BROTHERS BAND TOGETHER AGAINST KERRY

[ELKCHSR]

BROTHERS BAND TOGETHER AGAINST KERRY

Thu Aug 12,12:21 AM ET Add Op/Ed - Ann Coulter to My Yahoo!


By Ann Coulter

Democrats haven't been this upset about an American engaging in free speech since Juanita Broaddrick opened her yap.

Two hundred fifty-four Swift Boat Veterans have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief, a point developed in some detail in the blockbuster new book by John O'Neill, aptly titled "Unfit for Command." At the 2003 reunion of Swift Boat Veterans, about 300 men showed up: 85 percent of them think Kerry is unfit to be president. (On the bright side, Kerry was voted, in absentia, "Most Likely to Run for President on His Phony War Record.") Fewer than 10 percent of all Swift Boat Veterans contacted refused to sign the letter.


Kerry was in Vietnam for only four months, which, coincidentally, is less than the combined airtime he's spent talking about it. It takes a special kind of person to get that many people to hate your guts in so little time. The last time this many people hated one person after only four months was when Margaret Cho had her own sitcom.


But our young Eddie Haskell managed to annoy other servicemen even before he came home and called them war criminals. About 60 eyewitnesses to Kerry's service are cited in the book, describing Kerry fleeing comrades who were under attack, disregarding orders, putting others in danger, sucking up to his commanders, creating phony film footage of his exploits with a home-movie camera, and recommending himself for medals and Purple Hearts in vainglorious reports he wrote himself. (This was apparently before the concept of "fragging" put limits on such behavior.)


After three months of combat, Kerry had collected enough film footage for his political campaigns, so he went home. He even shot three different endings to the episode where he chases down a VC guy after test audiences thought Kerry shooting a wounded teenager in the back was too much of a "downer." After filming his last staged exploit, Kerry reportedly told a buddy, "That's a wrap. See you at the convention in about 35 years."


Kerry is demanding to be made president on the basis of spending four months in Vietnam 35 years ago. And yet the men who know what he did during those four months don't think he's fit to be dogcatcher. That seems newsworthy to me, but I must be wrong since the media have engineered a total blackout of the Swift Boat Veterans.


In May, the Swiftees held a spellbinding press conference in Washington, D.C. In front of a photo being used by the Kerry campaign to tout Kerry's war service, the officers stood up, one by one, pointed to their own faces in the campaign photo, and announced that they believed Kerry unfit for command. Only one officer in the photo supports Kerry for president. Seventeen say he is not fit to be president.


The press covered it much as they covered Paula Jones' first press conference.


With the media playing their usual role as Truth Commissar for the now-dead Soviet Union, the Swiftees are having to purchase ad time in order to be heard. No Tim Russert interviews, no "Today" show appearances, no New York Times editorials or Vanity Fair hagiographies for these heretics against the liberal religion. The only way Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could get less attention would be to go on "Air America" radio.


If the 254 veterans against Kerry got one-tenth as much media coverage for calling Kerry a liar as Clown Joe Wilson did for calling Bush a liar, the veterans wouldn't need to buy ad time to get their message out. (Wilson, you'll recall, was a media darling for six or seven months before being exposed as a fantasist by Senate investigators.)


With their commitment to free speech and a robust exchange of ideas (i.e., "child pornography" and "sedition"), the Democratic National Committee is threatening to sue TV stations that run the Swift Boat Veterans' paid ads. Sue? Can you tell already that there are two lawyers at the top of the Democratic ticket? These are the same people who accuse John Ashcroft (news - web sites) of shredding the Bill of Rights. WHY ISN'T THE PRESS COVERING THIS??? Wait, now I remember. OK, never mind. (To contribute to the Swift Boat Veterans go here:

https://coral.he.net/~swiftvet/swift/ccdonation.php?op=donate&site=SwiftVets)

web page

The threat to sue is absurd, but will allow the very same TV stations that are already censoring the Swiftees to have an excuse to censor even purchased airtime.


