(07-22-2015 03:38 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

That doesn't prove your point.

It wouldn't matter if the swiftboat d-bags came out and said they lied, you would still say it doesn't prove your point.

Have they done that?

(07-21-2015 08:26 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So to defend a lying scum fuckwads service record, you all are going to trash and call other service men scum. That's special.

Try again. I already responded that this was going to far.

Just like your comments about Kerry.

(07-22-2015 07:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:38 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

That doesn't prove your point.

It wouldn't matter if the swiftboat d-bags came out and said they lied, you would still say it doesn't prove your point.

Have they done that?

The point was that you think you are never wrong.

(07-21-2015 11:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

You really can't read either, can you?

Did you even bother to skim your "source"? Pretty damning, really.

There's not a lot of dispute as to what Sen. McCain went through, and there's little evidence he came home, whined about Jengis Khan (sp) and tossed someone else's fake medals over the WH fence.

(07-21-2015 09:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And when you're done explaining the disgraceful treatment of John Kerry..

We can talk about Max Cleland and Tammy Duckworth

John Kerry stomped his medals. He's an ass hole.

(07-22-2015 03:38 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 11:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

That doesn't prove your point.

It wouldn't matter if the swiftboat d-bags came out and said they lied, you would still say it doesn't prove your point.

Very well thought out response. I like the way you laid it out there and the attention to detail that you were able to strategically place into your comment was absolutely outstanding. Bravo.

(07-22-2015 04:15 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 09:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And when you're done explaining the disgraceful treatment of John Kerry..

We can talk about Max Cleland and Tammy Duckworth

John Kerry stomped his medals. He's an ass hole.

So what? He did his job when he was over there, like McCain did.

It seems to be a commonly accepted "fact" among several posters on here that the swift boat accusations were somehow proved wrong. When and where and how? I haven't seen anything of the sort.

I've seen statements by others that contradict the swift boat accusations. But I've seen nothing to establish which set of comments are true and which are false. My best guess is that, like about 98% of these cases, there's some truth and some not on both sides. And unlike Ferguson, there's no forensic evidence to tell us which side is telling the truth and which side is lying.

Some have made a point that those backing Kerry are primarily those from his boat, and the attackers are from other boats, and suggested that means that those backing Kerry were more familiar with the facts. That might be a valid point if the boats had operated independently. But probably 90% of of the time they didn't. And when operating together in close proximity, pretty much all hands on all boats would be well aware of the actual facts.

I doubt if any of the posters inhere, including me, actually did participate in small boat operations in the Mekong Delta. I was trained for them but ultimately assigned elsewhere. I am personally more familiar with MSB operations, which mainly occurred on the river between Saigon and the South China Sea, than I am with the swift boats, which were largely upriver from Saigon. A shipmate during training and good friend did end up there, and we had several discussions about the tempo of operations over a beer or two in some O-club, so I have at least a second-hand feel for how things came down. I would expect the most favorable slant to come from Kerry's own boat crew and less favorable comments from other boats in the group, because of differences in viewpoint and frame of reference. That appears to be the case here. But again, I've seen no conclusive proof, nor even any evidence sufficient to support a legitimate claim, that the Swift Boaters were lying. I've seen nothing more than "he said-she said" sorts of commentary, and that proves nothing.

My best guess is the Kerry stood up for his men and as a result they would support him to the bitter end, but that Kerry probably lied a few times and embellished a few things, and that pissed off some people around him. I'd say the same thing is probably true of the vast majority of swift boat officers in charge during the entirety of the Vietnam war.

If we have any brown water sailors on here, perhaps they can shed more light on the situation that would have existed.

To me, the point isn't really whether Kerry was embellishing his record or not. The bottom line is he served in Vietnam and deserves respect for his service (and the various awards of courage he received). It was fair game for people to point out discrepancies in his service record, but I think it could have been done in a respectful way.

I have more respect for someone like Donald Trump who has been consistent in his attacks (whether on Obama or McCain or whomever), than someone like Jeb Bush who was supporting those who attacked Kerry a decade ago, but now supposedly is outraged over Trump's attack on McCain. And I would feel the same way if a Democrat was wishy-washy in the same way (and I'm sure they have been). All I am asking for is some consistency on your public opinion from a presidential candidate.

I'm personally okay with the calling out of both McCain and Kerry. A military record is not something that can keep one above reproach, or at least it shouldn't be.

The collective hard-on Americans have for "war heroes," mostly imaginary, is troubling.

