SWIFT boat facts

There's no one who has ever said he wasn't present for duty, and he never failed to show for required physicals or other duty. His COs remember him being there, because he was, unlike our current Commander in Chief.
Nothing to disprove.
Bush's service shouldn't be minimalized, but it shouldn't be equated with the service of a war hero, either. And we shouldn't give him credit for serving time when he clearly wasn't even there.
Record keeping doesn't begin to excuse Bush's absence.
On the other hand, you have presented an argument that seems to minimalize Kerry's duty simply because he wasn't shot at for an entire tour of duty. Three purple hearts, a bronze star and silver star say enough about his duty (and no one should believe that he awarded himself these medals, as some have tried to suggest).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EPSkis
those are Veterans that served on the boats with Kerry in Vietnam who don't believe Kerry is fit for command.

---

In other words, Republicans who support the incumbent Republican president. Not surprising.

Quote:

---

He was only in Vietnam for four and one half months.

---

So he was only being shot at for four and a half months? Instead of Bush's zero...oh, wait.

No matter how you slice it, the Republicans are in the position of trying to make somebody who saw action and who got shot look worse than their candidate. Replay of Cleland and McCain.

Funny how the party running on "moral values" has Karl Rove doing PR. Anybody who attacks people who lost limbs in the war (Cleland) or who refused an early release from Vietnam (McCain didn't want to leave unless everybody was going home) has no moral values.

http://home.flash.net/~honchie/merch...t/poopbook.jpg

I can't even believe this debate is taking place (both here and nationally).

Kerry WENT to 'Nam, he SERVED HIS COUNTRY IN COMBAT. He was privilaged (like Bush and Chaney) and could have easily found a way to avoid going (like Bush and Chaney) to 'Nam.

BUT HE DID THE HONORABLE THING AND WENT. PERIOD.

you are losing the forrest for the trees. WHO CARES WHERE HE WAS ON WHAT DATE, etc. AGAIN, HE WAS IN COMBAT, THERE, IN VIETNAM, AND HONORABLY SERVED HOS COUNTRY.

While those pussies (Bush and Chaney) stayed home.

How dare those chicken-hawk ass-holes (Bush and Chaney and Rove, etc) try and make this an issue.

Ever notice how those that have never seen combat are the first to rush to war, especially when using other people's kids as cannon fodder?

Hey, had Iraq been a REAL threat, had Iraq had ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 AND TERRORISM, I would have supported the decision to invade. BUT IT DIDN'T, AND AS A RESULT OF THE LIES AND DECIET, THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES ARE BEING SACRIFICED NEEDLESSLY WHILE THE REAL FOCUS ON MAKING US SAFER IS BEING LOST.

Vote these cowardly, lying, immoral, pricks out of office come November.

Whooo, feel much better now. OK, back to ski stoke, sorry for the rant people, this issue just pisses me off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freshies


Hey, had Iraq been a REAL threat, had Iraq had ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 AND TERRORISM, I would have supported the decision to invade.

---

Okay, so now I'm going to show why you DO support invading Iraq then.

FACT-
Saddam supported palestinian suicide bomber/terrorists by giving their families $25,000 a pop per suicide. THAT'S A DIRECT ACT OF TERRORISM BY IRAQ.

FACT-Saddam had ALREADY used WMD's against his OWN people and the intelligence was there supporting that he had more. (your boy Kerry voted to invade Iraq btw)

FACT- Saddam had direct ties with terrorists, one of them who if you read the paper is running around cutting the heads off people over there right now.

You can cry all you want, but Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism supported by Saddam. Diplomacy was used in dealing with Saddam, he bluffed and our commander-in-chief had the balls to call him.

It's clear Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism, you may want to think about that for a minute Freshie.

Oh yeah, political threads are a fucking waste, but let's at least keep a touch of truth/reality in them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlurredElevens

FACT- Saddam had direct ties with terrorists, one of them who if you read the paper is running around cutting the heads off people over there right now.

---

Are you talking about Zarqawai (whatever the fuck his name is)?

'Cause, yeah, he was in Iraq post 9/11 and pre-invasion, but you know what? He was hanging out in northern iraq with Ansar-al-Islam (sp?) in the kurdish controlled territories. That would be the part that saddam did not control.

Interesting thing about Ansar-al-Islam, they were an anti-saddam and anti-kurd group. They wanted both those govts to fall. So if "wanting Saddam dead and out of power" equals "direct ties to saddam" then hell, lock up dubbya.

The only link from Zarqawai and saddam was the leg amputation that "secretive US sources" (aka - the ever trustworthy Chalabi) claim Zarqawai received when he visited Baghdad (I'm sure Saddam was approved his visit, and was present at the operation - btw).

But, how odd, Zarqawai now has two legs?... how did that happen?

Zarqawai is also the author of that famous April letter to Al Qaeda figures in Afghanistan and Pakistan that was intercepted by the US. You remember that letter don't you? The one where he complains about how there aren't any Al Qaeda in Iraq and they need to come because this is the perfect opportunity to kill Americans....

And now the post I was working on before blurred posted:
-------------------------------------------------------

Hey G! Nice Brinkley quote! I thought it was great! Do you have the rest of what he said about Cambodia?

...guess not. 'Cause it would have been be downright dishonest not to include it if you did have it....

Quote:

---

"Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off U.S. Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." Brinkley said, "He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

---

And as for the Khmer Rouge? They took the field in '67. Maybe Ma and Pa Kent didn't hear about them until '75, but that don't mean they weren't there.

As for Ep's contention Re: Tours of duty. I'm sure that all the Navy and Airforce folks in the gulf of Tonkin will be glad to know that they did not actually serve in Vietnam (whew, I'm sure that's a load off their minds).
Yes, he served only part of his combat tour (his second tour) and requested leave after the third purple heart. I can't imagine why. Who would tire of watching your friends die around you for a cause you didn't support? Not to mention all the indicriminate killing of civillians, sounds like club med...

And finally, TJ - Are you actually arguing that Kerry participated in a cover-up to award himself medals (somehow without attracting the notice of his commanding officers) and to destroy/remove/re-write the other after-action reports? Is there any evidence of this? As Schuss pointed out, there's evidence to the contrary. I was under the impression that an AAR was a weekly report created using the accounts of the top officer on each boat. What'd Kerry do, hypnotize the rest of them?
This is, of course, if these phantom AAR's even exist. If they did, I would suspect that someone would have brought them up sometime before last month. I would expect them (the vets, not the DOD) to have done it in '71 when Kerry was testifying.

1) Kerry got the Bronze star, not because he asked for it, but because the man who's life he saved (Jim Rassmann) put him up for it (actually for the silver star, but he only got the bronze).
And that lack of enemy fire you describe doesn't jive with the bullet holes in (SBVTer) Larry Thurlow’s boat; nor does it match the recollections of the men on Kerry's boat, nor those of Rassmann, nor those of three other men not on Kerry's boat (Langhofer, Russell, & Lambert), nor does it match what Dan Droz (rip-4/12/69) had told his wife.

Funny sidenote - John O'Neil went on TV and claimed that Droz had supported O'Neil's bald-faced hoax, when he had done no such thing. Stand up guy that O'Neil, eh? Speaking for the dead and all.... nice trick.

2) To get a purple heart (and do I have to explain this?) you have to be recommended for it by your commanding officer! Are you actually arguing that Kerry pulled a jedi-mind trick and forced his superiors to give him medals? He was wounded (lightly - by his own admission) by enemy fire, got medical treatment, and his superiors put him up for a medal. Same thing happened to Bob Dole when a grenade thrown by his own men bounced off a tree (fyi - this is not cause of Dole's arm injury, that came later).

Doesn't it strike you as at all odd that the people who are now criticising Kerry have never questioned their own medal citations? These medal citations, like every navy document available, refute the SBVT allegations and the only thing the SBVT can say in return is that Kerry must have written the citations himself?
C'mon... really.... even Mulder is shaking his head at this one.

And finally (re: communists and Kerry) are you saying that there were no atrocities in Vietnam? No difficulty in distinguishing between civilliand and soldiers? Were there no 'free-fire' zones? Was this a 'good war where only bad people were killed'?

Sorry man, don't buy it. And guess what, neither does Tommy Franks:

Quote:

---

“The things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam,” Franks said. “I think that things didn’t go right in—in Vietnam.”

---

Kerry was reporting on what other soldiers told him and on what what he saw and did. It was unpleasant as hell for this country, but it took serious guts and one hell of a backbone to sit before the US Senate and tell them that this war was a mistake - and no matter how much you may not like it, it was the right thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlurredElevens
Okay, so now I'm going to show why you DO support invading Iraq then.

FACT-
Saddam supported palestinian suicide bomber/terrorists by giving their families $25,000 a pop per suicide. THAT'S A DIRECT ACT OF TERRORISM BY IRAQ.

I meant against Americans, not Isreal and its citizens

FACT-Saddam had ALREADY used WMD's against his OWN people and the intelligence was there supporting that he had more. (your boy Kerry voted to invade Iraq btw)

BFD...I am not syaing he was a good man or anything, but com on, if you take this agrument to its logical conclusinon, then you support invading all tyrants and those who commit acts of genocide? where do we start? Afirca? Half of Latin America and the dicators we support and prop up there? Noth Korea? China?
No WMD's foud to date, and they were not a direct thrat to us. Bogus argument.

FACT- Saddam had direct ties with terrorists, one of them who if you read the paper is running around cutting the heads off people over there right now.

Again....yawn. 9/11 Commission found NO DIRECT TIES to Al Queda.....that's what I am talking about....

You can cry all you want, but Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism supported by Saddam. Diplomacy was used in dealing with Saddam, he bluffed and our commander-in-chief had the balls to call him.

