It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Swift Boat Veterans Oppose Kerry

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
This is what I understand... 11 of the 22 members of John Kerry's Swift Boat crew are working against his campaign for his 'self-inflicted' wounds and his actions in Vietnam; and 10 of his Swift Boat mates refuse to have anything to do with him...

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com...

A picture of Kerry and his Swift Boat crew:
www.swiftvets.com...

I don't understand this... Clinton was hailed as a paragon of virtue because he didn't go to Vietnam; yet Bush is a coward? Kerry goes to Vietnam, and now that he's a Presidential candidate suddenly he's not a "warmongerer" and a "baby killer" like the other Vietnam veterans have been traditionally viewed. What's up with that?




posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Off-topic rant


Originally posted by donguillermo
You are quite the Republican propagandist aren't you? Why don't you stop spamming ATS with Republican talking points?


You have got to be kidding me!?! The person that starts a thread on every anti-Bush article or website on the entire internet?


You know that is an exaggeration. The poster I was responding to had just made three posts. One ridiculed Kerry for the NASA pictures. Another made the ridiculous claim that Kerry was controlled by the Mob. The third was on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Only the third had any intellectual content. All three posts were from the Republican propaganda mill and Drudge Report.


In another thread you accused me of posting only rhetorical BS. I'm sure to you it may seem that way, and perhaps there is some truth to that. Back in the old days, when I first came here (only three months ago, but the difference is startling) there were threads where issues were debated.


I registered 51 days after you did. I have read many threads started before I registered. There has been no deterioration in the quality of debate. I think the reason you don't like it is because you are trying to defend the indefensible. An incompetent, unqualified President and economic policies that have been recycled from Reagan, and have been shown, once again, to be disasterous for the country.


We debated taxes, gay marriage, abortion, school prayer.


Of these four issues, only taxes are a legitimate topic for political debate. Gay marriage, abortion, and school prayer are all wedge issues introduced by the Republicans to distract voters from the real issues -- Iraq and the economy. These wedge issues are simply attempts by religious nutcases to impose their religious views on a secular democracy.


So yeah don, maybe my posts don't live up to your (or my) standards anymore. But I must say, the purely negative posts by yourself, and gmcnulty before you, are some of the reasons.


You can dismiss my posts as purely negative if you want to. I think that is just a cop out to avoid dealing with my criticisms. Criticism is a necessary and useful part of political debate. There is a lot more to my posts than pure negativity. I use many facts. I provide links for my facts. I use tables and graphs. I offer logical arguments to defend my point of view. I sometimes deconstruct, line by line, fallacious and inaccurate posts by others. I guess you claim my posts are purely negative because I offer mainly criticisms, not solutions. I really don't have any solutions. I think people who think they have solutions are deluded, for the most part. The world is far too complex, and the problems far too intractable to be solved in a debate in an internet forum. But I know one thing for sure. Four more years of George Bush will be a total disaster for this country and the world. My only interest at present is persuading as many people as possible that George Bush must go. And supplying those I persuade with arguments and ammunition to use in persuading others.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
OK, ZeddicusZulZorander, you have brought up the example of Stephen Gardner. Now if you can show that he is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, your example will be valid. In case you haven't been following the conversation, that is the group referred to in the above quote.

Fine, I'll shine the light for you and lead you from the dark side.
On the Swift Boat Veterans website are two letters to John Kerry. One is the cease and desist order and the other is this one: Swift Veterans Letter to John Kerry. Somewhere about name #71 is Stephen Gardner, who is marked with a "*" meaning he even signed the original letter. It's actually a large organization if you read this quote.


Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands.

While it is true that there were 11 members were in the recent letter and news, it was simply over Kerry using them in photos for Newsweek and and a campaign ad. The implications were that they all supported him and they didn't. So even though you wish to narrow in on the 11 members, the Organization is quit large and does happen...as it turns out, to include Stephen Gardner.

Does that make my example valid now?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
This is what I understand... 11 of the 22 members of John Kerry's Swift Boat crew are working against his campaign for his 'self-inflicted' wounds and his actions in Vietnam; and 10 of his Swift Boat mates refuse to have anything to do with him...


Would you care to provide some documentation for these claims. So far on this thread, we have had evidence of exactly one person who actually served on the same boat as Kerry who is critical of Kerry. The BS about self-inflicted wounds is just another Republican lie.


www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com...


Please don't bother to post any information from this propaganda site. Just scanning the front page, I see two inaccurate statements. There is no evidence that Kerry ever rubbed shoulders with Jane Fonda, as claimed. We had the forged picture of Kerry and Fonda standing at the same podium. We had a picture of Kerry sitting several rows behind Fonda at an anti-war rally. What we have not had is any evidence that Kerry and Fonda ever met or had a conversation.

The website says that Kerry quit the Navy early. Kerry did not quit the Navy. He was transferred from active duty to the reserves, and later received an honorable discharge.


A picture of Kerry and his Swift Boat crew:
www.swiftvets.com...


That is not a picture of Kerry and his swift boat crew. That is a picture of Kerry with other swift boat commanders.


I don't understand this... Clinton was hailed as a paragon of virtue because he didn't go to Vietnam;


Excuse me, who hailed Clinton as a paragon of virtue because he didn't go to Viet Nam? I just love the way you Republicans make things up.



yet Bush is a coward?


Who said Bush is a coward? Not me. Bush was AWOL? Yes. Bush was a deserter? Yes. Bush lied about his Air National Guard service? Yes. But I never said he was a coward.


Kerry goes to Vietnam, and now that he's a Presidential candidate suddenly he's not a "warmongerer" and a "baby killer" like the other Vietnam veterans have been traditionally viewed.


Who viewed the Viet Nam veterans as warmongers and baby killers? Not me. I served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam myself. I certainly don't think that way.


What's up with that?


What's up is that you misrepresent facts and put words in people's mouths.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
ZeddicusZulZorander says


Does that make my example valid now?


Yes. That makes precisely one member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has been shown to have served on the same boat with John Kerry.

Why do you want to characterize me as being on the dark side? I started this discussion with a question. I never asserted that there were no members of the Swift Boat Veterans group who served on the same boat with Kerry.


So even though you wish to narrow in on the 11 members,


I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show me where I said anything about 11 members.


[edit on 7/30/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   



I don't understand this... Clinton was hailed as a paragon of virtue because he didn't go to Vietnam; yet Bush is a coward? Kerry goes to Vietnam, and now that he's a Presidential candidate suddenly he's not a "warmongerer" and a "baby killer" like the other Vietnam veterans have been traditionally viewed. What's up with that?



Woah, woah, lol, Clinton a paragon of virtue because he didn't go to 'Nam? I remember him being called a draft dodger and a pot smoking hippy.

Also, Vietnam Vets who have run for office have usually had esteem from their service, because the public realizes they were answering duty's call, and at the age they served they weren't in a position to declare whether that call was right or wrong.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Yes. That makes precisely one member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has been shown to have served on the same boat with John Kerry.
Thank you.



Why do you want to characterize me as being on the dark side? I started this discussion with a question. I never asserted that there were no members of the Swift Boat Veterans group who served on the same boat with Kerry.

Well, I suppose this is where we continue this discussion and soon you'll say it depends on my definition of the word "is", right?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com...


Please don't bother to post any information from this propaganda site... Kerry did not quit the Navy. He was transferred from active duty to the reserves, and later received an honorable discharge.


Do all political websites with people's opinions on it need your approval first? What would you consider legitimate political websites? (As an example on the other side of the aisle, do you consider websites like MoveOn.org propoganda too?)

Well, both Kerry and Bush served our country, and both recieved honorable discharges from the US Armed Forces. Good for them both. I wasn't making any statements about his official record; only that there were many people that served with him but didn't like him.


Originally posted by donguillermo

A picture of Kerry and his Swift Boat crew:
www.swiftvets.com...


That is not a picture of Kerry and his swift boat crew. That is a picture of Kerry with other swift boat commanders.


OK, then all but two of his commanders didn't like him. How does that help Kerry?


Originally posted by donguillermo
I just love the way you Republicans make things up... What's up is that you misrepresent facts and put words in people's mouths.


Who said I was a Republican?


I didn't make anything up. A lot of Democrats in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for President the first time, thought highly of his not fighting in Vietnnam because he refused to fight in an unjust war. That's fine by me; I didn't think the war in Vietnam should have happened either. But I think it's a double standard not to apply the same critique to Kerry's services in Vietnam. Wasn't it still an unjust war?

