Would some here, far more politically astute than I, care to evaluate these opinions, and reasons offered for them, by this group of Swift Boat vets about Kerry? You'll even see that one of these ,who expresses disfavor, is one of six or so who served on the same boat with Kerry during the Senator's four months in VN. If this is just old , uninteresting, or unimportant news, then I apologize for not keeping up with the pace of political matters. www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/2/212352.shtml
A cursory look at the left hand side "contents" column indicates to me this is a right wing publication...I`ll stop short of calling it a "rag" since it not on paper. Where were these people all these years?
"Commentary On May 17, 2004, Matt Gunn shares a segment from Joe Conason's recent registration-required Salon "uncovering" of "yet more 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' Republican ties, as if there weren't enough on record already" [Gunn comments]: "When the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' launched its campaign against John Kerry 10 days ago, leadership and guidance were provided by Republican activists and presidential friends from Texas -- notably Houston attorney John E. O'Neill and corporate media consultant Merrie Spaeth. Indeed, although the group made its debut at a press conference in Washington, it looked and sounded like a Texas GOP operation. "On closer inspection, the ostensibly nonpartisan 'Swift Boat Vets' seem to have another pair of significant sponsors with deep and long-standing Republican connections in Missouri. Both are officers of Gannon International, a St. Louis conglomerate that does lots of overseas business in, of all places, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam......" FULL TEXT: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
Swift Boat all support Kerry I recently viewed an interview with all living Swift Boat members of Kerry's team. ALL stated HE SAVED THEIR LIVES. The Bush/Right Wing Wacko side is desperate for any dirt (untrue or otherwise) to use. It's ironic that even Ronald Reagan, the so-call Messiah of the Republican Right, has a family that now is speaking out against the Bush Administration. Republicans should try to save their party against tyranny and return it to what the Gipper envisioned. The Bush/Cheney team do not represent the average American and before you say, "and Kerry does?" ask what YOU can do to return the party to its former glory days of Reagan.
It’s interesting that Kerry supported the Vietnam War during Democrat LBJ’s long build-up in troop levels but had a change of heart when Republican Nixon was reducing troop levels. Just a coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
Or, more simply, we can accept that he served because it was his duty and protested afterwards because of the horrors and wrong-headedness of it all. I was against the first Gulf War. Serving on active duty at the time, I saw the futility in invading Iraq just to return Kuwait to the same people who suppressed its people--and to protect similar ones in Saudi Arabia. But I still served my country. And while I wasn't deployed to the Gulf, I would have gone, just like I went to South Korea, despite my strong objections regarding our occupation of the peninsula. It's called service, and you do it despite your personal feelings. Kerry was right to go to Vietnam (as was Gore). Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Haster, et.al. ducked it. Frankly, I think that was fine, too. A crummy war, it was, and no one should have been sent. But to blame Kerry's post-war protestations on politics seems, to me, to miss the point. Who better to protest against the war than someone who served in it?
Didn't Clinton have a choice between the draft and receiving a student deferment to accept a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford? Now that choice would take a lot of thought.
=== Yet, who better to protest against Kerry's war opining or comment on his war record than those he served with or under? Or is all testimony to be ignored if it has any political connections or contexts?
=== If "suspect" means a statement should be evaluated before being accepted, then I agree. But if "suspect" means "likely untrue" ,simply because it is a Republican who says it, then I disagree. I will admit that I'm out of my area of knowledge. But it just seems to me that the same criteria for discerning veracity should be applied to what Democrats say as is applied to what Republicans say. One criterion might be the qualifications of the ones saying it. It would seem to me that these brave men who served in VN including that USMC Lt. Col, that USN Rear Admiral, Kerry's CO, and Kerry's own crewman are qualified. If they are being accused of lying, then it seems to me that more evidence should be provided than just their political persuasions to show that they are liars! But I know that I don't know much about politics.
"If "suspect" means a statement should be evaluated before being accepted, then I agree. But if "suspect" means "likely untrue" ,simply because it is a Republican who says it, then I disagree." I agree. "I will admit that I'm out of my area of knowledge. But it just seems to me that the same criteria for discerning veracity should be applied to what Democrats say as is applied to what Republicans say." I agree. "One criterion might be the qualifications of the ones saying it. It would seem to me that these brave men who served in VN including that USMC Lt. Col, that USN Rear Admiral, Kerry's CO, and Kerry's own crewman are qualified." I agree, but of course the senior officers were never in the boat. "If they are being accused of lying, then it seems to me that more evidence should be provided than just their political persuasions to show that they are liars!" So far all I see is these johny-come-latelys (35 or so years late) who conveniently pop up like jack-in-the-boxes from the peanut gallery who claim he is somehow not qualified for the office....I guess, judging by their previous silence, he is qualified for his current office. But I know that I don't know much about politics. If "suspect" means a statement should be evaluated before being accepted, then I agree. But if "suspect" means "likely untrue" ,simply because it is a Republican who says it, then I disagree I agree. I think you keep up with politics better than you let on....I was able to pick you as a republican seconds after your original post.