There are real heroes out there that deserve respect, not the watered down version they get when suddenly everybody is a hero.

(07-22-2015 06:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  To me, the point isn't really whether Kerry was embellishing his record or not. The bottom line is he served in Vietnam and deserves respect for his service (and the various awards of courage he received). It was fair game for people to point out discrepancies in his service record, but I think it could have been done in a respectful way.
I have more respect for someone like Donald Trump who has been consistent in his attacks (whether on Obama or McCain or whomever), than someone like Jeb Bush who was supporting those who attacked Kerry a decade ago, but now supposedly is outraged over Trump's attack on McCain. And I would feel the same way if a Democrat was wishy-washy in the same way (and I'm sure they have been). All I am asking for is some consistency on your public opinion from a presidential candidate.

The difference I see is that I don't think there's ever been any insinuation at any level that McCain lied about any of his record. Kerry clearly lied about some things, for example the Cambodia stuff, he has pretty much admitted that himself. The question is whether he lied about as much as the Swift Boat Sailors insist that he did. My guess is that he lied about more than he has admitted, but probably not everything that the Swift Boat Sailors claimed. One thing that is somewhat hard for people who have never been in the situation is just how confused and confusing things are in the middle of a firefight at night.

I can think of one example that may be illustrative. Three boats are all shooting at an enemy position. Somebody hits it and wipes it out. All three boat crews are going to claim that they hit it and the other two missed. And there's no way to prove any of them right or wrong. A lot of the Swift Boat issues have that kind of feel to me.

As I said earlier, my cousin was McCain's squadron commander when he was shot down. My cousin basically thinks he was a pain in the ass who was a major problem in the squadron. He is not invited to squadron reunions. Apparently, he had something of a, "My daddy is an admiral and therefore I don't have to play by the same rules," attitude. That is not all that uncommon, certainly not as uncommon and one would hope it wold be. In four years of active duty, I served with two admirals' sons who both had something of that attitude, and they were colossal pains in the ass. I have talked with some of the other pilots in the squadron who have at least hinted that McCain was off doing his own thing instead of playing ball with the squadron when he was shot down.

On the other side of the coin, when McCain was released I had an E-6 working for me who had worked previously for McCain's dad. We were at Subic (actually Cubi Point, which is the airfield) and my E-6 contacted dad, who pulled some strings so we managed to get up to Clark when the POW plane carrying McCain landed. I will admit that felt honored to be present on that occasion. Also, IIRC Hambone's dad and McCain were roommates at Annapolis, and he might have a very different point of view on some of this.

I will admit, my cousin can be a first class pain in the ass too. Apparently, a lot of his disputes with McCain arose because they were given certain mission profiles to fly, my cousin thought they were crazy dangerous so he told his squadron, "Just follow me," and McCain was noted for saying, "But my daddy's an admiral and that's not what we were ordered to do." My cousin brought everyone home safe but McCain, so they believed in him implicitly. There was actually a documentary featuring interviews with several of them where this was discussed. What wasn't said in the documentary but I have heard suggested is that McCain was flying the directive profile and all of the rest of the squadron were doing the "follow me" thing when McCain was shot down.

Funny how thinking through some of the command dynamics with my cousin and McCain has parallels in the whole Swift Boat deal.

Of course the Cambodia stuff was a lie. We were never there. LMFAO

(07-23-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course the Cambodia stuff was a lie. We were never there. LMFAO

The relevant question is not whether "we" were there but whether Kerry was.

(07-23-2015 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course the Cambodia stuff was a lie. We were never there. LMFAO

The relevant question is not whether "we" were there but whether Kerry was.

Just like the relevant question is not whether or not there were those who questioned Kerrys service, but whether or not any of them had any standing to do so. Meaning, did those he actually serve with question his service or awards? They didn't, and those questioning his service weren't in that position to do so. That's what made it so disingenuous.

(07-27-2015 12:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Just like the relevant question is not whether or not there were those who questioned Kerrys service, but whether or not any of them had any standing to do so. Meaning, did those he actually serve with question his service or awards? They didn't, and those questioning his service weren't in that position to do so. That's what made it so disingenuous.

It has always been my understanding that at least a significant number of the people who questioned his service were in fact people who served in the boat squadron with him. Those would in fact have been people who served with him and who would in fact have had ample standing to question him.

If you have knowledge of facts that are different from that, I would be interested in knowing what facts and what is your source.

