New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’

Actually, what we need is an energy policy decided by scientists and not by people who sell oil for a living. You know, the people that were probably on Cheney's Energy Panel. Hrm, maybe he's a little more concerned about vanishing Alaskan species than he is about lining the pockets of corporate oil fatcats. (I love that word, "corporate fatcat.")Come to think of it, most Americans are, too. You mean, matching income to outlay? That's everybody's idea of fiscal responsibility, except the Bush administration's. Actually, there's what Kerry does, and there's what Bush says Kerry does.

I didn't know Heston held thousands of voters in Florida hostage so that they couldn't vote and then bribed the supreme court to overturn the written constitutional precedures and appoint a king ... must have missed that somewhere.Yeah, O'Neil is only in the back pocket of the neocons (who are not republicans really) and he has all the air of a paid fanatic mercenary with a total disregard for truth. Official Navy documents say he is lying, what part of that did you miss?It won't go away because all shrubbykins has left in his arsenal is lies and misrepresentations and a total lack of integrity. Four years of work and nothing to show: he is that incompetent.Even the Iraq soccer team is upset with his posturing.Still nothing on shrubby's AWOL/Dishonorable Discharge ... funny what your standard of good leadership includes and excludes.Let me put it this way: shrubby didn't have the patriotic guts to protest the war and he didn't have the patriotic guts to serve in the war, he used family connections to get a cushy "bye" and he couldn't even summon the intestinal fortitude to complete that.Kerry had the gumption to fight in the war in one of the more dangerous ways, and then when he realized that the reasons for the war were false he had the gumption to stand up and say that it was wrong. Note that history has proven him correct, that the reasons for fighting the Viet Nam war were false: there has been no domino effect of rampant oligarchic pseudo-communism overrunning the neighboring countries. Likewise the reasons for fighting the Iraq war have been shown to be false.Looks to me like you're backing the wrong candidate by a country mile, bucko.But hey, that's just what the facts show, and why should anyone take them over the words of some pathologically prevaricating patriotically pathetic political pollyanna?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I skimmed through this topic and found this unanswered:from Asgara: I don't know the names, but I do know that many of these men were on boats in the same "group" as kerry's.Now I don't follow all this all that closely, but as I understand it there are only 4 members to a swift boat crew.It is not like the ONLY people who can be said to have served WITH Kerry had to be on his little boat.There were probably 4 men to a boat, 4 boats to a squad, and 3 squads to a platoon, 3 platoons to a company, and so on... (I don't know the navy terminology for these divisions however they are basically the same in all branches)Now it is not like the only people that got to know Kerry were the 3 other guys on his particular boat. The officers of the other boats would undoubtedly have to work and communicate with Kerry to operate together as a team. I'm sure they would rarely if ever send a single boat on a mission. So it is completely false to say that none of these men ever served "with" Kerry simply because they were not on his boat.While I think Kerry's war record is absolutely the stupidest thing to judge his qualifications for president on (people change a lot over the years), it is the ONLY thing he is asking us to base our decision on. Why would he ask us to base our decision on FOUR MONTHS of service that happened so long ago in a very different culteral and political climate with facts so dubious that there will always be room for debate and speculation as to what the truth actually is? My guess is he really has nothing else to show.When asked what he is actually going to do as president, he says: I'm going to do this better and that better and take matters to the UN and bla bla bla.... He doesn't say HOW he's going to do anything better. He says nothing much of his work in the senate because as far as I can tell, he hasn't done much in the senate. He is NOT an anti-war candidate as I heard him quoted recently as saying that knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to go to war in Iraq, yet he still says the war in Iraq is a travesty, and "I would have done it better, I would have gotten our allies in line..."Taking Kerry's character and actions on the whole and disregarding the 4 meaningless months in vietnam that he has chosen to base his campaign on, I find Kerry most definately unfit to command.