Leave aside the fact that Kerry is a presidential candidate and -- judging by the ads being run against George Bush -- I gather there's nothing you can't say about a presidential candidate, including calling him Hitler. After reading "Unfit for Command," I am pretty sure Kerry doesn't want a neutral tribunal deciding who's telling the truth here.


The Swift Boat Veterans provide detailed accounts from dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses to Kerry's Uriah Heep-like behavior -- which "Unfit for Command" contrasts with Kerry's boastful descriptions of the exact same incidents.


By contrast, Kerry's supporters have their usual off-the-rack denunciations of any witness against a Democrat. The veterans are: liars, bigots, idiots, politically motivated, and I was never alone in a hotel with Paula Jones.


Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times reporter and Bill Clinton's favorite reporter, compared the Swift Boat Veterans' ad to a "snuff film." He claimed the veterans have "strong Republican ties."


Apparently, before being permitted to engage in free speech against Democrats in this country you have to: (1) prove that you are not a Republican, (2) take a vow of poverty, and (3) purchase the right to speak in a TV ad. On the basis of Clown Wilson, Michael Moore, George Soros, Moveon.org, etc., etc., etc., I gather the requirements for engaging in free speech against a Republican are somewhat less rigorous. Hey! Maybe John Edwards is right: There really are two Americas!


O'Neill, the author of "Unfit for Command" and founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, can be heard on the Nixon tapes -- unaware that he was being taped -- telling Nixon that he came from a family of Democrats and voted for Hubert Humphrey in the prior election. Unlike Joe Wilson, Anita Hill or Richard Clarke, Woodward and Bernstein, et al., O'Neill has said he will take no royalties on his book but will donate all his profits to the Navy. So I think even under liberals' rules, O'Neill is allowed to have an opinion.

Before the book was released and O'Neill could appear to defend it, liberals were on TV denouncing the book. If memory serves, the last book Democrats tried this hard to suppress was the Bible. The DNC is threatening to sue to prevent the Swift Boat Veterans from buying ad time. When Democrats are this terrified of a book, it's not because they have a good answer. Howard Dean can accuse Ashcroft of book-burning all he wants, but it's the Democrats who are doing everything in their power to prevent you from reading "Unfit for Command." In bookstores beginning this week.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ann Coulter is a nutcase. Why anybody would post her idiotic ramblings is beyond me.

Did you see where the Swift boat group is spending $500k on an advertising campaign??? Gosh, I wonder where they got that money??? It is pretty sad to see those vets getting manipulated by Dubya and Rove.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Yep, "manipulated"....

 

[Calif. Hunter]

uh-huh. "manipulated." Just like Michael Moore was manipulated by Kerry?


Have you read the book? Just to be open-minded? Or are you scared to read it?

Why would such a small book upset everyone so much?

Why is it okay for Michael Moore to spout his version of reality, for profit, while this group is labled as "manipulated" or "underhanded" or "politically motivated?"

Does anyone doubt that Moore was "politically motivated" or that he seeks to manipulate public opinion under the guise of a "documentary?"

Gag.

The duplicity of the posters on here is revolting.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I spent last Sunday afternoon at a friend's BBQ and his cousin was there on a visit from Florida. His cousin is on the Board of Directors of the Swift Boat Veterans group. I'll have more to post when I get time. He had a lot of things to say.

 

[chas031]

CH,
Have you read "The New Pearl Harbor" ??

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:



Have you read the book? Just to be open-minded? Or are you scared to read it?

Why would such a small book upset everyone so much?

The duplicity of the posters on here is revolting.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Nope. Never heard of it. Please tell me about it and why you think I should read it.

 

[MarvB]

Here is the Amazon.com synopsis of the book:

The New Pearl Harbor : Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration And 9/11

By David R. Griffin

Taking to heart the classic idea that those who benefit from a crime ought to be investigated, here the eminent theologian David Ray Griffin sifts through the evidence about the attacks of 9/11 - stories from the mainstream press, reports from abroad, the work of other researchers, and the contradictory words of members of the Bush administration themselves - and finds that, taken together, they cast serious doubt on the official story of that tragic day.

