Beldar makes John Kerry an Offer too good to refuse
[Guest post by DRJ]
From yesterday’s BeldarBlog:
“Sen. Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts has a very unusual, extremely generous and pro-plaintiff three-year limitations period for defamation claims. Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitations for defamation claims made it the very last feasible venue in which Sen. Kerry conceivably could file suit and gain his public vindication, if the SwiftVets’ allegations about him were false. Those claims were certainly, indeed deliberately, injurious to his reputation; his damages arguably include the loss of the 2004 presidential election, however that might be valued in dollars and cents; and if John Kerry could hope to find a home-town advantage anywhere, surely it would be there. But now he’s let the incredibly generous Massachusetts statute of limitations run out, too.“
Beldar’s offer? It’s generous:
Kerry can sue Beldar in Houston for defamation. Beldar will waive any statute of limitations defense, service of process and even pay the filing fees. If Kerry wants to proceed pro se, Beldar agrees to Kerry’s application for admission pro hac vice and will pay the fees to reinstate Kerry’s Massachusetts law license. Alternatively, Beldar will appear pro se even if Kerry doesn’t.
Beldar’s one stipulation:
“No confidentiality orders, and no motions to quash. Everything that’s uncovered in pretrial discovery has to become part of the public record without delay. We’ll put it all on the internet via a neutral host (say, the WaPo). We’ll do the pretrial depos on video, too, and jointly move the court to permit TV coverage of the trial, so that the public (and the jury, eventually) can see who sweats under oath under the bright lights.”
I’d pay good money to watch this but I think my money is safe.
At last, John Kerry can fight back against the “swiftboaters”! He’ll be a real gutless skunk if he doesn’t do it, too, because the swiftboaters have been racking up victim after victim. They got Cindy Sheehan - albeit, that saved the Democrats the trouble of doing it themselves once she wandered off the reservation.
Finally, he has a chance to be a real hero … like Lillian Hellman or something. Or that guy who killed Trotsky.
I wouldn’t count on Kerry going pro se, however. If he could pay somebody to show up in the Senate for him he’d do it.
Comment by Glen Wishard — 8/27/2007 @ 11:13 am
Hey, JFKerry what about releasing those military records like you promised?
Comment by SicSemperTyrannus — 8/27/2007 @ 11:18 am
Kerry won’t do it because it will open his world up to scrutiny….and the MSM won’t do anything because of the same reason….and it is a total shame that the MSM doesn’t want to save their own monopoly while they still can…
And, I love that…
Comment by reff — 8/27/2007 @ 11:46 am
Watch Kerry run like the real coward he is. He’s got no unarmed teenager to shoot in the back to vindicate himself here.
Comment by PCD — 8/27/2007 @ 11:50 am
Kerry signed the release, form 180, in 2005.
Can we talk about the war we’re fighting now?
Comment by AF — 8/27/2007 @ 12:26 pm
This is only speculation but I would bet that had he run for prez this time, those fbi files from the clinton days may have shed a little light on what is in the records.
But again only speculation. He isn’t running.
Comment by voiceofreason — 8/27/2007 @ 12:27 pm
AF, given how often you have thread hijacked here, your comment is more than a bit hilarious.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/27/2007 @ 12:43 pm
Can we talk about the war we’re fighting now?
Would that be the war that John Kerry voted for, repeatedly drawing upon on his dubious Vietnam experience?
Comment by Perfect Sense — 8/27/2007 @ 12:51 pm
“Watch Kerry run like the real coward he is. He’s got no unarmed teenager to shoot in the back to vindicate himself here.”
-PCD
Fuck off. At least he was there.
Curse his politics if you must - hell, I’ll probably join you - but give the man his due: he served his country in a real war (not some bullshit “I-got-promoted-to-Major-for-liberating-a-Kuwaiti-PortaPotty” police action), in a real combat role (not the Texas Air National Guard), and received real decorations from real officers for doing so.
Maybe it pisses you off that he spoke his mind when he got back to the States (or that he threw his real decorations over the White House fence), but I daresay his right to do so was well-earned.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/27/2007 @ 1:07 pm
PCD’s comment about unarmed teenagers are out of bounds. But, Leviticus, if he only spoke his mind perhaps you would have a point. But Kerry fronted for fraudulent slanders of US troops in his anti-war activities.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/27/2007 @ 1:11 pm
Kerry is a putz who ran a lousy campaign, but the record shows he fought bravely in a war 40 years ago. Yet at this point you’d rather keep trying to smear him than discuss the present, which is a war your big daddy has fucked up royally. Your points about Kerry have been refuted dozens of times, but it’s still safer for you to go to that than Iraq.
This isn’t about policy to you, it’s about “us” (and who that is changes daily) and “them” which seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you about anything.
This isn’t logic this is ideology. And you think everyone’s as knee-jerk and ideological as you are.
When someone here has anything substantive to say about policy, even something worth arguing against, I’ll chip in again.
I just dropped by to remind you of what you’re trying to forget.
Comment by AF — 8/27/2007 @ 1:17 pm
No, AF, the record does not show that. The points about Kerry have not been refuted at all, that’s why Beldar is so amused by Kerry letting the statute of limitations run on a defamation suit. But then, you don’t bother to even show that you know what the “points” are.
You didn’t remind us of much except that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/27/2007 @ 1:27 pm
AF - Career Vietnam Veteran John Kerry’s records haven’t been released to anybody but his butt buddy David Brinkley, if him, so check you facts.
The Swift Boat claims have not been debunked in spite of the many times that dishonest hustler Eric Boehlert claims they have. Feeling that have been, does not make it so, even recognizing the importance of feelings to liberals.
Go Beldar!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/27/2007 @ 1:34 pm
…but the record shows he fought bravely in a war 40 years ago.
Actually, the recored shows that most of the men who served with him don’t believe this. Among other acts, they don’t think it was brave for Kerry to bug out 36 weeks early.
Your points about Kerry have been refuted dozens of times…
Actually, the Swiftboat charges have not been refuted. Even Kerry now admits that he was not in Cambodia as he frequently claimed - an event that he claimed was “seared, seared in his memory.” Kerry cannot provide proper paperwork of how he received his first Purple Heart, where even if he was “wounded,” his wound was self-inflicted and not eligible for a Purple Heart. If these charges had been refuted, the why is Kerry running from a libel lawsuit?
When someone here has anything substantive to say about policy…
This thread is about challenging Kerry’s record in Vietnam, not about Iraq policy. Kerry says the Swiftboaders lied. If Kerry believes that, the potential defendants are being as accommodating as possible so Kerry can prove it in court.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 8/27/2007 @ 1:39 pm
received real decorations
would those be the ones he claimed he threw over the White House wall?
Comment by Darleen — 8/27/2007 @ 1:42 pm
Maybe it pisses you off that he spoke his mind when he got back to the States
He spoke his mind?
In case you haven’t heard, Levi, there’s a book out there called Winter Soldier. It cotains the entire testimony Kerry gave on the Senate floor in 1971. The book is long out of print…and Kerry quashed any attempt to create any new printings in 2004.
Why did he do this, if he only spoke his mind, and told the truth?
Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 1:42 pm
which is a war your big daddy has fucked up royally
AF, go consult with Carl Levin. He has something to tell you about Iraq.
Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 1:46 pm
Winter Soldier = mind speaking?
The mind boggles, actually.
Comment by Techie — 8/27/2007 @ 1:55 pm
When someone here has anything substantive to say about policy
AF, you’ve been told many times that if you think there are ’substansive policy issues’ not covered here, go start your own blog. The you can
rant like a madman about Chimpy BusHitler McHalliburton and his idiot wardiscuss any current event you want. No need to whine about how ‘this was a busy week and you’re not discussing any of it.’Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 1:56 pm
Winter Soldier = mind speaking?
The mind boggles, actually.
Yes, it does. Even Garry Trudeau mocked Kerry in a 1971 Doonesbury strip.
Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 1:58 pm
Actually, I recall reading part of a Kerry Account of the “day” his boat went to ground while taking fire (not by accident, put ashore intentionally), and he claims he jumped out of the boat, and shot a wounded, unarmed enemy. Considering the average age on both the NVA and VC, assuming the person to have been a teen is quite legit.
