John Kerry's Swift Boat Critics

[Matt]

Interestingly the only naval officers and men who did serve with him all praised his abilities as an officer and his ability to operate in a cool way whilst under fire.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Some of them were angry with him for afterwards protesting against the Vietnam War, but they still admired him for what he did on the Swift Boats.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Matt@Sep 26 2004, 05:00 PM

Interestingly the only naval officers and men who did serve with him all praised his abilities as an officer and his ability to operate in a cool way whilst under fire.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Some of them were angry with him for afterwards protesting against the Vietnam War, but they still admired him for what he did on the Swift Boats.

First, that's wrong. From the site you referenced:

Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat.

Gardner actually served longer under Lt. Kerry's command than any of his other crewmen. The crewman whose praise for Kerry is the loudest (David Alston) apparently only went on one or possibly two missions aboard Kerry's boat.

Second, you're using a very narrow definition of "served with." It would be accurate to say that officers and men who went on missions with Lt. Kerry (in flotillas of Swift boats sailing in close formation) and returned to live in the same floating barracks served with Kerry.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

I can see Kerry's defenders now: "Talbot and Warwick weren't in the same squadron of horse with King Henry at Agincourt; they were on the other side of the battlefield. So they didn't really serve with him."

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Matt@Sep 26 2004, 05:00 PM

Interestingly the only naval officers and men who did serve with him all praised his abilities as an officer and his ability to operate in a cool way whilst under fire.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Some of them were angry with him for afterwards protesting against the Vietnam War, but they still admired him for what he did on the Swift Boats.

First, that's wrong. From the site you referenced:

Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat.

Gardner actually served longer under Lt. Kerry's command than any of his other crewmen. The crewman whose praise for Kerry is the loudest (David Alston) apparently only went on one or possibly two missions aboard Kerry's boat.

Second, you're using a very narrow definition of "served with." It would be accurate to say that officers and men who went on missions with Lt. Kerry (in flotillas of Swift boats sailing in close formation) and returned to live in the same floating barracks served with Kerry.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

I can see Kerry's defenders now: "Talbot and Warwick weren't in the same squadron of horse with King Henry at Agincourt; they were on the other side of the battlefield. So they didn't really serve with him."

Fact of the matter is that only ONE of the crewmen on Kerry's boat have said anything negative. I've read at least FOUR other glowing reports by others who were on the spot. Majority wins? Also interesting that most of the reports from people who where not right on the spot are negative. Hummmm...I wonder why that would be so?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:39 PM

Fact of the matter is that only ONE of the crewmen on Kerry's boat have said anything negative.... Also interesting that most of the reports from people who where not right on the spot are negative. Hummmm...I wonder why that would be so?

To hear the Swift Boat vets tell it - it is because Kerry entreaties them with perks like 15 minutes of fame in the spotlight, flying around the country, staying in 4 star hotels, getting an in with the potential new President.

What I find most interesting is not that a handful of those he served with support him, but rather that all those (if the Swift Boat guys are to be believed) who served above him up the chain of command say he is not fit...

[Snow]

Anyway, that's one of the reasons that Kerry is losing right now. He is so egotistical that he thinks that the election is about what he did 30 years ago.

I am opposed to Kerry because he is THE most liberal man in the Senate (Edwards is the 4th most liberal). That is good for someone like Cal who wants to take from the earners and give to those who do not. That is not so good for those like me.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 27 2004, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 27 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:39 PM

Fact of the matter is that only ONE of the crewmen on Kerry's boat have said anything negative.... Also interesting that most of the reports from people who where not right on the spot are negative. Hummmm...I wonder why that would be so?

To hear the Swift Boat vets tell it - it is because Kerry entreaties them with perks like 15 minutes of fame in the spotlight, flying around the country, staying in 4 star hotels, getting an in with the potential new President.

What I find most interesting is not that a handful of those he served with support him, but rather that all those (if the Swift Boat guys are to be believed) who served above him up the chain of command say he is not fit...

Total fabrication, Snow. Many of those that served above him lauded his efforts. Why do you think he got the medals in the first place.

Second, we can say the same thing about the detractors. I wonder what kind of treatement they got from the Repubs? How much did Carl Rowe have to pay them?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 27 2004, 06:06 PM

Anyway, that's one of the reasons that Kerry is losing right now. He is so egotistical that he thinks that the election is about what he did 30 years ago.

I am opposed to Kerry because he is THE most liberal man in the Senate (Edwards is the 4th most liberal). That is good for someone like Cal who wants to take from the earners and give to those who do not. That is not so good for those like me.

