• STOCKTALK
• POLITICS
• PASTIMES

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

---

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/15/2004 7:44:54 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Nightline examining Kerry Vietnam award. By: krempasky · Section: Breaking News - REDSTATE ABC's Nightline has sent a reporting crew all the way to Vietnam to investigate the circumstances under which John Kerry was awarded a Silver Star. Apparently that report will air this evening. Will this help President Bush? I doubt it. Will it hurt the already-hobbling mainstream media? I think it will. I'm looking forward to it with very low expectations, and as I get more information, I'll update this post. Update [2004-10-14 19:58:26 by krempasky]: Oh boy, are we looking at KoppelGate? We might be. John O'Neil was interviewed for the Nightline piece - this evening. For five minutes. Think about that. Nightline can send a crew to Vietnam to interview former members of a Communist regime, but they get around to interviewing a guy who was there - who leads a group of 280 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen who where there - AN HOUR AND A HALF BEFORE THE SHOW AIRS? On top of that - as far as I know, NOT one other Kerry critic was interviewed for the piece. For an organization willing to invest a truckload of money to get to the bottom of the story, they sure act like a PR firm trying to shore up Kerry's story. Update [2004-10-14 23:8:29 by krempasky]: Ok, so it was the hatchet job I expected. O'Neill got some shots in, but my earlier objections remain. Read on for John O'Neil's statement. Who do you trust, Ted? (as an aside, most of my objections to the Sinclair broadcast just evaporated) Posted On: Oct 14th, 2004: 19:46:19, Not Rated The following statement from John O'Neil, member of Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth, concerns a news segment that aired on October 14th on ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel. "While I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ted Koppel and ABC News I was appalled to learn that ABC News would go to the lengths of traveling to Vietnam to interview three Viet Cong communists in yet a third attempt by ABC to corroborate John Kerry's version of the events that took place on February 28th, 1969. "I would only ask the American people: 'Who do you trust more, three members of a communist regime that tortured and killed our American troops or a group of more than 280 highly decorated American veterans, who proudly served their country and are now responsible members of their respective communities. "The number of veterans who support John Kerry's accounts of his military service would not fill one Swift Boat. But instead of sitting down to interview some of the 280 plus members of our Swift Boat organization, ABC News chose to travel to Vietnam taking extraordinary and highly suspect steps to find someone to corroborate John Kerry's story. "ABC News Nightline has now dedicated three seperate programs to this one incident while ignoring John Kerry's now discredited Senate testimony that he spent Christmas in Cambodia, his receiving a purple heart after all three of the officers required to approve such an issuance rejected his application, or his constantly changing account of the circumstances surrounding his remaining medal, a bronze star. "Further, one has to wonder why ABC News will not address the serious questions as to why John Kerry only received an honorable discharge through the act of then President Carter, seven years after his discharge, and had to have all of his military citations reissued, on the same day, when he became a United States Senator in 1985. And, finally, why has Nightline found it of no interest to permit any POWs to come on their program to explain why they believe John Kerry betrayed their nation, caused them to be incarcerated for an additional two years and caused them tremendous additional hardship and suffering."

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/15/2004 8:23:35 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Nightline Goes To Vietnam Just one minute The producers of ABC's Nightline have an interesting idea - go to Vietnam to research some of the questions about Kerry's medals. Since the folks who participated in his battles as spectators, or from the other side, may not have any axe to grind in this election, ABC News may be able to confirm or refute the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. With that thought, ABC hired some translators and sent a crew up the river. Brilliant. Of course, we have our own questions. First, if ABC is so interested in Kerry's war record, maybe they could send a crew to Kerry's campaign headquarters and ask him to sign a Form 180 authorizing the release of his military records. And they wouldn't even have to hire a translator. But I doubt they are really that interested. Secondly, and I ask this without having read the story, what are the odds that ABC will run a Kerry-basher three weeks before the election? We know the score - if what they hear confirms the Swift Vets account, ABC will put the project on hold while they await feedback and response from the Kerry campaign, research unanswered questions, look for more witnesses, and run out the clock. That they are airing this story tells you that they think it is good for Kerry. Third, what has ABC left on the cutting room floor? When CBS perpetrated the Killian forged documents debacle, they actually interviewed the son of the purported author of the forged documents. Killian's son told CBS he doubted the authenticity of the documents, and SNIP! - he was gone. Do we have confidence that ABC will hold themselves to a higher standard? We do not. And on that point, did ABC check out all the medals, or just this one? What else did they find? What did they decide was not newsworthy? Where is my trust? Finally, what did ABC expect to find? Did they really think they would uncover witnesses who would say, "Sure, I remember - when the Americans showed up, I grabbed my rifle and ran like hell. Didn't look back until I reached Cambodia (and got John Kerry's autograph)". Or are they more likely to find folks who remember fighting furiously that day, full of vim and vigor and pride? It is not ABC's fault that human nature is what it is. OK, we probably ought to read the story. And for cross-reference purposes, here is Kerry's account as told to the Boston Globe, and his Silver Star citation. (See page 7 of the .pdf; this is the Zumwalt version). I picked through this in August, but here we go again. boston.com johnkerry.com daily.nysun.com Developing... We are off to a barrel-fishing start: Members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group have charged that the Viet Cong fighter was a teenager who was alone, who was not part of a numerically superior force, and who was already wounded and running away when Kerry shot him. Do they charge all that? The Swift source is basically the Boston Globe story, which relied on an interview with Kerry as well as other crew members. An excerpt from the Globe, with emphasis added: <<<Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher. An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg....>>> In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail. <<<"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for ... I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over." Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled. So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon.">>> I have absolutely no problem with Kerry shooting the guy in the back, and my position is fully in the mainstream of most of the commentary I have seen on this. That said, what does Kerry mean by "He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back."? It happened. It's Kerry's own story. No problem. Nightline has this: >>>Her husband Tam said the man who fired the B-40 rocket was hit in this barrage of gunfire [from the boats as they approached the beach]. Then, he said, "he ran about 18 meters before he died, falling dead." Was the man killed by Kerry or by fire from the Swift boat? It was the heat of battle, Tam said, and he doesn't know exactly how the man with the rocket launcher died.>>> And a bit later: <<<None of the villagers seems to be able to say for a fact that they saw an American chase the man who fired the B-40 into the woods and shoot him. Nobody seems to remember that. But they have no problem remembering Ba Thang, the man who has been dismissed by Kerry's detractors as "a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth." (The description comes from "Unfit for Command," by Swift boat veteran John O'Neill.) "No, this is not correct," Nguyen Thi Tuoi, 77, told ABC News. "He wore a black pajama. He was strong. He was big and strong. He was about 26 or 27." >>> Fine, he was 27. "Kerry's detractors" are basing their ABC-debunked claim about a teenager in a loincloth on the account provided by the Boston Globe after it interviewed Kerry and his crew. Go figure. We should also note that Vietnam had been at war for years - standards for "big and strong" can slip a bit when war makes food supplies erratic. And the Vietnamese don't tend to run large. Here is some compelling testimony: <<<Her husband, Nguyen Van Ty, in his 80s, had a slightly different account of how Ba Thang died. "I didn't see anything because I was hiding from the bullets and the bombs," he said. "It was very fierce and there was shooting everywhere and the leaves were being shredded to pieces. I was afraid to stay up there. I had to hide. And then, when it was over, I saw Ba Thanh was dead. He may have been shot in the chest when he stood up." He also said the Swift boats were coming under attack from the Viet Cong fighters on shore. "We tried to shoot at the boat," he said, "but we didn't hit anything.">>> And the conclusion to the ABC story: <<<But John O'Neill, the officer who took over command of Kerry's swift boat after Kerry left Vietnam, raised some specific questions about the incident for which Kerry received his most significant award, the Silver Star: "In the Silver Star incident, John Kerry's citation reflects that he charged into a numerically superior force, and into intense fire," O'Neill told ABC News in an August 2004 interview. "But the actual facts are that there was a single kid there who had fired a rocket, who popped up, and John Kerry with his gunboat, with or without a number of troops, depending on who you talk to, plopped in front of the kid. The kid was wounded in the legs by machine gun fire, and as he ran off, John Kerry jumped off the boat and shot the kid in the back.">>> Does ABC think they have rebutted this? And if so, do they realize that they have rebutted Kerry and his Band of Brothers? Honestly, now - did ABC read the Globe account, or the Brinkley "Tour of Duty" account? Neither is cited in this story. Just what is going on here? MORE: The "Tour of Duty" account differs only slightly from the Globe version. Here, Kerry jumps off the Swift boat and chases the already-wounded VC guerilla, followed closely by Belodeau and Medeiros. According to Medeiros, the VC was standing on both feet, about to fire, when Kerry shot him. Not in the back. Fine. According to Brinkley, Kerry, Belodeau, and Medeiros then swept the area, and collected some VC supplies. There is no mention of coming under enemy fire, although we are told that "in the distance they could see VC running toward a tree line out of range, looking for cover in the U Minh Forest." Yeah, ABC really put the wood to the Swiftees, didn't they?

