2006-10-27 01:40:51 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Even if I was a Republican, those guys would not have fooled me. Kerry's crew, with the exception of one guy, said he was a good commander.
Swift boat veterans for truth was organized by a Republican loyalist who years ago had lost a very public TV debate against Kerry on the war. It was his payback. None of the veterans, except for one, had more than a passing encounter with Kerry, a few were not even stationed in Vietnam at the same time and place. In other words, it was a fraud.
Kerry had a good service record, whereas records were suspiciously missing from Bush's time in the National Guard. Kerry did dangerous, voluntary duty on a strategically vital waterway, while Bush chose to stay at home and learn to fly a plane that would never be used in combat.
The valid and truthful way to attack Kerry was on his opposition to the Vietnam war. Republicans did this, but it was a comparatively minor issue. Why? Many voters now believe that war was something the US should not have gotten involved in. Therefore, the way to get more votes for Bush, was to completely distort Kerry's war record.
2006-10-27 01:44:21 · answer #1 · answered by TxSup 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I have yet to hear of one charge by the Swifties that has been refuted by Kerry.
Kerry had to take back his claim that it was "seared, seared" in his memory of being sent to Cambodia by Nixon on Christmas 1968. This is something he has on Congressional record as saying in chamber. Twice. And it's a lie.
The main character against Kerry is actually a Democrat, not a Republican. It's just that Kerry's conduct, his lies to Congress, his treasonous contact with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris, his self-acclaimed 'hero' status were all anathema to a patriotic, truthful person.
And the saddest aspect is the media dismissing the Swifties' accounts, their dozens of affadavits that tell of a cowardly and craven and mendacious Kerry.
Dan Rather digs up a Bush AWOL hoax, complete with forgeries, that had been floated by Texas Dems when Bush ran for governor, and that had resurfaced in 2000, also. But nobody in the media were curious enough to say anything, research anything, DO anything about dozens of people with signed testimony about Kerry.
Kerry's DD214, his citations, etc, are dated during the Carter administration, specifically during the Carter amnesty for the Vietnam deserters, draft dodgers, etc. His actual discharge date would have been years earlier. The only reason his papers would have those dates is if he'd have had a 'other than honorable' discharge, invalidating his citations, etc. Military people are aware of this, and are saddened by the media protection of Kerry from the truth of his past.
This is just one of many, many obvious examples of the leftist media bias so many leftists are blind to.
2006-10-27 09:19:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Swiftboat Vets simply reinforced what I had already heard about Kerry. And, yes, I believe they were telling the truth.
2006-10-27 09:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I voted for Kerry based on Bush, you know the guy who actually lost to Gore in the previous election, tried to smear Kerry who did serve in Viet Nam which is much more than Bush did
2006-10-27 09:19:13 · answer #4 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I believed them. in fact Kerry's actions after he returned from viet nam were public record, most of the damning things they were complaining about were on film. He did testify in front of congress and said there were autrocities going on. All the Swift boat guys were saying was "hold on, that's not true."
It ddn't affect my vote. I'd have voted for bush no matter who was running.
2006-10-27 08:55:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I believe they were mostly telling the truth, as I believe Kerry was mostly full of crap. I do not believe for 1 minute that he was even 1/10th the war 'hero' he portrayed himself to be.
2006-10-27 08:56:16 · answer #6 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That's one of the reasons I voted against Kerry. It was all a pack of lies.
2006-10-27 08:43:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
OMG! You people still don't get it!?!? It was all propaganda by the religious right to get thier boy dubya elected. Your questioning a mans military record that speaks for its self over a guy who dodged the war? Amazing. Proving once again that Americans get their info on canidates from commercial ads....thats sad people...really and truly sad.
2006-10-27 09:09:08 · answer #8 · answered by mrfoxhorn 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The fact that the media did not interview these guys should speak volumes right there.
2006-10-27 08:47:58 · answer #9 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No more John and boat scandals.
2006-10-27 08:51:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