Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by bb_baptist, Jul 29, 2004.
"Unfit for Command" now #2 on Amazon.com
The book hasn't even been published! These must be preorders alone!
Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
by John E. O'Neill
Hardcover: 256 pages
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc.; (September 25, 2004)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 2
Is September 25, 2004 the date the book comes out? Just a little over 1 month before the election? The timing...
Just more Kerry bashing. What's new?
The book was clearly timed for the maximum impact. However given than the group was started in May 2004, it's almost record time from publishing to print.
Do read some of the quotes:
I am not a Kerry Supporter but it does seem it was a good group of his Swift Boat crew mates that disagree with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
FOX News which is viewed as Right leaning recently exposed contradictions of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004
Regardless of how you feel about Kerry's politics or his involvement in the anti war movement, he did go to Vietnam and he did save a Green Beret's life and it was a large group of Swift Boat Veterans tonight supporting him. I am very, very skeptical of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Their disagreement goes way back.
John Kerry debates John O'Neill, June 20, 1971
So many of those "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were singing a different tune when Kerry wasn't a democratic candidate?
How about that?
BTW, O'Neill claims to be "apolitical", but was captured on the Watergate tapes being prepped by Nixon on ways to "get" Kerry politically.
He also claims to have been in the same unit as Kerry, but neglects to mention that he didn't serve until Kerry had rotated back to the states.
As was discussed here earlier, the "Swift Boats Veterans" group was organized and paid for by a consulting firm working for the Bush campaign.
The sleaze machine is getting truly desperate.
Ironically, Kerry was given bronze and silver stars for his courage an leadership in combat.
This, the republicans assure us, mean that he is "unfit to command."
Which suggests why they like Bush. Apparently, they believe that a man who has never actually gone AWOL is "unfit."
John Kerry on National Defense! (Rec'd via email)
LadyEagle, I know you are discerning enough to know better than to believe that money=commitment. This is the same argument the other side has used on education - the fallacy that the side that votes to spend the most money on some dept is the one that truly supports it. I don't think so. Throwing money at a problem does not "fix" its problems - especially when one of its biggest problems is waste and innefficiency.
If it were me, I'd return us to a militia system and probably cut even more defense spending than Kerry would dream of. I'd go for a small but rapidly deployable military. There is no need for the juggernaut we have now. Smaller and more agile is better than big and clumsy.
Some of the things Kerry voted against are probably just pork projects that do not provide for any real increase in defense. I don't know why he voted against those things but I do not buy into the fallacy that more money is the same as more support. That just widens the gap of runaway federal spending where each party will try to outspend the other.
Well, I would agree with your major points, if it weren't for the fact that Citizens Against Government Waste refutes Kerry's position on pork projects....
So, if the grassroots Government Waste watchdog group - who dishes it out to Republicans and Democrats alike - gives the man a thumbs down, I hardly think his National Defense voting record is based on wanting fiscal responsibility.
And, from my posts which equally dish it out to both major parties, I think you can see I am not a partisan, I'm an "equally disgusted opportunity" registered voter.
If this is the "hope" that is on the way, I opt out.
Which, being interpreted is, anything that makes Kerry look bad is automatically sleaze ...
As soon as I saw this article yesterday, and this topic today, I knew Galatian would be here, pumping the old nonsense of his positions without regard for the truth of it. He didn't complain when Richard Clarke lied about Bush. He didn't call that sleaze ... he in fact embraced it. He doesn't complain about the numerous other books that attack Bush. Why? Because of his political bias. He will come out in a heartbeat to assail a book that attacks John Kerry, but will praise books that attack Bush. If we knew the truth, he probably hasn't read any of them.
Too bad that people feel compelled to vote for either this guy or Bush.
By fellow vets ? What have they got to gain ?
Actually, the guys who served with Kerry rode with him into Boston harbor a few days ago.
As the expose on the "Veterans for Truth" bunch showed, many of them didn't serve with him, and some of those who did changed their story on the sort of a man he was, after he became a candidate.
"FOX News Channel chief political correspondent Carl Cameron provided substantial background on some key Kerry critics. Cameron reported that the veterans held a news conference "essentially to trash [Kerry]" and that much of their criticism "dramatically conflicts with the public record." Cameron stated, "Senator Kerry has released most of his military records and for the most part, they are a glowing detail of his military service." Not only does their criticism conflict with what The New York Times described in an April 22 article as Kerry's "uniformly positive" evaluations included in his military records, but, as Cameron also reported, their criticism is inconsistent with statements previously made by many of the Swift Boat Vets themselves."
When even FOX can't stomach the hypocrisy, you know it's pretty bad.
"Here is what Grant Hubbard [sic], who's now part of your group, here's what he had to say back then about John Kerry. And he signed -- let's put it up on the screen -- a report on Kerry. He said on initiative, one of the top few. Cooperation, one of the top few. Personal behavior, one of the top few. Why would he say that then and now be supporting you now?"
Busted again. There's a lot more...
I'm not going to vote for Kerry myself. But there is no doubt that he is a patriot, and is a brave and effective leader, with an expempliary combat record.
There is nothing to low or too dishonest for Bush to try against Kerry. Does anyone need any further evidence that a vote for Bush is a vote against America?
You don't have to vote for a liberal to get a decent person for president, however.
The 'uniformly positive' reviews were what *little* was left after the vast majority of 'points' in the reviews were uniformly 'not observed'...
How much of your own link did you read?
Or, corrected parlance... Anything that disagrees with the general medias liberal anti-American agenda...
Also, please note how disjointed the article is...
And, how much it hops around and does not provide links to it's supposedly conservative 'source'. Or allow the reader to judge for oneself the truth of the assertions...
As it is SwiftVets for Truth is a damning accustation and 11 to 2 seems to be a fairly good set of odds...
This together with kerry's abominable voting record when it comes to the defense of this nation make him the worst possibly candidate...
This is the only actual Fox News Transcript I could find...
Taken in total... I believe O'Neil before Gen. Kennedy
Very evasive in her answers not answering most of them... And, the few she did answer directly were unsubstantive...
I believe MediaMatters has intentionally misrepresented the Truth of the Fox News interview.
It is intersting that Bushes National Guard records are open and available...
Though incredibly poor record keeping has many lost over the years...
But, kerry's record is 'sealed' until he signs a release... What has he got to hide?
I mean you can accuse Bush of having records destroyed all you want...
But, given the amount of time kerry's been a Washignton insider he could have done the same thing...
I don't believe *any* records have been destroyed... Which is why kerry won't release his... And, Bush, did.
It will be interesting to see how Kerry and the Democrats react to it. The book will probably have at least as much truth in it as Fahrenheit 9/11 does.
The Democrats don't have much of an argument claiming that the timing of the release is suspect. The numerous anti-Bush books in addition to movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Day After Tomorrow (and possibly The Village from what I have heard) released this year were also all put out with a political agenda, to attack Bush. It will also be interesting to see how the media reports (or ignores) it.
Well, the book can be researched except for kerry's actual military record...
But, yeah so many people have 'filters' on that I am not sure that there is any such thing as a truly objective observer....