So, actually, PCD’s comment is pretty on the mark…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/27/2007 @ 2:19 pm
Scott, his story was that it was an enemy who had just fired an RPG at this boat.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/27/2007 @ 2:35 pm
Leviticus-
Even if:
1. Sen. John Kerry knowingly volunteered for hazardous swift-boat duty
2. Was awarded all medals in a manner that any other soldier would have received them
3. Honestly “spoke his mind” and told only the truth as best he knew it in the early 70’s
4. Threw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever it was he said he did or didn’t throw over the White House fence
5. Was treated with criminal slander and libel by the “swift boat vets”
6. He never spoke on the floor of the Senate that Bill Clinton’s Vietnam record was not important
and
7. President Bush was a slacker in a no risk position;
I think his attempt at being a proud, pro-military, Vietnam veteran in the 2004 campaign would have been laughable if it were not dishonest and deplorable. If I read a novel with such a plot twist I would have tossed it aside as being unbelievable.
He birthed his public recognition as an anti-war activist who called his fellow soldiers barbarians and repudiated his being honored by the military by “returning” his medals. If that is who he wanted to be, so be it. If he wants to say those words were a mistake, apologize, and play the patriot he can if he wants to and let people believe him or not.
But to stand by his earlier actions and claim to be a proud veteran at the same time really seems quite deplorable, let alone down right contradictory.
If he is the patriot he claims he is, he owes it to the honor of the US military, the Democrat Party, those who voted for him, and the United States to prove the “Swift Boat Vets” were lying.
A person can think Bush is a cheat and idiot if you want, that doesn’t make it reasonable to ignore the obvious when it comes to Sen. Kerry.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/27/2007 @ 3:15 pm
why would anyone agree to this? their computers, emails, medical and financial records all open. that’s ridiculous.
Comment by ak — 8/27/2007 @ 3:17 pm
Kerry released his entire record. He signed a Standard Form 180. Jesus fucking christ.
He gave Brinkley his diaries.
And we’re now backing Sunni insurgents against Shia; which means once again that we’re backing Bin Laden’s fan-base. You won’t learn from history, so we’ll all repeat it.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t hang on every word out of politicians’ mouths, even or especially those I voted for. I read the words of people who worry about something other than getting elected.
This isn’t a goddamn football game.
Comment by AF — 8/27/2007 @ 3:21 pm
At the time when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boats, it was not considered a hazardous assignment. Their mission changed after Kerry was already in, and Kerry high-tailed it out of Vietnam shortly afterwards.
Comment by Vatar — 8/27/2007 @ 3:26 pm
Fixed that for you, ak.
Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 3:33 pm
Kerry released his entire record. He signed a Standard Form 180.
From the article you cited, AF:
Self-refutation, AF.
Once again: don’t like what’s here? Get your own blog. Whining does not become you.
Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 3:40 pm
If you bothered to read Beldar’s post, AF, you would have seen this:
Comment by Paul — 8/27/2007 @ 3:44 pm
If JFKerry was standing in a tub of blazing gasoline yelling “fire”, I wouldn’t believe him until he further defined what exactly he meant to convey. The man is a serial liar.
Comment by Another Drew — 8/27/2007 @ 4:42 pm
“I think his attempt at being a proud, pro-military, Vietnam veteran in the 2004 campaign would have been laughable if it were not dishonest and deplorable.”
-MD in Philly
I couldn’t agree more. It was political posturing of the most despicable and frankly insulting sort, and I said more or less as much in my original post… but political posturing in 2004 (or 1971, for that matter) doesn’t change the fact that Kerry did a dangerous job as a soldier in the US military, and PCD has no right to slight his service.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/27/2007 @ 4:51 pm
Two very pertinent facts about the Form 180 Jo-Ke signed… first it restricted the that the documents go to only the Globe and the LATimes and no one else. Secondly, we only have the word of both those papers that the form was “unrestricted” … since a Form 180 does provide the signer with the option of picking and choosing which documents to release.
Neither paper will share any of the documents they reported on, nor will they provide a photocopy of the signed Form 180.
Color me less than persuaded that all the docs have been released and vetted.
Comment by Darleen — 8/27/2007 @ 5:01 pm
Yes, it does. Even Garry Trudeau mocked Kerry in a 1971 Doonesbury strip.
Trudeau mocked Kerry’s egotism and self-aggrandizement in these strips. In one, after rallying a crowd with his speech, “Kerry” thinks to himself, “You’re really clicking tonight, you gorgeous preppie.”
Those strips are easy to find. Harder to find are the ones in which Trudeau smeared George H.W. Bush by suggesting that his WWII medals were earned not because he was particularly heroic, but because he was a lousy pilot. I remember one panel in which the elder Bush — whom Trudeau “drew” as invisible, only visually represented by lines around his mouth indicating he is speaking, is about to crash his jet. Trudeau has him saying “Uh-oh! Deep doo-doo!”
Those strips exist. I haven’t been able to find them in paperback Doonesbury collections from years past, but believe me, they were published, and they are out there somewhere.
By the way, if you notice that Trudeau’s become a better illustrator since his days at Yale, that’s because he no longer does his own artwork — he’s been contracting it out for years. After Trudeau went after junk bond king Michael Milken, Milken did some digging and found that out.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/27/2007 @ 5:06 pm
Paul cited Beldar thusly:
Stamn draight. It’s gotten to the point the lies of the MSM are mutating into new strains — remember how Karl Rove was blamed for the SwiftVets’ campaign even though he had nothing to do with it whatsoever?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/27/2007 @ 5:14 pm
AF, does it not embarrass you that your own link refutes your claims?
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/27/2007 @ 5:20 pm
Was Kerry ever quoted as saying he would pursue a defamation suit?
He’d recover almost zero cash and change few minds.
Beldar is re-tooling the “hippies-lost-’Nam” writ, serving up Kerry as a hambone four or five times a year.
Comment by steve — 8/27/2007 @ 6:36 pm
It amazes me that you all are still after Kerry even though he lost years ago. And your man skipped out on the war altogether. How ridiculous.
Comment by Psyberian — 8/27/2007 @ 6:54 pm
Consult the final ~130 comments from Patterico’s April thread on SBVT w/ Beldar’s defense.
Actual issue engagement:
http://patterico.com/2007/04/05/abc-news-smears-swift-boat-veterans-for-truth-with-slanderous-news-article/
Comment by steve — 8/27/2007 @ 7:21 pm
Leviticus in a fit of delusional whining says: “he served his country in a real war (not some bullshit “I-got-promoted-to-Major-for-liberating-a-Kuwaiti-PortaPotty” police action), in a real combat role (not the Texas Air National Guard), and received real decorations from real officers for doing so“…
I’m sure you have some hours in an …F-102, right?
Sniveling, ignorant libtard parasite or I can shorten it to, DemORat…
Comment by juandos — 8/27/2007 @ 7:57 pm
“The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry’s military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions.”
There was nothing new or important in the file, but Kerry stood proud and made things worse. The question the article asks is why? The answer is that Kerry’s a self-important putz, but you seem always to forget that we agree on that.
Kerry gave full access to the AP, The Globe, and the LA Times, but not to the NY Sun. That, again, was silly, but also again, that’s what this is about.
“AF, does it not embarrass you that your own link refutes your claims?”
How this refutes anything I said is beyond my comprehension.
You’ve embarassed yourself enough for one day. Quit while you’re behind; or continue to indulge your fantasies that the MSM, which slammed Clinton left and right over a blowjob when the majority of people in this country didn’t give a shit, and which only recently removed its collective tongue from George Bush’s ass, is really out to protect John Kerry. The SBVT did their job and did it well, Kerry fought back like a pussy, and still you howl.
And Of course John O’neill is a confirmed liar:
And check out the transcript of the Cavett show if you can find it.
Comment by AF — 8/27/2007 @ 8:56 pm
fun facts
The Thorow in question is this this man
And here’s some fun on Vietnam
No interest in truth here.
You can lead trash to knowledge…
Comment by AF — 8/27/2007 @ 9:12 pm
AF - Continues the proud lefty tradition of supporting the troops and cheering massacres.
Take a bow kiddo!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/27/2007 @ 9:37 pm
but I daresay his right to do so was well-earned.
-Leviticus
Had Jane Fonda been in the military would her actions have been more acceptable? Would she have “earned” the right to do what she did?
