Comments for Redefining 'Swiftboating' and Rewriting History »
Posted By SonOfTheMask 1 year, 7 months ago in Arts & EntertainmentIf the words "swift" and "boat" must be combined and turned into a verb, then let us insist on its proper use...The word means, or should mean, the exposure of a fraudulent autobiography of one seeking political office or public influence.
Read Full Story at americanthinker.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 241 of 243 Comments
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "The Left is now redefining and, therefore, misusing the term swiftboating, and this misuse has become one of the many notable aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign. Democratic candidates and their partisans in the blogosphere use this word to mean smearing their candidates for public office with lies and innuendo."
That is a very accurate statment judging by numerous comments I see here on Propeller.
Reply-
Neutral
pc251 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PC25
"it has been a constant on Propeller.....any article backed by facts that is critical of either of the Democratic candidates and the cries of swiftboating soon appear"
Swiftboating, playing John Kerry's own words and images is somehow a lie.
Is it ignorance, envy or both that drives these Dems to cling to the façade that somehow Kerry's words are distorted.
Swift boating is the bitter pill of truth.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
INJEST:
"Swift boating is the bitter pill of truth."
Here are some more "bitter pills of truth"--this time about John McCain from the very Vietnam veterans you and SON are citing in this thread.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_r...
"McCain's grades were 'marginal.' He drew so many demerits for breaking curfew and other discipline issues that he graduated fifth from the bottom of the class of 1958."
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com...
"Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents. Robert Timberg wrote that McCain's 'performance was below par, at best good enough to get by.'"
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Here are some more "bitter pills of truth"--this time about John McCain from the very Vietnam veterans you and SON are citing in this thread."
And how exactly could anything you or anyone else say that changes John Kerry's 1971 testimony?
Try and stay on topic.
Reply-
Neutral
thestupidisallaroundus1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Big problem on this is that Kerry was telling what other vets had told him. Btw all of those claims was verified by indepedant sources. Obviously a lot of people have never heard about the Tiger Force unit of the Army's 101st Airborne Division who killed and mutiliated hundreds of unarmed and innocent South Vietnamese civilians over a seven month period in 1967. An army investigation substainted that 20 war crimes had been commited by 18 soldiers of the unit. This four year investigation reached the Pentagaon and the white house before the investigation was closed in 1975.
Funny how the US army, Marines, Navy all have been found to have conducted investigations into war crimes commited by US Military Personal during Vietnam and were closed when it was found that atrocities and war crimes had indeed been commited by US military forces. These investigations were conducted in secret and closed so no court martial could take place. Contray to the Geneva Conventions and US miltiary code.
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm
"While he was imprisoned, Carol was in an auto wreck (1969), thrown through her car's windshield and left seriously injured. Despite her injures, she refused to allow her POW husband to be notified about her condition, fearing that such news would not be good for him while he was being held prisoner.
When McCain returned to the United States in 1973 after more than five years as a prisoner of war, he found his wife was a different person. The accident "left her 4 inches shorter and on crutches, and she had gained a good deal of weight."
In his book, The Nightingale's Song, Robert Timberg chronicled McCain's post-Vietnam military assignments and some of his "adulterous" behavior leading to his divorce from Carol and marriage to Cindy Hensley."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com...
"McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land.
He assumed command of the RAG, which trained pilots and crews for carrier deployments. The assignment was controversial, some calling it favoritism, a sop to the famous son of a famous father and grandfather, since he had not first commanded a squadron, the usual career path.
While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and 'engage in extra-marital affairs.' This was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates."
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All your anti-mcCain stuff seems to have nothing to do with this article. The point is that when you expose a lie of a candidate you are swift boating. McCain hasn't made up a story about his high grades, valor, purity etc. Some of what you say I've heard McCain himslef admit (5th from bottom of class). Do you realize that just to be admitted to the Naval Academy, you have to be near or at the top of your high school class and then some? His carousing and rejecting his first wife isn't something you'd expect him to brag about. Kerry certainly didn't brag about his marrying for money. Try another thread to criticize McCain.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIRED:
"Do you realize that just to be admitted to the Naval Academy, you have to be near or at the top of your high school class and then some?"
Not in McCain's case, which you would have known IF you had read the full articles written by Vietnam veterans that I posted. McCain was accepted because his father and grandfather were admirals. McCain was a "legacy child" accepted for whom he knew instead of for what he knew. In the same way, GW Bush was accepted into Yale's undergraduate and Harvard MBA program as a "legacy child," certainly not based on merit alone.
TIRED:
"when you expose a lie of a candidate you are swift boating."
Have you exposed Kerry as a liar? Where's your evidence? Kerry's story is supported by an OFFICIAL investigation by the armed forces and the first-hand testimony of those on his boat. The Swift Boaters only claim to have been in nearby boats but have no EVIDENCE to prove how close their boats were to Kerry's.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
any article backed by facts>>>>
Facts? What would those 'articles' be? Could you do me a favor & point me to them? I seem to have missed that, but then I don't spend a whole lot of time searching. Anyway, I'd like to know what articles you mean, and read where people called them 'swiftboating.' You know, judge the accuracy of your comment with the 'facts.' Thanks so much.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The facts about Kerry's service are these:
1) An official investigation awarded Kerry a Purple Heart.
2) Almost all of the survivors on John Kerry's boat corroborated Kerry's story.
3) John McCain defended Kerry's service.
The facts about Bush and Cheney:
1) Cheney sought multiple deferments.
2) Bush was absentee, according to Gerald Lechliter, a "registered Independent" and "retired Army colonel with active Marine enlisted service."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lec...
