic about it) is somehow suspect?

Really, I think for some, the fact Kerry is an air-breathing mammal is somehow reprehensible.

"The chief critic of John Kerry's military record told President Nixon in 1971 that he had been in Cambodia in a swift boat during the Vietnam War -- a claim at odds with his recent statements that he was not.

"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," said John E. O'Neill in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.

"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon. "

LOL!

I'm willing to concede that 'within 100 yards' is close enough. Many swift boat operations took place before dawn, and the border isn't illuminated by a big yellow dotted line, AFAIK.

So Kerry says he was in Cambodia and that's a lie, and O'Neill says it and that's also a lie (but only retroactively)?

So, lendaddy, now that you've seen this evidence of O'Neill changing his story, how does that make you feel?

LOL!

I'm willing to concede that 'within 100 yards' is close enough. Many swift boat operations took place before dawn, and the border isn't illuminated by a big yellow dotted line, AFAIK.

So Kerry says he was in Cambodia and that's a lie, and O'Neill says it and that's also a lie (but only retroactively)?

EDIT: ---------

One thing worth mentioning, assuming O'Neill (Nixon's 'dirty tricks guy') was still technically in the service, wouldn't that mean he was compelled by law to tell the truth to the commander-in-chief?

Colmes: "You TOLD Pres. Nixon you were "in" Cambodia. But you tell us that you weren't--- which is it, Mr. O'Neill?!!"

John O'Neill: "Alan, you didn't listen to the next sentence--- I said I was "on the BORDER."

Colmes: "But you told Nixon you were "in" Cambodia. Now you tell us that you weren't."

John O'Neill: "Alan, you have to listen to my whole statement; I was having a personal conversation. My next sentence clarified my location as being "on the border."'


Apparently somebody is lying here...and it appears either O'Neill is lying (since Kerry already admitted his lie about Cambodia/Nixon) or the media is running defense for Kerry and they are in essence fabricating slanderous libel in order to achieve their design.

Hmmmm. Unless they removed the alleged large border sign after Kerry left I think O'Neil would have had no doubt that he was actually in Cambodia when he told Nixon "I was in Cambodia, Sir".

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1185354/posts

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border.

A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.

Okay, I'll give you that the swiftys (among others) likely were enraged by Kerrys stories to congress, ~34 years ago. However, since that is the case, you can't also argue that all these swiftys are depending on events not thought-on for the past 34 years.

Kerry and his words would have been fresh-stuff in their minds 34 years ago. Some soldiers heard Kerrys words first when they were in the Hanoi Hilton . . the VC full embraced Kerrys words, and played them to break the POW's.

Anyway, theses vets . .. .all of these guys are hardly running on some grey recolection of some dog-face soldier, who may have passed them by, some 35 years ago. (hmmm. . maybe that should be "horse-faced. ...)

These vet's sized-up and reflected on who John Kerry was, THEN.

Which segways into your other point (handy).

You suggest Kerry was THEN this embelisher . . .is no longer the same guy. (and not a drunk)

So let me ask, is it Presidentially savvy to use, as your campaign center-peice (or major piece) your 4-months of battle in the one war which your country lost?

. . .Especially when the VC victor cites you as instrumental in your country's defete.

I dunno . .. not very Presidentially savvy . . .maybe we should look at the drunk again.:cool:


.. oh .. .I also agree with you that Kerry actually has more documentary proof ( on the where he was/what he did).:eek:

it's just too bad all of Kerrys documentary proof contradicts all of Kerrys documentary proof . . .but at least he has a lot of it. :cool:

So if I understand correctly, you guys want to split hairs over 100 yards distance from a border, but not a couple of weeks (Christmas vs January). Because as we all know, a Republican can be slightly inaccurate in his recollections, but a Democrat can't.

As for trying to draw a line between what fellow soldiers (sailors?) thought of Kerry in situ and their recollections of him 35 years and some senate testimony later, well, there's zero evidence so we have to just take their word that the contemporaneous comments of his commanders and the men actually on his boat are somehow null and void. Pretzel logic again.