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/15/2004 11:26:57 PM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   An Illustration of the Importance of Putting Major Corrections on the Front Page Liberal Media Blog During my vacation, the L.A. Times made a mistake in its coverage of the Swift Boat Vets' criticism of John Kerry. Now that is certainly nothing new -- but I think that the nature of the mistake, and the way it came about, illustrate three theories that I have been advancing on these pages for as long as I can remember: Almost nobody reads the correction sections of even the major newspapers; Therefore, newspapers should give more prominent placement to corrections of important errors on the significant issues of the day; and Newspapers should assign someone with editorial responsibility to read blogs on a regular basis. Here's what happened: The Times's error was made in this story, which stated: [T]he Swift boat group has launched a new cycle of campaign ads claiming that Kerry "betrayed his fellow veterans" by meeting with "enemy" Vietnamese negotiators in Paris during the Vietnam War. . . . . During his 1971 speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry talked about private meetings he had attended the previous May in Paris with representatives from the U.S.-backed South and communist North Vietnamese governments. In other words, the story says, the Swift Boat Vets said that Kerry met with the "enemy" (note the sneer quotes), but in fact he met with both sides. Except that, as PoliPundit noted, he didn't. He met with the enemy, and the enemy only. Let's roll the tape of Kerry's own description of his meetings in Paris: <<<I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.>>> As Polipundit noted, this translates as: "I met with the communists and the Viet Cong" -- groups collectively known as the enemy (with no sneer quotes necessary, L.A. Times). A Beldar reader (and no doubt some others) wrote the Times, and a correction was issued in fairly short order. The correction did not mention the Swift Boat Vets or say that their claim was correct, and it appeared (as is the Times's and most newspapers' common practice) in a small box on Page A2. So why do I say that this mistake illustrates my theories above? Well, recall the context. As Beldar reminds us, the New York Times made the exact same mistake last month, three times in a row. Beldar (and no doubt some others) wrote the Times, and a correction was issued in fairly short order. The correction did not mention the Swift Boat Vets or say that their claim was correct, and it appeared (as is the Times's and most newspapers' common practice) in a small box on Page A2. (Sound familiar?) And then, the L.A. Times made the exact same mistake, and corrected it the same way. I believe that the L.A. Times reporters ultimately got their incorrect facts about Kerry's meetings from the New York Times. They may have obtained the incorrect information directly, from one or more of the New York Times articles, or it may have been indirect -- possibly from some secondary news source that relied upon the New York Times stories as a primary source. But my guess is that the New York Times was the ultimate source for the incorrect information printed in the Los Angeles Times. Where else would it have come from? I haven't seen that particular error made anywhere else. It has to have been the New York Times. Here's the thing: the New York Times error was corrected on September 29. The L.A. Times story did not appear until October 5. But the L.A. Times reporters didn't know about the correction. Why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you why -- and here's where my theories come into play. It's because almost nobody reads the corrections sections of even the major newspapers. The fact that the L.A. Times reporters simply missed the New York Times's corrections illustrates this point better than anything I could say. They probably would have seen those corrections if they had been printed on the front page. Or if they (or their editors) had been reading blogs. But instead, they printed the erroneous information, and then their paper corrected it in yet another correction that nobody will read. I say: stop the madness. Leave the corrections of the spelling of an athlete's name on Page A2. But when you screw up a major item in a significant news story, put it on Page One, guys, where people will actually look at it. The public will be better informed, and you might even save your colleagues at other newspapers some embarrassment. thatliberalmedia.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/16/2004 2:25:48 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   UNFIT TO COMMAND E P I LO G U E John Kerry never saw them coming: not the book, the ads, or the 250 veterans of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. When the DRUDGE REPORT broke the story, an enraged spokesperson who was traveling with Kerry told DRUDGE, “They hired a goddamn private investigator to dig up trash!” 1 The next day, Senator John McCain, without having ever studied the charges, called the Swiftees “dishonest and dishonorable.” 2 Several days later, the New York Times declared the group to be a “shadow party” of the GOP.3 None of these unjustified attacks mattered to the Swiftees. They knew these attacks were not true. But more important, none of it mattered to the American people who wanted to find out the truth for themselves. In a few weeks, Unfit for Command was #1 on Amazon’s bestseller list, #1 on BarnesandNoble.com, and then #1 on the New York Times list for four weeks in a row. And even though in those early days when the Swift Boat vets could only afford to buy airtime in a handful of markets, polls showed that roughly half of Americans already saw or knew of the ads. The truth was out. From Minor Annoyance to Full-Scale Attack At first, the Kerry campaign tried to treat the book and the ads as an irritation. They ignored the charges; dodged questions. It didn’t work. The Kerry camp then launched an orchestrated plan to discredit the Swift Boat vets. Television stations that aired the ads were threatened with lawsuits. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was accused of being run and funded by Republicans. The Kerry camp “googled” coauthor Jerry Corsi and used his statements in an Internet discussion forum to attack his character. They accused co-author John O’Neill of holding a thirty-year-plus vendetta against John Kerry. They demanded that Regnery, the book’s publisher, pull the book off the shelves. None of it worked. Now the Kerry campaign is engaged in an all-out effort to brand the vets as liars, even though they do not have any evidence that the vets lied about the charges. The Kerry camp is hoping that if they repeat it often enough, Americans will come to accept it. But so far, this strategy hasn’t worked either. Indeed, it may already be too late. We believe that truth has won. The Liberal Media Falls in Step The liberal mainstream media employed a parallel strategy. First, they ignored the Swift Boat vets, and then dismissed the charges. All the while, they gave tremendous play to those attacking President Bush. The NBC Today Show, for example, gave Kitty Kelley’s anti-Bush book three straight mornings of airtime, but refused to interview the authors of Unfit for Command even once. NBC was more than willing to provide a forum for an author whose chief source denied the book’s account, but they ignored Unfit for Command even though the latter relied on documented evidence and multiple eyewitness accounts from veterans who had signed affidavits. Then Dan Rather and CBS enjoyed a holiday from the truth. They proclaimed that they had documents criticizing President Bush’s National Guard service, charges that were accepted as fact by the mainstream media and widely reported. Even when it was quickly and universally concluded that the documents were forgeries, CBS stuck by their story for weeks. While CBS dismissed the meticulously documented Swift Boat charges, they continued to defend their fraudulent documents until poor ratings made it impossible to do so. Perhaps the most telling example of the liberal media’s bias was the condescending manner in which they treated the Swift Boat veterans. Pat Oliphant’s cartoon depicting them as illiterate drunks4 was an insult to veterans old and young. And yet, there was virtually no media outcry. On the NewsHour, Tom Oliphant declared that Unfit for Command was not up to journalistic standards.5 From what we’ve seen in the press, we believe the book’s standards are higher. In this epilogue, our goal is to review the key arguments of the book that have been under attack and the statements the Kerry camp has made in response to the charges. There are still many unanswered questions. We are confident that after reviewing the summary and documentation, as well as Kerry’s statements, readers will conclude that the charges in the book are not a “pack of lies” as Kerry claimed. Unfit for Command presents serious charges backed up with serious research. We intend for this epilogue to reinforce that conclusion. Epilogue 3 The Purple Heart Hunter Unfit for Command charged that John Kerry’s first Purple Heart involved an accidentally self-inflicted superficial wound suffered on a training mission—the “Boston Whaler Incident.” The book asserts that Kerry launched an M-79 grenade too close to some rocks along the shore, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel to lodge loosely in his arm. The Kerry camp’s first salvo was to charge that the physician quoted in Unfit for Command, Dr. Louis Letson, was not the physician who treated John Kerry. In the letter written by Marc Elias, general counsel of the Kerry campaign, to various television stations planning to air the first Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials, Mr. Elias placed Dr. Letson’s name in quotation marks, subtly raising doubt about Louis Letson’s qualifications. Mr. Elias also charged that Dr. Letson did not attend Kerry’s wound because Dr. Letson’s name did not appear on Kerry’s sick call sheet. Instead, Mr. Elias noted, the person who signed the medical report was J.C. Carreon, since deceased. The Kerry camp contended that Dr. Letson was lying in his affidavit when he claimed that Kerry’s wound was superficial and that the shrapnel was removed with tweezers, the injury requiring no more medical treatment than the application of topical antiseptic and a band-aid.6 Dr. Letson quickly replied that J.C. Carreon was a lower-ranking corpsman who regularly assisted him at the sickbay and affirmed his initial report. Many vets who served at Cam Ranh Bay came forward to confirm that Dr. Letson was indeed the division’s physician. Furthermore, Dr. Letson had approached his local Democratic Party chairman about Kerry’s self-inflicted wound even before the controversy began. As for the hostile fire, those on the mission with Kerry, including Retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, the officer who commanded the Boston Whaler that evening, all maintained there had been no enemy fire. 4 Epilogue Kerry’s surrogates next claimed that Schachte was lying, and that he was not on the boat. But Schachte in an in-depth interview with reporter Robert Novak, proved his credibility:7 “Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher].” Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, “Kerry requested a Purple Heart.” Schachte, also a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember. Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it “was not possible” for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968. Kerry supporters said no critics of the Democratic presidential nominee ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler and says the statement that Schachte was aboard in Unfit for Command undermines that critical book’s credibility.8 (emphasis added) Epilogue 5 Novak also interviewed Swift Boat veterans Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, two Kerry supporters who claimed to be aboard the skimmer that night. But neither Zaladonis nor Runyon has ever asserted that they saw enemy fire. Novak also interviewed Tedd Peck and Mike Voss who confirmed to him that Schachte was the originator of the technique to use the skimmer in missions designed to flush the Viet Cong out on the banks of the waterways along the Mekong River so larger boats could move in and destroy them; both men also confirmed to Novak that Schachte was always aboard the skimmer when it was used in such missions. Unable to discredit the rear admiral’s account, the Kerry camp then engaged in an ad hominem assault. The strongly pro-Kerry Media- Matters.org, for instance, noted that Admiral Schachte had contributed $8,500 to federal candidates or national political organizations since 1997, of which $6,750 went to Republican candidates or the Republican Party, including donations of $1,000 to George Bush in each of his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.9 To leftist critics, Admiral Schachte’s political contributions disqualified him from giving a truthful affidavit. As the controversy over the first Purple Heart progressed, a previously overlooked passage from Douglas Brinkley’s campaign biography came to light. The date of the skimmer incident was December 2, 1968. According to Brinkley, Kerry had written in his private journals that on December 11, 1968, just after he turned twenty five, his crew had not yet come under enemy fire, even though the date was nine days after the skimmer incident, when Kerry had claimed he was wounded by enemy fire. Regarding the events of December 11, 1968, Kerry wrote the following journal entry: <<<They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, “A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn’t been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven’t been shot at are allowed to be cocky. 10>>> Taking at face value Kerry’s description of December 11, 1968, he and his crew had not yet experienced enemy fire, a statement that sounds like an implicit admission that the injury for the first Purple Heart was not suffered under enemy fire. The Final Admission John Hurley, veterans coordinator for the Kerry campaign has now admitted that it is possible that Kerry’s first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR KERRY 1. What really happened in that incident on December 2, 1968? 2. How did you end up getting this Purple Heart? From whom? 3. Why was a Purple Heart issued only after Hibbard and Schachte left?’