He begins with simple questions: Once radio contact was lost with the flights, why weren't jets immediately scrambled from the nearest military airport, something that according to the FAA's own manual is routine procedure? Why did the administration's story about scrambling jets change in the days following the attacks? The disturbing questions don't stop there: they emerge from every part of the story, from every angle, until it is impossible not to suspect the architects of the official story of enormous deception. A teacher of ethics and theology, Griffin writes with compelling logic, urging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence. The New Pearl Harbor is a stirring call for a thorough investigation into what happened on 9/11. It rings with the conviction that it is still possible to search for the truth in American political life. Published by Interlink, 2004

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Is it some kind of conspiracy theory that Bush was somehow involved in 9-11? That is disgusting and not even worthy of a response.

I hardly find it surprising that conflicting stories or confusion abounded on that day or even for days afterwards. Nothing like this had ever happened before, anywhere. As far as scrambling jets as soon as radio contact was lost with the planes, I would not be surprised to find out that radio contact with planes is lost on a fairly frequent basis.

 

[chas031]

Marvb,
Thanks, I got called away.
CH,
Why should you read it?? "The duplicity of the posters on here is revolting."

Chas

 

[Calif. Hunter]

du·plic·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-pls-t, dy-)
n. pl. du·plic·i·ties

Deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
An instance of deliberate deceptiveness; double-dealing.
The quality or state of being twofold or double.


Sorry, but I think I have been quite clear that I support President Bush, given the pretty lousy alternatives we have. If I have confused anyone about that, I apologize. I also have been pretty plain-spoken in my opinion that I do not need and do not have the time to read every article or book or watch every program, story or movie that comes out, particularly when they are just the opinion of someone else. I can formulate my own opinion from the facts, not someone else's slanted interpretation. Given the liberal bias of the mainstream media, I think many of us have gotten lots of experience in separating the wheat from the chaff.

But this is all off-topic from Kerry's lies about his wartime service and the efforts of people who were there to set the record straight.

You still have not explained why you think I should read it. Why don't you start a separate topic about it, rather than hijacking this thread?

 

[Ithaca 37]

My friends cousin on the Swiftboat Vets BOD made it very clear that he and the other members of the group that he knows have NO problem with Kerry's record in Vietnam. Many of them have seen him and talked to him at their swiftboat reunions. The problem they have with him is his conduct and statements after he returned. That's why my friends cousin is upset and active with the group. He say's it's not political either. There are Republicans and Democrats in the group. He said their dislike for Kerry is personal, based on his public comments after returning.

He said the problem is that everyone in the media and politics is now putting their own spin on what the Swiftboat Vets are doing, and they're starting to feel manipulated and used.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:


I also have been pretty plain-spoken in my opinion that I do not need and do not have the time to read every article or book or watch every program, story or movie that comes out, particularly when they are just the opinion of someone else. I can formulate my own opinion from the facts, not someone else's slanted interpretation. Given the liberal bias of the mainstream media, I think many of us have gotten lots of experience in separating the wheat from the chaff.

Ummmm.....Cali, aren't you the person who posts all those ridiculous e-mails and other factually inaccurate crap you cut and paste off other forums? Remember the one you posted about Kerry owning the Heinz Corporation????

Perhaps you might want to improve the source of your reading material.

The furor over a new TV ad that attacks Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's war record took a series of strange turns Friday.

First, a newspaper quoted one of the veterans who criticized Kerry's service as saying he was mistaken. Then the group that sponsored the ad released a statement from the same veteran saying he had been misquoted.

The 60-second spot - scheduled to run in small markets in three swing states - Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin - features Vietnam veterans who accuse Kerry of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

But the Boston Globe ran an article Friday quoting one of the veterans featured in the anti-Kerry ad as recanting his statements.

Lt. Commander George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, told the Globe that he had made a "terrible mistake" when he signed an affidavit that suggested Kerry did not deserve his Silver Star.

"It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words," Elliott said.

The Kerry camp, which has used his service in Vietnam as a major selling point, has called the commercial "an inflammatory outrageous lie," and in a letter to local TV stations asked them to pull it.