I'd like to expand on this notion a little further, just in case whatever missed it.One thing I must admire about Republicans is how incredibly talented they are when they strive to be disingenuous. It’s something the dems really need to pick up if they every want to effectively compete against republicans. The actual Kerry quote reads,"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."Secondly, it really does seem awfully equivocating doesn’t it? As a matter of fact, it seems like it’s SUCH an indefensible statement that that should be your first clue that something’s wrong and that MAYBE we’re making a contextual miscalculation as we seem so prone to do. Well it would be my pleasure to clear up the muddy waters so to speak. Allow me to introduce to you senate amendment 1796:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP1796:If you don’t want to read the text of Senate amendment 1796 it essentially amends bill 1689 (supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction) to pay for the $87 billion by suspending a portion of the reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual taxpayers. Now this amendment, which was co-sponsored by Kerry, was tabled by congress on October 2, 2003 by a 57-42 vote. Kerry voted against tabling it so he effectively cast a vote for it. Bill 1689 eventually passed on October 17, in which Kerry cast a vote against it. Now, in case you haven’t put 2 and 2 together by now, allow me to connect the dots:Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion (Bill 1796) before I voted against it (Bill 1689).Did you catch that?Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion (Bill 1796) before I voted against it (Bill 1689).Kinda tricky but I’m sure you can comprehend that simple concept. But here’s the best part, if you can grasp the implications of this concept we can conclude that not only is Kerry not waffling, but by voting against bill 1689 he is doing the exact OPPOSITE of waffling. Not only is he sticking to his original amendment that he introduced, but he’s willing to stick to his original amendment by voting against 1689 against OVERWHELMING odds.Teehee that’s not the best part though. The best part comes from the rhetoric of the Bush campaign with respects to this issue. What do they say?

quote:

---

BUSH (7/14/04): Now, when Senator Kerry tried to explain his vote, here’s what he said. He said, I actually did vote for the $87 billionbefore I voted against it. (Laughter.) End quote. It sure doesn’t clear it up, does it? (Laughter.) Now he’s offering a different explanation. Earlier this week, he said he is proud he and his running mate voted against the funding for our troops.

​

AUDIENCE: Booo!

​

BUSH: No, he’s entitled to his view, but here’s mine: Members of Congress should not vote to send troops into battle and then vote against funding them. (Applause.) As the Commander-in-Chief of this great military, I will see to it they have what is needed to complete their mission. (Applause.)

​

CNN.com - Transcripts

---

Hahahaha but apparentely it’s ok for the President to threaten veto of a bill to fund said troops if the version doesn’t agree with him! Can you believe this guy? But wait it get’s better!

quote:

---

BUSH (7/16/04): I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, the cause of freedom is in really good hands.
(APPLAUSE)

​

BUSH: I'll make sure our troops have the best. They deserve the best. And that's why last September I proposed supplemental funding to support our military in its mission. This legislation provided funding for body armor and other vital equipment, for hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, spare parts. In the Senate, only a small, out-of-the-mainstream minority voted against the legislation. And two of those 12 senators, two of the 12, are my opponent and his running mate.

​

AUDIENCE: Booo.

​

BUSH: When asked to explain his vote, Senator Kerry said this, I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

​

(LAUGHTER)

​

BUSH: End quote. Now he's offering a different explanation. Earlier this week, Senator Kerry said he is proud that he and his running mate voted against the funding for the troops.

​

AUDIENCE: Booo.

​

BUSH: And yesterday, he said that his vote against funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was complicated. No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops.

​

(APPLAUSE)

​

BUSH: As the Commander-in-Chief of a great United States military, I will make sure they have what is necessary so they can do their jobs.

​

(APPLAUSE)

​

nytimes.com

---

Wait what did this guy just say???

quote:

---

No, there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops

---

Nothing complicated??? Then why the hell did you threaten to veto supporting our troops if there’s NOTHING COMPLICATED about it???? Hahahah isn't he great folks?So let’s summarize: Republican criticism of Kerry’s flip-flopping on the Iraq vote: BASELESS AND HYPOCRITICAL.Regards,Opus1

quote:

---

It is not like the ONLY people who can be said to have served WITH Kerry had to be on his little boat.