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/16/2004 6:01:30 PM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Koppel vs. O'Neill: Nightline goes to Vietnam Beldar Blog I'm late in blogging about ABC News' "Nightline" segment this week on Kerry's Silver Star. Despite helpful heads-ups from several emailers, I missed all but the tail end of the broadcast — Koppel's verbal firefight with John O'Neill — because I was watching the Astros lose. However, I've read more than a dozen blog posts from both left- and right-leaning blogs — including Captain's Quarters, Tom Maguire, INDC Journal, Wizbang!, Patterico, PrestoPundit, Demosophia, Watcher of Weasels, Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, and Linkmeister — and the ABC News websight's version and John O'Neill's statement on the SwiftVets' website. (If someone has a link to the full video somewhere, I'd appreciate a link.) I don't fault, but rather commend, ABC News for attempting to do some original investigative journalism "on the scene." But at least two initial points about that need to be emphasized. Most importantly, while ABC News invested a great deal of time and money going to Vietnam, they've failed to exhaust, plumb, or even scratch the surface of trying to do any investigative reporting here in the United States. It's not only that they've failed to interview pro-SwiftVets eyewitnesses, but also that they've also failed to interview pro-Kerry eyewitnesses — and no one, from either side of the debate, can seriously defend their failure to do that. Indeed, they failed to review, summarize, or even reference what others have reported — including, notably, the eyewitness account given by their fellow mainstream media source, Chicago Tribune editor William B. Rood — and that's simply inexcusably sloppy. Next, ABC News made only passing and oblique references to the fact that their reporting from Vietnam was done at the pleasure of, through cooperation with, and subject to deliberately injected bias from, the Vietnamese government — indeed, with a "watcher" on the scene from that government who had the power to reward or retaliate against the individuals whom they interviewed. John O'Neill's protests to Ted Koppel that ABC News' interviews took place in a "closed society" were way too mild. The totalitarian government of Vietnam has a direct stake in the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election: Not only was John Kerry, their candidate of choice, the leading U.S. critic of America's participation in the war among all U.S. combat veterans, but he also has been, as a senator, the leading proponent of normalization and increased trade ties with Vietnam in the post-war era. The North Vietnamese (with guidance from, and in cooperation with, the KGB) were incredibly clever at exploiting American anti-war sentiment — they got America out of Vietnam by using useful fools like John Kerry in the first place. It's unfortunately not metaphoric to describe ABC News' interviewees — the supposedly disinterested peasants described so enthusiastically by Koppel — as "testifying at gunpoint." That doesn't necessarily mean they were lying, but any remotely fairminded journalistic effort should have carefully considered that situation — and should have reported clearly on the bias it very likely injected into their efforts. That noted, my main reaction to the ABC News reporting is one of continuing, mouth-foaming frustration. ABC News made only the most clumsy efforts at doing what every lawyer is required to do for every single witness who testifies in court, and what every reporter should likewise do before reporting a purported witness' story: laying a foundation to show personal knowledge. ABC News' apparent standard: If the government minder let them talk to someone who appeared to be ethnically Vietnamese and was within range of their cameras and microphones, then each such person's claim to have personal knowledge was accepted as gospel. Yes, of course it's difficult — it requires persistence — to separately qualify each such witness. But the facts that the events occurred long ago, that they took place during combat, that there are language barriers, that there is a government watcher present — all these factors counsel more careful qualification of the purported eyewitnesses, not less. By every previous account — except the abbreviated ones in Kerry's Silver Star citation — there were two separate locations involved. In the ABC News website version, there's but a single, fleeting reference to that critical fact. At the initial, main ambush location, the Swift Boats offloaded dozens and dozens of Ruff Puff infantry to chase down and kill the enemy who were present, and the Swift Boats themselves expended an enormous amount of lethal ordinance. That's where the enemy KIAs — other than Kerry's single prey — were reported. It's extremely doubtful that even at that location, the American and South Vietnamese forces faced a numerically superior enemy or overwhelming incoming fire. But unless every American eyewitness is lying through his teeth, at the second location — the only location where Kerry did anything arguably more valorous than what every man jack aboard every one of the (undecorated) officers and crew of the Swift Boats did — there were fewer enemy soldiers and considerably less enemy fire. How many fewer enemy and how much less fire? The ABC News reporting shed essentially no light on that subject because either through sloppy reporting or willful conflation, it didn't make the critical distinctions necessary to draw meaningful conclusions. Andrew Sullivan calls this an "excellent reporting job." Mr. Sullivan, other than the fact that it was done in a far-off country, can you point to a single aspect of this reporting that was "excellent," or even minimally competent? Time-lines. Maps and diagrams. Lists of individual witnesses, thoroughly annotated to show their opportunities to observe, their qualifications to appreciate what was happening, and their possible biases. Physical evidence (or reports thereof, like boat damage reports, ordinance expenditures). If you're going to make any credible effort to "pierce the fog of war," that's how you have to go about it. Compare, for example, the care and detail that's gone into reconstructions of what happened at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 — not just in the years since, but in the days after. Compare, for that matter, the kind of investigation that Hollywood writers dream up for any average episode of "Dragnet" or "CSI: Miami" or "Law and Order." By any serious or responsible standard — journalistic standards, much less courtroom standards — this bit of reporting was a shallow, ridiculous joke of an effort. It makes me nauseous to think that an American presidential election might be influenced by such ham-handed hackery. Any principled and half-competent cub reporter, any first-year law student, any backcountry magistrate, would be ashamed to turn in such an effort.