The earners? How do you think your rich "earners" got their money? On the backs of the middle and lower wage earners. I suppose you would prefer that the averge Joe would earn almost nothing, pay what he did earn in income taxes, and leave his boss free to pay no income tax. After all he EARNED it.

No wonder they call Conservatism the politics of selfishness.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

Since according to the IRS, I'm "wealthy" (on the other hand, between inflated SoCal rents and student debt, I have virtually no disposable income), exactly whose lower-class back am I riding to my fabulous wealth?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 28 2004, 07:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 28 2004, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Sep 27 2004, 06:06 PM

Anyway, that's one of the reasons that Kerry is losing right now. He is so egotistical that he thinks that the election is about what he did 30 years ago.

I am opposed to Kerry because he is THE most liberal man in the Senate (Edwards is the 4th most liberal). That is good for someone like Cal who wants to take from the earners and give to those who do not. That is not so good for those like me.

The earners? How do you think your rich "earners" got their money? On the backs of the middle and lower wage earners. I suppose you would prefer that the averge Joe would earn almost nothing, pay what he did earn in income taxes, and leave his boss free to pay no income tax. After all he EARNED it.

No wonder they call Conservatism the politics of selfishness.

I would like to suggest you look at things a little closer, Cal. Seriously. You are speaking of things you do not know of.

For 10 years or so (about 15 years ago), my husband and I fell into the top tax bracket. Together we made $155,000. We worked like dogs during that time. Not because we were money-hungry, but because we had to live in a part of the country where, in order to live with shelter over your head, you had to pay at least $1700 a month for a mortgage payment, and that was just an old run-down house that needed massive work close to an hour from where I worked (or else the mortgage payment would have been higher.) But that is where we needed to be because of the type of job my husband had and where those companies are located. And we paid 40% of our money to the government.

And I would assume that most of the people in that top tax bracket are people like me. Barely making enough money to afford a house worth living in, but making enough money to be in the top tax bracket. Not those ultra-millionaires you are complaining about, but honest, hard-working people like you.

So, I would appreciate it if you would stop sounding off about things you do not know what you are talking about.

[Faerie]

amen Jenda!!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 28 2004, 07:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 28 2004, 07:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 27 2004, 06:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:39 PM

Fact of the matter is that only ONE of the crewmen on Kerry's boat have said anything negative.... Also interesting that most of the reports from people who where not right on the spot are negative. Hummmm...I wonder why that would be so?

To hear the Swift Boat vets tell it - it is because Kerry entreaties them with perks like 15 minutes of fame in the spotlight, flying around the country, staying in 4 star hotels, getting an in with the potential new President.

What I find most interesting is not that a handful of those he served with support him, but rather that all those (if the Swift Boat guys are to be believed) who served above him up the chain of command say he is not fit...

Total fabrication, Snow. Many of those that served above him lauded his efforts. Why do you think he got the medals in the first place.

""During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)"

So Cal,

What's the fabrication? Did Plumly not say that? Did Kerry not serve under his command?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 28 2004, 07:52 AM

The earners? How do you think your rich "earners" got their money? On the backs of the middle and lower wage earners. I suppose you would prefer that the averge Joe would earn almost nothing, pay what he did earn in income taxes, and leave his boss free to pay no income tax. After all he EARNED it.

No wonder they call Conservatism the politics of selfishness.

Cal,

I am in that small minority of earners that pays the majority of the income tax burden. Exactly whose back did I step on to get where I am? Specifically Cal. Don't worry, I know you can't answer because you are only blowing hot air. You know squat about it.

Since you don't know how it's done I'll tell you how I did it. I have been working straight since I was 14 except for the two years I served a mission. I put myself through college; got a job, went back at night for a graduate degree, got promoted, met goals, got promoted, met goals, got promoted, etc, etc. Now my hard work is reward by not only paying my share of the taxes, but a disporportionately high tax to make up for the lower taxes paid by the other 95% of the taxpayer. Heck Cal, I probably pay part of your taxes for you and I don't even know you, and then despite the fact that I likely contribute more than you, you call me selfish. Go figure.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Snow -- The definition of "greed" is the desire for more money by any person other than oneself.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 28 2004, 10:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 28 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 28 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 27 2004, 06:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 27 2004, 05:39 PM

Fact of the matter is that only ONE of the crewmen on Kerry's boat have said anything negative.... Also interesting that most of the reports from people who where not right on the spot are negative. Hummmm...I wonder why that would be so?

To hear the Swift Boat vets tell it - it is because Kerry entreaties them with perks like 15 minutes of fame in the spotlight, flying around the country, staying in 4 star hotels, getting an in with the potential new President.

What I find most interesting is not that a handful of those he served with support him, but rather that all those (if the Swift Boat guys are to be believed) who served above him up the chain of command say he is not fit...

