Who Funded the Attack on John Kerry's Vietnam Record?

[Ivan Seeking]

William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission because reports by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry, according to a report in the Tribune's Sunday editions.

Rood, an editor on the Tribune's metropolitan desk, said the allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue. Kerry came up with an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors, Rood said. [continued]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2751054

Edit: He was the only other Swift Boat commander on the river that day. This will all come out in other press releases, but he is the only other commander who was there. He knows what happened.

So let's be clear on this. We have rich buddies of the Bush's trying to impune the character of an honest and brave man who is supported by the men who served with him. Come on people, you must be able to see who we elected here.

Of course Bush never went to Vietnam, but he allows these attack dogs to run amok. This is the quality of our president.

Thank God. This will be the, or a final blow to the Bush campaign. People will now believe Kerry as they should and not Bush's attack dogs. Since Bush refused to keep them in check, he will be held responsible, as he should be, and at least a few more people will know him for what he is. Barring any disasters for Kerry or any Earth'shaking events otherwise, and assuming that all of you Kerry supporters get out there and vote, its all but over folks! Thank God!

 

[kat]

Bush has no right to shut these Vets up. They certainly have every right in the world to speak out if they want to. If kerry feels he can prove their lying then let him take them to court. Freedom of speach is as much the right of those Vets as it is to Movon.org. Give me a break.
These guys spent more time in Vietnam then Kerry did and many, many of them are war hero's ten times over compared to Kerry.

 

[kat]

Rood's story doesn't have as much impact on the Swift Vet's story as it may first appear to you..I'll be back with links later.




*of course if we follow some peoples limitations on who has a right to speak about Kerry and who doesn't ...nothing he says would be applicable since...oh my, he didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush refused to denouce them. Also, from what I saw of Rood's credentials tonight, I doubt any right wing rhetoric will manage to undermine this one. He was there, the Swift Boat Republicans on a pay roll were not.

 

[Loren Booda]

Thank God Mr. Rood lived to testify! I believe he is the other swift boat commander still alive (the third has died since) from Kerry's original group, witnessing firsthand and with authority Kerry's true bravery. As for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, their present demeanor insinuates neither truth nor bravery, but possibly graft.

 

[JohnDubYa]

1. Has it been shown that any of the swift boat vets are on payola?

2. Has it been shown that they lied?

 

[kat]

Lol, Rood's story doesn't impact the Swift Vet's book version, his story may however differ from Kerry's own statements to the Boston GLobe.

btw..
What about the Swift boat Vet's for truth who are democrats, or those who are independents...were they there? lol
Also, I don't think anyone is questioning Rood's credentials, have you seen someone questioning his credentials?

 

[wasteofo2]

2. Has it been shown that they lied?

In the first ad they released, there was one guy who said something to the effect of "I know John Kerry lied about his first purple heart, becuase I treated him for that wound", but the man who said that was not the doctor who signed the form evaluating Kerry for the wound which he received his first purple heart, nor was his name listed anywhere on that form.

I believe that's what's known as a "liar liar pants on fire" situation.

[edit]
Sorry, but were you talking about in an absolute sense, or just regarding the incident Ivan posted about? I have a bad habbit of just scanning posts and I answered yours without reading everything leading up to it, so my reply may have been moot.[/edit]

 

[Loren Booda]

If Bush himself had any credentials, they might become a topic for debate.

 

[JohnDubYa]

In the first ad they released, there was one guy who said something to the effect of "I know John Kerry lied about his first purple heart, becuase I treated him for that wound", but the man who said that was not the doctor who signed the form evaluating Kerry for the wound which he received his first purple heart, nor was his name listed anywhere on that form.

I listened to the man explain this supposed discrepency on (I think) Sean Hannity's show. He said that he was the doctor on duty, but for minor injuries the forms were usually signed by medics, who were not doctors. So while there is no evidence to show that the man is telling the truth, there is no evidence to suggest he is lying either. In fact, the man stated he was the only doctor at that location -- a charge that should be easy enough to disprove if he is in fact lying. Time will tell.

 

[wasteofo2]

Alrighty then...

 

[russ_watters]

So let's be clear on this. We have rich buddies of the Bush's trying to impune the character of an honest and brave man who is supported by the men who served with him. Come on people, you must be able to see who we elected here.