I didn't put words in anyone's mouths either. I didn't quote anybody. I said what was very common opinions then and now, and wondered why they weren't matching up.


Originally posted by taibunsuu
Woah, woah, lol, Clinton a paragon of virtue because he didn't go to 'Nam? I remember him being called a draft dodger and a pot smoking hippy.


This is true; but that's what the Republicans were saying, not the Democrats.



[edit on 7/30/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   
ThunderCloud says


Do all political websites with people's opinions on it need your approval first? What would you consider legitimate political websites? (As an example on the other side of the aisle, do you consider websites like MoveOn.org propoganda too?)


I found two inaccuracies on their front page with just a quick scan. You don't think that disqualifies them as a factual source? Please provide an example of a factual inaccuracy on the moveon.org website.


OK, then all but two of his commanders didn't like him. How does that help Kerry?


I believe those were fellow swift boat commanders, not Kerry's commanders. Who said the picture helped Kerry? It wouldn't be on the website if it did.


Who said I was a Republican?


I was guessing. Are you another one of those posters who is actually very far right, but claims to be independent, centrist, or moderate?


I didn't make anything up. A lot of Democrats in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for President the first time, thought highly of his not fighting in Vietnnam because he refused to fight in an unjust war. That's fine by me; I didn't think the war in Vietnam should have happened either. But I think it's a double standard not to apply the same critique to Kerry's services in Vietnam. Wasn't it still an unjust war?

I didn't put words in anyone's mouths either. I didn't quote anybody. I said what was very common opinions then and now, and wondered why they weren't matching up.


Yes you did make things up, and you made up more things in this quote. Please document that a lot of Democrats thought highly of Bill Clinton because he did not serve in Viet Nam. What you call very common opinions then and now are actually just Republican myths. Just like the myth about anti-war demonstrators spitting on returning Viet Nam veterans. You do know that is a myth, don't you? There is no evidence that it ever happened. Hint: Rambo movies are not documentaries.

Even if some people held opinions about the Viet Nam War which you claim were common, MOST people, including most Democrats did not hold those opinions, so your claim of a double standard is just nonsense.

In my last post, I challenged you to provide some documentation for some of your "facts." Are you going to document them, or do you admit that your "facts" are incorrect?






[edit on 7/30/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I seriously wouldn't care if Kerry had sold his swift boat to the Vietcong and used the money on hookers and beer. You should hear some of the stories I heard about that absurdist hellhole from vets in my dad's motorcycle gang. Kerry went over there because he had aspirations of being JFK someday, just like his friend Pershing who got blown away, maybe even capped by one of his own disgruntled grunts for all I know.

Vietnam is dead and gone, let's look at the present - Kerry is a douchebag but I'm voting for him and I hope he wins anyway, because it's less likely he'll invade Iran or further erode our civil liberties. Bush, Dick, Colon, Rummy and Wolfowitz can all go screw themselves if you ask me, I'd vote for Carrotop before I voted for those ass clowns.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
I found two inaccuracies on their front page with just a quick scan. You don't think that disqualifies them as a factual source? Please provide an example of a factual inaccuracy on the moveon.org website.


I saw the Jane Fonda inaccuracy too, and agree that it's inaccurate. But how many websites, especially political websites, are 100% correct? Does one inaccuracy make a whole website worthless? If so, then there isn't a single good website on the Internet!

Hmmm... Well, there have been a few come and go, but the first thing on MoveOn.org that springs to mind is when they posted that President Bush had eliminated overtime pay for federal workers, but that was shown not to be true. I don't think that discredits the whole website, though; just that one article. Same for the website I posted earlier.


Originally posted by donguillermo

Who said I was a Republican?


I was guessing. Are you another one of those posters who is actually very far right, but claims to be independent, centrist, or moderate?


I can tell! It depends on the issue, really. My political opinions are all over the "left-right" spectrum, so I haven't yet decided whether I'm voting for Bush or Kerry. I do know this, though: Kerry is not God, and Bush is not Satan. Both men have their attributes and their problems, and lie somewhere in between.


Originally posted by donguillermo
Yes you did make things up, and you made up more things in this quote. Please document that a lot of Democrats thought highly of Bill Clinton because he did not serve in Viet Nam. What you call very common opinions then and now are actually just Republican myths. Just like the myth about anti-war demonstrators spitting on returning Viet Nam veterans. You do know that is a myth, don't you? There is no evidence that it ever happened. Hint: Rambo movies are not documentaries.


