I do often emit links to Winter Soldier. You can even find two articles on there by me. It is the best history of Kerry’s anti-war behavior. You can also get to the Swifties from there.

Heller via the Brothers Judd

John Kerry betrayed every Vietnam Veteran. He climbed on our reputations to reach political power. In the process, he wasn’t picky about who he worked with. He met with the enemy at least twice (he was still a sworn officer, btw). He produce the enemy’s propaganda line over and over again. He threw in items the enemy wanted (we used weapons against Vietnamese that we would never use against Europeans) which were utter bunk.

The North Vietnamese had a strategy. After the press misreported Tet ‘68 badly, rather than their planned surrender, they decided that if they could break our will they could win. Thus they devoted lots of resources (with Soviet help) to improving and directing the anti-war movement. Kerry was happy to go along, having been briefed by them. He was a great catch – lots of medals (never your mind if they were all valid), and a willingness to trash America and trash our troops and veterans with lies.

I know some apologists are saying that he didn’t attack any individual, so somehow it must be okay. That’s crap. I know plenty of individuals who felt trapped, and they are madder than hell that this poseur should step forth and try for the highest office in the land, after what he did.

As for the whistleblower nonsense, forget it. Kerry wasn’t a whistleblower, he was a liar. He saw such a microscopic piece of the war for such a short period of time that he wasn’t qualified to comment on it.

I first found out about John Kerry when his disgusting Senate speech was played on Hugh Hewitt. Until then, I didn’t know anything about him other than he was a low-achieving Senator from New England. The more I found, the more disgusted I got. The man doesn’t deserve to hold public office. He doesn’t deserve to be an American citizen. We should boot his rice-filled butt back to France.

It says in the NYTimes article last week that he once called Bush “an empty suit” who wasn’t fit to be CiC, and so his motivations stem more from hating Kerry than anything else.

Making the assumption that something printed in the NYT is accurate (that seems a stretch), please unravel for us how one goes about taking a negative comment about one candidate and using that as some evidence of the man’s motivations for speaking out against the other candidate? Clearly his feelings toward Kerry are far stronger than his feelings toward Bush. He’s actively trying to prevent Kerry from being elected.

But his feelings, even if they can be accurately described as hatred do not necessarily shed any particular light on the veracity of his charges. Get past the emotion and deal with the specifics.

Kerry’s testimony never singled out an individual.

Of course not. If he had singled out an individual, or even numerous people, he would have been making charges he would have had to produce evidence for. Since he had no evidence but still wished to make the charges he used the rhetorical device of extending his charges to “the system”, “the command structure”, the “troops”.

It simply stated, based on accounts collected by the VVAW, that the war, as being fought, was dishonorable, that the goals of the war were questionable.

I saw that John Moore responded to you at length above. Unless John has stepped out of character his response provided you with links that would, if you took the trouble to follow them, lead you to information that debunks a huge portion of the VVAW “evidence” and demonstrates that little, if any, of Kerry’s testimony allegedly collected from Vietnam Veterans has ever been verified.

The painful fact of the matter, Manhattanite, for anyone who wishes to support John Kerry is that John Kerry willfully, and with forethought and malice, constructed a lie accusing the US Military of systemic propogation of war crimes and painted all US troops who fought in Vietnam as war criminals. And that’s only the half of it. There is some serious question about whether or not the man aided and abetted the enemy, took payments and/or propaganda material from the enemy, participated or was present at meetings where the assasinations of US Senators were discussed and, as you put it, never named a single individual.

Kerry is not the whistle blower, he’s the criminal.

You picked the wrong horse, Bubba. Bummer.

As to Kerry’s slide, he could in fact turn it around very quickly if he came forth and said, very clearly and simply,

– I apologize to all the veterans whom I offended with my youthful, intemperate, and inaccurate remarks thirty-three years ago;

– I renounce my characterization of my comrades’ behavior as war crimes. They served honorably and it was wrong to say otherwise.