"The pay records prove Bush received unauthorized fraudulent payments for inactive duty training. Bush failed to meet the statutory and regulatory fiscal year satisfactory participation requirement. Bush's superiors in the National Guard failed to take required regulatory actions when Bushed missed required training and failed to take his flight physical. Bush did not meet the requirements for satisfactory participation from 1972 to 1973."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I THINK YOU ARE WORRIED THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF SWIFTBOATING AND WILL NOT SO EASILY FALL FOR IT. TO ME THIS IS A SILLY ATTEMPT TO BLAME THE VICTIMS FOR YOUR STUPID ACTIONS. AMERICA IS THE WISER NOW FROM HAVING ENDURES YOUR LIES, YOUR RUN FOR A SMALL TIME HAS COME TO AN END. IF YOU THINK YOU ON THE RIGHT ARE THE ONLY ONES PLAYING ROUGH THIS TIME AROUND THINK AGAIN! WE PLAN TO GIVE YOU AS GOOD AS WE GET. I HAVE SEEN THE STORIES POSTED HERE BY SOME OF YOU ON THE RIGHT CALLING IT LIGIMIT...OHLY A 4 YEAR OLD WOULD BUY THAT CRAP AND REMEMBER THEY ARE NOT VOTING!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole premise of this article is that John Kerry lied about his Vietnam service and that the Repug 527 behind the Swiftboating told the truth. Since that is a total reversal of the Naval records and of the testimony of the crew Kerry commanded, the article itself gives swiftboating the exact opposite definition from that most Americans understand it to be.
A new low for the New RepugniCon slander machine.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is it similar to Borking?? Democrats are proud of that one. If it is good for the goose its good for the gander. Democrats started that tradition and yell when it is their turn. Kennedy viciously went after a nominee for judge and later told the man there was nothing personal it was just politics. Attempting to lie and destroy a mans reputation is just politics. Why do you think that it is OK for Democrats but not Republicans. At least the swift boaters were serving in boats near him and told what they saw and didn't lie.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ENDOSCOPY:
"Is it similar to Borking?"
It truly is a pity that Robert Bork, the man who carried out Richard Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre in an effort to save Richard Nixon from his IMPEACHABLE actions, wasn't appointed to be a Supreme Court justice. After all, what other Republican could better embody the ideals of justice and truth, like Robert Bork -- the man who carried out Richard Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Last i checked Kerry didnt lose because of swiftboating. He 'lost' because of the cheating (astronomical probability to not be so)that took place in Ohio and most importantly because a segment of the US population has engaged in mental paralysis for the last 20yrs ignoring world trends, abandoning science and logic, embracing the most hypocritical version of religion man has ever created (betraying the true core of Christ's teachings 100x over) and celebrating short term cannibalism of society for profit as the neoamerican dream.
Anyone here who has the bloody audacity to claim that a jackass that avoided to serve for his country during war and has since sacrificed sons and husbands and treasure across the US to empower his oil sob friends worldwide stands above he who risked life, to the point to believe that swiftboating campaign of 2004 actually performed a service deserves the full misery history will remember GWB with and those traitors that enabled him. 2008 will turn it all!
Reply-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334...
very interested who is trying to delete the following wikipedia article as well;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States...
Reply-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes yes i like this argument so much my friend. Wikipedia is supposed to be garbage because everything that is made from the good will of people and without a profit is garbage according to some. The fact remains i have used wikipedia to read about topics even in my own field where i have thousands of books at home , my university library and ebooks. I have yet to see anything i read in my field that looked wrong . It is easy to spot where the problem is with an article if you are already educated and intelligent. Its like watching the news on TV from a very good channel. You dont exactly give the news on TV 100% validitity now do you or that of a newspaper. You examine what you read then adjust it with what you already know and you try to verify what seems risky with other sources. If you do that you will realize that the product that wikipedia has created although not perfect , at the hands of an intelligent being is valuable and contributes to a broad education.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I always look for more sources to read. I never trust for example an article that looks to have no references or that has references of limited variety. This doesnt mean that in those cases what i read is a lie but it means i have to work further to examine that information. I place what i read in wikipedia while using my own mind at the same time at such a high degree of confidence that what i watch on TV or or any politician and their operators stands 10 times below that by comparison . Always use your critical mind with any information provided to you that you cannot mathematically or experimentally verify the steps one by one. That way its easy to see how wrong something looks. Trust me i will never post any wikipedia link here that i am not personally safe with. Additionally there is a way to see what was edited in an article ,by whom and when. Often enough the very article states that what it says needs further verification or is disputed. I respect wikipedia for it.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_militar...
Try reading more about it.
By the way dont forget that segment;
Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. A number of Kerry's later SBVT critics claimed to have been present on accompanying Swift Boats, at some of the salient events of Kerry's enemy engagements in Vietnam.
Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott. Hibbard and Elliott have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved. In addition, members of SBVT have questioned the merit of Kerry's other medals and his truthfulness in testimony about the war.
Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including virtually all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false.
--
The last sentence is telling indeed.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You of course know what is taking the superpower down in flames dont you. The very fact that in 2008 with serious issues pending we have the amazing ever lasting devotion to finding as many topics as possible that can polarize and irritate each other. Yes lets relive 1968 because it is so very much relevant to 2008. Lets split rice over how big injury one had, how close to death he didnt come when the other guy is sitting safely half a world around protected due to his family's influence. Lets celebrate that shouldnt we? Lets smear , lets find lies , lets make people hate each other , lets betray all the nobility and sense of patriotism that ancestors once had . Lets belittle everything, lets live the future in the past immersed in lies, lets close our eyes to our problems and try to find who's pastor said what, how many ways a sentence can be rotated, inverted examined for proper spelling , grammar and voice tone because we dont have what it takes to talk real topics instead!!!