Total fabrication, Snow. Many of those that served above him lauded his efforts. Why do you think he got the medals in the first place.

""During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)"

So Cal,

What's the fabrication? Did Plumly not say that? Did Kerry not serve under his command?

Obviously, this is a person who resents the fact that Kerry changed his mind about the correctness of the Vietnam war---as did MANY other veterans after the fact. That there are die hard "patriots" that think the war was justified is not really surprising. That they are still die hard Repubs, and willing to bash Kerry for the "cause" is hardly surprising either.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 28 2004, 10:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 28 2004, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 28 2004, 07:52 AM

The earners? How do you think your rich "earners" got their money? On the backs of the middle and lower wage earners. I suppose you would prefer that the averge Joe would earn almost nothing, pay what he did earn in income taxes, and leave his boss free to pay no income tax. After all he EARNED it.

No wonder they call Conservatism the politics of selfishness.

Cal,

I am in that small minority of earners that pays the majority of the income tax burden. Exactly whose back did I step on to get where I am? Specifically Cal. Don't worry, I know you can't answer because you are only blowing hot air. You know squat about it.

Since you don't know how it's done I'll tell you how I did it. I have been working straight since I was 14 except for the two years I served a mission. I put myself through college; got a job, went back at night for a graduate degree, got promoted, met goals, got promoted, met goals, got promoted, etc, etc. Now my hard work is reward by not only paying my share of the taxes, but a disporportionately high tax to make up for the lower taxes paid by the other 95% of the taxpayer. Heck Cal, I probably pay part of your taxes for you and I don't even know you, and then despite the fact that I likely contribute more than you, you call me selfish. Go figure.

I hate to burst your bubble, pal, but you are probably not carrying SQUAT for me. I also worked my way thru college, got a MA and a law degree, and probably make twice what you do, so dont' bother playing the " I clawed my way to the top, so I deserve every penny I make". The fact is, everybody pays his fair share to be able to prosper in this country. The fact that us "rich" folk pay more doesn't bother me in the least--I'm happy to do it, especially if it means some under priviledge kid can go to college too.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 28 2004, 10:31 PM

Snow -- The definition of "greed" is the desire for more money by any person other than oneself.

No, PD, the definition of greed is the belief that one can benefit from the system without giving anything back!

[Cal]

By the way, as to your Swift boat critics, even your beloved Prez Bush says that the attacks on Kerry are unjustified and he wants nothing to do with them. So why do you keep pounding on it?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:44 AM

I hate to burst your bubble, pal, but you are probably not carrying SQUAT for me. I also worked my way thru college, got a MA and a law degree, and probably make twice what you do, so dont' bother playing the " I clawed my way to the top, so I deserve every penny I make". The fact is, everybody pays his fair share to be able to prosper in this country. The fact that us "rich" folk pay more doesn't bother me in the least--I'm happy to do it, especially if it means some under priviledge kid can go to college too.

And you're ok with the government telling you that you have to support this kid in college whether you like it or not? Do you not think that with your experience and general charitable attitude that you should be able to help of your own free will instead of being forced to help?

You are entirely mistaken concerning your view of the rich and taxes. The rich pay more in taxes. Period. Are you not familiar with the graduated tax? Are you at all familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax? With the graduated tax system we pay an increasing amount of our taxable income to the government. The AMT phases out various deductions so that those who make more money through their hard work and investments aren't able to avoid paying more tax.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 29 2004, 04:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 29 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 28 2004, 10:31 PM

Snow -- The definition of "greed" is the desire for more money by any person other than oneself.

No, PD, the definition of greed is the belief that one can benefit from the system without giving anything back!

Has anyone said, in this thread, that they shouldn't pay into the system that they benefit from? I've seen no one advocate a non-tax system. Your comment seems to be nothing other than a red herring.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:48 AM

By the way, as to your Swift boat critics, even your beloved Prez Bush says that the attacks on Kerry are unjustified and he wants nothing to do with them. So why do you keep pounding on it?

Well, let's see:

1. Because I don't take marching orders from my "beloved" President Bush. (Why do lefties always include that snide little "beloved," as if we worship the guy or something? He's a decent president, and a darn sight better than the alternative, but it's not like he's Reagan or anything. That's pretty much the conservative consensus. Yet another example of the liberal conceit that their opposition consists of blind "sheeple.")