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/23/2004 4:20:33 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   LAWRENCE O'DONNELL AND LIBERALS UNHINGED By Michelle Malkin · October 22, 2004 10:42 PM Something unbelievable just went down on MSNBC's Scarborough Country. Lawrence O'Donnell screamed at John O'Neill for two segments as substitute host Pat Buchanan hopelessly tried to moderate. O'Donnell interrupted O'Neill every few seconds, repeatedly called the Vietnam veteran a "liar" and a "creep," and sneered, scowled, and shouted at the top of his lungs about how O'Neill did nothing to stop the war. O'Neill was his usual calm, dignified self--trying civilly to inject facts into the hate-filled O'Donnell's tirades. I swear O'Donnell acted like he was on something. He looked and sounded absolutely crazed. The scene was eerily reminiscent of this. By the way, I spoke with a former MSNBC employee recently who noted that Chris Matthews STILL hasn't read Unfit for Command and has no plans to do so. O'Donnell cited the hate-filled New York Times book review of O'Neill's book during his harangue tonight. How much you wanna bet he has never actually read the book either? I'm paraphrasing here, but John O'Neill noted that O'Donnell demonstrated the choice we face on Nov. 2--Kerry-supporting screamers like O'Donnell or an administration that can deal with the threats we face rationally. I wonder if MSNBC will have the guts to put up an unedited transcript. Stay tuned. And if anybody has video of the show that I can link to, let me know. More on O'Donnell's recent rantings against "simpleminded" people of faith at Dave's Blurbs and Betsy's Page. And here's O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group last week sharing his thoughts on troop morale: MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what they feel. MR. BLANKLEY: I don't -- MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me finish. MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care what they feel about the truth of this war. If John Kerry thinks this war is a mistake and if the United States of America elects him president, the troops are going to have to live with that. And they know better than anyone else whether it was a mistake or not. MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief should not undermine the troops -- MR. O'DONNELL: He's not undermining anything. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you want to make a point here? MR. BUCHANAN: He'd demoralize them. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, the human -- MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized. They have to go to war and be prepared -- MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief does care. MR. O'DONNELL: -- to live with the debate that goes on in the United States about whether it's right or wrong. MR. BUCHANAN: But if you're going to be commander-in-chief, you cannot be demoralizing the troops in wartime, even if you think the war is a mistake. *** Drive them madder: Donate to the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth here. Update: SwiftVets has the audio. Update II: Polipundit weighs in...and has started a contest to nominate the Worst Liberal Meltdown. Update III: The indispensible Daily Recycler has a video excerpt. dailyrecycler.com They also include a hilarious comment from Frank Luntz, who followed John O'Neill and said he was afraid to say anything because O'Donnell would probably call him a liar five times. God bless John O'Neill and all the Swift Boat Vets for putting up with such desperate, disgraceful abuse. Update IV: A commenter at SwiftVets.com tallied up O'Donnell's raging insults. Here's the count... I was curious, so I did a count of how many times Lawrence O'Donnell said "lies" "liar" or "lying." 46 total times in 10 min. 45 seconds (much of which he was not talking) First 5:10 O'Donnell didn't speak 5:10-9:39: 6 times 10:55-12:25: 24 times 00:01-1:38: 7 times (beginning of second MP3 after break) 1:55-3:30: 9 times (And I may have missed some due to crosstalk) 46 TIMES michellemalkin.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/24/2004 3:10:11 AM From: Sully-   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834   Gee, to hear folks from the liberal left lie about it, Bush is the great divider..... (hat tip to Scared but Hopeful) Watch the video at the link first, then read on..... re: dailyrecycler.com I am amazed at the calm of John O'Neill under fire. Every third word shouted by Lawrence O'Donnell was "lies" or "liar". If the country wonders why it is polarized, this is the best explanation why. To be not polarized, you have work to seek a middle ground. And when opinions differ, you have to debate, and the debate has to proceed with civility. There can be no debate when one side is shouting out and trying to drown out the other. So why are americans polarized? Answer : look at people like Lawrence O'Donnell. Why is there still hope? Answer : People like John O'Neill willing to talk calmly and engage in debate in the midst of the same vietnam era tactics that stifled debate.

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/24/2004 4:41:25 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Review by NYT of Stolen Honor (the movie not the Sinclair Broadcasting mishmash) is pretty good. Alessandra Stanley in The New York Times on October 21, 2004 said: "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television . . . . [I]t does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism."

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/24/2004 7:03:31 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Kerry Covered up Second Meeting with Vietcong Negotiators John Kerry met twice with representatives of the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam war, in separate visits to Paris over the span of more than a year - and planned a third meeting before he left the leadership of the anti-American protest group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The unauthorized sit downs between Kerry and the enemy delegation, as detailed in this week's Weekly Standard, took place at the Paris peace talks in 1970 and '71 - and fly in the face of claims by the Kerry campaign that there was only one such meeting. Noting that both the Washington Post and the New York Times had to retract recent reports attacking the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth for running an ad claiming that Kerry "secretly met with the enemy," the Standard explained that the confusions stems from attempts by the Kerry campaign to cover-up the earlier meeting. "Kerry did go to Paris to meet the Communists in 1971, some time during the summer, probably in August. But this was a second trip, and Kerry's advocates have done their best to veil the fact that there was more than one trip." The Standard added that Kerry's first meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators "took place in or around May 1970, eleven months before his Foreign Relations Committee testimony" where he trashed soldiers in Vietnam as "war criminals" and "monsters." That first meeting "appears to have been kept secret for nearly a year," the Standard said, until Kerry mentioned it during his Senate testimony - which would validate Swiftvets' claims. The Times' misreport centered on the claim that Kerry had met with "both sides" during the Paris talks. But like the single meeting report, this is also untrue. "In 1971 when Kerry described his first Paris meeting, he said he had talked to 'both delegations.'" But the future presidential candidate wasn't referring to the U.S. and North Vietnam, but instead to both Communist delegations. Correcting its error the next week, the Times reported that it had "misidentified the parties with whom Mr. Kerry said he had met at the Paris peace talks. . . . The parties were the two Communist delegations - North Vietnam and the Viet Cong's Provisional Revolutionary Government." The Standard notes that Kerry actually planned to meet a third time with enemy negotiators, but the trip never came off. "FBI files reveal that Kerry planned a third such trip together with [VVAW leader Al] Hubbard for November [1971]. But, as it turned out, Hubbard went without Kerry, perhaps because the two had by then fallen out over revelations that Hubbard's repeated claims to have been an officer and a Vietnam vet were fabricated." newsmax.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/25/2004 9:39:56 PM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Col. George E. "Bud" Day is the most decorated officer since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and was Senator John McCain's cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton. The following is a letter to Joe Scarborough and John O'Neil from Medal of Honor Recipient and former POW Colonel Bud Day. Some thoughts from a guy who has earned the right to voice his opinion LETTER FROM COLONEL BUD DAY Dear Joe: The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam. Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies..fabrications..perjury..fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers". A returned war hero said so. Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds..even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets.."Hey hey LBJ..How many kids did you kill today"????? He obviously was running for political office in 1971. Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies. I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on, they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses. The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy. While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Force members were being killed in combat. Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness. John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters. His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one. I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony, which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs. My friend and room mate Senator John S. McCain denounced the Swiftboat video by John O'Neil. I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John. John Kerry opened up his character as a war hero reporting for duty to the country with a hand salute...and his band of brothers..of which he was the chief hero. Most of his convention speech was about John Kerry..............Vietnam hero, and his band of brothers. John Kerry's character is not only fair game, it is the primary issue. He wants to use Bill Clinton's "is", as an answer to his lack of character. The issue is trust. Can anyone trust John Kerry?? "Never lie, cheat or steal" is the West Point motto. When a witness perjures himself at trial, the judge notes that his testimony lacks credibility. Should we elect a known proven liar to lead us in wartime?? I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liaison with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. His reward. Political gain. Senator..United States. His record as a Senator for twenty years has been pitiful. Conjure up, if you will, one major bill that he has sponsored. John Kerry for President? Ridiculous. Unthinkable. Unbelievable. Outrageous. Col. Geo. "Bud" Day, Medal of Honor, Vietnam POW 1967- 1973, USMC- USA- USAF- Attorney 1949-2004