Reply-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How do irritate and polarize here? Cant you feel my pain that i see something valuable and important for mankind, a system that stood for science, technology, innovation , freedom , enthusiasm , optimism a great number of good qualities is being wasted in the hands of inept people that cannot ever rise above partisan positions? It happens wordwide not only in the US but it is pronounced here only because it inflicts the maximum loss given the wasted opportunities. We need leaders that will unite us behind objectives that uplift our lives, make us more responsible, proud and heroic at the same time. We need a moon project. Call it today an energy project , an environment project , an education-science project. We need to invest in our ultimate utility, human beings. How is the average citizen improved by endless political debates about abortion, gay marriage, taxes for the superrich, stem cells , creationism in biology texts or permanent fears about mythological terrorism giants?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WELL SAID SOTIRIS - I feel the 2 negs you got is more out of reflex action and shame than disagreement! What I worry about and wonder if the citizens can do anything about it is the highest court in the land. What if we are before them again in this election? It's easy to do just contest any close states and it could go all the way to them. The right under bush has set the courts up to in essence steal every election for a very long time!
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I trust that a leader with vision and intellect can position himself(or herself - well not this time lol soon i hope) in such a way that courts cannot bypass the truth. I hold both Gore and Kerry partially responsible for not forcing with their own conduct the problems in such a way as to make the courts take a more balanced position . If Gore had insisted relentlessly for a recount in the entire state of Florida and urged the courts to enforce exactly that without spending too much time in limited cases where the delays were easier to introduce he would have had a proper result. It is very easy to make the courts look inept in the eyes of the broad population if you have the intellect to point to the right direction. Nobody can resist to a leader that rises above his personal gain and demands something extremelly proper to be done. Problems in Florida werent only for democrats but also for republicans. All counties needed adjustments. Thats where he lost valuable time early.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find it rather humorous that a political affiliation that has so ardently attempted to redefine our language would be submitting this. You know what I mean; Liberal, Patriotism, Rule of Law, Family Values.....& so on. Me thinks ya'll are projecting there, sport.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At least Kerry saw combat in Vietnam, unlike Dick Cheney and GW Bush. I'll take Kerry's military record over GW Bush's and Dick Cheney's ANY day of the week.
Here is an investigation by Gerald Lechliter, a "registered Independent" and "retired Army colonel with active Marine enlisted service."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lec...
"The pay records released by the White House this past winter prove Bush received unauthorized fraudulent payments for inactive duty training. Bush failed to meet the statutory and regulatory fiscal year satisfactory participation requirement. Bush's superios in the National Guard failed to take required regulaotry actions when Bushed missed required training and failed to take his flight physical. Bush did not meet the requirements for satisfactory participation from 1972 to 1973."
Reply-
Neutral
ArgoNunya1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Re: ybdogsct "At least Kerry saw combat in Vietnam, unlike Dick Cheney and GW Bush. I'll take Kerry's military record over GW Bush's and Dick Cheney's ANY day of the week."
It is amazing that you are still discussing irrelevant talking points from an election that took place 4 years ago.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
ArgoNunya1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, f*ckface, I would love for you to try to call me dip$hit to my face. Second, the article is about today, certainly not about President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, or bogus documents about either:
"The Left is now redefining and, therefore, misusing the term swiftboating, and this misuse has become one of the many notable aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign."
Schmuck. (And I would certainly call you that to your face, dip$hit.)
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02...
"In 1972, George W. Bush walked away from the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required weekend drill sessions, for more than a year, and did not take a mandatory annual physical exam, which resulted in his being grounded. According to his own discharge papers, there is no record that he did any training after May 1972. Indeed, there is no record that Bush performed any Guard service in Alabama at all. In 2000, a group of veterans offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama Guard service. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Guardsmen who were in Bush's unit, not a single person came forward.
In 1973 Bush returned to his Houston Guard unit, but in May of that year his commanders could not complete his annual officer effectiveness rating report because, they wrote, 'Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report.'
Reply-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TIREDOFWHINERS:
"Isn't it McCain, Clinton and Obama we need to be talking about? Bush isn't running for Pres."
Kerry isn't running for president either. Yes, I agree. Let's talk about McCain and what Vietnam veterans said about his military service. Let's talk about how Vietnam war veterans:
1) accuse McCain to be the beneficiary of nepotism for his famous father and grandfather by being accepted into the Navy, being awarded an officer position without completing officer training training, and having been given a passing grade in flight school even after crashing 5 airplanes.
2) accuse McCain of violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates, when he would use Navy planes to have adulterous affairs with his subordinates.
Yes, let's talk about mcCain and what Vietnam veterans have to say about him.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02...
"Based on those records, as well as interviews with Texas Air National guardsmen, the Globe raised serious questions as to whether Bush ever reported for duty at all during 1973. Republicans clearly want to quarantine the issue of Bush's service and have it labeled as outside the bounds of acceptable public discourse."
The Swift Boat Veterans violated FEC campaign finance laws and as part of their conciliation agreement, agreed to pay a fine of $299,500, cease all operations, and donate the remainder of their funds to veterans injured in the Iraq war.
http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/000058ED.pdf
"On December 2006, the FEC accepted the signed conciliation agreement and civial penalty submitted by the Wfit Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth in settlement of violations of 2 U.S.C. 433, 434, 441a(f), and 441b(a), provisions of the FEC Act of 1971, as amended."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Besides, several Republicans, like John McCain, defended Kerry's record:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/2004080...