2. Because the Swift boat guys are on to something. Kerry clearly embellishes his military record. (It's conclusively established that he didn't spend Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, as he used to boast.) That kind of thing isn't exactly uncommon, especially among the ambitious men that go into politics. Tom Harkin lied about being a fighter pilot in Vietnam. (He flew ferry flights from Japan to the Phillippines.) Paul Dunn used to spice up his war stories for dramatic effect. I seem to have overstated by 50% the duration of my make-out session with Stacy Pando in the summer of '89. (In my defense, I wasn't exactly looking at my watch.)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 29 2004, 04:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 29 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 28 2004, 10:31 PM

Snow -- The definition of "greed" is the desire for more money by any person other than oneself.

No, PD, the definition of greed is the belief that one can benefit from the system without giving anything back!

I stand by my definition. It's the only thing that can explain a nice old lady with a Kerry-Edwards sign in her window accusing oil companies of greed for their high prices, when she's selling off houses for twice what she paid for them three years ago.

When you're the seller in a seller's market, high prices are the natural, inevitable result of supply and demand, and are just peachy. When you're the buyer in a seller's market, it's all a greedy price-fixing conspiracy.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Kevin+Sep 29 2004, 10:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Sep 29 2004, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:44 AM

I hate to burst your bubble, pal, but you are probably not carrying SQUAT for me. I also worked my way thru college, got a MA and a law degree, and probably make twice what you do, so dont' bother playing the " I clawed my way to the top, so I deserve every penny I make".  The fact is, everybody pays his fair share to be able to prosper in this country. The fact that us "rich" folk pay more doesn't bother me in the least--I'm happy to do it, especially if it means some under priviledge kid can go to college too.

And you're ok with the government telling you that you have to support this kid in college whether you like it or not? Do you not think that with your experience and general charitable attitude that you should be able to help of your own free will instead of being forced to help?

You are entirely mistaken concerning your view of the rich and taxes. The rich pay more in taxes. Period. Are you not familiar with the graduated tax? Are you at all familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax? With the graduated tax system we pay an increasing amount of our taxable income to the government. The AMT phases out various deductions so that those who make more money through their hard work and investments aren't able to avoid paying more tax.

Of course I am aware that the rich pay more taxes! And no, I don't mind the government telling me that I have to because most of us "rich" guys are to damned greedy to help any one less fortunate than ourselves.

By the way, the government is us! The majority of us want the governement to help the less fortunate--that is why we do it. It is the right thing to do, all you CHRISTIANS!

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Sep 29 2004, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Sep 29 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:48 AM

By the way, as to your Swift boat critics, even your beloved Prez Bush says that the attacks on Kerry are unjustified and he wants nothing to do with them. So why do you keep pounding on it?

Well, let's see:

1. Because I don't take marching orders from my "beloved" President Bush. (Why do lefties always include that snide little "beloved," as if we worship the guy or something? He's a decent president, and a darn sight better than the alternative, but it's not like he's Reagan or anything. That's pretty much the conservative consensus. Yet another example of the liberal conceit that their opposition consists of blind "sheeple.")

2. Because the Swift boat guys are on to something. Kerry clearly embellishes his military record. (It's conclusively established that he didn't spend Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, as he used to boast.) That kind of thing isn't exactly uncommon, especially among the ambitious men that go into politics. Tom Harkin lied about being a fighter pilot in Vietnam. (He flew ferry flights from Japan to the Phillippines.) Paul Dunn used to spice up his war stories for dramatic effect. I seem to have overstated by 50% the duration of my make-out session with Stacy Pando in the summer of '89. (In my defense, I wasn't exactly looking at my watch.)

Actually, I haven't really heard much substance in the complaints about Kerry. Mostly generalization. What specific wounds does he claim that anyone can specifically and definitely contradict with eye witness accuracy (if that isn't an oxymoron)? Which particular medals does he NOT deserve and exactly why?

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Sep 29 2004, 01:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Sep 29 2004, 01:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:46 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Sep 28 2004, 10:31 PM

Snow -- The definition of "greed" is the desire for more money by any person other than oneself.

No, PD, the definition of greed is the belief that one can benefit from the system without giving anything back!

I stand by my definition. It's the only thing that can explain a nice old lady with a Kerry-Edwards sign in her window accusing oil companies of greed for their high prices, when she's selling off houses for twice what she paid for them three years ago.

When you're the seller in a seller's market, high prices are the natural, inevitable result of supply and demand, and are just peachy. When you're the buyer in a seller's market, it's all a greedy price-fixing conspiracy.

We will agree, there are many definitions.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:46 AM

No, PD, the definition of greed is the belief that one can benefit from the system without giving anything back!

Actually Cal that's not the definition. I just checked. But were we to accept your interpretation, it would apply to the bottom 50% of the taxpayers who only pay 5% of the income tax, not the wealthy who pay there share plus the share of all your "greedy" low wage earners.