The way I see it, Kerry is worse than Fonda because he took the oath. Was Benedict Arnold’s “right to do so” also “well earned”?
Comment by j curtis — 8/28/2007 @ 1:15 am
How this refutes anything I said is beyond my comprehension.
What a surprise, AF.
Comment by Paul — 8/28/2007 @ 1:16 am
AF (#41 & previous): No one has ever suggested that Sen. Kerry’s defenders have been left standing speechless. No one has ever suggested that they can’t find links to online sources that contain language that supports their positions.
Intense and intelligent debates over the credibility of, for example, Jim Rassmann’s story took place on websites left, right, and center — but rarely, indeed almost never, in the mainstream media. You can find on my blog and in its comments from 2004, for example, links to and quotes from contemporaneous documents from which one side will argue that the three bullet holes you reference can be conclusively inferred to have come from documented combat on a previous day, and equally impassioned arguments as to why that inference isn’t justified.
More often, however — as, with due respect, you have done here — one side or the other will simply link, or cut and paste, some one-sided argument and then step back and shout, “Aha! Now I’ve won the debate! De-bunked!” Or: “Aha! Now I’ve won the debate! He’s lying scum!” Both sides have done this.
In the courtroom, in a trial, we have rules — a very highly refined set of processes and procedures — which have been evolved over centuries to test the truthfulness of witnesses and their propositions. Both sides have to play by those rules; both sides have thorough opportunities under those rules to present their respective claims and arguments and positions as persuasively as they’re able.
And then at the end of that process, representatives from the community — jurors, functioning together as a jury — literally give us a verdict. That last step is completely missing from the blogosphere. It won’t happen in this post, it won’t happen on my blog, it won’t happen on the pages of mediamatters.com or the Washington Post.
That is why I’ve invited Sen. Kerry, in as seductive and attractive a way as I can imagine, to follow up on the threats made by his campaign lawyers to sue the TV stations who broadcast the SwiftVets’ commercials for defamation — but by suing me instead, since I also “published” and “republished” those ads and, indeed, restated most of their accusations in my own voice on my blog. I am eager to seek the closure of a verdict. I am eager to give Sen. Kerry and his best advocates their best shot at proving that the SwiftVets’ claims about him are malicious lies. I am eager to take my best shot at proving the opposite.
And most of all, I am eager to have the tools to develop my case that the civil justice system offers, but that the blogosophere (and mainstream media) do not — chief among them, the power to compel the production of documents and sworn testimony, and the power to examine and cross-examine witnesses under oath.
I would, in other words, relish the chance to shift the debate into a forum in which the truth will come out.
My inference from the fact that Sen. Kerry has never made good on this threats to sue, however, is that he is desperate to ensure that the truth never comes out. He is desperate to deny me (or, more realistically, the SwiftVets and their supporters generally) the tools of the civil justice system that our society has evolved as its most effective and civilized means for establishing objective truth.
Sadly, it will never happen. I can’t compel him to sue me; neither could the SwiftVets compel him to sue them.
But I can and will continue to mock him for his hollow threats and his stonewalling. There actually were occasions on which he faced danger in combat as a Swift Boat commander. But he’s never shown anything but abject cowardice when it comes to facing the compulsive processes of the civil justice system. He’s apparently much more afraid of being cross-examined under oath than being shot at from a river-bank.
Comment by Beldar — 8/28/2007 @ 1:47 am
#40 AF: And Of course John O’neill is a confirmed liar.
Actually CNN, with its multiple layers of editors, could not figure out, or deliberately mislead the public, that O’Neill was talking about two separate rivers. John Kerry’s stories were on the Mekong River that flows from Cambodia into Vietnam. There was a distinct boundary that was well marked and well guarded to prevent any passage.
O’Neill was on a separate river in the far south of Vietnam that divided Cambodia from Vietnam. The Cambodian - Vietnamese border was the middle of a very small river so maneuvering Swiftboats did “cross” into Cambodia. But that is far different than Kerry’s “Xmas in Cambodia” story and Kerry’s “magic hat from a CIA agent in Cambodia” story. Stories that John Kerry doesn’t bring up any more.
If O’Neil is lying, Kerry can use the courts to prove it, but he turned tail and ran.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 8/28/2007 @ 2:39 am
Leviticus-
I’m glad we can agree on that point.
Where I go from there is if his character and commitment to truthfulness is such to pull that stunt, I have no reason to trust his account on anything, unless I know it to be true from other sources.
In making my main point, I momentarily conceded many things that I don’t think are true (Even if). For example, in post #26 Vatar points out that there are claims that “At the time when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boats, it was not considered a hazardous assignment. Their mission changed after Kerry was already in, and Kerry high-tailed it out of Vietnam shortly afterwards.”
My bottom line is I have ample evidence out of Sen. Kerry’s own mouth that he is not to be trusted or admired. If he claims others have lied about him, let him prove it.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/28/2007 @ 4:16 am
“But I can and will continue to mock him for his hollow threats and his stonewalling.”
Kerry has a habit of not “standing up and fighting like a man,” as you might put, it when it comes to politics. This is well documented. But it also well documented that he did stand up, and that he fought and fought bravely in war. That leaves the question of why he was attacked, and what relation that has to his work with Vietnam Veterans against the War, and participation in Winter Soldier investigation. If you want to have a discussion of those things that would be fine by me, but be aware that I am not running for office and that I do not worry about the the votes of angry veterans who need to imagine their work and their friends lives were not wasted in a bloody and criminal military fiasco.
I’m sorry if John Kerry won’t give you the honor of a dual in the sun. This isn’t England and libel is difficult to show, but on the facts of this service in Vietnam the SWVT case is beyond thin, and the lies and misrepresentations of the members of that group are as well documented as their charges are not. Kerry gave his complete record to The AP the LA Times and the Globe, but here you are complaining that he didn’t send you a copy, saying that fact alone means that he has something to hide. You flatter yourself (and your readers), but the rest of the world has moved on. We’re in another war now, even worse. I think its more pressing that we discuss that.
Comment by AF — 8/28/2007 @ 6:02 am
“At the time when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boats, it was not considered a hazardous assignment.”
- Vatar
To quote what will soon be recognized as the pinnacle of modern cinema*, “What absolute ‘orseshit”.
Kerry first command (which he requested) was from December of 1968 to January of 1969. The US lost more than 16,000 soldiers in 1968, and more than 11,000 in 1969. Kerry spent four months in combat at the height of the war.
If Vatar is going to make a claim like that, he’d better have something very specific to back it up.
*Hot Fuzz, starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost
“Had Jane Fonda been in the military would her actions have been more acceptable? Would she have “earned” the right to do what she did?”
- j curtis
If by “what she did” you mean “exercise free speech”, than yes, I would say she had that right. You mistakenly assume that you’re horrifying me by comparing John Kerry to *gasp*… JANE FONDA! Nobody cares.
“I’m sure you have some hours in an …F-102, right? Sniveling, ignorant libtard parasite or I can shorten it to, DemORat…”
- juandos
You’re right, juandos: I don’t have flight experience in an F-102… but I did sit in one of those little toy planes outside the grocery store, once! Cost me 50 cents, worth every penny.
To be fair, I’ve also never done a line of coke off a hooker’s ass… Strike two on an authentic recreation of the Bush Vietnam Experience!
For your sake, I’ll assume that you’re an attention-starved pundit-wannabe doing his best to plug his pathetic blog, and leave you with the following piece of advice: just because the paint chips are shiny doesn’t mean you should put them in your mouth.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/28/2007 @ 6:19 am
AF, Kerry said that he would release all of his records, but in reality he didn’t - he allowed only hand-selected individuals in the friendly press to see them. What you want to obscure is that it is Kerry that has been shown to be a liar, not O’Neill Corsini et al.
Leviticus, all you seem to have is slanders. How amusing. But what you don’t have is a command of facts. When Kerry volunteered for Swiftboats, they were patrolling off the coast of Vietnam which was indeed a quiet assignment. Your reference to the casualties of all troops is irrelevant. Only later were the boats redeployed to riverine patrol.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 7:43 am
Leviticus:
I suppose we should call you a Kerrybot, much like the accolytes of Gore are called Gorebots.
If you are going to question others please get your facts straight.
The swifboats in Vietnam were originally used a messenger boats moving cargo and people around. The task changed after Kerry moved to the swifboats.