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/26/2004 5:05:55 AM From: Sully-   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834   I'm not completely sold that these documents are real, but if true, this will be the end of Kerry IMO........ MISSION: IMPLAUSIBLE Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry Recovered Vietnam documents smoking gun researchers claim Posted: October 26, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Art Moore The first documentary evidence that Vietnamese communists were directly steering John Kerry's antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been discovered in a U.S. archive, according to a researcher who spoke with WorldNetDaily. One freshly unearthed document, ice.he.net captured by the U.S. from Vietnamese communists in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended. Kerry insists he attended the talks only because he happened to be in France on his honeymoon and maintains he met with both sides. But previously revealed records indicate the future senator made two, and possibly three, trips to Paris to meet with Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh to promote her plan's demand for U.S. surrender. Jerome Corsi, a specialist on the Vietnam era, told WND the new discoveries are the "most remarkable documents I've seen in the entire history of the antiwar movement." "We're not going to say he's an agent for Vietnamese communists, but it's the next thing to it," he said. "Whether he was consciously carrying out their direction or naively doing what they wanted, it amounted to the same thing -- he advanced their cause." Corsi, co-author of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth best-seller "Unfit for Command," and Scott Swett, who maintains the group's website, have posted a summary of the discovery on the website of Wintersoldier.com. Corsi says the documents show how the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Communist Party of the USA and Kerry's VVAW worked closely together to achieve the Vietnamese communists' primary objective -- the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam. "I think what we've discovered is a smoking gun," Corsi said. "We knew when we wrote 'Unfit for Command' that Kerry had met with Madame Binh and then promoted her peace plan. "This document enables us to connect the dots," he emphasized. "We now have evidence Madame Binh was directing the antiwar movement ... and the person who implemented her strategy was John Kerry." July 22, 1971, Kerry called on President Nixon to accept the plan at a press conference in which he surrounded himself with the families of POWs, a strategy outlined in the first document. The two documents also connect the dots between the Vietnamese communists and the radical U.S. group People's Coalition for Peace and Justice through the person of Al Hubbard, a coordinating member of PCPJ and the executive director of VVAW while Kerry was its national spokesman. "Al Hubbard and John Kerry were carrying out the predetermined agenda of the enemy in a coordinated fashion," Corsi said. "It's a level of collaboration that exceeded anything we had imagined." 'Return the medals' The second document, captured by U.S. military forces in South Vietnam May 12, 1972, urges Vietnamese officials to promote the antiwar activities in the United States. Significantly, the fifth paragraph makes it clear the Vietnamese communists were using, for propaganda purposes, a protest described as taking place April 19-22, 1971. This coincides with the well-known "Dewey Canyon III" protest in Washington, D.C., highlighted by Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations testimony charging American soldiers with war crimes. The document's description of the protest includes the "return the medals" event in which Kerry and other VVAW members threw their war decorations toward the steps of the Capitol. Why now? Corsi told WND the documents have been authenticated with "100 percent certainty." But why were they unearthed now, just one week before the Nov. 2 election? Corsi insisted the timing was unintentional. "It's truly one of those accidents of how things develop in research," he said. "We did not spring any surprise, we just found these documents, and even the archivist didn't know they were there." Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth dispatched two researchers to Texas Tech University's Vietnam-era archive in Lubbock, which has more than 2 million documents, and "see if there was anything there," Corsi said. Many of the documents are in Vietnamese and have not been translated yet. The documents were found in boxes containing documents from antiwar activities during 1971-72, but they also turned out to be posted in an Internet database, which enabled further verification. First document The first document is a "circular" outlining the Vietnamese regime's strategies to coordinate its propaganda effort with orchestration of U.S. antiwar group activities. The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks. The phrases in double parentheses were added by U.S. translators for clarification. "VC" refers to the Viet Cong, while "NVN" is the North Vietnamese government. Corsi and Swett point out that FBI files show Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August 1971 and planned a third trip in November. Corsi emphasizes that before the discovery of this document, he and other researchers had no direct evidence that Hanoi actually was directing the antiwar movement to implement the regime's goals, although they assumed it to be the case based on other indications. In her meeting with Kerry in Paris, Madame Binh instructed him on how he and the VVAW could "serve as Hanoi's surrogates in the United States," Corsi and Swett say. This included advancement of her seven-point peace plan forcing President Nixon to set a date to end the war and withdraw troops. Hanoi cleverly constructed the plan so that the only barrier to release of American POWs was Nixon's unwillingness to set a withdrawal date. But as Corsi and Swett emphasize, the plan amounted to a virtual surrender that included payment of reparations and an admission the U.S. was the aggressor in an immoral war against the communists. The circular underscores the impact of the peace plan on U.S. activists, saying: <<< "The seven-point peace proposal ((of the SVN Provisional Revolutionary Government)) not only solved problems concerning the release of US prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of US pilots detained in NVN to participate in the antiwar movement. >>>> Another section of the circular, again highlighting the interconnectedness of the Vietnamese communists, the U.S. antiwar movement and politics in the U.S. and South Vietnam, says Nixon and South Vietnamese leader Thieu are "very embarrassed because the seven-point peace proposal is supported by the [South Vietnamese] people's (( political struggle)) movement and the antiwar movements in the US. " Therefore, the circular says, "all local areas, units, and branches must widely disseminate the seven-point peace proposal, step up the people's ((political struggle)) movements both in cities and rural areas, taking advantage of disturbances and dissensions in the enemy's forthcoming (RVN) Congressional and Presidential elections. They must coordinate more successfully with the antiwar movements in the US so as to isolate the Nixon-Thieu clique." Second document In addition to tying activities surrounding Kerry's 1971 protest to the direction of Vietnamese communists, the second document reveals the degree to which Hanoi worked with and through the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. Of the U.S. antiwar movements, the two most important ones are: The PCPJ ((the People's Committee for Peace and Justice)) and the NPAC ((National Peace Action Committee)). These two movements have gathered much strength and staged many demonstrations. The PCPJ is the most important. It maintains relations with us. Corsi and Swett note the House Internal Securities Committee in its 1971 Annual Report described the PCPJ as an organization strongly controlled by U.S. communists. "There is no question but what members of the Communist Party have provided a very strong degree of influence, even a guiding influence, in the evolution and formation of policies of the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice." Corsi cites recently released FBI surveillance reports that establish a strong link between Kerry, Hubbard, the VVAW, the PCPJ and their trips to Paris to meet with Madame Binh. Kerry shared the stage with Hubbard, who recruited Kerry into the group, during the Dewey Canyon III protest, and they appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press April 18, 1971. Hubbard's claimed to have been a transport pilot wounded in combat, but the Department of Defense released documents showing he was neither a pilot nor an officer and had never served in Vietnam. One FBI field surveillance report stamped Nov. 11, 1971, showed Kerry and Hubbard were planning to travel to Paris later that month to engage in talks with Vietnamese communist delegations. Other FBI reports clearly show the Communist Party of the USA was paying for Al Hubbard's trips to Paris, Corsi notes. Another FBI report, dated Nov. 24, 1971, gives details of Hubbard's presentation to a VVAW meeting of the Executive and Steering committees in Kansas City, Mo., Nov. 12-15, 1971. At that meeting, the VVAW considered and then rejected a plan to assassinate several pro-war U.S. Senators. Kerry is listed as present. The FBI document shows communist coordination in Hubbard's trip to Paris. <<<< [BLACK OUT] advised that Hubbard gave the following information regarding his Paris trip: Two foreign groups, which are Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and Peoples Republic Government (PRG) (phonetic), invited representatives of the VVAW, Communist Party USA (CP USA), and a Left Wing group in Paris, to attend meeting of the above inviting groups in Paris. Hubbard advised he was elected to represent the VVAW. An unknown male was invited to represent the CP USA and an unknown individual was elected to represent the Left Wing group from Paris. He advised at the meeting that his trip was financed by CP USA. >>>> Corsi and Swett cite an appeal letter written by Hubbard April 20, 1971, demonstrating the strong coordination between Vietnam Veterans Against the War and People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. Addressed from the offices of the VVAW in Washington, D.C., the letter is an appeal to VVAW members to provide assistance to the PCPJ. It discusses several ways in which the two organizations have worked closely together: <<<< This is an appeal for help for the Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice. Over the past months the Peoples Coalition has supported the Vietnam Vets Against the War in many ways. The Coalition has made office space available at no charge, and permitted the use of all necessary office equipment such as mimeograph machines, stencil-making machines, folders and typewriters. They have loaned us cars, bullhorns, and public address equipment. Their staff has taken messages for us and joined fraternally in building our progress. Now we can return this support. Saturday, April 24, the Coalition needs help collecting money and selling buttons at the great march and rally. Collectors and sellers must be energetic and determined. Theree will be security problems in taking large amounts of money to banks. The Coalition needs people power, hundreds of workers. I earnestly hope that you will come forward to support our friends in this emergency. >>>> Two days after Hubbard's letter was written, Kerry told Sen. William Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee American military in Vietnam were committing war crimes in the manner of Genghis Khan. The event referred to in the letter was PCPJ's massive April 24 demonstration in Washington that followed the VVAW's Dewey Canyon III protest.