Communications director Stephanie Cutter said the American people deserve better.

"I think the American people are tired of these misleading attack ads by the Bush-Cheney campaign. We need to talk about real issues," said Cutter.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a war hero himself, denounced the Swift Boat group's ad as "dishonest and dishonorable," and pointed out a similar tactic was used against him four years ago during his contentious primary race against Mr. Bush.

On Thursday, McCain called on the White House to condemn the practice.

The White House distanced itself from the anti-Kerry ad, but declined to condemn it.

"We have not questioned Kerry's service in Vietnam," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. He also called for an end to the campaign finance reform loophole that helps fund these attacks ads, a number of which have targeted the president.

"We have called for an immediate cessation of these ads and hope John Kerry will, too," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The Kerry campaign also accused the Swift Boat group of having political ties to the Republican Party.

" Far from being a grassroots organization of veterans, this group is a front for the right-wing Texas Republicans to try and take away one of John Kerry’s political strengths — his service to the country in Vietnam," the campaign charged in a 36-page document given to reporters.

And, indeed, a wealthy Texan and prolific Republican donor is helping bankroll the anti-Kerry ad campaign.

Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry has donated at least $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Perry's other donations in the 2003-04 cycle include $10,000 to the pro-Republican Club for Growth and at least $19,250 to federal candidates and party committees, including $2,000 to Bush's re-election effort.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

as posted by Elk Gunner -

Ummmm.....Cali, aren't you the person who posts all those ridiculous e-mails and other factually inaccurate crap you cut and paste off other forums? Remember the one you posted about Kerry owning the Heinz Corporation????


Give me a break. I posted a retraction about that when it was pointed out that the article was incorrect. That was one incident. It does not count as all those ridiculous emails and other factually inaccurate crap.

As usual, you generalize and attack the character of those who see through you. If you cannot debate, assassinate the character of your oppponent.

Unlike you, I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and I am not so egotistical as to claim that I am infallible. I am right, however, while you are just a jerk.

 

[A-con]

Gunner, you'r the one who wanted us all to see the 9/11 movie before we were allowed to commint about it. Have you read this book ???????

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

Remember that nonsense you posted about Kerry owning 5 houses worth $30 million, and only paying $90k in taxes??? You remember the post where the "creidible author" referred to Kerry as "Lurch"????

C'mon Cali, you should be much smarter than you show by replicating the nonsense and factually inaccurate stuff you get in your e-mail.

You don't really believe those letters from the Attorney in Nigeria that wants to give you $20 million that was left in a bank account of your long lost relative????

 

[JoseCuervo]

A-Con,

What book are you talking about??? Are you talking about the book of "The New Pearl Harbor"? The one Cali doesn't need to read, as he gets all of his good information in his E-mail, with the urging of "please pass this on to all your friends".

I did read the Opinion piece by Ann Coulter, and dismissed it as the ramblings of a looney-tune.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

All this from ElkGunner, who absorbs his opinions from Entertainment Tonight and the various Hollywood self-congrulatory acceptance speeches from awards shows and such intellectual giants as Demi Moore.

 

[chas031]

CH,
I haven't "hijacked" anything. This is a direct correlation of a comment posed by another poster!!

"Have you read the book? Just to be open-minded? Or are you scared to read it? Why would such a small book upset everyone so much?"

See?

Chas

 

[BuzzH]

The funny thing about Ann Coulter and O'Neill, neither served with Kerry. Also, O'Neills credibility is being hammered as he DIDNT serve with Kerry, and it appears none of the others in his book that are railing Kerry were actually on a swift boat when Kerry earned his medals.

Besides all that, who gives a crap. I mean lets get real here, if we want to compare suitability for CIC between Kerry and Bush...well, there is no comparison. Bush's phoney baloney air guard stint makes him qualified, but Kerry only serving in Vietnam for 3 months doesnt????

What military experience does Shrub have that overshadows Kerry and his experience???

If one was forced to hire one based solely on their war/military experience...anyone with two firing brain cells would hire the guy with the most experience...and we all know who that is.