Comment by davod — 8/28/2007 @ 8:13 am
Leviticus spat: If by “what [Jane Fonda] did” you mean “exercise free speech”, than yes, I would say she had that right.
I don’t think j curtis was going for “exercis[ing] free speech.” I think he meant “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Or don’t you think gleefully climbing aboard a Viet Cong anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American planes while parroting North Vietnamese denials of systematic torture qualifies?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/28/2007 @ 8:16 am
Oddly, L.N.Smithee, many believe that parroting the fraudulent claims of atrocities by fake “veterans” in front of Congress qualifies too.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 8:22 am
AF drooled: We’re in another war now, even worse.
Worse than Vietnam? Pop quiz, hotshot: which battle has had fewer American troop deaths? The Iraq War, which has — as leftists are wont to suggest — “gone on longer than World War II”, or the Vietnam War?
I think its more pressing that we discuss that.
What do you mean “we,” paleface? This thread’s about Kerry. You want to drone on about Iraq, get your own blog. Lemme give you a head start.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/28/2007 @ 8:31 am
“Had Jane Fonda been in the military would her actions have been more acceptable? Would she have “earned” the right to do what she did?”
- j curtis
If by “what she did” you mean “exercise free speech”, than yes, I would say she had that right. You mistakenly assume that you’re horrifying me by comparing John Kerry to *gasp*… JANE FONDA! Nobody cares.
Fonda did more than speak and so did Kerry. They both met with the enemy for the purpose of subverting the US war effort.
I know that prior to the 1960s, back when we used to win wars, we would recognize treason and deal with it harshly. Can you think of any instance of punishable war related treason that has ever been committed against the US? Would it have been inappropriate to execute Benedict Arnold?
Comment by j curtis — 8/28/2007 @ 8:41 am
I missed that AF called the Iraq War worse than the Vietnam War. That is hilarious.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 9:15 am
So you think a cold war era military debacle in a tiny former French colony in a corner of Southeast Asia carries more weight than another failed war in the heart of the Middle East[!] 17 years after the Berlin wall came down? Do you live entirely in slumberland?
The stakes are higher this time around; there’s no need to argue that point. No one does. And Nixon may have been corrupt but he wasn’t this bad. Just ask Kevin Phillips. And of course more Iraqis have been killed than Vietnamese (in the same time frame) The numbers are approaching 2 to 1 by now.
You rationalize every mistake. Your ego is more important to you than the defense of the country. You deserve your president; but the rest of us deserve more.
Should I run down the record of your hero’s disasters again?
Comment by AF — 8/28/2007 @ 10:06 am
Oh, AF, please do. We are completely unfamiliar with the talking points of the barking moonbats. A refresher course is always in order.
Comment by JD — 8/28/2007 @ 10:13 am
AF, that is pretty hilarious. The fraudulent casualty claims are a good touch too.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 10:20 am
Leviticus-
Posts 50 and 51 refer to what Vatar was talking about. If you want to prove Vatar wrong, you can demonstrate to us that at the time Sen. Kerry volunteered for swiftboat duty they were already being used for dangerous duty or document that he knew the plans for dangerous duty. No other arguments, factual or not, are pertinent.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/28/2007 @ 10:48 am
Doing a little research (which you don’t do much of) the numbers for vietnamese on both sides from 1965-75 by some estimates are about 1 million. Other estimates are 5 million in total, military and civilian over the 20 year course of the war (French and American periods) I thought the number during the american period was 500,000 but those are old numbes. The US of course lost 58,000
The numbers for iraq I won’t go into because whatever I say you’d ignore. But no one debates anymore the numbers for children killed by the sanctions, and that’s about a quarter of a million right there. You look up the rest.
It’s like arguing with a crew of 5 year olds, and their theory that if they stick together they’re invincible:
[Hands over ears] “Nya Nya Nya… can’t hear you!”
oy vey…
And Beldar is their favorite teacher.
Comment by AF — 8/28/2007 @ 11:06 am
MD:
Kerry did a dangerous job and he did it well.
SBVT said otherwise, and they’ve been shown to be liars about their own records.
What does that imply?
Comment by AF — 8/28/2007 @ 11:11 am
AF - “But no one debates anymore the numbers for children killed by the sanctions”
Are you suggesting the oil for food program was a clean program. No one debates this anymore or that Saddam deliberately starved his people by diverting funds from where they needed to go. Why would you attempt to blame this on the U.S. rather than on his corrupt stewardship of his country is beyond me. No one except blame America firsters debates this anymore as I’ve already pointed out.
No points for even trying this dodge.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/28/2007 @ 11:18 am
SBVT said otherwise, and they’ve been shown to be liars about their own records.
So then: where was Kerry on Christmas Eve, 1968, and who’s orders was he following?
Comment by Unix-Jedi — 8/28/2007 @ 11:34 am
Actually, AF, a lot of people debate the numbers of children killed by sanctions, because those were even more ridiculous statistical manipulations than the silly Lancet papers. However, since most of the Iraq war protestors have deliberately forgotten about that argument, because it undermines the claim that sanctions were working against Saddam, it does not come up much.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 11:44 am
Next thing you know, AF will clain that the U.S. is responsible for Saddam’s rape and torture rooms, mass graves, gassing of the Kurds, invasion of Kuwait, and assorted other crimes.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/28/2007 @ 11:52 am
Ah, daleyrocks, we’ll get a link to a picture of Donald Rumsfeld any second now.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 11:55 am
Leviticus,
I don’t have to slander Kerry’s service. Kerry did that all by his lonesome. He’s the one who “spit” on his medals. He’s the one who cozied up to the enemy while still under obligation to the Navy. Kerry is the one who had to go running to Jimmy Carter to conviene a board to get him a discharge, not the usual proceedure for someone to separate from the services.
AF, you are nothing, but you have disgraced yourself mightily here.
Comment by PCD — 8/28/2007 @ 12:18 pm
“I suppose we should call you a Kerrybot, much like the accolytes of Gore are called Gorebots.”
-davod
I would call that comment stupid, given my past remarks regarding Kerry, but “stupid” wouldn’t do it any real justice.
“The swifboats in Vietnam were originally used a messenger boats moving cargo and people around. The task changed after Kerry moved to the swifboats.”
-davod
You are confusing the purpose of “Swift Boats” with the purpose of “water taxis”. Sewart Seacraft, which originally built water taxis for oil rigs, was chosen to manufacture Swiftboats for the US Navy - with the small but important addition of three .50 caliber machine guns and an 81 millimeter mortar launcher. I don’t know what kind of heat taxi drivers pack in your neck of the woods, but that seems a bit much by any standard.
These were the first “Swift Boats”, delivered in 1965. By December 1968, the Navy had already lost several Swift Boats either to river mines or to attacks from Viet Cong/NVA troops. It wasn’t just messenger duty; it was the real deal.
For what it’s worth, Kerry’s second choice, after Swift Boat duty, was for PBR (river patrol boat) duty, which I’m sure most of you would admit was a dangerous assignment, even if you quibble about the dangers of Swift Boat duty.
L.N. Smithee,
Did you read the Wikipedia Article that went with that Wikipedia picture? You know, the part that said:
“In her 2005 autobiography, she states that she was manipulated into sitting on the battery, and claims to have been immediately horrified at the implications of the pictures.”
“gleefully”… tool.
“If you want to prove Vatar wrong, you can demonstrate to us that at the time Sen. Kerry volunteered for swiftboat duty they were already being used for dangerous duty or document that he knew the plans for dangerous duty.”
-MD in Philly
I gave you a breakdown of the initial purpose of the Swift Boats. Here’s a link to a list of Swift Boat
casualties, several of which had already occurred by December 1968.
I don’t understand how you can claim that Kerry’s service, in and of itself, was either dishonorable of cowardly. From a position of safety (the USS Gridley), he requested transfer to a position of risk. Why is that so hard to appreciate?
OR, put another way… Can you say the same for Bush?
Comment by Leviticus — 8/28/2007 @ 12:24 pm
Levi said:
Yeah, I’d write that too after having been pounded for 35 years for committing such a public fundamental error in judgment.
If she was “immediately horrified at the implications of the pictures” she should have spoken up long before 2005…like, say, 1968?
Comment by Paul — 8/28/2007 @ 12:50 pm
Levi again:
Yes, we can:
You are kidding yourself if you think this wasn’t a risk assignment, Levi.