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/26/2004 11:02:15 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Instapundit.com - HE WAS FOR IT BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT Mickey Kaus points out that a McLaughlin group transcript from October of '01 shows Kerry saying: <<< "I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis?" >>> But wait, there's more! This transcript is actually being pushed by the Kerry campaign, as proof that he called for more troops in Afghanistan. But if you look at the section where he's supposedly calling for more troops, you'll find that it's been rather creatively trimmed by the Kerry team. The good senator was actually referring to his past calls for more "boots on the ground", but reported himself satisfied with troop levels by the time of the interview, on October 16th, 2001. Don't Kerry's people know about the internet yet?

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/28/2004 4:45:01 PM From: Sully-   Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834   Here's your next "October Surprise"..... CNBC just broke the news that the FBI is investigating whether the White House improperly awarded contracts to Halliburton. I kid you not. And, oh bye the way, John Kerry is pure as the driven snow.

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/29/2004 10:39:55 PM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Kerry's forgotten Communist-coddling October 29th, 2004 AMERICAN THINKER John F. Kerry has a long history of opposing the use of American military force to defend our vital interests. But the presidential campaign has so far virtually ignored his shameful behavior in the 1980s, when President Reagan was defeating Communism not only in Europe, but also much closer to home. President Reagan took office in January, 1981. The release of the American hostages by Iran resolved only one of the many problems he inherited from the Carter Administration. Soviet troops had invaded Afghanistan. Marxist rebels had seized the nation of Angola in Africa. In Central America, Marxist guerrillas were attacking the El Salvador government and the Sandanistas had taken control of Nicaragua. In order to counter Soviet expansionist policy, President Reagan increased defense spending and began supporting freedom movements that were fighting against Communism. Liberal extremists in the Democratic Party and most of the media elite hated Reagan's new policies. This was especially true about his support of the Contras fighting against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua. The combative relationship between the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress exploded in October, 1983 when Reagan ordered the invasion of the small island nation of Grenada in the Caribbean. Other Caribbean nations had asked the United States to intervene when Marxists in Grenada's military killed their Prime Minister and toppled the constitutional government. President Reagan did not act until Grenada's new leaders confined American medical students on their campus. It was then that he went on television to tell the American people he had ordered military action to prevent the possibility of a hostage situation similar to what had happened in Iran. The news media and liberal extremists in Congress openly accused Reagan of lying about the invasion. They cited his long opposition to events in Grenada and ridiculed his belief that the Soviets were actively seeking to develop more client states in our hemisphere. Both Congress and the media said they would investigate. Months passed and there was little if any information about these promised investigations. Like many Americans, I assumed Reagan had told the truth and that the issue was no longer important. I was wrong. There was a reason why the media and Congress dropped this issue. To this day, most Americans do not know about the documents discovered in Grenada. The CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department made copies of Grenada's government documents and sent 35,000 pounds of them to Washington. The documents were examined and then given to the National Archives in Washington, where they were made available to the news media, scholars and the public. Guess what? Ronald Reagan was right about more than his decision to invade Grenada. The Soviets were pursuing a plan for expansion through the creation and support of Communist client states in Central America. The documents revealed the connections between the governments of Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua, together with support of the Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador. No doubt, some people reading this article are thinking that this is ancient history and doesn't matter any more. They are wrong because there is a scandal here and many of the people involved are still members of Congress and members of the media elite. It starts with members of Congress paying a visit to the Sandanista leader of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. They returned with a piece of paper signed by Ortega and once again, proclaimed that he was not a Communist, but a socialist. Several days later, Mr. Ortega made fools of these dupes by flying to Moscow to collect even more Soviet support. You would think that the members of Congress with the signed piece of paper would have been very angry. But not really. The Democrat-controlled Congress went on to pass the third in a series of amendments called the Boland Amendments. All three of these amendments were worded to prevent the President from supporting the Contras in their fight against Ortega's communist government. Think about this: Congress knew about the Grenada documents. They knew Ortega had gone to Moscow for more Soviet support. And they still wanted to protect a Communist dictatorship from their own President. In 1990, there were elections in Nicaragua. At the time, the Soviet Empire was crumbling, President Bush had removed General Noriega from Panama, and the Contras had continued to pressure the Nicaraguan government. The Sandanistas agreed to the elections because thought they would win. Our American media conducted polls and said they would win. President Carter, who had had not tried to stop the Sandanistas from taking power, was part of the commission observing the elections. All the people who had opposed Reagan's policies towards Nicaragua were poised to claim victory. A Sandanista win would prove President Carter was right when he didn't oppose them. It would prove Congress was right when they passed the Boland Amendments. Our media also wanted to be right about refusing to believe President Reagan. But then something unexpected happened when the people of Nicaragua actually got their chance to vote. They threw the Sandanistas out of power because they wanted freedom instead of a Communist dictatorship. If you think that liberal members of Congress and the media finally admitted they were wrong and Reagan was right, you are dreaming. They did admit that democracy had triumphed. But, in a slant only our media could pull off, they gave credit to President Carter for overseeing a free and fair election. Why is this important today? Well, there are a few details I haven't mentioned yet. A lot of attention has been given to John Kerry's 1971 Congressional testimony accusing our military of wartime atrocities in Vietnam. There is something else he said. "We can not fight Communism all over the world and I think we should have learned that lesson by now." In 1985, Senator Kerry was one of the members of Congress who returned from Nicaragua with that worthless signed piece of paper. He then supported the third Boland Amendment. Apparently, not only did John Kerry not want to fight Communism "all over the world," he didn't even want to fight communism in our own backyard. Senator Kerry voted against the first Gulf War in 1990. President Bush had a UN Resolution and a large coalition that not only included the reluctant French, but several Arab nations. This makes it very difficult to vote for a Kerry who talks about having to pass some kind of global test. If the first Gulf War didn't pass his test, then what would? President Clinton decided to intervene militarily in Bosnia in 1994, to stop the genocide. There was no UN Resolution and no large coalition of nations. What did John Kerry say? "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nation's effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." It is absurd to trust our national security and world security to an organization that is corrupt and controlled by petty, often venal interests. The UN was given the responsibility for not only destroying Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but also for putting an end to his ability to manufacture them. The UN was responsible for making sure the benefits from the Oil for Food Program went to the Iraqi people. The UN miserably failed at both. While Kerry did vote to give the President George W. Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, it is important to realize that failure to support the President would have been political suicide for a presidential candidate. And when Senator Kerry voted against the $87 billion to support our troops, it is just as important to wonder if he was more worried about John Dean's anti-war rhetoric than the safety of our troops. Today, candidate Kerry says that he'll be strong on national defense, that he'll win the war in Iraq, and that he'll win the war against terrorism. The time to be strong on national defense did not start on 9-11. I worry that a President Kerry could declare the war in Iraq unwinable, withdraw unilaterally, and leave behind a terrorist controlled nation with a wealth of oil next door to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. A man who said we couldn't fight Communism all over the world is not likely to seek victory against international terrorism. After 9-11, it's almost certain that if terrorists are not forced to run from us, they surely will come after us.