"The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which gets most of its funding from Texas Republican activists, launched a TV spot in three battleground states yesterday repeatedly charging Kerry with lying about his Vietnam service.
'I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable,' John McCain told the AP. 'None of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me [in 2000].'"
Even the Bush administration came to Kerry's defense:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=...
"The Bush campaign never has and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "In 2004 the Swift Vets made them pay a little for that otherwise free pass by setting a small part of the record straight. This is the meaning of swiftboating, and we should demand more of it. All we have to lose are the dishonest autobiographies from our self-serving political class."
Now that rings true!! Thank you, Mr. Wickham, for a nice commentary and I'll be adding this book to my "must read" list.
Reply -
Neutral
stephen-johnson1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If there was ever a case of "swiftboating", it was Dan Rather trying to use a forged document to sink a sitting president during an election year.
John O'Neill founded the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for one reason - he and over 200 of his fellow sailors didn't want John Kerry to be Commander in Chief. Period.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are exactly right.
Keeping Kerry from being president was what it was about.
They had hated him for years speaking against the war.
It was not about the truth. It was about politics. It was political advertising, from haters, to those willing to believe the words of hate.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never been called a policy wonk before. Cool.
But if politics was everything to me, -
then I would be slandering John McCain like you did Kerry.
But I won't.
McCain's a hero, even if he's a hero I disagree with. So's Bob Dole.
Tell me about the respect YOU give soldiers when they are not politicaly aligned with you. Carter, Murtha, Gore, Kerry,Cleland; have you defended their honor?
Reply-
Neutral
stephen-johnson1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"then I would be slandering John McCain like you did Kerry."
Stating the facts dispassionately - that the Swift Boaters were founded by John O'Neill in opposition to Kerry - is not slander. If you don't like it, that's your issue.
"Tell me about the respect YOU give soldiers when they are not politicaly aligned with you. Carter, Murtha, Gore, Kerry,Cleland; have you defended their honor?"
Hey, it's not about you and me - it's about Kerry and the Swift Boaters.
How did Kerry's writing the New Soldier uphold the military's honor? The cover of the book itself disgraces the memory of those who died for this country.
Reply -
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. Those veterans were used by a political machine to smear a candidate without facts. It is you who is rewriting history.
And Dan Rather didn't smear the president. He didn't need to. The president has done a pretty good job defining himself as the worst president in history. Dan Rather merely reported the information he had. Same as Bush did with the unsubstantiated evidence that got us into this invasion. So, if Rather is guilty, so is Bush. They committed the same crime.
Reply-
Neutral
stephen-johnson1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No. Those veterans were used by a political machine to smear a candidate without facts."
Are we to believe that over 200 veterans allowed themselves to be duped by a "political machine?" That they had no legitimate grievance against Kerry - a man who likened US troops in Viet Nam to the "hordes of Genghis Khan?" Who wrote this book -
that had on its cover a tasteless parody of soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima?
"And Dan Rather didn't smear the president. He didn't need to."
Then why was he demoted, then terminated?
You're doing a good job of rewriting history yourself.
Reply-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Shall we look at George Bushes history on telling the truth?
1. Iraq has WMD
2. Iraq is a safe haven for Al Queada
3. I will do what ever it takes to get Osama Bin Ladin.
4. The economy is fine.
5. We will be seen as liberators
6. Mission Accomplished!
7. If I find that anyone in my cabinet was involved with the outing of Valerie Plame I will prosecute them.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He's not running anymore so it really doesn't matter. What I would love for you to admit is that if you are going to go after one man's character for telling lies, then you can't support another man who tells lies.
That is called being a hypocrite.
So condemn Kerry all you want. Just make sure you are condemning the Bush administration as well for their lies.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
pc251 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
some info about your hero Sen Kerry
http://www.9thinfantrydivision.com/html/actuale...
and this one here
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index....
The last battle of the Vietnam War was fought on November 2nd, 2004, as John Kerry was defeated in his bid to become President of the United States by John O'Neill and the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth.
What was the battle about? It was a battle to recapture the honor of the Vietnam veterans who served gallantly and heroically in that war.
And who were the adversaries in this battle? It was the dishonest old media culture -- CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, and the LA Times, who backed John Kerry's version of how Vietnam veterans were the enemy of humanity in the Vietnam War.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is true that a lot of people believe the swiftboat crap, but that doesn't make it true. This other stuff you posted is just hawk crud op ed stuff with no facts at all, and doesn't really have anything to do with reality unless you live in ass backwards land.
Reply-
Neutral
pc251 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny how all the articles you criticize were written and documented by Vietnam vets.........from the 9th infantry division's site
"To Provide a virtual site that is dedicated and inspirational to 4th Battalion, 47th Regiment, 9th Infantry Division Viet Nam Veterans for placing memorials, memoralbilia, recollections, and information so that our exploits and soldiers, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, will never be forgotten .....
Our website, which is in continual progress, was initially focused on Charlie Company, 4th/47th soldiers. However, beginning January, 2001, this website was expanded to include all 4th/47th Viet Nam Veterans. Your information and memorabilia is solicited and appreciated by all who have already contributed and those who regularly review this site.
The website is intended as an information source with links to various related websites for reference and learning purposes."
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What was the battle about? It was a battle to recapture the honor of the Vietnam veterans who served gallantly and heroically in that war."
Hm. I know veterans who heroically applied electricity to the genitals of vietnamese women, who tortured for entertainment as well as information.
Not every veteran did that, but EVERY SINGLE VIETNAM VET went somewhere he did not belong to kill people who did him no wrong.
How FSCKNG GALLANT!
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"---EVERY SINGLE VIETNAM VET went somewhere he did not belong to kill people who did him no wrong."