​

There were probably 4 men to a boat, 4 boats to a squad, and 3 squads to a platoon, 3 platoons to a company, and so on... (I don't know the navy terminology for these divisions however they are basically the same in all branches)

​

Now it is not like the only people that got to know Kerry were the 3 other guys on his particular boat. The officers of the other boats would undoubtedly have to work and communicate with Kerry to operate together as a team. I'm sure they would rarely if ever send a single boat on a mission. So it is completely false to say that none of these men ever served "with" Kerry simply because they were not on his boat.

---

While I agree that this notion is plausible, the problem with the other's accounts is the continual contradictory evidence against their charges. The latest victim is Thurlow, whom seems to have a problem with the fact that not only did HIS report state there was enemy gunfire, but another guy on his boat, Lambert - HIS report stated there was enemy gunfire as well. Chris Matthews, of all people, had Thurlow for lunch the other day:Bull Escapes Truck to Slaughterhouse and Destroys ShopsNow Thurlow's claim about Kerry writing the after action report is also stretching the truth quite a bit, esp. when he has absolutely no evidence to support that claim. In fact, evidence counters his claim quite well:

quote:

---

Who Initialed Navy Report?

​

Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else. In "Unfit for Command," O'Neill describes the after-action report as "Kerry's report." He contends that language in Thurlow's Bronze Star citation referring to "enemy bullets flying about him" must also have come from "Kerry's after-action report."

​

O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.

​

Other Swift boat veterans, including Thurlow and Chenoweth, have said they believe that Kerry wrote the March 13 report. "I didn't like to write reports," said Thurlow, who was the senior officer in the five-boat flotilla. "John would write the thing up in longhand, and it would then be typed up and sent up the line."

​

Even if Kerry did write the March 13 after-action report, it seems unlikely that he would have been the source of the information about "enemy bullets" flying around Thurlow. The official witness to those events, according to Thurlow's medal recommendation form, was his own leading petty officer, Robert Lambert, who himself won a Bronze Star for "courage under fire" in going to Thurlow's rescue after he fell into the river. Lambert, who lives in California, declined to comment.

​

In a telephone interview, the head of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded all Swift boats in Vietnam, said he believed that Kerry wrote the March 13 after-action report on the basis of numerical identifiers at the top of the form. He later acknowledged that the numbers referred to the Swift boat unit, and not to Kerry personally. "It's not cast-iron," he said.

​

(snip)

​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...icles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

---

So in other words, they have no evidence whatsoever to support their assertions.Yet again.But more and more individuals are coming to support Kerry's version, his crewmates' version, and the Naval record: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}-That's the Chicago editor coming forward to defend Kerry's Silver Star, in case you don't have a subscription (it's free, BTW).Telluride Daily Planet - Suites hotels in New York-another independent verification of Kerry's Bronze Star.Meanwhile, the distortions and filth continue to become unraveled, such as this guy who wasn't even there to witness Kerry's heroism and valor: Yet he had the audacity to claim that Kerry was lying about his record. Pathetic.Or how 'bout this guy?:

quote:

---

"I do not have a single document," Odell said. "I have the fact that I wasn't wounded in that 5,000 meters of fire that he wrote about."

​

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

---

Thanks for mentioning that you have no evidence to support your assertions, Mr. Odell. But yet you want us to buy your line that there was no enemy fire because you did not get shot?How pathetic can you get? And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Odell a lawyer? I certainly wouldn't want him on my team.

quote:

---

While I think Kerry's war record is absolutely the stupidest thing to judge his qualifications for president on (people change a lot over the years), it is the ONLY thing he is asking us to base our decision on. Why would he ask us to base our decision on FOUR MONTHS of service that happened so long ago in a very different culteral and political climate with facts so dubious that there will always be room for debate and speculation as to what the truth actually is?