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/30/2004 4:35:29 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   SwiftVets Announce FREE Access to "Stolen Honor" Documentary and New Mini-Documentaries with Swift Boat Veterans at: swiftvets.com Our goal since the beginning of our campaign has been to ensure the American people had a chance to hear the truth about Sen. John Kerry's time in Vietnam and his anti-war activities. With your help, we have raised millions of dollars to spread this message as far as we can. Today we are taking another historic step. The documentary film "Stolen Honor" vividly portrays the impact of John Kerry's false testimony and statements about the Vietnam War. As of today, every American can see this film for free, in its entirety, at swiftvets.com. We encourage you to view this powerful work, but more than that, we need your help. Please take a few minutes today to tell your friends, family or others about this opportunity. Our goal is for every person on this list to convince 10 more people to watch the documentary and see and hear the truth about Kerry for themselves. At the same time, we are releasing a new set of mini-documentaries filmed with Swift Boat Veterans, also available at www.stolenhonor.com. These three-to-five-minute movies discuss the controversies surrounding many of Kerry's wartime medals and his alleged secret mission into Cambodia -- a mission even his official biographer now says never happened. The short films take on: John Kerry's First Purple Heart -- How did John Kerry get his first purple heart when all three officers required to approve it rejected his application? Christmas in Cambodia -- John Kerry has repeatedly told of being in Cambodia on a secret mission, with it being seared in his memory. See what everyone else has to say. The Sampan Cover Up -- An example of where we believe John Kerry simply filed a false action report to cover up his conduct. No Man Left Behind -- You heard John Kerry tell America one story about his Vietnam service at the Democratic National Convention. Here's the true story of John Kerry's Bronze Star. Third Purple Heart -- How we believe John Kerry faked a third purple heart in order to flee from Vietnam...not as a hero but in shame. We urge you to take the time to view these important works and thank you again for helping us tell the truth about John Kerry.

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 10/31/2004 12:51:28 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Subject: Vietnam Veterans against the War turn on Kerry. This is a tough "open letter to John Kerry" that is circulating around the web at a rapid pace. It is written by a Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. Johnson is a combat vet who joined VVAW (Vietnam Veterans against the War) and disliked the position "Kerry was dragging" the organization toward. He has asked this letter be widely circulated. Johnson also supports the efforts by SwiftVets and POWs. Johnson is an accomplished writer; his website is solvinglight.com An Open Letter to Senator John F. Kerry From Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. October 19, 2004 Dear Senator Kerry, I never met my uncle Will. He was a lieutenant in the Navy during WWII. He was killed in action on his PT boat in the Pacific. For his fatal wounds, he received the Purple Heart posthumously. The first-captain of my West Point class took a bullet through the heart while leading a South Vietnamese airborne battalion into combat. For this fatal wound, he was awarded the Purple Heart posthumously. My senior year roommate at West Point became a tunnel rat. A booby trap explosion killed him in the tunnels of Duc Pho. The army awarded him the Purple Heart posthumously. My plebe year roommate lost an eye and became permanently crippled. For his extensive wounds, he received the Purple Heart. My battalion commander in Viet Nam was one of the bravest men I ever knew. He went out ahead of the troops in his light observation helicopter to find and kill enemy before they had a chance to fire on his men. That's how he died. For his fatal wounds, he received the Purple Heart posthumously. My words pale in their import compared to the terse comment of a high school classmate of mine. We played lacrosse together in Baltimore. He went to the Naval Academy and upon graduation became a marine. This past July at our annual lacrosse crab feast, I asked him what he thought of your Purple Hearts. He said, "Bob, nine of us lieutenants went over there together, and only three of us came back. All three of us who survived spent at least a month in the hospital recovering from wounds we suffered in combat." You didn't need any recovery time from your three alleged "wounds." How does one get "wounded" and yet not need to recover from those "wounds"? With wounds comes suffering. Where was your suffering? How could you merit a Purple Heart when you weren't even a casualty? You did not earn your Purple Hearts; you wrangled them from the system through deception so you could go home early and get out of eight months of combat. That is despicable and shameless. During the democratic convention, your flagrant boastful show of your "heroism" gave the impression that you had been a man in the thick of combat, when in fact, you had been a man on the very edge of it, all the while slyly conniving your way out of it. Instead of "Reporting for duty," you should have said, "Derelict in my duty." I marvel at your pomposity, and at the astonishing facility with which you present your phony war record as fact to the American people. Let's compare your wounds with those of a West Point classmate of mine and his men. As my classmate directed artillery fire onto suspected enemy positions, shrapnel from an enemy mortar ripped into his leg. A medivac chopper took him to the Americal Division field hospital. When he returned to his company two weeks later, many new faces met him: the lieutenant who had taken over had marched the company into a u-shaped ambush resulting in two-thirds of the men being killed or wounded. Those wounded in that battle didn't have to put themselves in for the Purple Heart, Senator Kerry. You exhibit the characteristics of a Narcissist. Narcissus, for whom this malignant character defect is named, fell in love with his image in a pool of water. As with Narcissus, your image has become the focus of your life. This image of yourself with which you are enamored, so greedy for recognition and praise, is only two dimensional: it has breadth and width, but no depth. And while your image may appear grand and heroic on the surface, there is no substance to it. My high school marine friend and my West Point classmate, true heroes, didn't take movie cameras with them to Viet Nam, but you did-with the express purpose of recording your imaginary exploits and feeding your grandiose image of yourself. The truth is you faked combat wounds in Viet Nam, and your actions were devious and self-serving. You were a "Purple Heart hunter," just as the Swift Boat Vets say. Narcissus was an actor, and so are you. I don't understand how any veteran, or any member of a veteran's family, or any sane-thinking American could even consider voting for you-a man who faked Purple Hearts in wartime. A man who will fake Purple Hearts for the sake of glorifying his image has no integrity and misdefines truth as whatever enhances the power and prestige of that image. A man without depth and substance stands for anything and everything-so long as his image is glorified. Narcissists such as you cannot be trusted; and they can be very dangerous, especially when they become paranoid about protecting their image, especially when they occupy positions of great authority and consequence. The issues in this election are truthfulness and character, and you lack both. In 1971, I became a regional coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) for a short time. I and many other vets were very angry at our government. We had experienced horror, terror, trauma, and grief in a no-win war and couldn't see the reason for it. We felt betrayed by our government and our military leaders. You stepped in and became our spokesman. What enabled you to rise to the leadership of VVAW? What caused us, back then, to respect a four-month mini-veteran of the war? The answer is your medals: your phony medals for valor and your three phony Purple Hearts. Your congressional testimony about the war began with your own assertions that you had received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. What better spokesman than an heroic, thrice- wounded veteran! Our mistake was that we all assumed you were an honest and good man. But well before your antiwar days, you had decided to trade your integrity for the spotlight, and to barter your loyalty for vain political ambitions. Most of us in VVAW expressed our outrage with government war policies through speeches, marches, and protests. We told the truth about what we saw and did in Viet Nam and we demanded from our leaders acknowledgment and change. You usurped the leadership of VVAW under false pretenses and dragged it in the direction of Jane Fonda and collaboration with the enemy. If, God forbid, you are elected president, in what awful direction will you and your foreign-born-and- raised wife drag our country? Your deceit is an explicit slur upon my uncle Will's Purple Heart award, and you mock all other veterans who made the supreme sacrifice or suffered genuine wounds in combat throughout our nation's history. Your rise to prominence is based upon your abominably perverse desecration of our ideals; you have trivialized and demeaned the sacred and the solemn, and no amount of fluent sophistry or braggart pretense can cover it up. Your conduct goes far beyond dereliction of duty. You betrayed your comrades in Viet Nam; you betrayed the trust of antiwar veterans, and now your self-fabricated credentials and continued lies contaminate the political process. Remember the professor a few years ago who lied about being a Viet Nam veteran? His college reprimanded and suspended him for foisting such an abominable sham upon a few hundred students. I ask you in closing, Senator Kerry, what punishment is fitting for a man who fabricates medals as sacrosanct as the Purple Heart, and who continues to lie about his Viet Nam service to the entire world? Yours truly, Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. RBowieJ@comcast.net Mr. Johnson is an airborne ranger infantry veteran of Viet Nam and an author. His latest book is "The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble." ----------------------- UW, Lifted verbatim from an email received from a fellow Marine USNA grad with the note: "This is forwarded by a Korea-vintage USMC (Ret) colonel."...jj