Natureboy: - So did you know EVERY SINGLE VIETNAM VET? I knew some in real time (the 1960's). You are full of $hlt!! Go hug a FSCKNG tree.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I was reading that link it stuck me how much the media dismissed the Swiftees then yet today the Swiftees are given credit in the defeat of John Kerry.
What I couldn't figure out was why the Dems ran Thurston Howell 111 and Skippy.
Reply
-
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user13 Replies
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hamy, what is your specific response to these points brought up in the article?
-Kerry's dubious "wounds" and purple hearts
-his night under attack in Cambodia that could not have happened,
-the "heroic" rescue on the Bay Hap River that had little in common with the account of Kerry's colleagues or the physical evidence,
-Kerry's highly publicized and false claims of wide-spread genocide perpetrated by American soldiers in Vietnam,
-the usefulness of his 1971 Senate testimony to the North Vietnamese as a device to demoralize American POWs.
And that's before the whole "did he/didn't he" throw his medals away issue. I want to hear what you have to say on those specific points and why you think that Senator Kerry still refuses to divulge all his records on this matter.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Kerry's highly publicized and false claims of wide-spread genocide perpetrated by American soldiers in Vietnam, "
False claims? I've read many accounts of the genocide perpetrated by American Soldiers. Then again I've read many accounts of soldiers not wanting to talk about it because of the horrors they were put through because of it.
"Kerry's dubious "wounds" and purple hearts "
Please. Give it a rest. If he had in any way not earned his purple hearts, there would have been an uprising of vets with purple hearts to take back their honor.
Swiftboating = lying with a political agenda. Plain and simple.
Reply-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was "uprising of vets," beginning with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Despite the media's attempts at suppression and slander, Unfit for Command sold an incredible 850,000 copies during the 2004 election campaign. The publisher could not print it fast enough, and the book stores were could not buy enough copies. I recommend reading the book before passing judgement.
You might also read Stolen Valor, by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley. The media succeeded in consigning this book to oblivion, but you can still order it at amazon.com.
Reply -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Natureboy
The ignorant one is you. You seem to want to believe the worst of the military. Why? People like you are the ones who I saw on TV insulting returning veterans who had done nothing but get drafted and go do their duty with honor. And people like you revile them. You are lower than whale waste.
Reply-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am sure endoscopy knows a lot about waste. He obviously doesn't know much about Operation Phoenix, Tiger Force, the widespread use of napalm, extermination of entire villages, the quotas established for "headcount" etc which were features of the Vietnam war.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
pc251 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you mean this information......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc&feat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9j22G9HLE&feat...
Reply -
Neutral
RedRiverJ1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june06...
FTA:Rather's reputation suffered after a "60 Minutes" story about President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard. That story relied on documents that ultimately could not be authenticated.
FTA
Why is Rather leaving CBS?
KEN AULETTA, Columnist, The New Yorker: His contract was up at the end of this year, and they couldn't negotiate a new one. I mean, he basically was pushed out. He wanted to stay. He probably shouldn't have wanted to stay, since they had given a clear signal for a period of time they wanted him to go.
He lost his credibility...........
Reply-
Neutral
stephen-johnson1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He lost his credibility..."
Thanks for the link, Red.
Note that it's to the PBS NewsHour site, not to some right wing blog.
Those who argue that Rather lost his job for any reasons other than his lack of journalistic standards - and naked partisanship - in the Memogate story have less credibility that he does.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hamy
"No. Those veterans were used by a political machine to smear a candidate without facts. It is you who is rewriting history."
Hamy your claiming that the 1971 WSI never happened?
That John Kerry never testified before congress?
That Al Hubbard actually was an Air Force officer and served in Vietnam and was injured in Vietnam was true?
Reply -
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_grou...
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
Summary
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
cont'd
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident."
That is not the full account, Grrr. Thurlow stated consistently that he felt that his Bronze Star was based on Kerry's "fraudulent" report of what happened that day. So, saying that the Navy records contradicts Thurlow is not a slam-dunk refutation.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To elaborate on what I mean here:
1) The argument is that Thurlow's Bronze Star citation included wording about being under fire at this incident.
2) Thurlow had maintained that the Swift Boats never came under enemy fire, contradicting the after-action report that said they did. Thurlow (and other Swift Boat vets) maintained that Kerry fled after a mine exploded one of the boats and returned only after it was clear that no enemy fire was present.
3) The "fact" that Thurlow's citation mentioned enemy fire is identified as disproving Thurlow's account.
4) However, Thurlow's citation was based on an after-action report for which no one can seem to identify the author. Thurlow contends it was Kerry because Kerry's plucking of Rassmann (uninjured) was promiment but the report lacked any details of plucking two other men out of the water who had been injured by the exploding mine.
cont'd
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, the funding for the group is itself irrelevant to the facts. The facts stand or fall based on what is verifiable. So, set aside the funding issue - no one is disputing that they were funded by a major Republican donor from Texas.
Based on all my reading on the issue, it comes down to the problem that there aren't enough verifiable facts to come to a definitive conclusion. For some reason, no one can state with certainty who wrote the after-action report. I'm not a military man, so if there are any that can shed any light on that subject, I'd love to see your comments.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, the funding isn't irrelevant, and yes, the version I have put here seems to me to be not only the more verified, but from the less questionable source with far less questionable motives. Follow the money. Who's getting paid to say what they did? The Navy? Kerry's crew? No, it's the swiftboaters, all rabid republicans that said a lot more questionable stuff than what was on the commercials, all of it thoroughly debunked, and many of whom seemed to think that it was THEY specifically that Kerry was accusing of being psychotic murderers. I wonder why? You ever read the comments from that group on their own website? Bunch of ignorant sick bastards not worth listening to for the time of day or the weather, let alone something you would take as the basis for a critical decision. If you believed them, you were CONNED.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I reassert my statement, grrr. The funding is irrelevant to the FACTS. The funding may speak to motive if the facts were verifiable. Do you understand the difference?