Comment by Paul — 8/28/2007 @ 1:58 pm
Leviticus-
I’m downright irritated at you. Not because you better me in an argument, but because you shoot yourself in the foot and leg (and are getting close to your head, so be careful).
First, you say:
I don’t understand how you can claim that Kerry’s service, in and of itself, was either dishonorable of cowardly. From a position of safety (the USS Gridley), he requested transfer to a position of risk. Why is that so hard to appreciate?
I didn’t say that. I said that since I know he resorted to deplorable and misleading stunts I don’t trust anything he says, and if he claims people lied about him, let him prove it, which Beldar is “offering his assistance” to prove a point.
Second, I said it needed to be verified that he requested a transfer from a position of safety to one of risk. You are assuming Kerry’s version of the story, yet you have agreed with me that his testimony is unreliable. All I am asking is verification of his story, and it has nothing to do with George Bush.
Read your links before you post them when you’re making an argument, lest you get embarrassed.
An excerpt from your link:
Vietnam Service
The first Swift Boat to be lost during the war was PCF-4, … to a mine in 1966. Three others were lost in rough seas, …. PCF-41 was lost in a running gun battle with Viet Cong guerrillas (southern Communist guerrillas who operated in South Vietnam) in 1966. PCF-43 was lost to a rocket attack in 1969, and PCF’s 77, 14, and 76 were lost to heavy seas. Several other Swift Boats had been lost to river mines, but had been salvaged and either repaired or used for spare parts.
In June of 1968, PCF-19 and PCF-12 were patrolling near the DMZ (17th parallel) when they were attacked by hovering aircraft at night time…. mentions in part “…enemy held Tiger Island…possible base of operations for North Vietnamese military…” and “under constant air attack from all angles Helo…gunners ordered to fire the .50 caliber guns at any and all air contacts…”[1] There were more than enough (declassified) official reports, that mention “enemy aircraft”, to conclude that the loss of PCF-19 was due to North Vietnamese helicopters. It is important to note, however, that as of 2006, PCF-12 and PCF-19 (Lost) were still carried by the US Navy as attacked/lost from friendly fire.[1]
My summary:
11 swiftboats lost, “several others” damaged
7 lost prior to 1969
–1 to a mine in ‘66
–3 to “rough seas” (ie, not inland)
–1 to a gun battle (the presumed threat that was so pervasive and dangerous)
–2 to aircrat fire, ? “friendly fire”
of the 4 in 1969 and later, 1 to a rocket attack and 3 more to heavy seas
6/11 lost were due to “high seas”. Shucks, maybe running patrols out of combat range was more dangerous after all.
So, you can argue whether it was riskier to get swamped by waves off of the Vietnam coast or to go down in a F-102 or eject into the gulf of Mexico.
You can find more info at http://www.wingmenforbush.com if you choose concerning Paul’s post.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/28/2007 @ 3:25 pm
In comment #57 AF wrote:
You deserve your president; but the rest of us deserve more.
AF, I have long understood that you believe that you deserve, and fervently long for, to live under Osama bin Laden … literally. I don’t blame you for trying but he’s only getting 72 virgins. You’ll have a lot of competition. Good luck, buddy. The sooner you and your hero make it to Islamic Paradise the better the world will be.
Comment by nk — 8/28/2007 @ 3:41 pm
I’ve never willingly supported bin Laden, nor anyone who was ever allied with him. That can’t be said of past administrations, republican or democrat. The same goes for Saddam Hussein, the Shah, Musharraf, Mubarak, or the Saudis (or Israel to tell the truth). Talk to the CIA about that, not me.
And Darling Darleen, the arguments you refer to were settled years ago. “…ridiculous statistical manipulations?” You don’t know enough to judge manipulations and your record when you try ain’t very good
I wish any of you gave a damn about anyone other than yourselves.
Comment by AF — 8/28/2007 @ 5:57 pm
Beldar at #45:
Sen. Kerry has never made good on this [his?] threats to sue
Beldar, could you please provide a link showing where Kerry himself - or even someone on his behalf - actually did threaten to sue?
Thanks.
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 6:35 pm
Robin Roberts #53:
Oddly, L.N.Smithee, many believe that parroting the fraudulent claims of atrocities by fake “veterans” in front of Congress qualifies too.
Really? As far as I know, not a single veteran who testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation has been shown to be a “fake.”
So could you please provide that proof if you know of it?
Thanks.
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 6:41 pm
Unix-Jed # 64:
So then: where was Kerry on Christmas Eve, 1968, and who’s orders was he following?
According to Kerry, his journal, and at least two eyewitnesses, he was patroling at or near the Cambodian border. He told the Boston Globe (among others) that he thought he crossed the border during that patrol.
I’d guess he was patrolling on the orders of George Elliott, who mentioned the Christmas truce ambush in his fitness report.
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 6:45 pm
Md in Philly #72:
Second, I said it needed to be verified that he requested a transfer from a position of safety to one of risk. You are assuming Kerry’s version of the story, yet you have agreed with me that his testimony is unreliable. All I am asking is verification of his story, and it has nothing to do with George Bush.
Well, if you want verification that he volunteered for duty in Vietnam, which most people would consider risky in itself, it’s here:
Vietnam Duty Request
Kerry has acknowledged that swift boats “didn’t really have much to do with the war” at the time, and he’d be patrolling off the coast. However, I don’t think anyone disputes that he volunteered for dangerous duty as a swift boat officer.
Second, as the other poster points out, his second request for billet was for PBR duty, which was known to be dangerous.
So why would he volunteer for that dangerous duty if he wasn’t willing to take it?
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 7:24 pm
Sorry, I meant “he thought he’d be patrolling off the coast.
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 7:26 pm
Darleen #32:
Two very pertinent facts about the Form 180 Jo-Ke signed… first it restricted the that the documents go to only the Globe and the LATimes and no one else. Secondly, we only have the word of both those papers that the form was “unrestricted” … since a Form 180 does provide the signer with the option of picking and choosing which documents to release.
Actually, he signed one for release of records to the AP. And Douglas Brinkley.
And we do have more than “the word” of the news organizations that the form was “unrestricted,” because the forms were actually posted on the Internet shortly after Kerry signed them.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/Kerry1.jpg
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/Kerry2.jpg
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/Kerry3.jpg
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 7:36 pm
He volunteered for the Navy… Non-pilot navy.
That was not, in any was, risky. It was the easy way through Vietnam.
Talk to my dad, who volunteered for US Army Infantry (If you’re gonna be one, be a Big Red 1!!), and try that “risky” BS about Kerry…
in one week in Vietnam we’d lose more troops than we lose in a month in Iraq.
We lost roughly the same amount on D-Day that we’ve lost to date in Iraq.
I love hearing how Iraq is worse then Vietnam.
Please, people… Continue… I need the laugh…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/28/2007 @ 8:06 pm
Itsme, America in Vietnam by gunter Lewy
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 8:11 pm
AF - When was the U.S. supporting Osama Bin Laden?
On the Iraq sanctions, the point everywhere is that Saddam could have potentially avoided having them continued if he complied with the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement. Your link even mentions the purpose of the sanctions was to force his compliance. He chose not to yet you blame us for his choice. Your mind works in strange ways, but everyone here is aware of that.
Get your own blog. You are tiresome.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/28/2007 @ 8:28 pm
Scott Jacobs #81:
He volunteered for the Navy… Non-pilot navy.
That was not, in any was, risky. It was the easy way through Vietnam.
He volunteered for the Navy and he volunteered to go to Vietnam. I don’t know anyone who thought being in the Navy in Vietnam in any capacity “was not, in any way, risky.” Feel free to take that one up with a Navy vet.
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 8:53 pm
Robin Roberts # 82:
Itsme, America in Vietnam by gunter Lewy
I assume you are referring to Lewy’s claim in his book America in Vietnam that the NIS investigated and found fraudulent vets.
However, at last report, the government has not been able verify the report’s existence, and no other historian has seen it. And Mr. Lewy had to admit that he couldn’t remember if he ever even saw it himself or was merely “briefed” on its contents.
WSI
(see footnotes 3 and 4)
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 9:06 pm
Perfect Sense, where in the world did you come up with (in regards to Kerry fighting bravely in Vietnam) “Actually, the record shows that most of the men who served with him don’t believe this.”?