It is also clear to me that Kerry has lied about certain aspects of his service, exaggerated others, and is now sleeping in the bed he made (he is the one who made his service the centerpiece of his campaign, not Bush).

He's as much the politician as Bush is.

 

[amp]

There is a site dedicated to the Bush lies. Moveon ads are more accurate than Swift boat vets.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is also clear to me that Kerry has lied about certain aspects of his service, exaggerated others, and is now sleeping in the bed he made (he is the one who made his service the centerpiece of his campaign, not Bush).

He's as much the politician as Bush is.

I can appreciate your position here but I think there is a difference. Anyone running for office must be a politician, but how low will they sink in order to win? From what I have seen so far, Kerry stands head and shoulders above Bush in many areas - including in integrity. Of course I am still more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, but I am greatly encouraged by recent events and what I have learned about Kerry.

What exactly did he lie about and exaggerate? I suspect that these are just more Bush-Republican lies.

Funny comment: I was in Hood River Oregon last week. This is the wind surfing capitol of the world and Kerry was there the week before. When you come into town there is a giant billboard showing Kerry riding the wild surf and wind. In fact, the day he was there was nearly the only day all summer long that there was no wind at all! Poor Hood River. They tried so hard. I really felt bad for them.

 

[member 5645]

There is a site dedicated to the Bush lies. Moveon ads are more accurate than Swift boat vets.

I think the swift boat vets should take a lead from moveon, and show hitler in a swift boat, in place of kerry

 

[member 5645]

Bush refused to denouce them.

you spoke too soon
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6047477

 

[JohnDubYa]

I find it amazing that many who support Michael Moore shout that the swift boat veterans are frauds.

If Michael Moore can distribute Fahrenheit 911, the Swift boat vets should be able to air their ads. Fair is fair.

There is a site dedicated to the Bush lies. Moveon ads are more accurate than Swift boat vets.

In another thread I have asked for known lies, and I received nothing substantial. And how inaccurate are the swift boat vets ads? If they are inaccurate, provide an example.

Examples are good.

 

[kat]

There is a site dedicated to the Bush lies. Moveon ads are more accurate than Swift boat vets.

I think you should see a doctor, you are apparently delusional.

Seriously though, why don't you back that up with comparitive facts instead of just offering you opinion.

 

[kat]

I can appreciate your position here but I think there is a difference. Anyone running for office must be a politician, but how low will they sink in order to win? From what I have seen so far, Kerry stands head and shoulders above Bush in many areas - including in integrity. Of course I am still more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry, but I am greatly encouraged by recent events and what I have learned about Kerry.

Kerry's a disgrace, he has been a disgrace since he came back from "Nam and destroyed the reputation of innocent soldiers, backed by liars and lies from men who had never stepped foot in Vietnam. He admitted to seeing and being responsible to war crimes as well along with other war related crimes (see his senate testimony). The Vet's that he maligned have every right to set the record straight AS Kerry IS RUNNING ON HIS VIETNAM RECORD. If he were running on his Left-Left-Left leaning senate record I might agree with you, BUT he's not. In fact, when he reported back "for duty" many Vet's weren't returning his salute, they were turning their backs...and they have every right to. YOU don't have a right to tell them ANYTHING. They, through their war experiences (and many are TRUE war hero's) and first hand witnessing of Kerry and being personally maligned by Kerry have every RIGHT to. Kerry's bullying and smear tactis as well as his attempting to remove their first amendment right is the one who is LACKING integrity.

What exactly did he lie about and exaggerate? I suspect that these are just more Bush-Republican lies.

The Swift Boat Vet's for Truth's new book lays it all out for you, using first hand eye-witness acoutns, Kerry's statements and testimony as well as official documents. Why don't you pick up a copy and see for yourself.

Funny comment: I was in Hood River Oregon last week. This is the wind surfing capitol of the world and Kerry was there the week before. When you come into town there is a giant billboard showing Kerry riding the wild surf and wind. In fact, the day he was there was nearly the only day all summer long that there was no wind at all! Poor Hood River. They tried so hard. I really felt bad for them.

All I caught about this were some headlines about Kerry creating his own wind...