Right now, I could EQUALLY argue that Kerry paid off Rassmann to back his version of events. Do you have any proof that didn't occur? I'm not making that assertion, however. But, I'm not letting you off the hook to back up your assertions. Do you have any proof that these Swift Boat Vets actually got PAID by the Republican backer? And I mean paid personally, not funding to the group for the cost of making and airing the ads.
Back up your claim that the "version" you put here (FactCheck.org) is the more "verified". Go look at the citations for that particular FactCheck article. Do you see anything OTHER than newspaper accounts? Have you read Thurlow's citation? Do you know who wrote the after-action report from that incident?
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your negative proof bull will not work on me. You have nothing to base your assertions upon, and I have nothing to prove here, other than you are more than willing to be suckered by a bunch of con artists without checking the facts for yourself. You're welcome.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your reply speaks volumes, grrr. When you can tell me who wrote the after-action report for that day's incident, you might have something worth hearing.
Frankly, all you are saying is that the veterans that support Kerry (his crew and one gunner from another boat, as best I can tell) are credible whereas the remaining veterans are (in your words) a "Bunch of ignorant sick bastards". Very telling. And this is only about this one incident. It doesn't scratch the surface about Kerry's Purple Hearts or his alleged foray into Cambodia at Christmas or his conduct in defaming his fellow servicemen to Congress. Again, very telling, thank you grrr.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, I based the remark about them being sick bastards on their own words on their own forum on their own website. If you've never read it, you should. You probably won't be in such a hurry to defend them again afterwards. But that's beside the point, as are any facts surrounding this stuff. The ones that believe this stuff are the ones that want to believe it. There are a lot of vets involved in denouncing Kerry. Because he pointed out the savagery being perpetrated on the native population by some of our soldiers for whatever reasons, his and theirs. They really hate him for that. Whether that's justifiable or not, on either side, the Swiftboat campaign in the '04 race was definitely funded by Republican financiers for purely political purposes, and none of the issues they raised then really amounts to a hill of beans outside of a he said/he said regarding issues that are simply not clear cut, nor have they been relevant for going on close to 40 years now.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"But that's beside the point, as are any facts surrounding this stuff." Do I understand you correctly to say that the facts about Kerry's service record are "beside the point"?
That seems to be the case based on your further comment here: "none of the issues they raised then really amounts to a hill of beans outside of a he said/he said regarding issues that are simply not clear cut, nor have they been relevant for going on close to 40 years now".
My take away from your comments here is that it doesn't really matter to you whether or not Senator Kerry was properly awarded his medals. And yet, didn't Senator Kerry walk into the 2004 convention and tell us all he was "reporting for duty"? It seemed his campaign was heavily relying on his military service record as a testament to his leadership capabilities.
What say you?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Regarding "negative proof", I specifically did not go down that path ("I'm not making that assertion"). Maybe you missed that?
Do you have proof that the Swift Boat Vets were paid to make these assertions? Let's have it if you do.
Do you have proof that all their claims have been "thoroughly debunked"? If so, let's see it. If it's simply this one FactCheck citation, you've not scratched the surface.
I'm asking for your evidence, not your personal feelings about how you hate Republicans. Let's see the proof.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not the one claiming that the term 'swiftboat' needs to be redefined. Nor have I ever claimed to hate Republicans, just the CON.
For the rest, here's a bunch...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swif...
and for funding specifically...
http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/big-mon...
and how not everybody on the swiftboaters list is there of their own volition or agrees with them at all...
http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/stackin...
Just a couple of starting points for ya...
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, going to SourceWatch is just like going to Wikipedia...it is a wiki itself. In fact, it even says it took parts of the page directly from Wikipedia:
"Notes: This article was created May 4, 2004. Portions of this article were taken from an article about Swift Boat Veterans in the Wikipedia, dating from July 17, 2004"
So, just like Wikipedia, you have to verify it further.
Right off the bat, the partisan flavoring is apparent:
"The SBVT propaganda smear campaign was financed by Sam Fox, a billionaire and hardline rightwinger.[5]"
If there is something specific you want me to see on the SourceWatch page, please identify it.
Reply -
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The last one bothered me, so I researched it. What do you think of this info...sounds like these guys did say "yes" to being included on the letter, even if by accident:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?displ...
If you're just going reply with "That you're twisting in the wind" or something along those lines, please feel free. However, such a response would merely vindicate my thoughts about the sincerity of your comment about wanting to "debate" me.
Reply-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then I'd say you feel vindicated without reason. Alot. I say things like "your twisting" and "that's just more CON bull" when you are offering nothing but negative logic or nothing on topic in response to exactly the info you asked me to post for ya. You don't like the sources, find some of your own, but if places like factcheck aren't a good enough start to lead you away from the pure right wing propaganda sites posted in defense of these a-holes so far, I don't know what will. Later.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll translate what I hear you saying here: "I don't care that there was a legitimate response to the issue of the two vets who felt their inclusion on the SVBT list was incorrect. I'd rather continue repeating my assertion that you are engaging in "negative logic" and also continue with my vitriol against CONS, etc."
I don't see any response to my comment on the merits of the comment. And I see a whole lot of posturing with no facts. If that's what you call "debate", well you're probably a politician in disguise. HA!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SonOf TheMask:
Your point about the veterans speaking from there convictions without personal gain, is a good one.
