PDA

View Full Version : The 10th Brother - Kerry whistleblower suffers



SpiderMan
11-29-2004, 10:55 AM
How Kerry whistleblower suffered for truth

November 29, 2004

BY MARY LANEY

This is the story of a military veteran whistleblower. He spoke out against someone he thought was dangerous for the nation, talked to local newspapers, and appeared on talk shows. In return, he was vilified by reporters, threatened by a political operative, fired by his company, and now he's broke.

His name is Steve Gardner. He's also known as "The 10th Brother," as in Band of Brothers. He's one of two members of Sen. John Kerry's 12 Vietnam swift boat crew members who refused to stand with Kerry at the Democratic Convention. The other man remained silent.

"They said I had a political agenda. I had no and have no political agenda whatsoever. I saw John Kerry on television saying he was running for the Democratic nomination for president, and I knew I couldn't ever see him as commander in chief -- not after what I saw in Vietnam, not after the lies I heard him tell about what he says he did and what he says others did."

Gardner explains he was sitting at home in Clover, S.C., when he first saw Kerry on television. It was before the primary races. For 35 years, Gardner says, he hadn't talked about his tour of duty in Vietnam. But when he saw Kerry talking about running, he says he got up, called the newspaper in town, called radio stations and "talked to anyone I could about why this man should never be president." Eventually he got a call from Adm. Roy Huffman, who had been in charge of the coastal division in Vietnam, reunited with other swift boat veterans, and the rest is, as they say, history.

Gardner's story is one that bears telling. He volunteered for the Navy, enlisting on his 18th birthday in February 1966. After training, he was shipped to Vietnam and served for two years as a gunner in the swift boat division. His superior, for four months, was none other than Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry.

"I had confrontations with him there. He nearly got us rammed by the VC one night because he wasn't watching the helm. I heard the motor coming close, turned on the spotlight, and the boat was only 90 feet away, coming fast. The VC was aiming an AK47 at us. I shot him out of the boat. We pulled a woman and a baby off the boat. Kerry wrote it up that we captured two VC and killed four more on the beach. None of that was true. The only thing true on Kerry's report was the date. The woman was catatonic and wouldn't call her baby VC and there were no VC on the beach. If we had seen that report before Kerry sent it up the chain of command, he would have been court-martialed and never allowed to run for office. And that's just the San Pan incident. There was much more. He is a self-aggrandizing bold-faced liar. I believe he caused the extension of that war."

Gardner told this story and others to radio stations and he wrote a piece for the local paper. Then, he says, he received a phone call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign. Hurley, Gardner says, asked him to come out for Kerry. He told Hurley to leave him alone and that he'd never be for Kerry. It was then Gardner says, he was threatened with, "You better watch your step. We can look into your finances."

Next, Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him."

Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back.

"I'm broke. I've been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the bills," he said.

All the millions of dollars raised by Gardner and his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the proceeds from John O'Neill's book, Unfit for Command, go to families of veterans, POWs and MIAs.

And, even though Gardner is broke and jobless for speaking out, the husband and father of three says he'd do it all over again. He says it wasn't for politics. It was for America.

Ross
11-29-2004, 12:58 PM
From what the interviews with Gardner that I've read, if there ever was a man with a grudge it is this man.

He admits he killed a child in a sampan boat, but blames Kerry for not warning him of the approaching boat.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1099304309.shtml

DW: Okay, I've got to be honest, this is a hard question for me to ask you, but, is there any possibility you're just angry with Kerry because you feel guilty about your own actions?

SG: Well please believe me when I say this, but in all actuality, I lay every night with the fact that I killed that little boy. Now the fact that he died, I exclusively place the blame on John Kerry for that happening. But I'm the one who killed him. I'm the one that shot the gun. I made the judgment call to shoot him rather than have him shoot me.

DW: You blame Kerry because he didn't alert you the boat was coming?

SG: That is correct.

Then Gardner goes on to blame Kerry for not reporting accurately his (Gardner's) killing of the child. With some twisted logic, Kerry is evil person because he covered up Gardner's mistake. Interestingly, the other 9 who served directly with Kerry (not just in the same war, like the Swiftboat Veterans for Character Assination did) have very different memories than Gardner.