---

Well I do agree with you here that Kerry should have been playing his war record a little less, but I strongly disagree with you that it was the ONLY thing he has mentioned. I think the media has to share a portion of the blame here, sensationalizing this swift boat crap to the point of nauseum. But in Kerry's speech during the Democratic convention, he broadly outlined nearly every one of his policies and stances, and actually scarcely mentioned his war record. You can see more of his stances in detail here:http://www.johnkerry.com

quote:

---

My guess is he really has nothing else to show.

---

On the contrary, he has a great deal to show in his Senatorial record, some of it of course makes a few individuals in Bush's Administration a little uneasy, like Kerry uncovering the Iran/Contra affair. Or even more interesting was this little Iran/Contra follow-up gem by Kerry:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/.../0409.sirota.html#bylineWhat I find interesting is how Kerry clearly demonstrates anything BUT that of a flip-flopper here. He was going against powerful people in BOTH parties, but he had the conviction that the path he chose was the right one.Kerry was, of course, right.I predict Kerry's Senatorial record will be September's hot button. Kerry certainly has some faults, but he has done some great work as well. What it seems to me though, is that Bush's group and his 527's are NOT wanting to talk about Kerry's political record, and want to continue to ad hominem attack him to death.Hey, if it worked against Cleland and McCain, why fix somethin' if it ain't broken?

quote:

---

He is NOT an anti-war candidate as I heard him quoted recently as saying that knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to go to war in Iraq, yet he still says the war in Iraq is a travesty, and "I would have done it better, I would have gotten our allies in line..."

---

He never claimed to be an anti-war candidate, so why attempt to paint him as such?What Kerry has a problem with is Bush's rush to war without accepting (or understanding) the consequences of the war. That includes hastily kicking out the UN Weapons Inspectors for no reason while they were doing their jobs, doing a piss-poor job at gaining more global support, refusing to listen to strong evidence that we needed more troops for stability AFTER the successful invasion, and refusing to put together a coherent and viable post-war rebuilding plan (actually willfully dismissing those intelligence officials who asked this very question).As a result, well, you see the results now, and the U.S. taxpayers are nearly paying for it all. Hardly what we need in a recovery, but the neo-cons got their way regardless.

quote:

---

Taking Kerry's character and actions on the whole and disregarding the 4 meaningless months in vietnam that he has chosen to base his campaign on, I find Kerry most definately unfit to command.

---

It appears you might be a little misinformed, or are choosing to ignore evidence to the contrary of your political beliefs.This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-23-2004 04:14 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-24-2004 12:07 AM

quote:

---

Coragyps, I try to limit the time I listen to Rush and other watchmen organizations, cause its so.... depressing, however seeing what they said coming to pass is extremely depressing.

---

Perhaps you would like to read what F.A.I.R. (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), a non-partisan media watchdog group has to say about Limbaugh:Page not found - FAIRIf you think Limbaugh is a legitimate "watchdog", rather than a highly partisan right-wing tool and entertainer, you are really foolish.

Whatever, those smear ads mention Kerry's absence from the Senate Intelligence Comittee's hearings after the FIRST attack on the WTC, during Clinton's presidency, NOT 9/11.

I'd go further - it is malevolently misleading.But then I don't expect much more from the most incompetent and venal administration I have known.Looks like hangdog needs to pay attention to facts too, I see.Let's see:Kerry service record
Fully documented in official service records, not only from his boat but others in the same groups, said records contradicting what some of these attack ad vets are saying now, one of them (Thurlow) with a bronze medal for bravery under the same enemy fire as Kerry where they now say there was none ... hmmm. Meanwhile more vets have come forward to back Kerry and contradict O'Neil (news google "Patrick Runyon" and see Kansas CIty Star article (click for more), news google "William B. Rood" and see PR Newswire article (click for more) and Slow Boat Veterans for Lies - Archives Bellaciao EN - 2003-2016 for more)Bush service record (or lack thereof ...)
Documents missing for period where he is accused of (1) going AWOL, (2) missing a medical exam that included a drug test for the first time, and (3) being discharged dishonorably. Nothing to show that it did not happen that way and not one person has come forward to verify his presence. Anyone done their service training in isolation? Pretty fishy eh?Seems that shrubbykin's paid prevaricators are saying that official US Navy documents are lies (even though they were confirmed by multiple sources at the time, to the point of saying that one of their own was acquired under false pretenses?) while he has nothing to show for his.Sad to think that anyone finds bush worth voting for.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