 

[russ_watters]

There is a site dedicated to the Bush lies. Moveon ads are more accurate than Swift boat vets.

amp, from the things you were saying in the election thread (you said you don't need to see evidence to believe some claims), it seems clear to me that you choose whether to believe claims based soley on whether the claims support or contradict your bias.

I can appreciate your position here but I think there is a difference. Anyone running for office must be a politician, but how low will they sink in order to win?

I think most politicians are equally negative (and candidates tend to reflect each other's negativity). Kerry did seem to make it a point to not be too negative in the DNC, but there were a lot of speeches that blasted Bush. Kerry's ads just seem to be more generally negative than specifically negative - and both candidates get to hide behind the fact that the most negative ads didn't come from them.

What exactly did he lie about and exaggerate?

The specific lie was that he was in Cambodia on Christmas. That's an old lie, not a new one - it dates back to his protest days. It appears to be something he said because it sounded good. Should he be held responsible for it now? Well, if he wants his service to be an issue...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128561,00.html

Exaggerations are exaggerations - politicians exaggerate everything. That should be self-evident. One guy firing an AK at his boat can be an "intense firefight" if he wants it to be.

 

[amp]

Russ ... Kat here are some sites.

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/

Russ: http://www.rubyan.com/politics/

has sites, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004541.php

Russ, unfortunately ... observation allowed me the perspective to examin current events which has distilled into a few conclusions.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I love this quote from blogspot:

"The Bush campaign has got Kerry written all over it," said Roger Ballentine, a senior environmental strategist for the Kerry campaign. "From Day 1, the goal of the Bush campaign has not been to get voters to like their candidate and respect his record, but to get people to dislike John Kerry even though on this issue Kerry is widely thought to be the greenest candidate America has ever seen."

Such hypocrisy.

 

[Prometheus]

I find it amazing that many who support Michael Moore shout that the swift boat veterans are frauds.

Do you have any evidence or citations to support this allegation?

If Michael Moore can distribute Fahrenheit 911, the Swift boat vets should be able to air their ads. Fair is fair.

No one is saying that they should not be able to air their ads. But, they are not airing their ads, are they. Republican groups with extremely close links to Bush (one resigned yesterday) are funding the ads.

Yesterday on the news, one of them was interviewed. The interviewer noted: If you are correct, then all available military records must be wrong, and all of the people who were on Kerry's boat must be wrong. The guy said yes, that is right. He also said tht his feelings about Kerry after the war may have clouded his judgment.

I think that people could be found and aired who accuse you of treason during the Vietnam war, if there were enough funding. Whether you were there or not is not relevant.

And how inaccurate are the swift boat vets ads? If they are inaccurate, provide an example.

How about the interview that I mentioned above?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ ... Kat here are some sites.

And you want me to do what with them? Search for evidence to support your assertions so you won't have to? No thanks.

Republican groups with extremely close links to Bush (one resigned yesterday) are funding the ads.

That's a distortion, Prometheus (I'm being generous). The man who resigned was a lawyer who gave advice, not money as you are implying. Also, this is not unusual:

Lawyers on the Democratic side are also representing both the campaign or party and outside groups running ads in the presidential race.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-25-bush-lawyer_x.htm Also (omg, the irony):

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

Pot: kettle = black, Prometheus - with one minor difference, of course - no one is calling for Joe Sandler's resignation and he's not offering it.

How about the interview that I mentioned above?

What about it? Link?

 

[Prometheus]

Pot: kettle = black, Prometheus.

What a delightful statement on your part. It is completely devoid of context, as is all to common with you.

That's a distortion, Prometheus (I'm being generous). The man who resigned was a lawyer who gave advice, not money as you are implying.

Good for you. Such a strong response on your part, yet you completely avoided the point, that Republican groups with close ties to Bush are funding the ads.

 

[russ_watters]

What a delightful statement on your part. It is completely devoid of context, as is all to common with you.

? The context was right there: you are up in arms about something the Republicans are doing when the Democrats are doing the same thing. That's hypocrisy.

Good for you. Such a strong response on your part, yet you completely avoided the point, that Republican groups with close ties to Bush are funding the ads.

No, you said that the person who resigned yesterday was funding the ads. That is factually wrong. If you wish to amend your statement to correct the inaccuracy, please do.