If I step out of my personal bias, I end of with a single and not insignificant criticism.
I do not think it is appropriate for a veteran to have to justify their medals.
I think that many have deep and incongruent thoughts regarding them.
I have not walked in their boots, but if I had, I imagine I would trade them in a second for another day of a buddy's life.
Questioning Kerry's activity after the war is appropriate, even though I as a Quaker supported it.
I do not think it is right to question the value of honors. They should not be devalued for political purposes. Questioning one Purple Heart questions them all.
I will stand against any attacks against McCains Service
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The facts stand or fall based on what is verifiable?"
You sell out your responsibility to respect a combat veteran, because you politicaly profit by smearing him, and you justify it by saying he can't prove his medals.
I don't suppose most combat heroes can.
I, for one, am going to assume that if a soldier comes home with 3 purple hearts and some shrapnel, that they earned it.
Paid political advertisements notwithstanding.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CactusAnnie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a lot of admiration for these courageous men, the so called "swift boaters". They dared to stand up and tell the truth, set the record straight, although it would have been more comfortable for all of them to sit back and keep quiet.
These wonderful citizens dared be honest in the face of the very powerful, "big-money", political propaganda machine.
I salute them and am grateful for their integrity in coming forward with the truth. They knew the repercussions and withstood the vicious attacks of the power hungry, unscrupulous lot they were coming up against.
Men of honor are abhorred by the puppet-masters.
Reply-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no admiration or respect for anyone who deliberately tries to smear another when not knowing, or distorting, the facts. This goes for those against Kerry, and those against Bush.
The original swiftboaters certainly didn't "dare to be honest"; all they wanted to do was smear someone, facts or no facts, and help that person lose an election, plain and simple.
That doesn't show integrity...that shows cowardice...
Reply-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What facts do you have? Specifically what did the Swift Boat Veterans say which was not a fact? And why aren't you slandering every Vietnam veteran by portraying him as the moral equivalent of John Wayne Gacy? Of course, you do not do it directly; you just imply it, by defending John Kerry.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sit on your cactus, Annie! They are a bunch of lying cowards who deliberately sought to destroy the reputation and honorable service of a war hero. They suck and so do you for siding with them when you know they are a bunch of perverters of the truth!
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This was one of the best articles I've read in a long time and made my day. Kerry was a hero only in the sense that one is a hero when he gets through basic training and buys a blue scarf in the PX. You know a hero by what others say about you. It was fortunate that he was able to pluck someone out of the water but the guy might have not ended up there if Kerry's boat hadn't boogied from the area and then returned after the shooting stopped. And his "wounds", we heard from those who treated him, and they even wondered why he bothered to go on sick call for mere scratches. So he could put himself in for the purple heart(that's what you did back then, especially if you ha no scruples)) in order to go home.
Reply-
-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, it doesn't matter whether or not he was in the military, he spoke the truth and Kerry fortunately was not elected. He was unable to capitalize on his past exaggerations and lies. To have elected someone based upon his war record, in and out of uniform, who detested his fellow soldiers and lied about them in congressional testimony, that my friend tore me apart. I don't give a rats azz what he did in Nam, but what he did upon his return is irrefutable and detestable. He saw war crimes and did nothing about it? That in itself is a crime for an officer to have really seen that and to have done nothing. He should have been put in jail and not the US Senate.
Reply
-
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user18 Replies
-
Neutral
Howtogo1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was an interesting article. The term "swiftboat" does seem to apply to trying to stop someone from obtaining a position, by undercutting them. The explanation of what "switfboating" is in the article probably is more accurate however. Dan Rather a Marine! No way in hell could he have sold that with real Marines everywhere! As for John Kerry, he is a lot like O.J. Simpson in style. O.J. Is still looking for the killer of his wife and Goldman on golf courses in Florida! Kerry is still trying to disprove what the "swiftboat" vets said about him (nothing disproved yet)!
Reply -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The ease with which this country will allow slander and vomit to be tossed onto decorated soldiers is a sign that left and right, and center are unworthy of those who fight.
John McCain is a hero. Anyone of the left or right who plays with his record, can face a host of angry dead American soldiers when they finaly die in their cozy civilian beds.
John Murtha; hero. soldier. decorated. And doesn't give a rip what you think about his left-wing smile.
John Kerry is a decorated combat veteran and anyone, whether they are a chicken-hawk draftdodger like the writer of this article, or even a fellow soldier like the swiftboaters, dishonor what service is about, by spreading this type of slanderous fluff.
Americans know advertising. We know what we see on TV. We saw a really repulsive ad campaign to discredit a soldier.
For better, for worse, that is what 'swift-boating' is and will remain now.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
Neutral
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Left is now redefining and, therefore, misusing the term swiftboating, and this misuse has become one of the many notable aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign."
Jesus!!!! Lolololololol!!!!! This is the most outrageous sentence I've read in my entire life. Neocons outdid themselves with this one statement. Hooooeeee.... makes me prouder than ever to be on the Left.
Man o man................
Reply -
-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John Kerry lost by about 59 million votes to 62 million votes, and he had an excellent chance of winning early in the election. One thing is certain, anyone could have beaten George W. Bush except John Kerry. I would rather vote for Aldrich Ames than John Kerry. Now that I know the truth about the 9/11 terrorism, I have to admit that John Kerry is still an improvement on Bush, Cheney and the neocons.
Reply-
-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nobody is laughing, and nobody believes your lies, despite what they say. Only a pathological liar would claim that slow motion videos of the 767 crash into the south tower are genuine. The definition of a pathological liar is someone who keeps lying, even when he knows, everyone knows he is lying.