As an outsider looking in this is scary.Your country has a serious problem with the leadership and with the individuals making decisions when they vote. I know we aren't all that different but find it hard to believe that the irrationality that a segment of your society exhibits is as pervasive here.(of course then there is Robert )

I appreciate you posting that. We have become folk motivated by soundbites. It's really sad.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

sound bites from sources selected to fit your beliefs and an unwillingness to check against facts for accuracy: if it's what you want to hear then it must be right?truly scaryof course it does appear that the more logically impaired are the most willingly mislead ....I may have to move back to Canada until reason prevails again.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Whatever, I've just finished reading most of the thread and scanning what I didn't read thoroughly and I want to commend you for the providing this information and doing such a masterfull and good job of debating one against a pack of counterparts. I have two comments/questions to add which came to mind as I read.1. Possibly Kerry's crew were grateful to him for keeping them in the safety zone along with himself away form possible firefight when his boat fled the scene.2. Likely his own crew and himself became rather close friends as coombodies and continue to be, so was this a factor in their support of him? Were they paid off?? Nobody knows, of course.3. Do his fellow crew members want on his good side in case he does win election or do they have an underlying fear of what may happen to them if they do not support him. Possibly they are thinking of all the folks who disappeared among the living who were close to Clinton who just happend to be potential unfriendly witnesses to his and Hillary's shenanagins.Please understand I'm not making any charges, but thinking aloud about some possibilities which may factor in as to why sooooo many who weren't in the boat but quite apprised have a very different story than some of those with him. And while I'm at it, Whatever, did I remember you saying 17 of those close to him are dead? Were they killed in the war or do you have any idea what happened to them?

(Replying to the message I gave the POTM to).I never did get back to reading all those links - I did want to read the McCain (at Yahoo) story, but that page had already gone on to other things.John Kerry's Service Record | Snopes.com seems to do a good job of covering the matter. One comment there that stands out to me, was that the U.S. government was giving out a LOT of Purple Hearts. Kerry's injuries were light, but they still did qualify for the Purple Hearts.Perhaps what they need/needed was the "Purple Heart Light" medal, to give out for light injuries. They could reserve the "Purple Heart Deluxe" for the truly serious injuries.Moose

that seems to cover it pretty thoroughly. thanks.re levels of PHs - this is similar to the question about "What do you call the person that graduated at the bottom of the class in medical school?" ...... Doctor. He passed the minimum requirements.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

True, if you mean "with" in a sort of extended sense.But in terms of judging Kerry's behavior during the war, his character and whatnot, I think you have to be working pretty close with him. That's not something you can assess from the other side of the river. Well, yeah, but it sort of goes to character, doesn't it? Doesn't character matter? Well, I hardly think that's the case. Ok, but how much attention are you paying? Did you go to his website? Did you watch the DNC?Or are you just paying attention to what's in the news? Again, how much digging did you do? It's true that he hasn't stuck his name on any really great bills; he is, on the other hand, the junior senator from his state. Maybe you know the other guy - Ted Kennedy?If you're interested in reading about his accomplishments, hopefully this link still works: John Kerry, senator | Salon.comAgain, though, if you're waiting for the media to beat you over the head with this stuff, it's not gonna happen. The media doesn't particularly care about making sure people have informed opinions and information; they care about selling papers. This Swift Boat shit does just that so I expect we'll keep seeing it, which I'm sure suits Bush just fine. The whole what? It's obvious that you haven't really bothered to find out anything about his plans or his record, so how can you claim to know enough to judge his character?