That statement is provably false, regardless as to the definition of “served with” one wishes to use.
And speaking of false, a wound being self-inflicted in no way disqualifies it for a Purple Heart — just ask Bob Dole.
Moving on . . . . PCD, someone else put it best — Leviticus, his first two words, in comment #9.
I would like to add that the guy Kerry shot was actually 27 years old. At the time, we did think he was 18-20. Then that was transformed into “teenager” by some anti-Kerry people, then “kid” by John O’Neill.
O’Neill just couldn’t stop himself from what became his favorite sound bite “Shot that kid in the back” on talk show after talk show. Even after he knew the guy wasn’t shot in the back, he just kept on running his mouth, lying about it.
Yes, the Swift Boats were run aground that day, and yes, it was on purpose. It was all planned, in advance, with the Navy, should something happen that would warrant it. While it was the first time, it wasn’t the last. The very next time the Swifts went out — 13 days later — it happened again.
As for Swift Boat duty being a relatively safe assignment early on in the war, I’d have to agree — sort of. To put it in perspective, it was more dangerous than most (80%-90%) assignments, but safer than others.
Something that many people don’t realize is that the average guy in Vietnam didn’t see combat as a part of his job description. That doesn’t mean that one couldn’t get caught up in something in the course of their time in Vietnam, but combat wasn’t a part of what they did on a day-to-day basis.
The generally accepted figure is that something like 85% of those in Vietnam were in non-combat jobs.
When a person bashes Kerry for choosing a “safe” assignment (even though it wasn’t quite as safe as they thought), they are bashing the vast majority of guys who served in Vietnam.
Contrary to popular belief, everybody in Vietnam wasn’t a grunt (Infantry), but most were cooks, clerks, mechanics, etc, all doing their jobs as best they could.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/28/2007 @ 9:21 pm
Itsme, that’s interesting but does not actually refute Lewy’s book. He’s saying in ‘04 that he doesn’t recall how he learned of something he wrote about nearly two decades before. I originally read the book about a decade ago after finding it in a biblography of one of R.J. Rummel’s works.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/28/2007 @ 9:39 pm
#86 - Read “Unfit for Command.” Unlike anonymous MSM reporting, it is supported with something like 150-200 signed affidavits of Swift Boat veterans who served with Kerry (I’d give you the exact number, but I lent out my copy of the book).
#84 - The US Navy suffered 4.4% of the fatalities in the Vietnam war - many of these were pilots. The Army had 66% of the deaths and the Marines suffered 25.5% of the deaths. The best way to avoid the draft was to volunteer for the Navy.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 8/28/2007 @ 9:56 pm
Perfect Sense, I don’t have my copy of the book either, but I can tell you this — There were about 35 affidavits, most of which have never been seen.
There were about 255 members of the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth”. Most of them never saw Kerry in Vietnam. Precious few of them were out with him on operations and/or involved in the incidents for which he received an award.
When I said “regardless as to the definition of “served with” one wishes to use”, I was taking into account that some guys saw Kerry in Vietnam, but didn’t go out on operations with him.
Others did go out on operations with him — and I don’t just mean on Kerry’s boat, but on other boats. They certainly could have something to say about Kerry’s service in Vietnam.
But the fact remains that most of those 255 never saw Kerry in Vietnam.
The fact remains that of all the guys present for the incidents for which Kerry received an award, just a handful (for the Silver Star, none) had something negative to say.
When you get your copy of the book back, take a look, and you’ll see I am correct. And while you’re at it look me up — and understand that what is said is pure spin.
As for the percentages of deaths, I think if you check, you will see that the Army had the most people in Vietnam, followed by the Marines, and then the Navy. Which is to say, your percentages are misleading.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/28/2007 @ 10:24 pm
Robin Roberts #87:
Itsme, that’s interesting but does not actually refute Lewy’s book. He’s saying in ‘04 that he doesn’t recall how he learned of something he wrote about nearly two decades before. I originally read the book about a decade ago after finding it in a biblography of one of R.J. Rummel’s works.
It actually makes it an unsupported claim, referring to a report that no other historian - and likely Lewy - has seen and no one can verify exists.
(And as to Lewy “not recalling how he learned about something” - a reputable historian notes if he or she is referencing information that came from a second hand or third hand source. At the very least one would expect him or her to keep notes.)
Add to that the fact that not a single one of these men has been outed as a fraud in all the years since WSI, despite national publicity and intense scrutiny over at least the last three years, and not a single vet whose name was supposedly misused has come forward to say so, and you have … well, a completely unsupported claim.
In addition, not a single claim made by a vet testifying at WSI has been shown to be fraudulent. As a matter of fact, Jamie Henry’s claim has recently been shown not only to be true, but to have been investigated and found true shortly after he made it.
LA Times
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 10:44 pm
Perfect Sense # 84 -
The US Navy suffered 4.4% of the fatalities in the Vietnam war - many of these were pilots. The Army had 66% of the deaths and the Marines suffered 25.5% of the deaths. The best way to avoid the draft was to volunteer for the Navy.
Probably so. And Kerry didn’t have to volunteer for Vietnam. But he did.
Comment by Itsme — 8/28/2007 @ 10:49 pm
Argue, argue, argue about peripheral issues all you like, you defenders of Kerry. Let’s cut to the chase and grant the premise:
If O’Neill and Corsi are lying their asses off, they have defamed John Kerry.
If they defamed John Kerry, Kerry has a legitimate claim for a lawsuit, since, as Beldar has pointed out,
and Kerry could vindicate his public reputation.
But he hasn’t. He allowed the statute of limitations run out everywhere he could file, even in his home turf, which has a generous three-year limit instead of one.
Why, if the SBVT claims are already demonstratably, provably false, would Kerry allow this to drag on? Why not simply stick it to O’Neill and Corsi, and shut up all of his detractors? Especially since we all agree that Kerry is a ego-gratifying self-aggrandizer?
Well?
Comment by Paul — 8/29/2007 @ 1:33 am
If it were so simple that they were “lying their asses off”, then perhaps it would be another story, Paul. But O’Neill is smarter than that (Corsi I’m not so sure, after all he was involved in the “Kerry is being honored for helping the Vietnamese win the war because his photo is in a Vietnamese museum” lie), and outright lying is something he skillfully avoided.
O’Neill did do a pretty good job of laying the groundwork for others to lie, like PCD did earlier in this thread (comment #4), but allowed whatever lying he did personally fall into the “I misspoke” category on talk shows.
Unfit for Command was a collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and spin, but no lies that I could see in the areas which I have knowledge. I could see him dancing all around the truth while avoiding it in a couple of sections (regarding the Bronze and Silver Star incidents), but lies? None that I could see.
So Beldar is free to make his annual challenge if it suits him, but my guess is it will be ignored once again.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/29/2007 @ 5:14 am
You sure?
What was his draft number?
My dad’s was WAY outside the margins, so he would have been safe, playing the numbers game.
He spent a tour killing Charlie, and doing it well.
Kerry spent a couple of month, got some BS purple hearts, and went home.
Don’t f8cking talk to me about how honorable his f*cking service was.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/29/2007 @ 6:45 am
Hell, there must be a 30′ statue of Hanoi Jane…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/29/2007 @ 6:46 am
Scott Jacobs at # 94:
Probably so. And Kerry didn’t have to volunteer for Vietnam. But he did.
You sure?
What was his draft number?
Yes. I posted a link to his request for duty in Vietnam at #78.
I think you are confusing volunteering for duty with being drafted.
Comment by Itsme — 8/29/2007 @ 7:37 am
Doug Reese at #93:
I think UFC is full of lies. In fact I pointed out a few in a previous thread on SBVT. I think Eric Rassmann does a pretty good job pointing out many others:
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html
If not lies, the misinformation is intentional. I think they followed up with quite a few whoppers in the media.
Comment by Itsme — 8/29/2007 @ 7:40 am
Itsme - It is an indisputable fact that when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty, that it was not considered to be a dangerous or treacherous position, much the opposite. The nature and role of their usage changed, as the military adpated to conditions.
Are you also disputing that Kerry met with the North Vietnamese? That he lied in Winter Solider? That he threw away his medals, before he didn’t throw them away? That he spent Christmas in Cambodia on Nixon’s orders before Nixon was in the White House? His magic hat?
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 7:49 am
Itsme #96,
Scott’s point was that Kerry was going to be drafted. He had been denied a further deferment to study in France. He volunteered for the Navy so he would not, when inevitably drafted, be sent to the Infantry or the Marines.
Comment by nk — 8/29/2007 @ 7:58 am
JD, please read my comments regarding Swift Boat duty “pre-Kerry”, in the bottom half of # 86.
Swift Boat duty was, in fact, more dangerous than most jobs a person could have back then.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/29/2007 @ 8:00 am
Doug - Not very convincing or persuasive at all. Swift Boats were originally to be used to patrol coastal waters, far away from and far different from how they were eventually utilized by the time Kerry arrived.
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 8:07 am
Absolutely correct, JD, and as such, their job was to search boats along the coast. That job had them in harms way to a small degree, and using their weapons as a part of their job description.
Dangerous compared to what an Infantry guy did? No. But then not many of the total number serving were Infantry.
Dangerous compared to what the Swifts did when Kerry was there? Certainly not.
It was, however, hands down, more dangerous than what most guys did in Vietnam.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/29/2007 @ 8:20 am
Itsme,
Your comment at #78 was somewhat beside the point, and if anything confirmed the line of reasoning I was pursuing.
The pro-Kerry line, per Kerry and friends-
Kerry volunteered for hazardous duty with the Swift boats and was a hero.
Bush is an idiot and a war dodger who found a way to escape danger.
The disputed issue above was whether Kerry knowingly volunteered for particularly hazardous duty or not. If by his own mouth he acknowledged that when he volunteered for swift boat duty “they weren’t involved much in the war” my point is proven for me.
Bush never claimed to be a war hero and never attacked Kerry’s service. But if you look at the risks they each took, I stand by my conclusion in post #72.
Furthermore, closer to the original issue at hand, was my point that with his dishonest and deplorable behavior seen in 2004 I see no reason to trust his word on anything, and if he claims others lied about him, let him prove it under cross examination in a court of law (My post at #23). I will consider him vindicated even if the “lies” are not found to be to the level of libel or slnder, if they can be shown to be untruthful at all.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/29/2007 @ 8:28 am
Doug, take a look again at my post at #72. By the information in Wikipedia (provided earlier by Leviticus), it appears that the biggest danger running a swift boat was capsizing in rough seas patrolling off of the coast.
Before I bet on that, I would look for more convincing sources than Wikipedia.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/29/2007 @ 8:33 am
MD - That is a fairly accurate description. Doug is trying to define danger as being anything more dangerous than being a cook in the chow hall.
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 8:40 am
I pretty much agree with MD, JD.
I am simply trying to show the comparative danger of the job, and showing that it wasn’t quite as “safe” as some people think.
And once again, the misconception is that we were all out in the jungle/rice paddies fighting the NVA and/or Viet Cong. That just wasn’t the case.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/29/2007 @ 8:46 am
Well, if that is your point, it is easier to make it just like that, rather than try to make it sound like Kerry volunteered for some dangerous position, which it simply was not at the time he volunteered for it. Sure, more dangerous than a cook’s job, but nobody is arguing that it was not.
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 8:48 am
Levi
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/29/2007 @ 9:30 am
Leviticus launched:
Save your grade school insults, pottymouth, and face facts. The smile on her lips in those wire photos (of which there are several, along with newsreel footage) doesn’t lie. And if she was truly disturbed, she kept it a closely-held secret for years.
From the San Diego Union-Tribune, April 10, 2005:
It’s interesting to me that lefties probably lent more credibility to Fonda defending the VC than Rumsfeld defending US troops in Iraq in the wake of Abu Ghraib. But even with more context, you’re probably still willing to accept her revisionist history lesson. Whatever, dude. It’s your mind that’s going to waste.
At least she’s come closer to an apology than Kerry ever has.
Note to Pat: WordPress and Safari for Windows don’t get along.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/29/2007 @ 9:43 am
“Well, if that is your point, it is easier to make it just like that, rather than try to make it sound like Kerry volunteered for some dangerous position . . . ”
I have never, ever done that. Please read what I have said, and said many times over, here and in other forums.
Doug Reese
Comment by Doug Reese — 8/29/2007 @ 12:05 pm
Doug said:
Well, then, if Unfit for Command was a ‘collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and spin’, don’t you think Kerry has a case that he can win?
They why isn’t Kerry filing suit against them?
Oh poor, helpless John Kerry. So put upon, so screwed of his destiny.
Comment by Paul — 8/29/2007 @ 1:31 pm
[...] Patterico’s Pontifications » Beldar makes John Kerry an Offer too good to refuse [...]
Pingback by Neocon News » Worthy of Note on August 29, 2007 — 8/29/2007 @ 1:39 pm
“My dad’s was WAY outside the margins, so he would have been safe, playing the numbers game.
He spent a tour killing Charlie, and doing it well.”
-Scott Jacobs
And you’d be out doing the same, if it weren’t for that darned “trick knee” of yours, right?
From what you’ve said in the past, you would’ve gone 4-F in 1968 while Kerry volunteered for both PCF and PBR duty. Then you could’ve spent the next few years telling all your friends how “I would’ve gone, but The Man wouldn’t let me”
… which is pretty much what you do now.
Have fun seething, macho man.
“It is an indisputable fact that when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty, that it was not considered to be a dangerous or treacherous position, much the opposite.”
- JD
“It is an indisputable fact that this opinion is a fact”. Little circular logic, there. Doesn’t the fact that we’re debating that very point make your claim kinda silly?
“I’m downright irritated at you. Not because you better me in an argument, but because you shoot yourself in the foot and leg (and are getting close to your head, so be careful).”
-MD in Philly
I don’t know how you figure that. I think it’s reasonably clear that Kerry moved from a position of (relative) safety (the USS Gridley) to a position of (relative) danger (the PCF’s in Cam Ranh Bay). Furthermore, the fact that his second choice of duty was command of a PBR seems to indicate that Kerry was willing to put himself in harm’s way.
You can’t apply his later misrepresentations ex post facto to his actions in Vietnam.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/29/2007 @ 1:45 pm
Well, then, if Unfit for Command was a ‘collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and spin’, don’t you think Kerry has a case that he can win?
Half-truths, misrepresentations and spin are unavailing elements of a defamation claim.
Anybody unearth a source showing Kerry actually said he had plans to sue?
Comment by steve — 8/29/2007 @ 2:05 pm
Steve,
The Swift Boat Vets’ website claims that Senator Kerry’s lawyers sent a letter to TV stations threatening a libel suit if the station aired the Swift Boat ads:
There’s more at the link about 3/4 of the way down the page.
Comment by DRJ — 8/29/2007 @ 2:27 pm
the specter of libel suits
Boy DRJ, was that ever an empty threat.
By the way, that should be spectre, not specter. The Senator from Pennsylvania wasn’t involved.
Comment by Paul — 8/29/2007 @ 2:37 pm
Paul,
Either they spell different or they didn’t watch enough James Bond.
Comment by DRJ — 8/29/2007 @ 2:47 pm
Are you seriously trying to claim that there were more people on swift-boat duty than in the infantry???
Or are you attempting to compare the total number of Naval personel inboard ship to people who actually set foot in Vietnam?
You’re a God Damn nut-job if you think that’s even close to an accurate picture. Naval service in Vietnam was an utter cakewalk compared to serving in the Infantry, Marines or Army.
Levi, feel free to attempt to insult me. I’m sure you would have honored being drafted, and gone to serve.
Right.
I love how you take my assertation that Kerry was trying to dodge dangerous duty (only to end up spending a pathetic couple of months in country), and try to turn it towards me. Nice try, bubba.
And I’m waiting on the paperwork from the Navy, btw, so I can enlist in the Army. Just in case you were wondering. My trip to the Navy had me discharged on a medical during RTD. I’m looking forward to entering the service.
Try it some time. Might actually turn you into a decent human being.
Or maybe not. They aren’t miracle workers. Even if they are the Army.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/29/2007 @ 3:17 pm
Leviticus - Actually, it makes you look kind of silly.
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 3:23 pm
Mr. Reese, are you a paid liar? I think you are.
John Kerry has been caught in multiple lies in multiple venues.
Here’s one that is documented other than Kerry’s admitted lie about being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 listening to PRESIDENT NIXON on the radio.
Kerry lies needlessly about being at Red Sox-Mets World Series Game
Comment by PCD — 8/29/2007 @ 4:15 pm
Don’t forget about Kerry (although they deny it) and his buddies censoring the movie Stolen Valor in 2004. Mr. Kerry and the Democrats are big believers in the first amendment when it suits them. I seem to remember a little official goverment thuggery applied from the Democrat leadership of the House and Senate last year in trying to get ABC to quash the showing of A Path to 9/11. Patterns. Nuance.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/29/2007 @ 4:16 pm
Has anybody seen that signed Form 180 yet?
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 4:20 pm
Has anybody seen that signed Form 180 yet?
Actually, in #80 Itsme posted links to the jpeg images of Kerry’s Form 180 in Power Line’s archives. Now why did Itsme only link to the images, not John Hinderaker’s full post?
Probably because of this statement, submitted without comment:
Comment by Paul — 8/29/2007 @ 4:39 pm
So, when he promised the full release (incidentally he promised this after he lost the election) he was either glossing over the truth, or lying.
Comment by JD — 8/29/2007 @ 5:05 pm
Itsme wrote: As far as I know, not a single veteran who testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation has been shown to be a “fake.”
So could you please provide that proof if you know of it?
Here ya go. From National Review June 1, 1971:
Acknowledgment — and not obfuscation — would be appreciated.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/29/2007 @ 5:09 pm
JD # 98
Itsme - It is an indisputable fact that when Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty, that it was not considered to be a dangerous or treacherous position, much the opposite. The nature and role of their usage changed, as the military adpated to conditions.
Are you also disputing that Kerry met with the North Vietnamese? That he lied in Winter Solider? That he threw away his medals, before he didn’t throw them away? That he spent Christmas in Cambodia on Nixon’s orders before Nixon was in the White House? His magic hat?
Sorry, JD, I’m not sure which of my posts you’re responding to. Yes, Kerry said he didn’t think he’d be doing anything but coastal patrols when he volunteered - I said that. He also volunteered for PBR duty, which was incredibly dangerous when he volunteered. As to the rest of my post, at least one other poster seems to be implying that Kerry didn’t volunteer for Vietnam, which is not true.
I don’t think Kerry testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation. If you’re talking about his testimony before Congress, could you tell me where you think he lied?
Kerry never claimed to have thrown away his medals. As verified by at least one eyewitness, he said he threw away his ribbons, and then a couple of medals given to him by other vets.
I don’t think he actually said he spent Christmas in Cambodia on Nixon’s orders.
Comment by Itsme — 8/29/2007 @ 5:38 pm
The Swift Boat Vets’ website claims that Senator Kerry’s lawyers sent a letter to TV stations threatening a libel suit if the station aired the Swift Boat ads
The 08/05/2004 DNC letter, in its critical passage:
Kerry never announced plans to sue SBVT or even speculated on it for quote. Beldar’s revived a masturbatory improv.
Comment by steve — 8/29/2007 @ 5:40 pm
Itsme:
What exactly, then, was seared, seared into his memory?
Comment by Unix-Jedi — 8/29/2007 @ 5:40 pm
nk #99:
#
Itsme #96,
Scott’s point was that Kerry was going to be drafted. He had been denied a further deferment to study in France. He volunteered for the Navy so he would not, when inevitably drafted, be sent to the Infantry or the Marines.
Maybe it was. He sure wasn’t very clear in that case - he responded to my point about Kerry volunteering for VN by asking if I knew his draft number.
Comment by Itsme — 8/29/2007 @ 5:42 pm
MD in Philly #103
Itsme,
Your comment at #78 was somewhat beside the point, and if anything confirmed the line of reasoning I was pursuing.
The pro-Kerry line, per Kerry and friends-
Kerry volunteered for hazardous duty with the Swift boats and was a hero.
Bush is an idiot and a war dodger who found a way to escape danger.
The disputed issue above was whether Kerry knowingly volunteered for particularly hazardous duty or not. If by his own mouth he acknowledged that when he volunteered for swift boat duty “they weren’t involved much in the war” my point is proven for me.
Bush never claimed to be a war hero and never attacked Kerry’s service. But if you look at the risks they each took, I stand by my conclusion in post #72.
Furthermore, closer to the original issue at hand, was my point that with his dishonest and deplorable behavior seen in 2004 I see no reason to trust his word on anything, and if he claims others lied about him, let him prove it under cross examination in a court of law (My post at #23). I will consider him vindicated even if the “lies” are not found to be to the level of libel or slnder, if they can be shown to be untruthful at all.
I understand, and I’m sorry if my post added to the confusion.
I have no interest in comparing Kerry’s duty to anyone else’s, merely in addressing the question about what Kerry volunteered for.
The fact is that he volunteered for Vietnam when he didn’t have to. Any sort of duty on a small boat at sea is risky, but no, it wasn’t as risky as going up the rivers, and he said so. The fact is that he also volunteered for highly dangerous PBR duty.
Comment by Itsme — 8/29/2007 @ 5:48 pm
DRJ # 115:
Steve,
The Swift Boat Vets’ website claims that Senator Kerry’s lawyers sent a letter to TV stations threatening a libel suit if the station aired the Swift Boat ads:
“Predictably, Kerry’s lawyers responded with a venomous and distorted account of the TV spot and the veterans who had organized it. Marc Elias, Esq., General Counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, joined by Joseph Sandler, General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, faxed to TV station managers the kind of intimidating message that gives lawyers a bad name.
The three-page letter is a not-so-thinly veiled threat with only one possible goal: to scare the stations into dropping the ad. How? By misstating provable facts that back up the ad’s claims, and by shamelessly misrepresenting the law. How, specifically? On the legal side of the ledger, by trotting out the standard bogeymen for TV stations: false and misleading advertising, frowned on by the FTC; the specter of libel suits; dark hints of serious damages unless, “in the public interest,” station managers refuse to run the ad. “
There’s more at the link about 3/4 of the way down the page.
I saw that linked in another forum and agreed that any station manager would see that letter as “threatening.”
However, I don’t see where it is a threat to sue, specifically a threat to sue for libel.
If you look at the letter, you will see it basically talks about FCC requirements, referencing FCC holdings and rules, not libel law. The only caselaw cited is a First Amendment case based on an FCC decision - used to support the claim that stations are not obligated to run these sorts of ads.
In addition, when they point out that the stations are free to refuse the ads, and it is not a “use” of the facilities by candidates - a term defined specifically for purposes of the FCC “political broadcasting” rules - they do not conclude by saying the stations are “liable” for the false charges made in the ads. As in legally liable for the tort of libel. Instead they say the stations are “responsible,” a term reflective of the tone of the FCC rules.
After giving a few more FCC-related admonitions about the stations’ duties, they sign off not with a threat to sue, nor a claim that the stations are liable in tort, but with a strong suggestion that they exercise their legal authority to refuse the ads in the public interest.
I could be wrong, but in my opinion it may be a “threatening” letter, but it isn’t a threat to sue.
So again … anybody know of Kerry or his representatives actually threatening to sue?
Thanks.
Comment by Itsme — 8/29/2007 @ 6:19 pm
steve (#127) wrote:
I’m not sure what a “masturbatory improv” is, but I’m very sure that any TV station receiving that letter interpreted it as a threat that Kerry would sue them. It was made by his campaign’s lawyers and in his name. It is legally imputable to him personally under ordinary agency principles. Your suggestion to the contrary is silly.
Comment by Beldar — 8/29/2007 @ 6:21 pm
Yeah, because if your number is up for the draft, volunteering is the best way to stay safe…
And I’d LOVE to get into why Bush got yanked from duty…
Here’s a hint… What was his daddy’s job at the time?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/29/2007 @ 6:26 pm
Itsme (#131): The rules you link don’t contain the word “libel.” The FCC doesn’t enforce the common law of libel. Courts do. A letter from a lawyer to a TV station that uses the word “libel” is a threat to sue for … libel.
You can argue that the threat wasn’t meant, or that it was meant as a bluff. You can argue that Kerry thought better of it, and changed his mind. But you cannot credibly argue that no threat to sue for libel was made.
It’s an argument that’s beneath your dignity and unworthy of your intellect. Repent.
Comment by Beldar — 8