– I invite the President to focus on the challenges facing the nation today, above all, Iraq’s transition and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. I look forward to that debate. In order to advance it, I pledge I will not use our experiences during the Vietnam War to divide and distract our nation during this campaign, and I invite the President to do the same.

Isn’t this obviously the way to defuse the Swift controversy? What on earth are Kerry and his people thinking? Are they so self-absorbed, so preoccupied with their pals in the MSM that they can’t see what’s going on in the country? If so, then John O’Neill has done this country a tremendous service.

It says in the NYTimes article last week that he once called Bush “an empty suit” who wasn’t fit to be CiC, and so his motivations stem more from hating Kerry than anything else.

On Kerry being a traitor:

Is Abu Ghraib whistle blower Steven Darby a traitor?

Did My Lai really happen?

Kerry’s testimony never singled out an individual. It simply stated, based on accounts collected by the VVAW, that the war, as being fought, was dishonorable, that the goals of the war were questionable.

Let’s deal with provbable facts.

All I see is a bunch of combat veterans calling another bunch of combat veterans liars. Their motivations do not seem objective or constructive to people like me, or John McCain.

If dn67 were truly interested in “discrepancies”, he’d have long ago concluded that John Kerry is the liar.

You obviously are coming from a prejudiced point of view which is just looking for a reason to not like Kerry. This is the same attitude of a lot of veterans who have had a “bug up” ever since ‘71.

This clouded viewpoint prevents you from seeing just how much of a turn-off these guys are. It seems like more vets have come forward to denounce them and support Kerry than vice versa.

Being called war criminals and damaged by what we “had to do” does not leave a good feeling about the person who said it. I was not aware of that until I heard his “testimony” on the Hugh Hewitt show.

As to vets coming forward to denounce swiftvets, I sute haven’t encountered them. Quite the opposite – Vietnam Vets almost universally despise John Kerry, and many didn’t know what he had done until the Swifties told them. There is no forgiveness of some of his behavior.

Meanwhile many pundits are writing about how the Swifties have seriously damaged Kerry’s campaign. There are other groups ( Vietnam Vets for the Truth ) who also have action planned.

The Swifties called a press conference on May 5 to let the country know about Kerry’s behavior and their opinion. The MSM pretty much ignored them. That was a mistake – the Swifties went public as early as they could in order to give the Democrats a chance to change candidates. AP,NBC,ABC and CNN completely ignored this – a historic event where the entire command chain of a veteran stating his is unfit to command.

Now the press is doing damage control (the press, of course, is very strongly anti-Bush). Trying to only report on discrepancies that favor Kerry, but they’re having to work awfully hard at it.

I know some of the Swiftees. They are angry, determined, smart and now apparently well funded. They are also truthful. It was their little unit – everyone knew everyone else in one that small.

Meanwhile $65 million has been spent by the pro-Kerry 527s, but you don’t hear much about that from the MSM. In comparison, Swiftees have spent under a million,

Kerry has a little problem: running as a war hero with the record of a communist sympathizer (I’m being polite), who attacked our entire country and especially Vietnam Vets (and soldiers still in Vietnam). Furthermore, Kerry bailed out of his unit after 4 months, using a completely bogus purple heart award to do so. In the military, he is a shirker.

How would American voters feel if they read current Vietnamese propaganda which tells how well our POWs were treated, which quotes Kerry by name to prove we tend to do atrocities.

Think they would like it? All they have to do is go to The Vietnam News Service.

dn67

O’Neill is not lying. You have to look at local contributions to find the Democrat contributions. The guy owns a big law firm, he’s obviously going to contribute where he thinks it will do the most good.

He told me, as he has told others, that if Edwards had been the nominee, he would probably have voted for him. The organization came to be when the Admiral read Kerry’s “Tour of Duty” and found it full of falsehoods. From there is was phone calls and they had SBVT.

As to these “contradictions” and not having personal experiences, you are believing the Kerry spin too much. 60 people in SBVT have signed affidavits. If you understand anything about the situation, you know that this was a very small unit, that when not on patrol everyone was together – the enlisted from all boats bunked together, same for the officers – all in the support base. So they all knew each other. They had “personal experience.”

Also, the boats went out on patrol in groups. They stayed within yards of each other, to provide mutual fire support. Don’t believe the Kerry spin (picked up eagerly by the press) that because they were not on the same boat, they didn’t know what happened with each other in a combat situation.

I was in the Navy (air) just before this time. In fact, I was at Cam Rahn 2 months before Kerry – it was an R&R place, not a combat situation (although there were bunkers and minefields and aircraft departing and returning on combat missions and outgoing artillery). When the VC actually dared to get near Cam Rahn in Tet ‘68, people went up on the top of the bunker to get a better view and take pictures of the incoming rockets and the fireworks where they hit. That’s how unserious a combat location it was. Our unit was like the swifties in the sense that we had a bunch of small vessels (P-3 aircraft) and we bunked together. Believe me, everyone knew everyone else, although since our missions were single plane, we couldn’t observe other crews in action the way the Swifties could.

The folks who spoke from Kerry’s crew at the convention had a total between them of 8 days on his boat. But in the field, there were officers, CO’s of other boats, who were operating with him almost his whole short tour. Furthermore, if one takes membership in his crew as a credential, Steve Gardner spent at least two months on Kerry’s crew as a gunner. Gardner is an SBVT member, and has more experience “with Kerry” than any other person. Listen to how the press acts as if such a person doesn’t exist.

If you are going to call a bunch of combat veterans liars, it is appropriate to do your homework. Come to our Sept 12 rally. We’ll have some swifties, including O’Neill, there… they can straighten you out.

You talk about people coming forward. The latest to come forward, a retired admiral, was on the boat with Kerry where he got his first purple heart, and provides additional evidence that the purple heart was invalid (it was granted 3 months later by an officer in Saigon who had no knowledge of the situation, after the doc and Kerry’s CO refused to grant it because it wasn’t justified – no enemy fire in the situation ). The Admiral is not a member of SBVT but was upset about all the BS.

Kerry’s “seared into my memory” Cambodian adventure, with it’s secret hat, has been utterly discredited.

Finally, it is not surprising that some discrepancies turned up. I expected it. Apparently on guys signed an affidavit to what he had heard instead of what he had witnessed.

Go, Baby, GO!

You really haven’t been paying attention to the country on abortion, have you?

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll reported that 60 percent of those polled believe abortion should either be illegal or legal only in a few circumstances. A CNN poll found that 75 percent of those surveyed support a 24-hour waiting period, 85 percent support informed consent, and 73 percent support parental consent. In addition, 52 percent of Americans believe abortion is homicide, and 72 percent think abortion is morally wrong.

Increasingly, Americans are describing themselves as “pro-life” rather than as “pro-choice.” In 1999, 43 percent identified themselves as pro-life, with 46 percent calling themselves pro-choice. An April 2004 Fox News/Opinion Dynamic poll found that 47 percent described themselves as pro-life, while the percentage of those calling themselves pro-choice dropped to 44 percent. A Zogby poll also released in April 2004 found that by a 49 to 45 percent margin, more Americans identified themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”

A poll conducted April 15-17, 2004, by Zogby International showed that a majority of Americans, including African-Americans and students, are pro-life. The poll found that a total of 56 percent agreed with one of the following pro-life views: abortion should never be legal (18 percent), legal only when the life of the mother is in danger (15 percent) or legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest (23 percent).

—-

Middle America has been very consistent for 30 years – we don’t like it, don’t want to pay for it, but see the need in extreme cases. Medical tech has finally put the picture in front of the younger generations.

One reason there’s screaming on both sides is that they lose money, access and POWER. When you have your mortgage, kid’s education and your retirement all based on this issue, you’re going to fight to keep it in front of everyone.

It’s over. Especially with the morning after pill. With all the pregnancy protection options out there women actually have control over their bodies from a method they choose. And it is all about choice, isn’t it?