Swift Boat issue becomes crucial to Kerry anew

Boston Globe ^ | November 21, 2007 | Sasha Issenberg

[GQuagmire]

WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry, in aggressively pursuing a forum in which to disprove allegations about his Vietnam military service, is drawing new attention to an issue that he was slow to address during his 2004 presidential campaign but that he now contends is vital to his political future.

[george76]

[weegee]

That wasn’t the case when the evidence reported by Dan Rather was proven to be fabricated. There was no extensive reporting as to the ORIGINS of the hoax or the lines of communication between the DNC and the media that brought the hoaxed documents to the public’s attention as legitimate news.

They still claim that was the evidence may be “questionable” (never admit guilt), they proclaim “fake but accurate”.

[perchprism]

“Unfortunately, the Libs have coined the term “swiftboating” as a verb to slime your opponent. It should be a reference to torpedoing someone’s election hopes with the hard truth”.

They think they are clever in their use of ‘swiftboating’, as opposed to ‘Borked’. However, the Swiftboaters were telling the truth, and what happened to Judge Bork was a tragedy of justice.

Interestingly, presidential-hopeful Obama recently used the term ‘swiftboating’ in reference to the rumored secret dirt Hillary has on him. The Democrats are trying desperately to assume the mantle of a moral highground, and must look to the Republicans for guidance on just how to portray themselves. But they are lying, whereas the ‘pub’s have always been telling it straight. ‘Swiftboating’ is, therefore, a nonsense term — a ‘non sequiter’— and won’t survive to find its way into any respectable dictionary.

[Godwin1]

Why does this malingering serial liar even bring this up? He spent barely 3 months in Vietnam and cowardly skulked away with 3 “wounds”, at least one of which was apparently self-inflicted, that were no more serious than paper cuts. Then he used political influence to be discharged early from the Navy and spent the next couple of years using lies and slanders to bring about a communist victory over America in Vietnam. He likened our soldiers to the hordes of Ghengis Khan, he said he had seen atrocities which he later admitted he had not seen, he said had been in Cambodia when he had not ,he filled his phony “vets” organization with malingerers like himself and, incredibly, with people who had never been in the service at all. A thoroughly despicable human being.

[kabar]

Andrew Card? I really don’t care to be involved in replacing Kerry with another Dem.

[kabar]

He spent barely 3 months in Vietnam and cowardly skulked away with 3 “wounds”, at least one of which was apparently self-inflicted, that were no more serious than paper cuts.

Kerry spent 4 and 1/2 months in-country. All of his wounds were probably self-inflicted. The first PH "wound" was suffered when he fired an M-79 grenade launcher on a training mission on a skimmer. No hostile fire. The second PH was apparently also self-inflicted using an M-79 grenade launcher. The skipper of the boat trailing Kerry's states that there was no intense rocket and rifle fire as reported by Kerry. The third PH resulted from Kerry wounding himself in the buttocks trying to blow up a cache of rice.

[Terriergal]

That can’t be right...

[Terriergal]

John F-T-A Kerry is saying that the “rules” of this wager have been changed.

HUH? How can they have changed? Why doesn't this surprise me?

[Terriergal]

Unfortunately, the Libs have coined the term “swiftboating” as a verb to slime your opponent. It should be a reference to torpedoing someone’s election hopes with the hard truth.

When they use it to complain, that's exactly what it does mean~!

[Terriergal]

Amen to your HO.

Wait a minute... Don Imus got fired for stuff like that... Oh wait a minute...

[Terriergal]

Don’t give them ideas. ( Heaven knows they won’t come up with any of their own~! )

[Terriergal]

He signed it a while back. There was a thread about this a couple of years ago. But he never sent it in to the appropriate office. So I believe him when he says he signed it. Now he should send it in.

figures they'd parse it... "oh I SIGNED it..."

"Yes Mr Bill Collector... no really! I put the check in the envelope this morning!"

[arthurus]

He signed it to release only it to a reporter who did not release it to others.

[Doctor Don]

I thought we had buried “Cadaver Man” !

[17th Miss Regt]

He apparently released full copies of his record to three friendly reporters - copies of the signed forms are available on the net somewhere. These folks looked at them and said there was nothing unusual about his service records. In the tank all the way for Kerry...

It could also be that they did not know what they were looking at when they saw it. Reporters are notoriously ignorant people and most have no military experience. So they may have seen the phrase 'DISCHARGED FOR THE GOOD OF THE NAVY' and not given a second thought to the matter.

[arthurus]

The relevant fact is he signed the form but the records were not “released”. Not just anyone can look at them. There are likely also some contractual obligations involved on the part of the recipients. Kerry is not going to do anything in this area that is not tightly controlled.

[roaddog727]

No results yet fro ‘ole T Boone Pickens offer? I thought not.

Hey, J F’n K - where’s your signed DD180?

Oh - You forgot - I thought so......

[okie01]

Chances are that if Senator Kerry could refute the Swift Boat Vets he would have done so in timely fashion so that it would not have scuttled his aspirations for the Presidency.

Recall that a Newsweek reporter was allowed full access to the inner workings of the Kerry camp during the campaign -- with the understanding that he could not write about it until the campaign was concluded.

After the election, this "inside report" by Newsweek graphically illustrated Kerry's problem: "Most of it [the SSBVT claims] was true".

[ladyinred]

Why is it so hard for democrats to handle the truth?

[17th Miss Regt]

There are likely also some contractual obligations involved on the part of the recipients.

There can be no contractual obligations regarding what the recipients do with the records. Once they have them, they are free to use them as they see fit - he signed a release for that person.

HOWEVER, you can bet that he would not release them to anyone that he felt he could not absolutely trust to go in the tank for him, or at least to ignore the phrase 'DISCHARGED FOR THE GOOD OF THE NAVY'.