Former Military Colleagues: Kerry 'Unfit to Be Commander in Chief'

[John Ashcroft]

Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democrat nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander in chief." They will do so at a press conference Tuesday in Washington.
"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander in chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, an attorney in Houston, Texas, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States.

Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any soldier who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on "The Dick Cavett Show" over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander in chief are retired Naval Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures would educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander in chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign, and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander in Chief'

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "90 percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign."

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.

He hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy that with all of us in the field, actually fighting the North Vietnamese, came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

'Real John Kerry'

B.G. Burkett, author of the book "Stolen Valor" and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics; this has to with Vietnam veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"The American people do not know John Kerry, and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he said.

Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment.

Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/3/92240.shtml)

[lucky wilbury]

somehow i don't think the mainstream press will pick up on this.

[Jesus Christ]

Verily he who trusteth "CNS News" as a valid source of news may as well trust Satan as a source for the Gospel.

[High Life Man]

I gotta agree with JC on the whole CNS thing here, but I don't doubt the word of these guys. And JC would say the same thing if he would have ever been a warrior.

[FORD]

Originally posted by High Life Man
I gotta agree with JC on the whole CNS thing here, but I don't doubt the word of these guys. And JC would say the same thing if he would have ever been a warrior.

Ah but JC's the Prince of Peace ;)

So a right wing propaganda outlet interviews a few vets, who no doubt happen to share their extremist beliefs, and that's supposed to be a realistic evaluation of Kerry's fitness as CINC?

And considering the alternative is a deserter, surrounded by chickenhawks (except for Powell)

How about Nader? did he serve in the Military? He might win this yet :D

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD

So a right wing propaganda outlet interviews a few vets, who no doubt happen to share their extremist beliefs, and that's supposed to be a realistic evaluation of Kerry's fitness as CINC?

the boston globe aka the nytimes bitch has been running stuff hammering kerry all included interviews with people who served with him. they all tell the same story.


Originally posted by FORD
And considering the alternative is a deserter,

clinton wasen't a deserter. he was a draft dodger. your hero dean scammed his way out of it. bush did ANG service. unlike your hero clinton he didn't run away to england. i don't think bush had bodyguards like gore either.


Originally posted by FORD
surrounded by chickenhawks (except for Powell)

what about rumsfeld? he was in the navy. how about you ford where did you serve?




Originally posted by FORD
How about Nader? did he serve in the Military? He might win this yet :D

:rolleyes:

[madraoul]

If Kerry is unfit to be commander-in-chief, he is still 10 times more qualified than the guy in there now. Hell, Bush's idea of "a commando" is the time he didn't wear underwear on a panty raid. I want somebody in there that was in the shit. At least he would know the difference between actual human life and a video game.

[FORD]

A Kerry/Clark ticket is a very real possibility at the moment. I'm still not a big fan of Judas, but I gotta admit, that pairing would neutralize the military issues.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by madraoul
If Kerry is unfit to be commander-in-chief, he is still 10 times more qualified than the guy in there now. Hell, Bush's idea of "a commando" is the time he didn't wear underwear on a panty raid. I want somebody in there that was in the shit. At least he would know the difference between actual human life and a video game.

you want kerry an man who was pushing for a unilateral invasion of iraq in 98? a man who votes to send the troops into iraq then deciedes againest funding them? a man who is an admitted war criminal? and on and on and on

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by FORD
A Kerry/Clark ticket is a very real possibility at the moment. I'm still not a big fan of Judas, but I gotta admit, that pairing would neutralize the military issues.

what are you smoking? clark was the one who was pushing kerrys "intern issue". that and the fact that clark also wanted to attack the russians in kosovo won't play to well.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
you want kerry an man who was pushing for a unilateral invasion of iraq in 98? a man who votes to send the troops into iraq then deciedes againest funding them? a man who is an admitted war criminal? and on and on and on

As opposed to the unilateral clusterfuck going over there now? Bush got all of his money and still our men have to buy a lot of their own survival gear. Pitiful! Don't even get me started on the treatment our guys get when they get home. War criminal? Please don't try your right wing talk show shit on me. Kerry has a conscience. He didn't like what was going on in the bush (no pun intended) when he was there and he said so. Show me some video of what "W" stood for in '71, and you might be able to convince me.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by madraoul
As opposed to the unilateral clusterfuck going over there now?


no your missing the point. bush got 40+ countries to go with us kerry was pushing clinton to go there alone.


Originally posted by madraoul
Bush got all of his money and still our men have to buy a lot of their own survival gear. Pitiful!

dod is buying everything that is needed as fast as it can be made. if kerry had his way they would get NOTHING.


Originally posted by madraoul
Don't even get me started on the treatment our guys get when they get home. War criminal? Please don't try your right wing talk show shit on me.

ok here i'll let you choose. you want video,audio or transcripts of kerry saying what he did. his own words. i'll await your pick but jsut to help you out heres a sample:

Audiotape, April 18, 1971

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used .50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.




Originally posted by madraoul
Kerry has a conscience. He didn't like what was going on in the bush (no pun intended) when he was there and he said so. Show me some video of what "W" stood for in '71, and you might be able to convince me.

no kerry didn't have a conscience then. look at his record and his behavior. he is and always has been a person to take advantage of any situation no matter what is is,where it is time or place .his voting record and statements show that to the tenth degree. what did he do? he joined the navy because he thought it would help him advance his political career when he was done. even he's co's have stated that. he joined at a time when the war was popular. a good political move on his part. came home run for office like JFK his families friend. what happened? he came home and saw it wasen't popular anymore so he turned antiwar hoping it would help him. how did he run his first campigan? as an antiwar anti pentegon canidate. he said he was disgusted he served on and on. he put out a book with the cover mocking the raising of the flag on iwo jima. pledged to put us troops under un control etc etc. what happend? he lost the race. flash forward 30 years. now that politically the time is right to run for president he plays up he navy experience. he says it'll help him be CIC. about he antiwar stuff he was young and didn't know what he was doing etc etc. he thinks it bad for him so he'll distance himself from it as fast as he can. he's changed his stance on so many issues it isn't funny. there is no way in hell he should be president. judge by his past history he'll send troops off to war and when the heat gets hot he'll say it was a bad idea. he's doing just that right now. voted for and pushed for gulf war two now during trouble times and shifting opinion he's turning againest his own vote. not the qualties one wants in a president.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
no your missing the point. bush got 40+ countries to go with us kerry was pushing clinton to go there alone.


Out of these 40+ countries, name five that have dedicated the economic and military resourses to call this a true coalition. Great Britian doesn't count. They are so screwed up by the faulty assumptions of Reaganomics, they had to go along.


Originally posted by lucky wilbury
dod is buying everything that is needed as fast as it can be made. if kerry had his way they would get NOTHING.


Be prepared. Hell, the Boy Scouts know this. Don't send our boys into a combat area unprepared. Another great example of the incompetence of this administration. The scaled down VA is able to do a bang up job as well.




Originally posted by lucky wilbury
ok here i'll let you choose. you want video,audio or transcripts of kerry saying what he did. his own words. i'll await your pick but jsut to help you out heres a sample:

Audiotape, April 18, 1971

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used .50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.



No, I think I asked for video of what our president was thinking at this time. I've heard from Kerry. Where's W's thoughts about his true love for America in 1971?






Originally posted by lucky wilbury
No kerry didn't have a conscience then. look at his record and his behavior. he is and always has been a person to take advantage of any situation no matter what is is,where it is time or place .his voting record and statements show that to the tenth degree. what did he do? he joined the navy because he thought it would help him advance his political career when he was done. even he's co's have stated that. he joined at a time when the war was popular. a good political move on his part. came home run for office like JFK his families friend. what happened? he came home and saw it wasen't popular anymore so he turned antiwar hoping it would help him. how did he run his first campigan? as an antiwar anti pentegon canidate. he said he was disgusted he served on and on. he put out a book with the cover mocking the raising of the flag on iwo jima. pledged to put us troops under un control etc etc. what happend? he lost the race. flash forward 30 years. now that politically the time is right to run for president he plays up he navy experience. he says it'll help him be CIC. about he antiwar stuff he was young and didn't know what he was doing etc etc. he thinks it bad for him so he'll distance himself from it as fast as he can. he's changed his stance on so many issues it isn't funny. there is no way in hell he should be president. judge by his past history he'll send troops off to war and when the heat gets hot he'll say it was a bad idea. he's doing just that right now. voted for and pushed for gulf war two now during trouble times and shifting opinion he's turning againest his own vote. not the qualties one wants in a president.

Maybe Kerry will have the ability to recognize a mistake and take action to correct it. You don't continue with a failed policy just to look tough. You apparently believe that going with the current administration is the right thing to do. The way way our Wal-Mart culture is now, I pray you're right. Because if I'm right, our future is not pretty. Republicans control everything, I only ask you leave the country the way that you found it. God Bless America!

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by madraoul
Out of these 40+ countries, name five that have dedicated the economic and military resourses to call this a true coalition. Great Britian doesn't count. They are so screwed up by the faulty assumptions of Reaganomics, they had to go along.

off the top of my head:

Austraila
Japan
South Korea
Denmark
the Netherlands
Iceland
Poland
Italy
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Philippines
Romania

those are countries with boots on the ground as well as many others as we type. money wise:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/24/sprj.irq.main/

Nations pledge at least $13 billion for Iraq
Three U.S. soldiers killed in attacks north of Baghdad
Friday, October 24, 2003 Posted: 7:30 PM EDT (2330 GMT)



Delegates to the donors' conference for Iraq in Madrid, Spain, listen Friday to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell speak.

(CNN) -- Countries at a donors' conference for Iraq pledged at least $13 billion in grants and loans Friday to help in that nation's recovery, U.S. officials said.

Even including the $20 billion that the U.S. Congress has earmarked for reconstruction, Friday's total falls short of the more than $55 billion estimated necessary to rebuild the country.

In a statement, President Bush commended the participants of the two-day conference in Madrid, Spain, saying in part, "Today's success at the Iraq donors' conference marked significant progress for freedom in Iraq. I commend the 73 nations and 20 international organizations that are meeting the challenge of helping the Iraqi people recover from decades of oppression and build a better future.

"The world has a clear interest in a democratic Iraq because free nations do not breed the ideologies of terror. A free Iraq will serve as an example and an inspiration to advocates of reform and progress throughout the Middle East. And a free Iraq will be a source of stability and hope for that region."

Officials with various donor nations and agencies estimated that the amount pledged eventually would total $14 billion-$19 billion.

Conference officials acknowledged that they don't know how much of the aid will come in the form of cash grants and how much will be loans. Iraq and the United States have stated they prefer cash grants to loans.

The World Bank and United Nations estimate that rebuilding Iraq after decades of war, economic sanctions and misrule under Saddam Hussein will cost more than $55 billion over four years.

The U.S. Congress voted last week to spend $20 billion on reconstruction in Iraq, but the Senate bill, in defiance of President Bush's wishes, would require Iraq to repay $10 billion. (Facts: Iraq's needs and donors)

A senior Bush administration official said Friday that additional money needed to rebuild Iraq in the coming years could be acquired through additional international contributions and Iraqi oil revenues.

Besides the U.S. pledge, Japan offered the largest contribution.

Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi announced a $5 billion package, which includes a $1.5 billion grant for 2004 and $3.5 billion in loans through 2007.

Saudi Arabia said it will give $1 billion -- $500 million in export credits and $500 million in loans.

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund said they will provide up to a combined $9.25 billion in loans.

World Bank President James Wolfensohn said his organization is prepared to offer between $3 billion and $5 billion to Iraq, based on some conditions, including security on the ground.

The IMF said its assistance could range from $2.5 billion to $4.25 billion over three years.

Generally, the low figure is used for calculation purposes when groups promise a range of cash, according to The Associated Press.

Not included in the $13 billion total are trade concessions, technical assistance and nonmonetary gifts such as Sri Lanka's promise of tea and Vietnam's pledge to give rice.

Ayad Allawi of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council called the pledges "outstanding."

Allawi said Iraq is a "rich nation made temporarily poor."

"The Iraqi people will remember who came forward to help us in our time of need," he said.

Allawi earlier had accused France and Germany, who led the opposition to the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam, of neglecting Iraq at a crucial time.

Those two countries did not donate any money beyond their shares of the $236 million that the European Union has pledged. Contributions from individual member states have upped the 15-nation bloc's donation to $812 million.




Originally posted by madraoul
Be prepared. Hell, the Boy Scouts know this. Don't send our boys into a combat area unprepared. Another great example of the incompetence of this administration. The scaled down VA is able to do a bang up job as well.

1: they were sent prepared. everything the dod ask for they were given going into it. things change and plans adapt. the big things isn't body armour it is armoured humvees. no one saw the use of ied's. no one. not in any report of any kind. the only other place where the use of ied is common is in chechnya.thats the biggest problem not bullets.

2:bush has pushed for the largest increase in the va's budget ever. it's been cut over the past ten years by another president. i wonder who that was :rolleyes:



Originally posted by madraoul
No, I think I asked for video of what our president was thinking at this time. I've heard from Kerry. Where's W's thoughts about his true love for America in 1971?

no i was reponding to you when you said


Originally posted by madraoul
War criminal? Please don't try your right wing talk show shit on me.

that is what that response is to. his own words on war crimes no one elses. you wanna know about bush in 71 ask him about it. he wasen't mugging it up for the camera promoting himself like kerry was back then but if i remember right bush has said he supported our gov back then over the war.


Originally posted by madraoul
Maybe Kerry will have the ability to recognize a mistake and take action to correct it. You don't continue with a failed policy just to look tough.

the point is kerry never follows any policy. he's on both sides on everything at once. pick a topic and there you go. again look at iraq: things going well in 03 he was for it. then dean pushed him to the left things went a little bad for awhile he was againest it. when we caught saddam and things were going well he was for it. now he's againest it. at least with bush even if you don't like him you know where he stands.


Originally posted by madraoul
You apparently believe that going with the current administration is the right thing to do.

long term it is. reform in the middle east is a good thing.


Originally posted by madraoul
The way way our Wal-Mart culture is now, I pray you're right. Because if I'm right, our future is not pretty. Republicans control everything, I only ask you leave the country the way that you found it. God Bless America!

long term things are going to be just fine.

[John Ashcroft]

Lucky, mopping the floor with another liberal.

Once again, facts vs. feelings. The sad thing is he probably thinks he's winning...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD


So a right wing propaganda outlet interviews a few vets, who no doubt happen to share their extremist beliefs, and that's supposed to be a realistic evaluation of Kerry's fitness as CINC?




You're a hypocrite. If these men had spoken for Kerry, they would be your 'boys' and be a pawn in your arguments.

[BigBadBrian]

Here's a link to the website for these men:


Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (http://www.swiftvets.com)












:)

[lucky wilbury]

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/05040000aaa00c01.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=WORLDNEW&Type=News&Filter=World%20News

Vietnam vets slam Kerry

By RICHARD TOMKINS, UPI White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON, May 4 (UPI) -- Sen. John Kerry's accounts of his service in Vietnam and his statements that he witnessed atrocities were attacked as fabrications and political opportunism Tuesday by a group of Vietnam veterans who served with him personally or in the units affiliated with him during his short tour of duty in Southeast Asia.

The veterans, including some of Kerry's former commanders and shipmates, have formed an organization called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and called on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to authorize release of all his service records, including medical records.

"We feel it is very, very import that the American people get the actual truth about that three or four months Kerry served in Vietnam since he has made it a center piece of his biography," said John O'Neill, who took charge of Kerry's boat and crew after Kerry left Vietnam. "Second, we resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam. ... We think that those have cast aspersion on those living and dead.

"We think he knew he was lying when he made them. We think they are unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. Third, we believe that based on our experience with him, he is totally unfit to be commander in chief."

Kerry, who commanded a river patrol boat, served about 4 months of a one-year tour of duty in Vietnam and won the Silver Star and Bronze Star. He requested and received reassignment to the United States after receiving three Purple Hearts for combat wounds, allowed under Navy regulations. The circumstances and merit of one of those awards has come into question in the campaign against President George W. Bush, leading to acrimonious mudslinging and a resurrection of the turmoil the conflict inflicted on American society.

Following his return and then discharge from the Navy, Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist and testified before Congress that he had witnessed U.S. forces committing atrocities and war crimes.

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces," said retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman of the organization. "This is not a political issue. It is a matter of honesty."

Hoffman said Kerry had recently telephoned him and spent 45 minutes attempting to convince Hoffman of not proceeding with the formation of the organization, which Democrats Tuesday attacked as a shill for Bush.

Hoffmann, who debated Kerry on television in 1971 over Vietnam allegations, denied any ties to Bush or the Republican Party. The Swift boat veterans held differing political and social views, he said. "There is only one issue we all agree on, and that is the issue of John Kerry."

In a letter to Kerry signed by more than 200 Swift boats veterans, they wrote, "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us).

"Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war.

"We believe you continue this conduct today, albeit by changing from an anti-war to a 'war hero' status," the letter said.

The veterans Tuesday were vociferous in denying they had seen or had participated in wartime atrocities and questioned that if Kerry had indeed observed any, why he didn't report it as he was required to do.

One veteran, noting the allegations were again made in a book on Kerry's war experiences, choked back tears as he related how his wife and daughter had read about the alleged war crimes Kerry spoke about in Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" and asked him if he had committed them.

Spokesmen for the Kerry campaign were not immediately available for comment Tuesday, but the Democratic National Committee put out a statement attacking the public relations company used by the group as having Republic Party connections. The veterans made no comment on the allegations.

Kerry has admitted a poor choice of words in his testimony before Congress in 1971 but says he served with honor in the war.

--

[Viking]

John Kerry wouldn't be fit to wash my dog's balls, if I hadn't let the vet keep 'em..... :D