New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’

Asgara, I went to the book store to purchase the book so to answer your question, however, won't arrive until the 15th of this month. So all I can say for now, is the author of the book John O'Neil made an interesting quote, that out of 25 officers that served with John Kerry, 2 died, and out of the 23 remaining, 17 officers, condemned Kerry.P.S. Whats interesting is this betrayal by Kerry, both democrats and republicans officers condemned John Kerry. Its not about politics, Kerry betrayed his office, according to his peers, in service, he's not fit for command, etc...

Like I said hun, I'd like names of people who actually served WITH Kerry. Not someone who took over his boat months after he left...not doctors who are not the ones listed on his medical forms...not ppl who were in country during the same months. I want people who actually served with kerry. There is only one of the crewmen that were on Kerry's boat WITH him that declined to support him. Even Rassman, (the guy he saved), a dyed in the wool Repub has appeared FOR kerry

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Crashfrog, This link says Nixon was the Thirty-Seventh President
1969-1974, probably didn't get sworn in until 1969, though agree he was elected in 1968, etc...Error 404

Wikipedia says he was elected in 1968. So the election was in 1968. Obviously, he wouldn't have been sworn in until January 1969, but until then, he was still the president-elect.Robertson and O'Neill make it sound like nobody had even heard of the guy in 1968 or something; saying that Kerry's story can't be true because he says "President Nixon" and Nixon wasn't president yet is the height of disingenuity. Nixon was president-elect and, as we do today, would have been referred to as president in casual speech.

Excellent, Opus, excellent.

quote:

---

picture of Kerry with the Communists leaders in their Saigon War museum,

---

There's also picutes of President Nixon with communist leaders.There's also that great video of a beaming Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand.Your point?

schrafinator, Kerry's Picture is in a place of honor in respect to their victory over the United States, however, whats interesting is a book written by Kerry's peers, that while we all now understand why Kerry is held in honor by the Communists in their museum, but what is interestingly he is not held in honor by his peers, of the surviving peer officers that served with Kerry 17 of them say that Kerry didn't stand behind his own, and twisted the truth. I suspect the one thing both the Vets and the North Vietnamese shared was awe, and not respect. Suspect if a North Vietnamese would of spouted propaganda against their cause they wouldn't of been allowed to continue in this act of treason against their own(Only in America). Either your for your country, or your against. This is a problem with the democratic party, so Kerry fits right in with their agenda, to them its not about our soveignty, but the world community. Were all seeing the fruit of clintonomics, the price of crude over 45 dollars per barrel, cause of the industries clinton blessed to leave this country without penalties are now drawing excessively from the world middle east oil supply, you can not tell these foriegn industries they can not have access to middle east oil, its supply and demand, etc...What is Kerrys voting record in respect to drilling for our own oil, etc... I like Edward in this particular article cause he is for drilling for Alaskan oil, talk about opposites running on the same ticket, I don't like the supply and demand senerio's that John Kerry played a main role in filibustering, so that always cause prices to rise, off supply and demand in the world market.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos"How sweet it is," Kerry told reporters after the April 2002 vote to sustain the filibuster against drilling.Kerry is the Senator that is responsible for setting us up for the high price of crude, so were dependent on foriegn oil, we need to be drilling for oil in our own country, etc...You don't see Kerry driving a hybrid, leading by example, etc...P.S. I'd like to see that Picture of Rumsfield in the Saigon Museum, I could understand Nixons, given he was the President of the United States.