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 11/1/2004 12:40:23 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Did NBC Edit Out Kerry's Admission on Military Records? Powerline blog Many readers have written us, expressing outrage that when NBC's Dateline rebroadcast Tom Brokaw's interview with John Kerry, which was previously shown on MSNBC, Kerry's admission that not all of his military records have been released was edited out. Other bloggers are accusing NBC of covering up Kerry's admission that he has repeatedly lied about making all of his records public. There is no question that a key line got edited out. Here is the original exchange as it appeared on MSNBC: <<< Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do. Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from. >>> And here is how the exchange was shown on the much more heavily-watched Dateline: <<< "Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do." Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it." >>> Superficially, this is rather damning. But if you read the complete transcripts of the two versions of the interview, you will see that they are quite different. The Dateline version included some exchanges that were not played on MSNBC, and MSNBC included others that were cut from the Dateline version. Power Line readers are news junkies who are tuned in to the issues surrounding Kerry's military service that have been raised by the Swift Boat Vets and others. Realistically, however, the number of non-junkie listeners who would have understood the significance of the sentence that Dateline cut from Kerry's answer is close to zero. My guess is that whoever edited the video footage for Dateline had no idea that the omitted material was significant. There is no question that the mainstream media covered up for John Kerry with respect to his military service. But they didn't do it by this minor bit of editing. They did it by never--ever--asking him the basic question: "Why won't you make all of your military records public?" It's true that the Kerry campaign has falsely claimed that all of his records are publicly available, but they can't seriously maintain that position if it is subjected to any scrutiny. The Navy has said that it has around 100 pages that have not been released because Kerry has not signed the necessary form. That is an indisputable fact. So if a reporter asked Kerry the question, he would have to come up with some kind of an answer. And it is hard to see what answer he could give that would not lead no additional, more penetrating, questions. But the mainstream media, while constantly slandering the Swift Boat Vets as disseminators of "discredited" information, have slammed the door on "legitimate" discussion of Kerry's military record by refusing to ask him the most basic of questions: what is in your records, and why won't you let the voters see them? That's the real cover-up. And because that cover-up has been so successful, NBC could have played the full version of the IQ exchange, and hardly any viewers would have been the wiser. UPDATE: Beldar has some very interesting comments along similar lines, but with a little pulchritude thrown in. Posted by Hindrocket powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 11/1/2004 2:25:04 PM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   SWIFTIES ANNOUNCE $14 MILLION AD BUY This is going to be a MASSIVE ad puchase, and as was hinted earlier, they will be aired during Monday Night Football... The first ad is a 60-second spot featuring 90 swift boat veterans, in a three-deep line, with the camera panning across the crowd - close-up and slowly. No vets speak, but the announcer delivers the following lines: Announcer: They served their country with courage and distinction. They're the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Announcer: They're his entire chain of command, most of the officers in Kerry's unit. Even the gunner from his own boat. Announcer: And they're the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps. Announcer: Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. . . of being war criminals. Announcer: They were also decorated. Many very highly. But they kept their medals. Announcer: Today they are teachers, farmers, businessman, ministers, and community leaders. And of course, fathers and grandfathers. Announcer: With nothing to gain for themselves, except the satisfaction that comes with telling the truth, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know. Announcer: Because to them honesty and character still matters. especially in a time of war. Announcer: Swift Vets and POW's for Truth are responsible for the content of this advertisement. And the second ad: The second spot, also a 60-second ad, showing several groups (about 10) of swift boat veterans, one after another - with each group of vets featuring one single man posing a question to John Kerry. And the most important of all the vets involved delivers what I believe is a serious, serious, body blow. John Edwards: If you have an questions about what John Kerry's made of (echo on "made of")... Van Odell: Why do so many of us have serious questions? Dr. Louis Letson: How did you get your purple heart when your commanding officer didn't approve it? Steve Gardner: Why have you repeatedly claimed you were illegally sent into Cambodia. . . Bob Elder: . . . when it has been proven that you were not? Jim Werner: How could you accuse us of being war criminals. . . Ken Cordier: . . . and secretly meet with the enemy in Paris. . . Mike Solhaug: . . . and promote the enemy's position back home. . . Paul Galanti: . . . when I was a POW, and Americans were being killed in combat. Bud Day: How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers? Joe Ponder: Why is this relevant? Tom Hanton: Because character and honesty matter. Especially in a time of war. Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman: John Kerry cannot be trusted. Announcer: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement. How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?

To: Sully- who wrote (5731) 11/7/2004 12:07:24 AM From: Sully-   Respond to of 35834   Newsweek Campaign Coverage TRUTH LAID BEAR - November 06, 2004 08:36 AM Wizbang points us to Newsweek's extensive insider report msnbc.msn.com on the two Presidential campaigns, and declares it required reading. Never one to refuse Mr. Aylward, I have begun complying. My favorite passage so far describes John Edwards reaction when told that some of the accusations against Kerry made by the Swift Boat Veterans were, er, true: "[Edwards' aides] warned the veep candidate that the story was already out of control and about to get worse. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a wartime biography of Kerry, cautioned that Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris. Edwards was flabbergasted. "Let me get this straight," the senator said. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good." Oh, and I like this one too: The Kerry campaign did work closely with the major dailies, feeding documents to The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe to debunk the Swift Boat vets. The articles were mostly (though not entirely) supportive of Kerry, but it was too late. The old media may have been more responsible than the new media, but they were also largely irrelevant.

Home

Mail

Hot

SubjectMarks

PeopleMarks

Keepers

Settings

Terms Of Use

Contact Us

Copyright/IP Policy

Privacy Policy

About Us

FAQ

Advertise on SI

Change Ad ConsentDo not sell my data

© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News