He says he's not political but:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,599034,00.html

"Around the time of the South Carolina primary, Gardner heard Limbaugh say there was something fishy about Kerry’s Vietnam service but he couldn’t quite put his finger on it. “I was driving down the road, and I hit that [radio] button and Rush was talking about Kerry and his campaign and how something just didn’t feel right to him,” Gardner recalled, his voice full of conviction. “Something about what John Kerry did or was doing, just really didn’t set right with him. And you know I served with this guy, and the bottom line to it is; harsh as this may sound or as good as it sounds to any Democrat, out there, John Kerry is another ‘Slick Willy.’ He’s another Bill Clinton and that’s exactly what he is. And I’m telling you right now, that if John Kerry gets to be president of these United States, it’ll be a sorry day in this world for us. We can’t stand another Democrat like that in there again. We’ll get our asses in such a sling this time; we won’t be able to get out of it. And the bottom line to it is, I don’t care how much John Kerry’s changed after he moved off my boat, his initial patterns of behavior when I met him and served under him was somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it. If I’d had Rush’s 800 number, or known how to reach him, I would have called in.”

This guy has no credibility. He is very partisan, hates Clinton, is a Rush fan, and by his own words thinks politically that Democrats are a disaster. Hhe killed a child in Vietnam and feels guilty about it but blames his commanding officer both for his actions and for covering for him, and his version of events contradict the other 9 men who were in the boat with Kerry who talk openly about Garner's longstanding grudge.

So maybe he was fired in retaliation. Or maybe he continues to blame the world for his own actions. Who knows?

SpiderMan
11-29-2004, 01:12 PM
It's hard to pass judgement on the shooting, either for or against. But I believe the point of the article was that Gardner's "hard times" are no coincidence, but rather a searing retailiation for having voiced his side of the story.

SpiderMan

highsea
11-29-2004, 01:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>This guy has no credibility. He is very partisan, hates Clinton, is a Rush fan, and by his own words thinks politically that Democrats are a disaster. Hhe killed a child in Vietnam and feels guilty about it but blames his commanding officer both for his actions and for covering for him, and his version of events contradict the other 9 men who were in the boat with Kerry who talk openly about Garner's longstanding grudge.

So maybe he was fired in retaliation. Or maybe he continues to blame the world for his own actions. Who knows? <hr /></blockquote>That's your take, Ross, but the Time article doesn't say that he thinks democrats are a disaster, just that he didn't like Clinton, and compared Kerry to Slick Willy. He's not alone in his opinion.

If he shot a VC who was pointing an AK at his boat, it really doesn't matter how old the kid was, it was an act of self-defense. It is the commander's job to maintain situational awareness at all times, and if a sampan got within 90 feet of them, something was not right.

If he is feeling guilty for killing a kid, I can understand that, but I can also understand his reason for being unhappy with the commander who allowed the situation to develop in the first place.

-CM~~~thinks democrat policies are a disaster wrt US defence.

Ross
11-29-2004, 02:44 PM
I wasn't debating whether what he did was right or wrong. I just read his interviews (not just the Time article) and it was clear that this was a very angry man and a very partisan one. His own boatmates see him as someone carrying a grudge and who "remembers" events different than those around him:

"So it was with a sense of genuine relief when PCF-44’s Jim Wasser telephoned me last week with the news that Gardner had “rung him up out-of-the-blue” to discuss their shared days together in Vietnam. “It was great” Wasser told me. “You know he fought bravely in Vietnam. He is still a brother. I miss him. I would like to see him.” He then hesitated and went on. “But he has developed a strange, negative assessment of Lieutenant Kerry. It shocked me. His memory is dead wrong. He remembers things so differently.… He has some kind of weird grudge against Lieutenant Kerry.”

I just don't see how anyone could read the interviews with him and see him as anything but strongly partisan. So I'm reluctant to take his claim at face value that he was fired from his job because he didn't support Kerry.

And it isn't even clear what he is claiming. Does he think his boss was a Democrat and fired him because he didn't like his political views? Does he think the secret Democratic cabal called up his boss and told them to fire him? If so, how did they know his boss would be sympathetic to such an appeal and not go straight to the press? Does he think they blackmailed or threatened his boss?