Coupla things. First, O'Neill never served with Kerry. In fact, he never really knew of Kerry during the war. He had taken over Kerry's boat once Kerry's tour was finished.I'm not sure if what you stated was a mispeak on your part, but this particular tidbit is a fact.Second, the debate between O'Neill and Kerry in '71 is well documented. Heck, a simple Google search came up with this immediately:File Not FoundThis debate occurred in May of '71, over 2 months after Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. O'Neill was sent in to debate Kerry by Nixon, whom Nixon thought was a formidable, well-spoken opponent:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosColson, Nixon's advisor, wanted to put the clamps on Kerry quickly, before he "becomes another Ralph Nader."http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_E._O'NeillBut turning back to the O'Neill/Kerry debate, I scanned through it numerous times, and I noticed something missing from O'Neill's accusations -Not once did O'Neill accuse Kerry of lying about receiving his medals. Don't you think if Kerry was indeed lying about his awards then, it would have been an incredible opportunity for O'Neill to expose this lie back in '71? Don't you kinda find it a little odd that O'Neill has said nada about Kerry's medals until it was clear that Kerry was to be the Democratic nominee in March? Why was he so insistent on keeping his mouth shut about Kerry for some 35 or so years? Surely he knew Kerry was a Senator all this time, he could have really put the clamp down on him anytime he wanted to, couldn't he?I can't help but to call "shenanigans" on this point.But the Swifties here, most of them at least, are not so much after Kerry for what he did during Vietnam, but what he stood for and stated after the war. They are certainly entitled to their opinions and feelings, and I understand that they may have felt that Kerry was undermining and insulting their efforts in the war. Kerry's sentiments after the war, however, were not so much directed towards the actions of the men and women serving their country, but toward the But it seems to me that they are really quibbling on not so much the central point of Kerry's message of our government being wrong on our position in Vietnam, but went after his charges of atrocities that he had witnessed.Time did wonders to dispell the cover-ups of these Vietnam atrocities such as the My Lai massacres, the Tiger Force massacres and the Thanh Phong massacres. I think we would be giving a little too much credit to O'Neill if we assumed that he wasn't aware of such atrocities. In fact, in hindsight I'd say it looks more like O'Neill is flat out lying during his debate with Kerry. But I also think it's important to point out the specifics of what Kerry has stated, and what the Conservative mouthpieces have spun ad nauseum.Take Sean Hannity, for instance. He has repeated over and over a false statement from Kerry, stating that Kerry said, "I committed atrocities." You only have to take a quick glance at the transcripts of Kerry's '71 statements to see he ACTUALLY stated,

quote:

---

I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions, in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles is, in fact, guilty.

---

More can be seen here:http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081104.shtmlNow we can clarify the rest of his statements by him merely following orders. With a Commander like "body-bag" Hoffmann giving orders to Kerry's group, coupled with the well-known atrocities that occurred throughout that war, I really do not find the rest of his statements very shocking at all. In fact, it seems Kerry is right on.This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-13-2004 02:41 PM

quote:

---

Kerry's Picture is in a place of honor in respect to their victory over the United States, however, whats interesting is a book written by Kerry's peers

---

Not by eyewitnesses to his acts of bravery, but "peers" nonetheless. A number of those 250+ Swift Boat for Truth folks have never even met Kerry once. Not in Vietnam. Not after Vietnam.You really should take their "testimony" with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

but what is interestingly he is not held in honor by his peers, of the surviving peer officers that served with Kerry 17 of them say that Kerry didn't stand behind his own, and twisted the truth.

---

None can demonstrate any eyewitness accounts of Kerry's actions on his boat. But hey, let's grant the possibility that they did see Kerry (a few hundred yards away, according to Naval archives), why are they not going after his eyewitness crewmates as well as the Navy for supporting the same account as Kerry? Why are they not going after Rassman, the registered Republican who's life Kerry saved, with the same amount of vitriol as they are with Kerry?Did Kerry award himself those medals? If not, why are they not going after those hated superior officers who granted Kerry those medals?Oops, I guess because a coupla those superior officers are on the Swifties. Interesting conflict they have there (among other conflicts like praise for Kerry's actions and valor).

quote:

---

I suspect the one thing both the Vets and the North Vietnamese shared was awe, and not respect. Suspect if a North Vietnamese would of spouted propaganda against their cause they wouldn't of been allowed to continue in this act of treason against their own(Only in America). Either your for your country, or your against.

---

Uhh, huh? Brad, is that you? What are you saying here? I really can't decifer your statement at all.

quote:

---

This is a problem with the democratic party, so Kerry fits right in with their agenda, to them its not about our soveignty, but the world community. Were all seeing the fruit of clintonomics, the price of crude over 45 dollars per barrel, cause of the industries clinton blessed to leave this country without penalties are now drawing excessively from the world middle east oil supply, you can not tell these foriegn industries they can not have access to middle east oil, its supply and demand, etc...
What is Kerrys voting record in respect to drilling for our own oil, etc... I like Edward in this particular article cause he is for drilling for Alaskan oil, talk about opposites running on the same ticket, I don't like the supply and demand senerio's that John Kerry played a main role in filibustering, so that always cause prices to rise, off supply and demand in the world market.