 

[Prometheus]

? The context was right there: you are up in arms about something the Republicans are doing when the Democrats are doing the same thing. That's hypocrisy.

You are now being quite hypocritical. You are, aren't you? Why are you being so hypocritical? Do you like such talk, or do you just like to dish it out?

I am up in arms about what Republicans are doing. You are correct. What the Democrats are doing has not been brought up here, and anyway not once have I ever supported such activities by Democrats. Do you call it hypocrisy that I challenge you if I don't also challenge all other people in the world with similar opinions?

 

[Prometheus]

you said that the person who resigned yesterday was funding the ads. That is factually wrong. If you wish to amend your statement to correct the inaccuracy, please do.

I agree with you. I attempted to combine two thoughts into one sentence, and the resulting sentence was not accurate. The guy who resigned aided them, but I have no evidence that he funded them.

Could you now respond to the remaining part of the statement? Please recognize that I am not the source of the allegations, and that I cannot defend them from my own knowledge. I have heard on televison and read on the Internet that Republican groups with extremely close links to Bush are funding the ads. Do you disagree? If not, what do you think?

 

[russ_watters]

You are now being quite hypocritical. You are, aren't you? Why are you being so hypocritical? Do you like such talk, or do you just like to dish it out?

What, precisely, am I being hypocritical about?

I am up in arms about what Republicans are doing. You are correct. What the Democrats are doing has not been brought up here, and anyway not once have I ever supported such activities by Democrats. Do you call it hypocrisy that I challenge you if I don't also challenge all other people in the world with similar opinions?

Fair enough: you didn't know. Now that you do know, are you equally upset about the Democrats' tactics (wrt the lawyer who just resigned)? Should Joe Sandler also resign?

I agree with you. I attempted to combine two thoughts into one sentence, and the resulting sentence was not accurate. The guy who resigned aided them, but I have no evidence that he funded them.

Fair enough.

Could you now respond to the remaining part of the statement? Please recognize that I am not the source of the allegations, and that I cannot defend them from my own knowledge. I have heard on televison and read on the Internet that Republican groups with extremely close links to Bush are funding the ads. Do you disagree? If not, what do you think?

HERE is the story on that (its a bullet point, which is why it isn't a complete sentence).

The fact that $200,000 of the more than $500,000 the Swift Boat Veterans group has raised so far has come from one individual — Texas home builder Bob Perry. He is a friend of White House political director Karl Rove and is a major contributor to Republican candidates, including President Bush.

I guess the implication being made from that fact is that Bush is somehow behind the ads? I don't buy it any more than I buy that Kerry is directing the attack ads against Bush. And Kerry has denounced the MoveOn.org ads. Kerry's no fool - he made a miscalculation by making an issue of his service, but he knows he can't defend MoveOn.org while slamming Swift Boat Vets (though the fact that the MoveOn ads were not well-recieved makes it easier for him). Especially in light of...

Something I found while researching the above:

Since early March, liberal groups such as the Media Fund and MoveOn PAC have spent about $40 million on anti-Bush ads. Spending by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and other anti-Kerry groups has so far totaled just a few million dollars.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20040825/a_moveonads25.art.htm . I had no idea - Bush has received the benefit of "a few million dollars" in soft money attack ads and Kerry has received some $40 million worth. Mr. Rove really got his money's worth with the Swift-Boat ads.

So Kerry's miscalculation is double-bad: bringing up his service record backfired due to the Swift Boat Vets response and denouncing the Swift Boat Vets response requires him to distance himself from $40 million in free ads.

 

[Dissident Dan]

you spoke too soon
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6047477

He did not denounce the ad; he just lumped with other non-official campaign ads that he wants to see stopped. He apparently thinks only candidates and parties should be allowed to express opinion and share information on politicians on TV.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The vets that are speaking against Kerry now praised him in the past:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/p...t.html?ex=1094005334&ei=1&en=729916e83be2ab35

Edit: also, lies exposed, such as:

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

 

[Prometheus]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-24-ad-watch_x.htm

Your citation does support my statement that Republican groups with extremely close links to Bush are funding the ads. However, you have yet to respond to the statement, other than to suggest that Bush was not directly behind this. I do not dispute this, as Bush is too stupid for anyone to let him be involved in anything. What do you think about a person with such close ties to Bush funding the ads?