(07-27-2015 03:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Just like the relevant question is not whether or not there were those who questioned Kerrys service, but whether or not any of them had any standing to do so. Meaning, did those he actually serve with question his service or awards? They didn't, and those questioning his service weren't in that position to do so. That's what made it so disingenuous.

It has always been my understanding that at least a significant number of the people who questioned his service were in fact people who served in the boat squadron with him. Those would in fact have been people who served with him and who would in fact have had ample standing to question him.

If you have knowledge of facts that are different from that, I would be interested in knowing what facts and what is your source.

Most of the men in the squadron Kerry served with call BS on the SBVT and almost every man that were actually on the same swift boat with him, all but one I believe call BS. Larry Clayton Lee was a SBVT member and the only incident when he was on the scene, the one when he received the Silver Star, he actually says that Kerry deserved that citation. The book that slanders Kerry is full of inaccuracies and false statements. The Navy even did a review in 2004 and found that the awards he received were properly done.

If one steps away and looks at it objectively it is clear the SBVT was nothing but a well executed smear campaign.

Exactly

(07-27-2015 11:15 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:01 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Just like the relevant question is not whether or not there were those who questioned Kerrys service, but whether or not any of them had any standing to do so. Meaning, did those he actually serve with question his service or awards? They didn't, and those questioning his service weren't in that position to do so. That's what made it so disingenuous.

It has always been my understanding that at least a significant number of the people who questioned his service were in fact people who served in the boat squadron with him. Those would in fact have been people who served with him and who would in fact have had ample standing to question him.
If you have knowledge of facts that are different from that, I would be interested in knowing what facts and what is your source.

Most of the men in the squadron Kerry served with call BS on the SBVT and almost every man that were actually on the same swift boat with him, all but one I believe call BS. Larry Clayton Lee was a SBVT member and the only incident when he was on the scene, the one when he received the Silver Star, he actually says that Kerry deserved that citation. The book that slanders Kerry is full of inaccuracies and false statements. The Navy even did a review in 2004 and found that the awards he received were properly done.
If one steps away and looks at it objectively it is clear the SBVT was nothing but a well executed smear campaign.

I have seen that his boat crew backed him, I believe 9 to 1. What I've seen indicates that a number of the people who attacked Kerry were from other boats in the squadron. If you have a link that contradicts that, please share.

Given the way the swift boats operated, I would say that men from other boats in the squadron would generally be as knowledgeable as Kerry's own boat crew, and almost certainly more objective. I would agree that people who did not operate with him or his boat would not have the same level of credibility. But my recall from over a decade ago is that the leaders of the movement were from the same squadron or had at least operated together.

I've also done my share of navy investigations, and they are typically done with a predetermined outcome. I certainly caught my share of grief on those occasions where I did not come up with the answer that I was "supposed" to come up with. That many years after the fact, the navy would have a strong vested interest in whitewashing the entire event, and that's what I would expect.

Quote:I have seen that his boat crew backed him, I believe 9 to 1.

If this is the case, and the Naval investigation itself found no cause to remove his awards, then really we're done here unless you can show cause to specifically doubt either (like paying those on his crew or showing pressure placed on the Navy to approve those medals). It'd be one thing if he ran as a War Hero, or constantly referred to his service in his election campaign, and that did not happen.

I think even you can admit you're bending over backwards to try and legitimize what amounts to an obviously politically motivated hack job.

(07-27-2015 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:I have seen that his boat crew backed him, I believe 9 to 1.

If this is the case, and the Naval investigation itself found no cause to remove his awards, then really we're done here unless you can show cause to specifically doubt either (like paying those on his crew or showing pressure placed on the Navy to approve those medals). It'd be one thing if he ran as a War Hero, or constantly referred to his service in his election campaign, and that did not happen.

I think even you can admit you're bending over backwards to try and legitimize what amounts to an obviously politically motivated hack job.

You obviously don't understand how the swift boats operated if you truly believe that. In his defense, I think Kerry probably did back his sailors and that would tend to make them support him regardless of facts. The other boats in the squadron would have a more objective view. I agree that people who were not in the same squadron and did not have the same mother ship and did not operate together would generally not have a good factual knowledge.

Based upon everything I have seen and read, considered in the light of my understanding of how the swift boats operated (I trained to be there, but ended up getting sent elsewhere, but obviously had friends from training who did serve there), I tend to believe the swift boat allegations, at least to the extent that they suggest that Kerry overstated his own career.