​

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

​

"How sweet it is," Kerry told reporters after the April 2002 vote to sustain the filibuster against drilling.

​

Kerry is the Senator that is responsible for setting us up for the high price of crude, so were dependent on foriegn oil, we need to be drilling for oil in our own country, etc...You don't see Kerry driving a hybrid, leading by example, etc...

---

Do you always run off on tangents like this? Geez, you start from Kerry's Vietnam record to his record against Alaskan drilling?Umm, 'kay.Kerry's policy against Alaskan drilling is not merely shared by Kerry alone. There's a reason why it hasn't been passed yet, so you'll have to blame everyone else (including a coupla Repubs.) for that one. But even so, a Reuters article back in February outlined this:

quote:

---

The Interior Department estimates the refuge could hold between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If the refuge was opened to drilling, it would take about eight years before the area reached full oil production.

---

(sorry, no current link)Even after 8 yrs. when the area reached full production, 16 billion barrels does not last long at all. Even the most conservative estimates give this approx. 2 full years of supply.So perhaps Kerry sees the futility of this whole project, and perhaps he realizes that it's more or less a Red Herring. Perhaps this is also why his energy policy calls for higher alternative fuel production.What does Bush's energy policy call for again?And are you really blaming our oil crisis on Clinton? Oh boy, that really is a new one. I really have heard most of our current problems being pinned on Clinton by the Conservatives, but this one really surprised me.

quote:

---

schrafinator, Kerry's Picture is in a place of honor in respect to their victory over the United States,

---

...and I am sure that Rumsfeld was treated very well by Saddam Hussein when he was there arranging to give him US weapons and training.There is also a portrait of Bush senior with a prominent Saudi in Saudi Arabia.Your point?

bump

crashfrog, Good point that one of the big issues was if he actually was in Cambodia, the whole basis of his testifying before the Senate was that he accused the President of the United States of lying, when as it turns out John Kerry was not in Cambodia, etc...P.S. It is interesting that John Kerry said it was seared in his brain(apparently more vivid than his diary), this almost sounds like John Kerry was a victim of mind control, if so then he was not lying, that its possible that this memory was seared into his brain, he couldn't be in two places at the same moment in time, etc...It is interesting that Kerry apparently corrected the record he is not sure he was actually in Cambodia at the time in question, quite a contradiction to the memory seared within him, etc...Kathleen Parker: Biography and Latest Articles"I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia," he told his fellow senators. "I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me."Well, as it turns out, Kerry wasn't in Cambodia (at least not then), and the president wasn't lying (at least not then)/ Depending on whom you believe, Kerry was in a boat either five miles away or 50. In Douglas Brinkley's biography, "Tour of Duty," based in part on Kerry's diary, Kerry was at Sa Dec, 58 miles from Cambodia.A few days ago, Kerry campaign adviser Jeh Johnson tried to clarify for Fox News, "... I believe he (Kerry) has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia. He is not certain whether it was in Cambodia, but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia."

Prove it. O'Neill's say-so is insufficient; he's clearly motivated by a personal prejudice vs. Kerry. It's possible to be someplace and not be certain which country you're in, especially in wartime. It's not like the borders you see on the map are drawn on the ground, and Kerry didn't have GPS like we do today. Moreover, borders change. The place Kerry was in might not be Cambodia now, but it might have been, then.I need you to substantiate that this is a lie.

Kerry's own press man said Kerry admits he wasn't in Cambodia on the days in question, I don't know how to prove it more conclusively, perhaps a video of the men who actually served with John Kerry.http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/...video_wmv.htmlHere is the link to recieve for free the first chapter of John O'Neils best seller Kerry Unfit for Command. Its also interesting that the money from any profits of the book will go to military charities, its not about someone profiting by writting a book, etc...http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/offer.htmlAn interesting article about the laws regarding treason and asking the question?Why is John Kerry running for President and not in jail?by JusticeTalionhttp://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/1191146/posts

Any profits, meaning they will take 99 percent as "expenses" and give a token amount to some charity. I find it strange that you mix questions about rasiing the price of oil, with questions about treason. I'm curious what kind of emotions accompany your accusations. Vehement extremist hatered? That is what shines through.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu