Former Swift Boat Commander Backs Kerry on Vietnam

[jokerswild]

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdln/rt/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040822/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc
Facts, how refreshing.

[Stu Pidasso]

Does anyone know what Kerry's plan is to fight the war on terror?

Stu

[adios]

Here's the article written by the Vet you're referring to. So far the controversy has revolved around Kerry's Bronze Medal, Kerry's lies about his serving in Cambodia and Kerry's testimony in Congress in 1971 or close to it where even Kerry has stated that "he went over the top" and has backed away from what he testified to. I find it interesting that every news story I've read so far on what Rood wrote implies that he's answering the charges revolving around the Bronze Star and/or Cambodia. This story is about Kerry's Silver Star. Rood claims that O'Neill is stating that Kerry shot an innocent civillian and made some other claims. The title of the Chicago Tribune article implies that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are lying about stating that they were there the day that Kerry won his Silver Star. They may be lying but I haven't found any references from the the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth stating that they were there the day Kerry won his Silver Star. Not having read the book, Unfit for Command , I don't know. I haven't found anything on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth site that support Rood's claim to what O'Neill stated but that doesn't mean that O'Neill hasn't made that claim. I'm going to get the book if I can today.

Jokerswild, I'm sure you'll join me in denouncing the Kerry campaign attempts to ban this book and denounce the efforts from the Kerry campaign to remove the ads from the airwaves where decorated veterans are exercising their free speech rights.

Anti-Kerry vets not there that day (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed)

Anti-Kerry vets not there that day

By William B. Rood
Chicago Tribune
Published August 21, 2004

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three swift boats—including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43—that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area.

The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

Instructions from Kerry

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.

The first time we took fire—the usual rockets and automatic weapons—Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.

Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch—a thatched hut—maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Congratulatory message

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

Error in citation

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. It incorrectly identifies the river where the main action occurred, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste and sometimes authored for their signers by staffers. It's a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago—not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine gun as we charged the riverbank, Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-caliber gun tub atop our boat, and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank.

Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child, Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his back yard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living that war another time.

[West]

Just putting Bush out of office would be a great first step in anyone's "war on terror".

[West]

Here's a good editorial on the subject..

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/22/big_lies_for_bush/

[MMMMMM]

"Just putting Bush out of office would be a great first step in anyone's "war on terror"."



Kerry has said he intends to fight a "more sensitive" war on terror.

Guess that would be his "second step", eh?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry has said he intends to fight a "more sensitive" war on terror.

Guess that would be his "second step", eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're implying, but sounds good to me. There's not too many people I'd want fighting a "war on terror" on our behalf less than George W. Bush. The fact that Kerry criticized the war in Vietnam after returning from participating in it, suggests he has a conscience about it, and is a lot less likely to do things like, say, lie to the world about evidence for going to war.

[nothumb]

Since all these terrorists clearly were not allowed to suckle at the breasts of their mothers, getting in touch with our collective feminine side would probably deter them. Don't you agree?

NT

[jokerswild]

Does anyione here know what Bush plan's to do to fight the war on terror? We know that he wants to attack countries that have oil, and leave real terrorists (like bin laden) alone. We know that he ignores North Korea and Pakistan, which disseminated nuclear technology to the Koreans, Iranians, and Libyans.We know that he basically only cares about oil profits.

Kerry has stated that he would focus first on catching Bin Laden (Bush will be displeased) , and stopping nuclear proliferation.Bush will be mad again, because his biggest "ally" Pakistan (dictator for life coup supported by Bush, ie Musharif)sells nuclear secrets to rogue regimes.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyione here know what Bush plan's to do to fight the war on terror? We know that he wants to attack countries that have oil

[/ QUOTE ]

Another lie by Jokerswild. Afghanistan doesn't have any oil.

[ QUOTE ]
leave real terrorists (like bin laden) alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another lie by Jokerswild as we have 20000 troops in Afghanistan looking Bin Laden right now.

[ QUOTE ]
We know that he ignores North Korea and Pakistan, which disseminated nuclear technology to the Koreans, Iranians, and Libyans.We know that he basically only cares about oil profits.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Koreans dissemenated nuclear technology to the Koreans? That makes a whole lotta sense. Anyways, since your an expert on the subject of nuclear proliferation, I have a question for you. Under which American President did the North Korean and Pakistan achieve nuclear weapons? Under which American president did Lybia dismantle its nuclear weapons program?

Stu

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just putting Bush out of office would be a great first step in anyone's "war on terror"."



Kerry has said he intends to fight a "more sensitive" war on terror.

Guess that would be his "second step", eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

George W himself is in favor of sensitivity:

Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals; we will listen to others; we want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength.

Reference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010305.html)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyione here know what Bush plan's to do to fight the war on terror? We know that he wants to attack countries that have oil

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Another lie by Jokerswild. Afghanistan doesn't have any oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard Iraq does...

Actually, I've heard that although Afghanistan does not itself have oil, they are of importance to American interests in a pipeline to transport gas & oil from the Caspian Sea region.

[ QUOTE ]
leave real terrorists (like bin laden) alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Another lie by Jokerswild as we have 20000 troops in Afghanistan looking Bin Laden right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you have heard that some people believe the war in Iraq has taken place at the expense of operations in Afghanistan.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard Iraq does...

Actually, I've heard that although Afghanistan does not itself have oil, they are of importance to American interests in a pipeline to transport gas & oil from the Caspian Sea region.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth of the matter is, that the terrorist are vieing for control of the middle east and control of the oil. President Bush would be completely remiss in his duties as commander and chief if he did not take steps to secure that oil. Securing the energy resources is a must do in any war strategy, past or present.

The only reason I brought up Afghanistan is to point out Jokerswild selective memory. Becuase of his hatred for conservatives, He believes that everything this administration does is motivated by greed and the apetite for power. He focuses on what is happening here and now and forgets past events. Consequently, he is unable to see the larger picture. Jokerswild would benefit from putting away his hate, and start seeing things for what they actually are.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you have heard that some people believe the war in Iraq has taken place at the expense of operations in Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you've heard that Iran, a known terrorist state, feels very uneasy now that they have been surrounded by American troops. Right now, Bin Laden isn't as much of a threat to the United States as is Iran.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Just putting Bush out of office would be a great first step in anyone's "war on terror"."



Kerry has said he intends to fight a "more sensitive" war on terror.

Guess that would be his "second step", eh?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



George W himself is in favor of sensitivity:

Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals; we will listen to others; we want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength.

Reference


[/ QUOTE ]

A great strategy pre 9/11(which is when Bush said it). I guess it shows Kerry is still living in the pre 9/11 world.

Stu

[adios]

Time for the Democrats to trash another Veteran and former Senator. Dole is also calling for Kerry to release all of his military records. Today Kerry's directly accusing Bush of promoting the ads but he's offered not a shred of evidence that it's true. From the article:

With Kerry taking a break from campaigning, running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) said Bush needs to tell the group to pull its ads, a step the White House and the Bush campaign refuse to take. The White House and Bush's campaign note that Kerry has benefited from more than $62 million worth of similar advertising against the president.

And

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

and Edwards was quoted as saying:

"This is the moment of truth for President Bush," Edwards said in North Carolina. "The American people have to hear directly that these ads need to come off the air." Kerry also fought back in another new ad.

And why should they come off the air? Don't these veterans have a right to be heard? Where is your proof, Edwards, that campaign election laws have been violated? Talk about a bunch of lunatics! Or maybe it's Nazi like with pressure on the publisher to ban the books and intimidation with threats of lawsuits. According to the Bush campaign over $62 million in 527 money has been spent on behalf of Kerry and something like a million or so on the Swift Boat adds. The Democrats appear to talk the talk about the excercise of free speech rights but don't walk the walk.


Dole Questions Kerry's Vietnam Wounds (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040822/ap_on_el_pr/war_politics)

Dole Questions Kerry's Vietnam Wounds

1 hour, 1 minute ago


By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - Former Republican Sen. Bob Dole suggested Sunday that John Kerry (news - web sites) apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War and joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for "superficial wounds."


Dole also called on Kerry to release all the records of his service in Vietnam.

Separately, President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign continued to deny links to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry group running ads in three states, after the resignation of a campaign volunteer who appeared in the group's new ad.

With Kerry taking a break from campaigning, running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) said Bush needs to tell the group to pull its ads, a step the White House and the Bush campaign refuse to take. The White House and Bush's campaign note that Kerry has benefited from more than $62 million worth of similar advertising against the president.

"This is the moment of truth for President Bush," Edwards said in North Carolina. "The American people have to hear directly that these ads need to come off the air." Kerry also fought back in another new ad.

Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said: "It's unfortunate that Senator Dole is making statements that official U.S. Navy (news - web sites) records prove false. This is partisan politics, not the truth."

Other Kerry supporters also rose to his defense.

"Senator Kerry carries shrapnel in his thigh as distinct from President Bush who carries two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard, which seems to be his only time that he showed up," John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said on ABC's "This Week."

Bush served stateside in the Guard during the Vietnam years. Podesta's reference was to the White House's release of documents earlier this year showing Bush's dental visits during his Guard years after questions arose about whether he had always reported for duty.

Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman also blamed Kerry for the ongoing debate, complaining on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "Kerry himself has attacked the president for his service during the Vietnam years," while the Republican's campaign has "so strongly praised" Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam.

The Bush campaign also said the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) should immediately dismiss what it termed a "frivolous" complaint by Kerry's campaign alleging coordination between the re-election effort and the Swift Boat group.

The White House and the Bush campaign for weeks have denied any connection to the Swift Boat organization, whose early financial support came largely from a prominent Texas businessman with longtime ties to the state's top Republicans, including Bush.

The group's latest ad includes a Bush-Cheney volunteer, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, condemning Kerry's 1971 congressional testimony that Dole spoke of. Cordier was a prisoner of war during Vietnam.

"Colonel Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement," a Bush campaign statement said. "Because of his involvement Colonel Cordier will no longer participate as a volunteer for Bush-Cheney '04."



A new Kerry TV ad urged the president to "denounce the smear" and 'get back to the issues" because America deserves better." The 30-second commercial, to air in the same three states as the Swift Boat group ad — Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin — compares Kerry's situation to the 2000 primary campaign when "Bush smeared John McCain."

McCain has condemned the ads and called on the president to do so, too.

In response, Bush's campaign released a copy of a letter it was sending to television station managers on Monday defending itself from the claims in the new Kerry ad.

Questions mounted over the motives of Kerry's critics, two of whom had praised his service in 1996, even as Kerry's supporters faced questions about the candidate. Among the allegations is that Kerry lied about being in neutral Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968.

"I don't think anyone knows for sure whether or not they were in Cambodia that night, but they were near Cambodia on Christmas Eve," John Hurley, who heads a pro-Kerry veterans group, said on "Fox News Sunday." "He was five miles into Cambodia on a different occasion."

Another allegation is that Kerry was not under enemy fire as after-action reports say he was, an incident for which he received a Bronze Star, one of five medals earned in Vietnam.

"The after-action reports were written from Kerry's spot reports from that day," said Kerry critic Van Odell, also appearing on the same program. "None of us knew he even got the Bronze Star until more recently."

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth of the matter is, that the terrorist are vieing for control of the middle east and control of the oil. President Bush would be completely remiss in his duties as commander and chief if he did not take steps to secure that oil. Securing the energy resources is a must do in any war strategy, past or present.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you mean here...it is Iraq's oil isn't it? You know that "Iraqi" is not synonymous with "terrorist" right? I thought we invaded Iraq to prevent them from distributing non existent weapons of mass destruction. If terrorists are "vieing for control" of Iraq's oil, it's because we destabilized the country without a good plan for the replacement of Saddam Hussein.

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I brought up Afghanistan is to point out Jokerswild selective memory. Becuase of his hatred for conservatives, He believes that everything this administration does is motivated by greed and the apetite for power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I confess, I have a strong tendency to agree with Jokerswild in this regard...

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you've heard that Iran, a known terrorist state, feels very uneasy now that they have been surrounded by American troops. Right now, Bin Laden isn't as much of a threat to the United States as is Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was pointing out that what Jokerswild meant by "leaving real terrorists alone" was that our invasion of Iraq reduced our capacity to hunt down Bin Laden by taking away resources that could have been used in Afghanistan. Don't know what Iran has to do with that, but I agree that Iran has to feel uneasy right now! Call them "conspiracy theorists", but some of the people who believe an Iraq invasion was on the agenda the moment the Bush team stepped into office, also believe that Iran was also on the list. Bin Laden isn't as much of a threat as Iran? I wouldn't of believed that I'd start hearing this, but maybe some of those conspiracy theorists are right after all.

[MMMMMM]

Iran: Coming Soon!

;-)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran: Coming Soon!

;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that was the plan, but the Adminstration kinda blew the Iraqi occupation. Somewhat of a setback. On the bright side, it seems the Suadi's have started to clean up their act.

Stu

[Rooster71]

If Kerry would have done the right thing and avoided the draft by having his daddy land him a cushy National Guard appointment, this whole controversy wouldn't even exist.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If Kerry would have done the right thing and avoided the draft by having his daddy land him a cushy National Guard appointment, this whole controversy wouldn't even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

A non sequiter. We're talking about Kerry's attempts to suppress free speech rights and his attempts to get books banned that he doesn't like.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If Kerry would have done the right thing and avoided the draft by having his daddy land him a cushy National Guard appointment, this whole controversy wouldn't even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some other options for a Kerry.

1) Stand up and directly address the allegations of the Swift Boat Vets.
2) He could have not placed so much emphasis on his Vietnam service.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Kerry would have done the right thing and avoided the draft by having his daddy land him a cushy National Guard appointment, this whole controversy wouldn't even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some other options for a Kerry.

1) Stand up and directly address the allegations of the Swift Boat Vets.
2) He could have not placed so much emphasis on his Vietnam service.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with #1 above, if there were accusations that have substance or merit. However if Kerry were to address the Swift Boat Vets based upon their unsubstantiated claims, he would open himself up to answering any crackpot claim made by a GOP supporter. The GOP funded Swift Boat Vets group benefits either way:
1) Kerry doesn't respond - They can say things like "what does he have to hide", etc, etc. Seeds of doubt have been planted.
2) Kerry does respond - By responding to unsubstantiated allegations, they have kept Kerry from campaigning based on issues. They would also have more Kerry comments they can harp on or distort. Seeds of doubt have also been planted.

The GOP benefits either way. The best route for Kerry is to downplay or ignore allegations that have no merit. If an allegation has merit, then he should respond accordingly.

[vulturesrow]

Or he can plant seeds of doubt by continuing to evade the questions and trying to have the ads and the book squashed. However, I happen to agree with you that in this case Kerry may have been best served by completely ignoring the whole thing. Unfortunately, as is often the case with Kerry, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

[riverflush]

I have just one question on this topic....why so much attention and backlash aimed at this "527" soft-money group? All of a sudden we're outraged at an attack ad coming from a 527?

http://www.truthlaidbear.com/527-large.png