Reply-
-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Almost everyone who said they say saw the crash worked for the tv networks. "A Dialogue with Gerard Holmgren" makes the point that only original sources of information can be trusted. He proved time and again that "most journalism is just plagiarism of hearsay." http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/04/13/a-di...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am too young to have served in Vietnam. However, I do know some thing about how military decorations are awarded, especially the Silver Star. You don't just walk into your commander's office and say, "Oh gee, I rescued a bunch of people today and you ought to give me a Silver Star."
No, an investigation is launched at the recommendation of your commander. The investigation consists of, at the very least, a statement by any officers involved about what happened and whether they have any counter evidence. Therefore the swift boaters either where not involved, lied then or lied now. If they were not involved, then they are liars for claiming they know something they don't. If they lied then or now then they are also liars.
So do you want to believe those liars? Or better, the 100% of the enlisted men who were actually there and supported Kerry. The swift boaters may have served with honor in Vietnam but they have put shame upon themselves in the last election
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This guy would beg to differ with you, wildman6557:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Craig/roberts1.htm
Reply -
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kerry didn't fake his medals. Some people may not agree with the awards, but they were not faked.
The point about the political motivation, hmmm, that is an interesting idea...
I don't know anything about swift boats, but I was always taught to attack into an ambush. That running only makes you a target. Not that I have actually been in an ambush... Seen the aftermath, but never actually been in one...
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I read the article again and he did mention attacking into an ambush... Sorry, the first read was quick...
If you can find an enlisted man who was a witness and supported the swift boaters, I will believe you. Otherwise, the article merely gives an explanation of how what the swift boaters said happened, could have happened. Do you have an enlisted eye witness??
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am going to have to disagree with this definition of swiftboating and agree slightly more with the left (although, frankly I dislike making verbs out of nouns relevant to historical event)
swiftboating: the retelling of a political opponents version of their biography in an attempt to defame them with out the ability to provide corroborating evidence. AKA: slander
Reply -
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm, no one was able to find an enlisted man who supported the swift boaters. Sounds like the swift boaters and their supporters are liars.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/camp...
Reply -
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the writer of this article is three steps behind the times. and its ridiculous for him to say what he thinks swiftboating should mean, because its simply not up to him how words take shape and meaning in the popular culture. its up to popular culture.
swiftboating has definitely become part of the american lexicon, and it is synonomous with the GOP and their smearing of candidates by using lies and innuendo.
that's what swiftboating means now, and that's just the way it is.
so when we all see lies and innuendos coming from the right in an attempt to discredit a candidate from the left, we all now say that the right is doing some swiftboating.
funny how that has come back to bite the GOP in the arse.
Reply -
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
Neutral
thoughtforsale1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting article! 'Swiftboating´ is not a new and also no exclusively American phenomenon. It always depends on a countries history, of which parts of his personal life a politician wants to make a bit more profit or what episodes he would like to erase. After World War II, it was important for every German politician to show a credible distance to the NS-regime. He somehow had to have an "alibi", why he wasn´t and couldn´t even have been envolved. This also was the origin of some "black holes" in some person´s curriculum vitae and made it even possible to attack a chancelor (K. G. Kiesinger).
Reply -
HanymanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have two words:
"Who cares?"
There are only three possibilities:
1. John Kerry told the truth.
2. The SBVT told the truth.
3. They are both telling part of the truth.
I think the third is most likely and there is absolutely no way that anyone can say for certain what is and is not true unless it is supported by the record.
So, why don't we concentrate on the current election and quit screwing around with the last two?
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I care.
I care a lot.
In the last election, a war hero ran against a draft-dodger; a slander marketing campaign against him, tipped the election.
This is forever enshrined in the new verb 'Swiftboating'.
And this affects what we will do in the coming election.
Reply-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You sound like George C. Scott in "Patton." Why not congratulate George W. Bush for not joining the Nazi baby killers in Vietnam?
This is what Kerry told Congress in 1971:
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
http://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history...
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would love to sound like George C. Scott.
And in the best imitation of his voice:
"I do formaly congrulate George W. Bush for not joining anything he was thinking of joining."
As for what Kerry said;
read it; already knew it. Believe it. What about it?
Unless, - you don't believe it.
I think that is almost kinda sweet. You assume Kerry is lying, ( or was lied to ) because, that sort of thing like 'cutting off ears' just never really happens?
Markoller, how much do you know about war?
Particularly guerrilla war?
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, bkumm, here's the deal: I care. And, as a member of this social bookmarking site, I can post up a link if I want and I can send messages to share it with my friends. If you don't like the story, feel free to come and criticize it just like you did. And you're welcome to share your opinion on what you see as the worthless nature of it.
But, I think it was worthwhile and so do several dozen other people judging by the votes and the comments. Maybe you think we're all just fascist, bushbot, crazy christian CONS, or whatnot, I don't know. I'm sorry to seem to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be telling us that we should just shove off and "Move On". And I somewhat resent that, to be honest.
As far as the term "swiftboating" it's already being used to try and deflect criticism of Obama. "Oh, they're just swiftboating him". The author is correct that the pejorative use of that term is being employed in THIS election cycle.
Reply
-
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
as for Kerry, of the nine men who served with him on the two swiftboats he commanded, seven gladly helped him multiple times with his campaign, saying repeatedly that Kerry was a hero and that they all owed their lives to him, one endorsed Kerry but wanted nothing to do with politics, and one could not be found.
Reply -
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For more information read, "Statement of John Kerry," about John Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. The atrocity stories sound like a parody.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/21/...
Reply -
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.