This reminds me of the stories about Clinton's enemies mysteriously disappearing or dying. Apparently we were to believe he had a super double-secret private mafia that did his bidding and left no traces behind. Some people are so gullible that after listening to Limbaugh and/or reading right-wing blogs they start believing such nonsense.

highsea
11-29-2004, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Does he think his boss was a Democrat and fired him because he didn't like his political views? Does he think the secret Democratic cabal called up his boss and told them to fire him? If so, how did they know his boss would be sympathetic to such an appeal and not go straight to the press? Does he think they blackmailed or threatened his boss? <hr /></blockquote>
You have to admit it's quite a coincidence. [ QUOTE ]
Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position.<hr /></blockquote>Well certainly Time does have a political agenda. They went from "fact checking" an already published book to an article discrediting a vet who served with Kerry and opposed his candidacy. What was Time's motivation for smearing gardner? Is it a coincidence that the call from Time came shortly after Gardner snubbed the Kerry operative?

Now, we don't know who is company does business with, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that they believed that negative publicity from Time could damage their business. Most companies, especially IT companies, have a hard enough time as it is, and look unfavorably on negative publicity from a company as powerful as Time/Warner.

I'm not suggesting some kind plot by the dems to get him fired. But the comapany could very well have decided that he had become too much of a liability due to the publicity.

-CM

Ross
11-29-2004, 05:40 PM
Well Highsea I do admit it is likely a coincidence - if even true. As I pointed out (and none of you have addressed) the men who served with Gardner say his so called "memories" are wrong. He also makes statements that are verifiably false.

Here is one of many such examples:

"Then there is Gardner’s bold claim that Kerry use to take PCF-44 four or five miles from shore every night so not to get shot at. When pressed how this could be so, since oftentimes they were 25 miles upriver, he backed down. “Okay, when we were in the rivers we didn’t go to sea,” he averred. “But he always tried to park it away from the action and hide.” The other members of PCF-44 were incredulous when they heard Gardner’s claim. To Wasser it was “erroneous to his memory,” to Zaladonis “just not true,” to Whitlow “false” and to Hatch “a falsehood.” "

How is it that 9 people on the boat remember Kerry as being very aggressive in battle (even too much so at times) and that 1 (who happens to be a Clinton hater and is a fan of Limbaugh) remembers Kerry as avoiding battle repeatedly? If you were in a court of law and 9 people told one version, and 1 person told a very different version, who would you believe is telling the truth?

As to the Time article -- I don't see why this is seen as a smear or a sign of bias. Douglas Brinkley was very clear. He interviewed all of the guys who served on the boat with Kerry except Gardner who he couldn't locate. All of the 9 guys he interviewed gave the same story and gave Kerry very positive reviews.

So Brinkley gets a call from one of the vets who says he has located Gardner. The vet also says that he respects Gardner but that Gardner seems to have a vendetta against Kerry and to mis-remember key facts. So Brinkley, the reporter calls Gardner directly to hear his version. What he gets are quotes from a man who doesn't hide his rabid hatred of Kerry and who lumps Kerry, "Slick Willy" and "Hanoi Jane" together, says that Kerry would be a political "disaster" like Clinton was, that it will be a "sorry day" if he gets elected, that he was thinking of calling Rush Limbaugh, and so forth. How could a reporter not write up that story, including his interpretation that based on Gardners own words, that Gardner's highly discrepent and self-contradictory version was likely the result of his strong political views? What was he supposed to do? Buy Gardner's version over everyone else on the boat? Ignore Gardner's strong political views?

Highsea, you have shown signs that you can be objective about matters even if the facts don't support your view. Are you telling me that if 10 men served under the command of Kerry , and that 9 of them all said he was a coward but 1 said he was a good brave commander, and that 1 also was a rabid liberal and a fan of Michael Moore, that you would then believe the 1 over the 9? I just don't believe you would. Why the hell would you? So I have to say I think the only reason you believe Gardner over his shipmates is because he is espousing a view that you are predisposed to believing. That is evidence of a pretty strong bias, IMO. And, as you know, the problem with bias is that you get more and more set in your beliefs since contradictory, balancing info is ignored or dismissed. And ultimately, the truth suffers. And if as a society we ignore the truth we are going to make bad decisions as a society.

