Anyone who even set foot in Viet Nam rightly deserves a medal in my mind for just having been there whether they volunteered to go (like Kerry did) or were drafted and sent there.
I think the swift boat veterans got their medals, too; it's their right to present their side of the story they are seeking. I'm kind of curious why a group of people can finger count nations of the world for and against action in Iraq, and use that ratio as some kind of "proof" it was a wrong action, a mistake. Then when 64 veterans with first hand knowledge have a different view than Kerry and his band of 4, with another 186 SB veterans signing on in support, a ratio of 252:5 is viewed as nothing but lies and slander by the higher number. This strikes me as very inconsistent, and when every single democratic spokesman is parroting the exact same lines, it convinces me that there is no interest in fact or truth in them. It's all about gaining power by whatever means they can, and to hell with whether those medal-winning veterans have their say.
Let's talk Max Cleland first. Who besmirched him? Cleland ran around telling everyone he was "wounded in battle," which is false. He got his wounds from a grenade accident, not from enemy fire, which was the picture he was trying to paint. When he was called out for his statements, rather than come clean he did what Kerry is doing right now.. blame the people who are trying to put the record straight. At some point these guys like Cleland and Kerry have to realize the respect they deserve for their service in Viet Nam is just that; it is not license to distort their records to enhance their own personal ambitions. The people who point out the facts aren't the ones to blame, any more than the guy who pulls the fire alarm should be ravaged because he exposed an arsonist. People have an expectation of the truth from their elected leaders, and when candidates for office cross that line, it isn't the guy trying to get the story straight who should take the fall for someone trying to build a false facade. By way of illustration of this principle, in the waning days of RCO, do you remember all the talk about "most people want the changes," and little tolerance of valid questions? Should everyone have just shut up and followed because the powers-that-were said so?
The President said he praised Kerry's service, several times now, and that didn't just happen recently. He has said it as far back as last year when he was being microscoped over Terry McCauliffe's charge that he was AWOL. This shows, or should show, the kind of character difference between the two candidates (who, btw, are the ones on the ballot, not their campaigns, their party, or their favorable 527s. Bush simply denied the charge made against him, and released all of his records save some medical records. When more came to light he was unaware of, he released them too. He didn't send out attack dogs to go after McCauliffe, didn't try to get the press to stop him from making his charge, didn't demand Kerry silence his critics, but stated his case and opened his books, and let the people decide. Now people can say he's an idiot all they like, but he's not dumb enough to think if there were something there it would not be exploited by the press. The best they came up with? Not enough data to cover the whole period - as though it's Bush's fault the ANG record keeping system had those flaws.
Now we have Kerry, who didn't speak up when:
- Howard Dean alleged Bush had prior knowledge of 911
- McCauliffe made the AWOL charge
- He himself fanned the flames of the AWOL charge
- Michael Moore's movie hit the wall of factuality and splattered like and egg. Kerry and his crowd in fact schmoozed with Moore and made him a hometown celebrity at their convention. He also hasn't asked Moore to bring his charges into line with reality now that they are known to be false, and are soon to be repeated en mass via DVD.
- Kerry, his wife, and a large number of his campaign people are frequently seen at MoveOn.org events - no cry from Bush's side about that.
- George Soros funds more than 16 seperate 527s, the exact count is not even known. There's open and honest for you, huh? No peep from Kerry here.
- ONE 527 that favors his opponent, many members of which are democrats who won't vote for him until he comes clean, run an ad to tell their side of the story, and pen a book, and all hell breaks loose.
They are liars. Bigots. Hatemongers. Twisting the facts (Facts, btw, hidden from all our views by Kerry himself). A flurry of lawyers sending letters to the publisher seeking to pull the book from public scrutiny. Another group of lawyers making threats to such pro-Bush bastions as Wal Mart, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble. What a stark comparison to the actions demonstrated by a potential President when Richard Clarke penned his book of factual innaccuracies, and former ambassador Wilson willingly and knowingly wrote information he knew to be lies in an OpEd piece.
And dems are critical of BUSH for his line, "You're either with us, or against us?" Remember, these actions come directly from the guy who tells us he can handle pressure, and is a master of building relations and trust with others. Is that what his actions demonstrate?
That isn't exactly the whole story. What he advised them on is fund raising techniques, not political strategy; there is still a question whether or not that is inside or outside of the FEC guidelines. He still contends it is not, but in the mean time, with a serious question hanging in the wind, what should he do? Stay? It's erroneous to say this information just came to light, because the dems knew about it months ago. Obviously, he did not conduct this business in secret, as the dems are VERY careful to stop short of alleging. They know it was done in the open, consistent with a man believing he was not doing anything wrong. We'll have to wait and see if he was right, or wrong.
John Kerry, on the other hand, is directly contacting and mingling with 527s in CLEAR violation of the rules. Attending MoveOn.org functions, giving speeches at them, and calling members of the Swift Boat vets 527 personally. So we have one lawyer who operated in the open, clearly believing he was within the law, and the actual CANDIDATE operating well across the border of the law. OF course, he has a history of being geographically challenged when it comes to borders, so I guess the people must have to ignore that too.
Wait a minute.. the dem's talking points say this group simply sprung up out of nowhere, with a sole purpose of partisan campaigning. So which is it? Did they just pop up, or have they been trying to get the message out for over 30 years (as they claim)? Richard Nixon "hired" him for that purpose? I'd like to see his paystub or his contract - got a copy?
This is a link to the Swift Boat vets page which contains the debate between John O'Neill and John Kerry less than two years after man first set foot on the moon. Read the transcript and see if you can find any deviation from what O'Neill said then, and what he says today. Looks the same to me. The only one making revisons to their story and repairing memory lapses has been Kerry. Incidentally, the man willing to give a deposition referred to by Kerry in the debate never did go on the record after the show, or at any time later.
www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryONeillThey just popped up for the campaign huh? Right.
Mine too, because now I'm positive he's giving he honest views on issues to the President, but when the President decides the policy direction, he's loyal enough to follow it. This demolishes two common points of dem mythology: first, the Bush isn't capable of making important policy decisions, his "daddy's men" have to do it for him; and second, Bush listens to both sides of the issues and is not hell-bent on some railroad track of personal agenda.