No, I didn't. How am I supposed to document opinions that I heard on the streets, and in bookstores, coffee shops, pool halls, bars, and malls over the years? They were just people's opinions; I didn't write their name and phone numbers down and quote them.

Well, I don't know about the spitting, but certainly some Vietnam veterans were greeted with protesters when the returned to the U.S. There have been news reports with video footage of such floating around for years. But not all of them were, of course. Others returned to hero's welcomes. I think it depends on where you came home, and when you came home.

I've never seen a Rambo movie, so I don't know what in those movies you're referring to.


Sure, there are Republican myths out there, but have you ever considered the impact of Democratic myths as well? Not everything the Democrats say is the truth, either.


Originally posted by donguillermo
In my last post, I challenged you to provide some documentation for some of your "facts." Are you going to document them, or do you admit that your "facts" are incorrect?


Neither. Any websites or documentation I show you you'll dismiss as propoganda anyway, if you don't like the opinion or don't like the website.


Originally posted by Seth Bullock
ATS is not a site dedicated to removing Bush from office. Nor is it a site for liberals only. Yes ther are a lot of people here that do not like Bush, but there are some that feel differently and their opinion is just as valid as yours.


Yeah, exactly.

P.S. -- You were a U.S. Marine in Vietnam? Wow!
Well, you and I will never see eye-to-eye politically, but I honor your service to the U.S.



[edit on 7/31/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
4 months dont make you a freaking war hero. i have more respect for men in the 101st who were fighting the germans in WWII who have 1 or no purple hearts.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Who are you talking about?



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
No matter... What ever....Kerry still has my vote. I'm not a Rep or a Dem because people who vote for parties are idiots. I'm taking the lesser evil of the two choices.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I being a volunteer Vet during the Vietnam era have this to say. Take it for a grain of salt or whatever. I have nothing against anyone who actually tried to get away from that war. I'm speaking of the draft dodgers, etc.

What irks me is when someone has signed up for service as Bush did and did not report I consider him a deserter. I signed up and served my time. I got no special help from my daddy the Senator, etc. If a man signs up he serves.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   
John McCain came out strongly opposing this attack on Kerry and said it was the same thing they tried to do to him when he ran against Bush for the republican ticket in 2000. He was urging the white house to denounce this ad and the white house has. One of the men who was part of the swift boat veteran ad against Kerry has recanted his story. I don't know which happened first the vet recanting his story or the white house condeming the letter, my guess would be the man recanted first. Snopes had already said that only one of the men had ever served with Kerry, and that was for a short time. I have links to the story about McCain condeming the ad and the snopes page if anyone wants it.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 06:09 AM
link   
How low can they go?

Probably because it's such a weak subject for Mr 'look I served during Vietnam.....in the USA in the rich kids Champagne Squadron' we get these revolting attacks on Kerry....which of course Bush denounces and claims have nothing to do with him or his campaign, yeah right. A decorated veteran flanked by men he severed along side with honour with is still being defamed by this trumped up obviously political partisan garbage.

If Bush had actually gone to Vietnam then maybe there would be something to compare.

If Bush had ever actually been under fire in his life maybe there'd be something there to talk about.

If Bush had ever selflessly rescued anyone - under deadly fire at his own mortal risk - maybe there'd be something to discuss between the two.

But no. Bush didn't do anything remotely similar ever.

Bush sat in continental USA purely and only thanks to his daddys connections......and whether he could even be bothered to fully serve and complete that will remain a mystery seeing as any of the records that could ever prove anything have, funnily enough, disappeared.

(Oh and as for Bill Clinton? BC was studying abroad as he was perfectly entitled to do but when that ended and the time came he put his name forward for the draft lottery like anyone else would have done - and, for instance, Dick Cheney didn't.

BC pulled number 311 and by virtue of that 'luck' didn't serve......hardly the draft-dodging that has been implied till now and certainly not at all like using daddy's connections to stay in the US in the national air guard, on absurdly low test scores etc etc......and nothing at all like Dick Cheney's use of deferements until it was all over - and then years later doing the bellicose right-winger pro-war thing. Hypocrite, like so many of them republicans.)

[edit on 7-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join