I'll get off my highhorse now! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

PS - Oh, and by the way -- Gardner was not working for a hightech IT firm that might be sensitive to political perceptions. He was likely doing house inspections for an insurance firm. I just looked at their site and they currently have only 1 job vacancy -

Position: Property Inspector
Description: the inspector will be responsible for conducting exterior residential property insurance inspections. Direct or related experience required. You will need the following items to begin: Dependable vehicle, 35mm and digital camera, measuring wheel &amp; PC.

Likely no benefits, no health insurance - no wonder the guy is now broke!

highsea
11-29-2004, 07:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Highsea, you have shown signs that you can be objective about matters even if the facts don't support your view. Are you telling me that if 10 men served under the command of Kerry , and that 9 of them all said he was a coward but 1 said he was a good brave commander, and that 1 also was a rabid liberal and a fan of Michael Moore, that you would then believe the 1 over the 9? <hr /></blockquote>Not at all. In fact, I was just basing my replies on the info in this thread. I'd never heard of Gardner before, nor did I say I believed anything he said. I was just remarking that he may have suffered in the workplace because he took an outspoken position on Kerry. We can certainly agree that his recollections differ from the other guys on the boat that supported Kerry, but then so did a lot of vets.

And I give very little attention to Time magazine. It's just a weekly editorial, and I find very little that I agree with between it's pages. I'm not a Rush fan or a Moore fan. I think they're both blowhards.

Actually, I haven't given any thought to the SBV business since the election. To me, it's over and done with. I had lots of reasons for opposing Kerry, and none of them were influenced by the SBV's. I just used them (SBV's) to counter Kerry's silly war bravado in the campaign.

As to my comments about Gardner's profession, I figured by the name of the company "Millenium Information Services". that it was IT related. mea culpa.

I've never professed to be unbiased, but I try to be objective. I have very strong biases in some areas, not so strong in others. No different than anyone else. Politically I am conservative, mainly due to where I was raised, and a philosophical dislike for big government. I can't help it, I just thought Kerry was kind of slimy. I thought the same of Clinton. I don't trust slick talkers. Whatever you want to say about GW, you can't accuse him of being a slick talker. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

There's a whole lot of things I don't like about the republicans. Their position on abortion, creationism in schools, this business about mental testing of kids, their position on soft drugs like marijuana as a crime worthy of prison, I could go on, but you get the drift.

But the things I disagree with are outweighed by the things I agree with. National Defence is my number one priority. A sensible immigration policy, fiscal responsibility (though Bush isn't the best example of this), individual rights and accountability (including gun rights), a tough stand on crime, accountability of the education system. I could go on here too.

But everyone has their biases. Just not the same ones. No one can completely filter them out, but I try to look at the facts before coming to conclusions. Everything that is presented in the media, by the government, and by individuals we meet everyday, is colored by some kind of bias or another. All we can do is try to get the basic facts and go from there. If it's something important, I try to do serious research on the issue. If it's not so important, I might toss out some pre-packaged pat response, or just ignore it altogether. You can tell how seriously I take something by how seriously I respond. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-CM

nhp
11-30-2004, 02:39 AM
Ok, Swift Boat Vets aside, what about the rest of Kerry's war buddies who side with him? They praise Kerry, saying he was heroic. Most of these men who back Kerry were on his boat. The ones who are against him were on other boats, with the exception of one. If you have two sides for or against Kerry, but the side that is for Kerry was the closest to him to see what was going on more clearly, who has more credibility?

Gayle in MD
11-30-2004, 06:05 AM
I agree with you HighSea, that Bush isn't a slick talker, he's not smart enough to be slick, but his advisors, those who tell him what to say and how to say it, are the very best around when it comes to twisting the truth, slinging mud, and then coaching him till he gets just the right words, (Lies) together to attack someone.

Example, Bush said over and over again that John Kerry would get permission from other countries, mentioning France in particular, knowing that we Americans are pretty fed up with France, before he would "Protect America....

Here's what Kerry actually said...

