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.

 

Kerry campaign to muzzle free speech!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
A libel suit would prove one thing: The men who wrote that book are lying, and there is enough proof that they are lying and publically slandering to make a court case out of it.

You can bet a libel suit is on the way pretty soon. I understand now why the republicans are so quick to distance themselves from this boatload of jackasses. They dont want to get sued and look bad either.




posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
That's the funy thing about "war crimes," you have to go to war to commit them. Hard to do AWOL.



Wow...now there's a new slant...not.

And just where and when did YOU serve?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
McCain called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable", not the men.

There is a big difference.

If the ad were not factual, the DNC would have immediately filed a libel suit and sought a court-injunction against it airing. That is the proper process.

The fact that they have resorted to only pressuring TV stations to not air it tells me they have no libel case. And the ad is based on fact.

The implosion of JFKerry commences.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The truth is not libelous.....



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Really? Then did SwiftVets sue John McCain for calling them "dishonest and dishonorable"? Or is HE factual?


They didn't need to, they instead responded with this...

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 members, many of whom were wounded or highly decorated in Vietnam. We purchased with our blood and service the right to be heard, to set the record straight about our unit, and to tell the truth about John Kerry's military service record. We respect Senator McCain's right to express his opinion, and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry. We knew him well, and Senator McCain did not."

This statement from Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman (Ret.), founder and chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
How many times does this have to get debunked? SNOPES or try Google. Jeez Louise! Tommorrow, someone else will hear about it. Post a thread about how Kerry is 'Unfit for Command', and we have to start all over again.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
kozmo says,


This statement from Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman (Ret.), founder and chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.


Funny you should bring up Admiral Hoffman. From Snopes


How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.


www.snopes.com...

From the same Snopes article


Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.

"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3

Fred Short

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3

David Alston

"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2

James Wasser
Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:

Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.

"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."


The Steven Gardner mentioned does not appear in the anti-Kerry ad. He is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by RANT
That's the funy thing about "war crimes," you have to go to war to commit them. Hard to do AWOL.



Wow...now there's a new slant...not.

And just where and when did YOU serve?

And THAT is literally the very first time that particular argument deflection of questioning the patriotism of the poster has EVER been used in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE INTERNET!!!

I salute you Sir! ;P

And return volley with the assurance that had I been old enough I would have INDEED served...

Drinks at whatever bar Bush was patronizing during Vietnam.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
How someone's opinion can change when they are made aware of ALL of the facts???

"Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who sent a Bravo Zulu (meaning "good work"), to Kerry upon learning of the incident, was very surprised to discover in 2004 what had actually occurred. Hoffmann had been told that Kerry had spontaneously beached next to the bunker and almost single-handedly routed a bunkered force in Viet Cong. He was shocked to find out that Kerry had beached his boat second in a preplanned operation, and that he had killed a single, wounded teenage foe as he fled."

"Commander Geoge Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry's Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he, nor anyone else in the Silver Star process that he knows, realized before 1996 that Kerry was facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth. While Commander Elliott and many other Swiftees believe that Kerry committed no crime in killing the fleeing, wounded enemy (with a loaded or empty launcher), others feel differently. Commander Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by moxyone
McCain called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable", not the men.

There is a big difference.


Please explain the difference. If the ad is dishonest, then so are the men speaking in the ad. If the ad is dishonorable, then so are the men speaking in the ad. Please how the ad can be dishonest, but the men speaking the dishonest words are not dishonest.



If the ad were not factual, the DNC would have immediately filed a libel suit and sought a court-injunction against it airing. That is the proper process.

The fact that they have resorted to only pressuring TV stations to not air it tells me they have no libel case. And the ad is based on fact.


Your logic, or lack thereof, continues to astound me. Filing a libel lawsuit against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would do nothing to stop the airing of the ad. Seeking an injunction would take time. The most immediate effective measure the Democrats could take is to advise TV stations that the ad is libel.

You continue to assert that the fact that no libel lawsuit has been filed means the ad is factual. As I have pointed out, that is totally fallacious. Try this out. I assert that George Bush is secretly funding Al Qaeda using a secret black-ops slush fund. Now, let's wait a few days. According to your logic, if no lawsuit is filed, my assertion must be factual.

The motto of this forum is "Deny Ignorance." You are constructing nonsense arguments to justify believing that what you want to believe is true.


The implosion of JFKerry commences.


The implosion of your fallacious logic commences.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
How someone's opinion can change when they are made aware of ALL of the facts???

"Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who sent a Bravo Zulu (meaning "good work"), to Kerry upon learning of the incident, was very surprised to discover in 2004 what had actually occurred. Hoffmann had been told that Kerry had spontaneously beached next to the bunker and almost single-handedly routed a bunkered force in Viet Cong. He was shocked to find out that Kerry had beached his boat second in a preplanned operation, and that he had killed a single, wounded teenage foe as he fled."

"Commander Geoge Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry's Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he, nor anyone else in the Silver Star process that he knows, realized before 1996 that Kerry was facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth. While Commander Elliott and many other Swiftees believe that Kerry committed no crime in killing the fleeing, wounded enemy (with a loaded or empty launcher), others feel differently. Commander Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."


