NationStates Jolt Archive

Survivors of the action in which Lieutenant John Kerry won one of his stars have come forward to verify, in part, his interpretation of events that day. This is, in itself, nothing new. What's new is that the witnesses were Vietnamese. The article, posted by ABC, can be found at:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434

The Vietnamese accounts reinforce the official records and the testimony of Kerry's swift boat crew, and quite frankly place suspicion on the Bush-backing Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. The accounts also demonstrate how many different people on the scene of the same battle can come away with slightly different impressions of the chaos which they were thrust into.

The evidence continues to mount that Senator John Kerry has been truthful regarding his service in Vietnam, and that he served with distinction. At the same time, the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are showing a corresponding decline in credibility. One of their spokesmen, John O'Neill, who has been a most vocal critic of Kerry, has been exposed. O'Neill has an axe to grind with Kerry, having been humiliated by Kerry when he (O'Neill) was sent out by the Nixon Administration to discredit Kerry "before Kerry becomes another Ralph Nader" as they put it. O'Neill was also the man who took command of Kerry's Swift Boat detachment, but only AFTER Kerry had left Vietnam.

Clearly the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and elements like them are waging a smear campaign against Senator Kerry, who served honorably and defended this country as a young man. Even if he was not running for President, Kerry deserves more respect than this.

why is this a relevant political issue?

It's a relevant political issue because the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, along with several other Bush-aligned groups, have been launching attacks on John Kerry's credibility. They have, in effect, tried to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper and a lier. The evidence, however, suggests that Senator Kerry has been telling the truth all along.

well considering that this contradicted the authorized version af John Kerry's biography. I say it ranks as a 0 on the worthy to note scale.

oh, and we all know ABC is non-biased :headbang:

It's laughable that ABC would find witnesses to Kerry's war exploits.. Kerry was one soldier out of many. I find it hard to believe that anybody would remember the incidents in question.

Anyways who cares.. LOL

It's a relevant political issue because the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, along with several other Bush-aligned groups, have been launching attacks on John Kerry's credibility. They have, in effect, tried to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper and a lier. The evidence, however, suggests that Senator Kerry has been telling the truth all along.

im sorry, i will specify

why is a candidates military record a political issue, as the character traits of a good soldier do not normally coinside with the qualities of a good president.

We know EXACTLY where it happened, since it was during a patrol. It would have been relatively easy to look up the reports and then travel back to that village to talk with the survivors.

And you people, I swear. ABC is biased, and CNN is biased, and CBS is biased. What the hell do you people WANT? Any source that contradicts your version of the world, you attack the credibility of that source. You can't tell me that ALL these news networks are conspiring with each other to elect Kerry. There's a certain point at which you have to trust.

Bush has focused those traits and convinced the American people that these are the traits we want in a President. Truthfulness (which Bush has a problem with), is a big one.

It's laughable that ABC would find witnesses to Kerry's war exploits.. Kerry was one soldier out of many. I find it hard to believe that anybody would remember the incidents in question.

Anyways who cares.. LOL

The same argument could be used to discredit the Swift Boat Vets.

why is this a relevant political issue?
because most of americans are dumb as rocks and impressionable as play-doh

im sorry, i will specify

why is a candidates military record a political issue, as the character traits of a good soldier do not normally coinside with the qualities of a good president.
i can list a series of presidents elected on the sole fact that they served in the military for you

Eisenhower for one

i can list a series of presidents elected on the sole fact that they served in the military for you

Eisenhower for one

U.S. Grant for another. Jackson for another.

i can list a series of presidents elected on the sole fact that they served in the military for you

Eisenhower for one

i understand that

i am questioning the logic behind that though, as soldiers are trained to take orders and have one clear objective as opposed to being free and out of the box thinkers. Not a lot of versatility.

i understand that

i am questioning the logic behind that though, as soldiers are trained to take orders and have one clear objective as opposed to being free and out of the box thinkers. Not a lot of versatility.
i addressed that in the statement before the last

americans are as dumb as rock and as impressionable as play doh

I am an American, and I do not have play-doh for brains. I can see the obvious when it is before me.

We know EXACTLY where it happened, since it was during a patrol. It would have been relatively easy to look up the reports and then travel back to that village to talk with the survivors.
I'm not questioning that they didn't know where it happened. I'm questioning that after 30+ years, ABC is taking the villagers memory of one incident by one soldier at face value? It's chancy info at best and cannot be relied upon to support Kerry's record.

And you people, I swear. ABC is biased, and CNN is biased, and CBS is biased. What the hell do you people WANT? Any source that contradicts your version of the world, you attack the credibility of that source. You can't tell me that ALL these news networks are conspiring with each other to elect Kerry. There's a certain point at which you have to trust.
The media outlets, for the most part, are liberal biased. It's just a fact of life. If you believe otherwise, you are just lying to yourself. I've seen study numbers on whether the 3 main stations were balanced and I believe the only one that was close was NBC. As I remember it was something like 38% Kerry vs. 35% Bush. The others were slanted to Kerry by double digits.
This site give some good info on the media bias.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

I'm not questioning that they didn't know where it happened. I'm questioning that after 30+ years, ABC is taking the villagers memory of one incident by one soldier at face value? It's chancy info at best and cannot be relied upon to support Kerry's record.
yet a bunch of bitter, hateful former swift boat veterans can remember the information that happened during ENGAGEMENTS after 30 years and you take THAT at face value. who so ever does goes above and beyond the qualifications of a hypocrite

The same argument could be used to discredit the Swift Boat Vets.

Some of them spent time in the same unit. Though not on the same boat. And they know him by name and interacted with Kerry more than once. The villagers just saw a American G.I., and only saw him once..

Most of the SBV's are upset about his senate testimony. Not about how he got his medals.

yet a bunch of bitter, hateful former swift boat veterans can remember the information that happened during ENGAGEMENTS after 30 years and you take THAT at face value. who so ever does goes above and beyond the qualifications of a hypocrite

I'd trust their memory more than the villagers..

Anyhow, I'm not trying to support the SBV's claims. Just that ABC is making a bad choice, in trusting their source..

i can list a series of presidents elected on the sole fact that they served in the military for you

Eisenhower for one
You mean like Washingtron or Jefferson. Both fought for Revolutionay war...

The media outlets, for the most part, are liberal biased. It's just a fact of life. If you believe otherwise, you are just lying to yourself. I've seen study numbers on whether the 3 main stations were balanced and I believe the only one that was close was NBC. As I remember it was something like 38% Kerry vs. 35% Bush. The others were slanted to Kerry by double digits.
This site give some good info on the media bias.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp
Ah, the "liberal media" argument. Well, since you brought up the studies that you've seen, I'll challenge you to prove your claims. PLease link to the studies. I would also question the assertation that a website that bears the quote "This is a great book...there’s a lot of ammunition in there to go after your liberal friends" at the top is anywhere near unbiased.

As to my views on the media...unbiased reporting is a myth. Everyone's biased to one side or the other. From my own analysis, the bias looks, in general, as such: broadcast media (TV, radio) tends to have a conservative slant, while print media (newspapers, magazines) tend to have a liberal one. Certainly not true in every scenario, but in general it seems to hold up. And of course, I only speak about the news outlets based in this country.