"No president, in all of American History, has ever ceded, nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States Of America. But, if you do it, and when you do it, you've gotta do it in a way that passes the test, the global test, where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you are doing what you are doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. A man who thinks otherwise, will lose the support of the American People and the world. And it must be done with a decent regard for the opinions of the rest of mankind."

A decent regard for the opinions of the rest of mankind, words right out of the Declaration of Independence, which were twisted by Bush to say that Kerry would have to ask France if it was OK to protect America.

There is no question that atrocities were committed in the VietNam war. There were free fire zones, kill anything that moves, man, woman, child or animal. Women were raped, one elderly woman, while breathing her last breaths after being shot, was jumped on by a soldier and raped in her dieing moments. This was witnessed by a friend of mine who saw it, was there, and walked away, as did his superior and the others in his unit. He has lived with his guilt also ever since. But Bush and his administration have twisted everything that John Kerry said and did after the war when we all know that the whole country was against the Vietnam war, and there were thousands and thousands of veterans who protested that war in those days, and felt just in protesting it.

One thing is for sure, Bush didn't go, and also, he did get special treatment, and did fail to show up for the blood test, and lost his flying priviledges, and I guess republicans think that is just a coincidence that he didn't show up when it has been well documented by former friends of his who have been interviewed in a number of books saying that he was a coke head alcoholic. Oh yeah, he's born again now right. I'll tell you something about these born again folks. Most of them that I have known in my personal life have been such back stabbing, low life MFers that people around them were so "ON" to the truth about how worthless they really were that the only way they could make it was to convince everybody around them that they had "Seen The Light" oh yeah, Born again, now just wipe my dirty slate clean and bend over and grab your ankles. I know plenty of them, that's why that whole term "Born Again" just gags me.

If you read some of the books the have been written about the path to war, it doesn't take long to figure out what actually happened. This was Dick Cheney's war, and it is just such a coincidence that Haliburton has made millions and millions off this war, probably more like billions. Even Powell called it a fever. The 911 report proves that Cheney lied. There was a 1500 page report from the State Department, the CIA, General Schemheke (sp) from the Army War College, who was pushed out BTW afterwards, warning this jerk that the future of Iraq would be vastly damaged by occupation, that although it would be easy to go in and overturn, it would be impossible to maintain Peace without hundreds of thousands of troops.

So what did Rumsfeld say about the disorder, the looting, oh well, they're free, free folks they can do what they want, JEEZE, Our men are dieing because the President was too lazy to read the report.
Then he turns around and says to the American People referring to Kerry,
"He saw the same intelligence that I saw"
ANOTHER HUGE LIE...
Nobody sees the same intelligence that the President sees.

Lies lies and more lies

How can Forty Million people be so dumb?

Gayle in Md.

highsea
11-30-2004, 07:04 AM
Gayle, no matter what comes of what, I want you to think of me as a friend.

But I want you to look at your statement.
[ QUOTE ]
one elderly woman, while breathing her last breaths after being shot, was jumped on by a soldier and raped in her dieing moments. This was witnessed by a friend of mine who saw it, was there, and walked away, as did his superior and the others in his unit. <hr /></blockquote>
By your statement, you have a witness. If you are flat sure of this, don't tell me, tell the cops. Your friend who was there needs to speak up. This is not our program, and never has been. If you are holding something back, you are not protecting anyone worth protecting.

You are accusing a US soldier of raping a fatally wounded and elderly woman. This is something that cannot go ignored,and an accusation that cannot taken lightly.

If what you say is true, you need to do the right thing.

highsea
11-30-2004, 07:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Ok, Swift Boat Vets aside, what about the rest of Kerry's war buddies who side with him? They praise Kerry, saying he was heroic. Most of these men who back Kerry were on his boat. The ones who are against him were on other boats, with the exception of one. If you have two sides for or against Kerry, but the side that is for Kerry was the closest to him to see what was going on more clearly, who has more credibility? <hr /></blockquote>Nate, there were no "war buddies" who weren't on Kerry's boat. Kerry was only there for 4 months, and only ran 11 or 12 patrols. If you scrutinise the record, you will find he got a medal for about 3/4 of his excursions. That's why I listened to his superiors, and the guys that were there for 1 or 2 years. Unanimously, they shrugged him off as a deadbeat. This is easy to live with, except he tried to pretend to be the hero that he wasn't, and made a big deal of his pretend war hero status. That's an affront to the many who suffered in silence.