Are you keeping up with this thread, kozmo? Or are you just going to keep spewing lies without looking at the facts? Skeptic Overlord has already posted a link showing that Commander Elliott has repudiated the affidavit and statements you quote above.


But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.


Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

The rats are leaving the sinking ship, kozmo. Commander Elliott clearly does not want to be sued for libel.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   
My bad... First Elliot defends Kerry's actions in 1996, then he denounces them, signing an affidavit condemning Kerry's acts in the same incident, then he repudiates himself once again and commends Kerry's actions on that same incident. So, in other words, Elliot is flip-flopping on his take of said incident.

I guess it's true what they say, "Birds of a feather flock together."



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
You people can argue all you can but all I know is that while Kerry has a military record that actually can be traced with honor.

Bush also has a military record that can not be traced without shame.

And that is my two cents. Somebody have to find a way to bash the opposition. Right?

In addition, for shooting an enemy in the back, I will go back to what my father said to us when he was in the war and we used to ask if he killed many enemies, he would answer.

I don't know and I don't want to know but all I can say is that when somebody screamed enemy forces we all opened fired and we did not even think about who we were shooting at and that is how many soldiers also die from friendly fire, but we just did not think about the possibilities only survival.


My father lost a brother in the same war both were drafted at the same time.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Its surprising to me that Kerry having an esteemed and productive 20 year senate career would choose instead to highlight a four month stint in Vietnam that happened over 35 years ago - seems to have opened himself up to the criticism he's now enduring. Sticking to todays issues in hindsight may have been a better strategy.

The claims that these veterans did not serve on john's boat itself therefore they don't know what went on is ludicris, these boats operated in groups so that they offered fire support to each other - they did not operate alone.
This can be surmised by reading accounts from both sides of this issue. To assert only Johns crewmates are qualified to express an opinion or offer details of his service on swift-boats is to operate in a vacuum of ignorance.

The DNC and Kerry/Edwards campaign's action's in repect to the Swift Boat Veterans commercial only serves to concentrate more media coverage on the story.

Seems to me Mr. Kerry could quickly put this to bed by authorizing the release of his heretofore off limits military medical records, why is he not doing that? something to hide?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Seems to me Mr. Kerry could quickly put this to bed by authorizing the release of his heretofore off limits military medical records, why is he not doing that? something to hide?


All of Kerry's military records available. Bush's are lost.. wait, found. Nope, lost. Wait! They found some!



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Phoenix says


To assert only Johns crewmates are qualified to express an opinion or offer details of his service on swift-boats is to operate in a vacuum of ignorance.


I don't believe I have asserted that. Correct me if I am wrong. I have pointed out that none of the men in the ad served on the same boat as Kerry, and that only one member, out of about 250, of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth actually served on the same boat as Kerry. I think it is perfectly legitimate to point that out. Of course individuals who served on other swift boats that participated in the same firefights with Kerry are qualified to express an opinion and offer details. Please don't imply that I made an assertion which I never made. Again, correct me if I have actually made such an assertion.

It is particularly revealing that John O'Neill came to Viet Nam two months after Kerry left. John O'Neill has no first-hand knowledge of Kerry's military service. John O'Neill is the driving force behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the author of the book "Unfit to Command".



[edit on 8/6/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Wasn't this thread about Kerry's military record and, more specifically, his campaign's attempt to muzzle the Swift Boat Veteran's ad?

What does Bush's military record have to do with this thread? Is this just a sorry attempt to divert and obfuscate?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
It is particularly revealing that John O'Neill came to Viet Nam two months after Kerry left. John O'Neill has no first-hand knowledge of Kerry's military service. John O'Neill is the driving force behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the author of the book "Unfit to Serve".



Well, if we'd like to employ such logic, don, allow me to point out that Michael Moore is not in George Bush's cabinet, nor was he at the President's side during the moments of 9/11 or afterword yet he has found a way to pen an editorial on the matter and turn that into a film which is accepted as gospel truth by the left, right? I find it ironic that Michael Moore has ZERO first-hand knowledge of what transpired behind closed doors on 9/11 or the war leading up to Iraq yet you have vigorously defended the man when this was questioned in other threads. Does that make you a hypocrite donguillermo?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Wasn't this thread about Kerry's military record and, more specifically, his campaign's attempt to muzzle the Swift Boat Veteran's ad?

What does Bush's military record have to do with this thread? Is this just a sorry attempt to divert and obfuscate?


No, it's a sorry attempt at reading comprehension.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I am willing to bet that many of you calling for a libel suit to "prove" this is false would also have seen such a suit as a desperate attempt to silence these men. In other words you will believe this information regardless of the actions taken by anyone who tries to prove it wrong.

Seriously. I was not there, I can only listen to those who were. If someone who was in his boat was to say this was true it would be more believable to me. As it stands a bunch of ticked off republican veterans wrote a book to take down a candidate. That is it, nothing more. Now at least one is trying to back out, you know why? He realized he lied or at least misslead. That still bothers some people, others base an entire political campaign on it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join