Uhhh, NOW Irag is a breeding ground for terrorists becuase we craeted a vacum there my toppling Sadam.

It's clear Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism, you may want to think about that for a minute Freshie.

Again, I meant terrorism that could directly thraten the security of the US...Sadam and Iraq, however you spin it, was not a direct threat to us. AL QUEDA WAS AND IS....they are in, um, AFGHANASTAN......NOT IRAQ. Iraq war has diverted attention, time, money, focus and troops from hunting and killing Al Queda. And now that we went it alone, we can't get any allies to help in Iraq, so we can 't get more trrops/money/focus to Afghanstan where they need to be. This is a major foreign policy blunder. Period.

Oh yeah, political threads are a fucking waste,

Agreed, let's get back to skiing.

but let's at least keep a touch of truth/reality in them.

---

Uh, yeah, like you said above...listen to your own advice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Will
Are you talking about Zarqawai (whatever the fuck his name is)?

'Cause, yeah, he was in Iraq post 9/11 and pre-invasion, but you know what? He was hanging out in northern iraq with Ansar-al-Islam (sp?) in the kurdish controlled territories. That would be the part that saddam did not control.

Interesting thing about Ansar-al-Islam, they were an anti-saddam and anti-kurd group. They wanted both those govts to fall. So if "wanting Saddam dead and out of power" equals "direct ties to saddam" then hell, lock up dubbya.

The only link from Zarqawai and saddam was the leg amputation that "secretive US sources" (aka - the ever trustworthy Chalabi) claim Zarqawai received when he visited Baghdad (I'm sure Saddam was approved his visit, and was present at the operation - btw).

But, how odd, Zarqawai now has two legs?... how did that happen?

Zarqawai is also the author of that famous April letter to Al Qaeda figures in Afghanistan and Pakistan that was intercepted by the US. You remember that letter don't you? The one where he complains about how there aren't any Al Qaeda in Iraq and they need to come because this is the perfect opportunity to kill Americans....

---

So what's your point? Even if all that is true, you only prove that Saddam was harboring terrorists that want to kill Americans, even if he wanted them there or not.




Also, Freshies, now your argument has changed to terrorism ONLY against America. That's pretty selfish, not to mention Americans were killed by Palestinian suiciders. Your hindsight is 20/20, but lets see. Saddam had WMD's during the first Gulf War, he used them on the Kurds after that, kicked out weapons inspectors, supported terrorism financially, anf harbored terrorists. Any person in their right mind would have invaded Iraq in the light of post 9-11. (even Kerry)

[


Also, Freshies, now your argument has changed to terrorism ONLY against America. That's pretty selfish, not to mention Americans were killed by Palestinian suiciders. Your hindsight is 20/20, but lets see. Saddam had WMD's during the first Gulf War, he used them on the Kurds after that, kicked out weapons inspectors, supported terrorism financially, anf harbored terrorists. Any person in their right mind would have invaded Iraq in the light of post 9-11. (even Kerry) [/B][/QUOTE]

That was the original intent of my point, yes, only against Americans, I just didn't clarify in my original post. And 11's, I feel ya, I know what you are saying, and yes, it is selfish. Again, my point is that Sadam was evil, no doubt, and the world (in the long run) will be a better palce w/o him, yeah, but there was just no real quantifable (sp) link to him and Al Queda and or a direct immeadiate threat to us or our allies.

The real threat is Al Queda and its supporters and extremist groups that want to hurt the US. And, by invading Iraq under false pretenses, we have played right into the hands of Al Queda and those extremeists and those in the middle east that hate the US. We have made the problem worse, and America less safe more unsafe (again, not to mention the lives we have thrown away of our young soliders and innocent Iraqis). If GWB had not been so hell bent on invading Iraq even before 9/11, he might have had the wisdowm to hold off on Sadam and Iraq and concentrate all our efforts on Afghanstan and Al Queda while working with allies to isoltae Iraq and we would be in a better position than we are today.

So all the lies and deciet this administration used as a pretext to invade Iraq are bogus. We are isolated internationally from our allies b/c of this, thus having to bear the troop and financial burden alone in Iraq that has directly caused us to lose focus on Al Queda and Afghanstan because we don't have enough $ or troops to do both. And all the while playing right into the hands of Al Queda causing them to recruit more people. It's a viscious circle we got ourselves into, and its a direct result of a failed foreign policy by GWB.

I don't think Kerry hs all the answers, but I don't think he would have led us into this quagmire either. And he served his country (see my earlier rant).

Hey, I respect your opionion, and if you approve of the current course, then vote for GWB.

Will,

Blurred was referring to Abu Abbas(specialist in wheel chair tossing) and Abu Nidal.

That's why I quoted Brinkley, because that is all he said about Cambodia. Mainly because of the lack of corrobarating evidence, specifically corraborating evidence in Kerry's diary which has only served to cast doubt on his ever being "near Cambodia".