Listen to Fair_Play. He is a career grunt. He will say what's what. I hope he comes back...

-CM

Ross
11-30-2004, 10:45 AM
Are you referring to the superiors who had praised him in congressional hearings a few years before, but changed their tune after reading the book "Unfit For Command"?

Highsea, again your argument shows your bias. You say you don't believe the 9 men who were on the boat with him, fighting alongside him, because Kerry was only there 4 months? Well it is the behavior during those 4 months that is being debated. Eyewitnesses are usually what you go by when some behavior is disputed. So what sense is there in believing those who WEREN'T fighting alongside him, weren't under fire with him, just because they were in Vietnam "1 or 2 years"? Especially when you are aware that many of those that came out against him since last August had previously publicly praised him but changed their stories for the SB ads.

I can see that you will believe them to your dying grave no matter how much evidence we give you that they: 1. they weren't at the scene during the battles, 2. their versions of events don't mesh with those who were there, 3. for some of them their versions of events don't even mesh with their own written evaluations of Kerry, and 4. several changed their stories when a highly charged election came up and they were recruited to give specific statements by a Republican operative. 5. you know that all of the men who are trashing his war record are furious at him about what he said AFTER the war, so they have a motive to be biased in their memories of what happened DURING the war.

The only way you could be right is for all of the following to be true:

1. The 9 soldiers who were in the boat with him and praised him are liars or stupid AND they ALL had a motive to lie for him.
2. The officers that wrote glowing reports of him at the time and who are now trashing him are reformed liars and they had a motive at the time of the war to lie in their praise of him.
3. The men who praised him in front of Congress and a few years later condemn him in SB ads are also reformed liars who had a motive to lie when they previously praising him. If you can think of the motive, let me know.


I give up on this.

Gayle in MD
11-30-2004, 11:20 AM
Are you telling me that you were in Vietnam, and you didn't see war crimes committed? You didn't see soldiers smoking pot, using coke, killing anything that moved. You never heard of free fire zones? I can't report anything that I did not see with my own eyes, but I can tell you that I definately do believe what I was told. The guy who told me about it was no BSer, believe me. But, he wasn't the only one who told me such stories. There were many other stories.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-30-2004, 12:00 PM
Ross, I'm sure there is exagerration on both sides. But IMO there is something fishy about Kerry's stint in Vietnam. It doesn't pass the smell test. And then he went around crowing about it. People don't like self-aggrandizement (if that's a word /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

<font color="blue">"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend her as President" </font color>

It just kinda gives me the willies /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
11-30-2004, 01:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
...Oh yeah, he's born again now right. I'll tell you something about these born again folks. Most of them that I have known in my personal life have been such back stabbing, low life MFers that people around them were so "ON" to the truth about how worthless they really were...

<hr /></blockquote>

Interestingly enough, I have found most born again Christains to be quite pleasant folk. A bit boring admittedly but otherwise harmless.

wolfdancer
11-30-2004, 01:49 PM
Casey, I didn't know who Neils Bohr was...so I looked it up
Amazing, both father and son, Nobel Prize winners!!!
I used to know a guy, that was one of dem "nucular phiz" types,and I was trying to kid him once, asking him "so what kind a guy was Bob Oppenheimer"...turned out they worked together
In the article on Mr. Bohr, is a quote of his "" Never express yourself more clearly than you can think"
I like it, and think I'll use it as a sig.
I also like:
" An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a very narrow field."
So...I'll be "stealing" from you...let's not get into a
Bohr War......
Hey, sumtime I think yer too smart to be a Republican

wolfdancer
11-30-2004, 02:15 PM
Ross, isn't it odd that Kerry's war record, true or distorted, was able to be used against him....( can't deny though, that he WAS there ) while Mr. Bush's non-involvement, never seemed to be a factor. We'll never know...would George have performed herocally, while flying in combat, over there?...oops! I fergots...he lost his license

highsea
11-30-2004, 04:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Are you telling me that you were in Vietnam, and you didn't see war crimes committed? You didn't see soldiers smoking pot, using coke, killing anything that moved. You never heard of free fire zones? I can't report anything that I did not see with my own eyes, but I can tell you that I definately do believe what I was told. The guy who told me about it was no BSer, believe me. But, he wasn't the only one who told me such stories. There were many other stories.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>No, I'm telling you that your friend is an accessory to murder, if what you write is true. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened, there is no statute of limitations to the crime.

Ross
12-01-2004, 06:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Ross, I'm sure there is exagerration on both sides. But IMO there is something fishy about Kerry's stint in Vietnam. It doesn't pass the smell test. And then he went around crowing about it. People don't like self-aggrandizement (if that's a word /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

<font color="blue">"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend her as President" </font color>

It just kinda gives me the willies /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, Kerry played up his military record at the Dem campaign as a political strategy to try to combat the advantage Bush had as an incubent wartime president. It was a political strategy - nothing more. Big f'ing deal. But conservatives have been using that as an excuse to trash the man's reputation ever since, starting with the Swiftboat ads which was one of the most dishonest and vilest smear campaigns I've ever seen. It both scares me and saddens me that this kind of bs actually works.

SecaucusFats
12-01-2004, 08:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Ross, I'm sure there is exagerration on both sides. But IMO there is something fishy about Kerry's stint in Vietnam. It doesn't pass the smell test. And then he went around crowing about it. People don't like self-aggrandizement (if that's a word /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

<font color="blue">"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend her as President" </font color>

It just kinda gives me the willies /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, Kerry played up his military record at the Dem campaign as a political strategy to try to combat the advantage Bush had as an incubent wartime president. It was a political strategy - nothing more. Big f'ing deal. But conservatives have been using that as an excuse to trash the man's reputation ever since, starting with the Swiftboat ads which was one of the most dishonest and vilest smear campaigns I've ever seen. It both scares me and saddens me that this kind of bs actually works. <hr /></blockquote>

I have to disagree with you Ross. Political strategy or not, it is a very big f'ing deal. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of all US military forces. Kerry's actions in Viet Nam, his VVAW activities and the VVAW's pro-communist disinformation campaign, his meeting with the North Vietnamese during wartime, his association with Jane Fonda, his blanket indicment of US servicemen as war criminals, could not and would not go unnoticed. Such a man lacks the spine and moral character to lead our nation at any time, and particularly so during wartime.

SF

Ross
12-04-2004, 08:42 PM
So we've come full circle, SF. You continue to assume his wartime record was dismal based on the reports of people who didn't serve on his boat and who have changed their story since reading a very biased anti-Kerry book, and you continue to ignore the testimony of the soldiers who actually were on the boat with him, fighting alongside him. You and others are obviously very angry about his post-service anti-war speeches because you see them as treasonous. Others disagree with that assessment, but that is a different issue, one that I haven't even mentioned.

The strong feelings you and some other conservatives have about Kerry's anti-war activities provides the motive for bias. The fact these same conservatives ignore blatant credibility issues when deciding whom to listen to about Kerry's wartime service provides the evidence of bias. And all of it together supports my original point -- such conservatives were\are uncritically eager to believe any negative reports about Kerry no matter the source, and hence were ripe for manipulation by cynical media smear campaigns like the Swiftboat ads.

Why does this matter? Because if the smear campaign had been unsuccessful in getting the public debating (based on party affiliation alone)in endless circles the unverifiable minutia of how deep the scratch was in Kerry's arm or whether he was in Cambodia or 2 miles from Cambodia, we could have discussed REAL issues that affect our country today. Like whether Bush or Kerry had the best health/tax/defense/SS/etc. plan and why.

Instead the discourse descended into demonizing Kerry's war record based on slickly manipulated mis-information. "I served with Kerry and..." (well actually most of you didn't). And Kerry dropped 10 points in the polls in the two weeks after the Swiftboat ads started dominating the media not because of how he would likely run the country, but because people like you fell for the oldest negative campaigning trick in the book - trashing the character of your opponent instead of discussing his policies. Well, not you in particular because you never would have voted for Kerry anyway, but you know what I mean. I think.

Oh well...I really, really will give up now. If anyone sees me post about this issue again, you have permission to come shoot me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif