New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’

I skimmed through this topic and found this unanswered:from Asgara: I don't know the names, but I do know that many of these men were on boats in the same "group" as kerry's.Now I don't follow all this all that closely, but as I understand it there are only 4 members to a swift boat crew.It is not like the ONLY people who can be said to have served WITH Kerry had to be on his little boat.There were probably 4 men to a boat, 4 boats to a squad, and 3 squads to a platoon, 3 platoons to a company, and so on... (I don't know the navy terminology for these divisions however they are basically the same in all branches)Now it is not like the only people that got to know Kerry were the 3 other guys on his particular boat. The officers of the other boats would undoubtedly have to work and communicate with Kerry to operate together as a team. I'm sure they would rarely if ever send a single boat on a mission. So it is completely false to say that none of these men ever served "with" Kerry simply because they were not on his boat.While I think Kerry's war record is absolutely the stupidest thing to judge his qualifications for president on (people change a lot over the years), it is the ONLY thing he is asking us to base our decision on. Why would he ask us to base our decision on FOUR MONTHS of service that happened so long ago in a very different culteral and political climate with facts so dubious that there will always be room for debate and speculation as to what the truth actually is? My guess is he really has nothing else to show.When asked what he is actually going to do as president, he says: I'm going to do this better and that better and take matters to the UN and bla bla bla.... He doesn't say HOW he's going to do anything better. He says nothing much of his work in the senate because as far as I can tell, he hasn't done much in the senate. He is NOT an anti-war candidate as I heard him quoted recently as saying that knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to go to war in Iraq, yet he still says the war in Iraq is a travesty, and "I would have done it better, I would have gotten our allies in line..."Taking Kerry's character and actions on the whole and disregarding the 4 meaningless months in vietnam that he has chosen to base his campaign on, I find Kerry most definately unfit to command.

It is more than a "plausible notion". It is the truth. And it is absolutely dishonest for democrats who know better to continue saying these people never served "with" Kerry because they weren't on the same 4-man boat. That's all I was trying to point out. I've heard arguments back and forth about this, and I generally believe the swift boat vets claims. However, as I said before, I wouldn't base any decision on 4 months that happened so long ago and in a different environment. OOooo... Ad Hominem... I'm starting to learn a little logic hanging around here. Now that's just bull. I watched his acceptance speech at the convention. From his corny introduction, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty," to the vets lining the stage to his statements that he would fight the war smarter and better because he served his country in vietnam, his wartime service was the main emphasis of the whole thing. You'd think he'd want to emphasize his senate career, but no, four months in vietnam....As far as broadly outlining "nearly every one of his policies and stances" all I heard was string of unconnected generalizations that sounded as if he was painting a word picture from a wish list from the audience of what goodies they want to recieve when he gets in office. His lack of vision, clarity, presence, optimism, and humility were evident in his appearance at the convention and in the bits of his recent speeches I've seen.And aside from the lack of leadership characteristics I sensed, the nature of his policies absolutely give me the shivers. Then why is Kerry touting his four months in vietnam rather than his umpteen years in the senate? Let's hope so. What hipocracy... He's a fence sitter. He's trying to have it both ways. He is saying that the war on terror needs to be fought but we aren't going to do the fighting... we're going to leave it up to france and germany and the UN to do it... a VERY scary thought. The endless criticism of the war in Iraq drags on, but when asked if he would have voted for the war knowing what he knows now, he says he still would have voted in favor of it. What is that supposed to mean? First of all, thats a hidden attack on Bush's intelligence. Secondly, no one can know the future. Thirdly, the war and the aftermath has gone VERY well and I'm very happy with the consequences and so are most of the soldiers over there who've risked their lives to accomplish what they've accomplished. I don't know whether or not the Iraqis were giving the inspectors the run around or not. There is some very reliable intelligence that the Iraqi's shipped a lot of weapons to Syria just before the baloon went up, but regardless... Saddam needed to be taken out immediately. He should have been taken out in the first gulf war. He had a sizeable coalition (I've heard numbers from 30 to 50 something). Some nations are wimping out and surrendering to the terrorists demands. While its good to have some global support, I could really careless what the world thinks of him or us, it was the right thing to do, and when people see the consquences of a free democratic Iraq, the objective person will agree. And besides that, we have filled in one more gopher hole for the terriorists to pop their heads out of. There IS stability and freedom throughout the vast majority of the nation now. The only instability is the result of radical muslims from Iran and other terrorist groups sending in militants in order to try and make this attempt at providing freedom and democracy in the middle east fail. I don't care what you say, transforming a tyrranical dictatorship into a democracy in a little more than a year is a phenomanal feat and no easy process, but we have made huge progress. And I like what I see... Why do all of Kerry's supporters think we've been living in "hell" for the last four years? First of all, the war was a worthy cause to pay for. Second of all, there is a LOT of unworthy excess baggage that needs to be eliminated from the governments expenditures. Defense spending and the war on terror is not something you can convince me we need to spend less on. If that were the case it would be a miracle, since %95 of the press is absolutely enthralled with Kerry. I thought Peter Jennings was going piss his pants he was so excited at the convention.There IS a lot of information floating around out there, and I've heard enough to make my decision. I'm very happy with many of Bush's policies, and Kerry telling me, "Iii'm going to do it better," and "help is on the way," and "Iii'm going to take this matter to the UN" is not going to convince me that he is a better choice.

Sure, but 4 months activites in a messed up war in a different social and political climate mean very little to me as far as character.The most significant thing I gather from his four months is the fact that he video taped himself in action and even re-enacted certain situations to capture himself in a postion of glory possibly with future political ambitions in mind.This little bit, unlike the swift boat vets claims is undebateable and offers a clear insight to his thought processes. Well, that and telling us "help is on the way," and giving broad generalizations promising to magically fix all the nation's problems by treating the symptoms, and promising to shirk this terrorist business off on the UN.

Oops hit submit too soon... Been to his website and watched his acceptance speech and saw a few parts of other speeches as well. The mass media is in love with Kerry. Why would they turn me away? How many years has he been in the senate? I had 18 stuck in my head, but I could be wrong. I know its around 20 years, which is long enough to get something important accomplished. Well, why did Kerry bring the Swift Boat shit up in the first place? IMO he wants to paint himself as a great war leader because the war on terrorism is one of the foremost issues in the minds of the public. I won't vote for a candidate that paints pictures of himself rather than enthusiastically outlining the specifics of his plans to fix pressing problems. Yeah, there's a lot of OTHER stuff that the media is not willing show me and a lot of negative spin on things that would help Bush. I heard a reporter on the radio a couple of weeks ago say in a downcast voice that ONLY 500,000 some odd jobs were created last quarter as if that were a tragedy. Why do people have to make us believe we're living in "hell" to vote for Kerry? Nope, I did the ad and it said, "Page not found". I honestly don't think Bush has been putting a lot of effort into this campaign so far. I kinda wish he would. I'm looking forward to seeing Kerry and Edwards get whipped in the debates in the fall. Even if his records showed him to be a restless driven hard worker and completely honest, I am against his liberal policies.

Thank you for your reply. Haha... yes, terrorism is always Bush's fault... (shaking head)Did it ever occur to you that terrorism has a significant impact on the economy? Well, if you look at how indecisive the UN is, and how they've botched so many military actions in the last century, you can be assured that handing the terroris problem to the UN is NOT better. I'd much rather go kill the terrorists now than wait for them to attack us again before we pull our heads out of our asses and say, "well by golly maybe we outta do something about that." The same democrats who accuse Bush of going hastily into battle are the ones who accuse him of in-action prior to 9-11. We've ignored the terrorist problem for the past two decades; its about time we became proactive, and that is just what Bush has done. Not only that, but he has seeded a free democratic anti-terrorist ally on the toughest street in the world. Democracy is infectious. It's why the soviet union fell. If Iraq succeeds in keeping their country terrorist free and a free democracy it will eventually destroy the poor radical muslim dominated societies which are the terrorist breeding grounds. Bush is not stirring up the hornets nest, he's introducing a new predator to them.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-24-2004 10:49 PM

WOW... I leave this thread for two days and the whole thread doubles in size.Thank you for your reply. well-known agenda??? Paul O'Neil voted for Gore in the last election. And I've read of others (can't remember their names) who typically vote democrat that are denying Kerry's statements.Big bucks Republican backing? their ad cost a little more than 100,000 dollars and was originally run only in 3 states. The Kerry campaign botched this by giving it so much attention the whole nation is focused on it. $100,000 is nothing in the ad campaign business and even more so nothing in comparison with the free advertising Kerry's gotten from all the news media. So you have to try and compare BUSH's dubious record with KERRY's MORE dubious record and say Kerry's better because the one particular version of the story that has surfaced from events happening 30 years ago which YOU believe for subjective reasons makes Bush out to be a worm and Kerry to be a hero in order to show that Kerry is better than Bush.... (shaking head)It should really be very simple. Kerry should say, I'm going to do this this and this by doing this this and this. Bush should say, that won't work; here's why; I'm going to do this this and this... etc... You said his statement is preposterous, and then said something to the effect that odell must be a piss-poor lawyer for not providing a story without evidence.That IS ad hominem. You are attacking him without attacking his argument. In a court, he would be one of a string of witnesses giving testimony, not the lawyer. You are implying he's so stupid as to not realize that his lone testimony with no evidence is not enough by itself. ACTUALLY, we've been off cable all summer, and all we get with the antenna is ABC NBC and CBS. I watched it on ABC... thus my comments about Peter Jennings... I already did... I realize you are implying I don't really care about policy, only attacking Kerry, which is not true. I care about policy most almost equally with character... Infact I think the two are tied together. You're implying I can't judge him for myself... well, its pretty obvious what he's trying to do to anyone who isn't blindly in love with him. OBVIOUSLY it would be awesome if we had all of europe on our side and as militantly against terrorism as we have been. If this were the case terrorism would soon disappear. HOWEVER, Europe has been reluctant and in many cases unwilling to put real effort into the fight. If they just aren't going to help, I say, why beg and plead and wait around for them to change their minds? Action needs to be taken immediately. AND we CERTAINLY don't need to hand the problem completely over to the UN... that would be a disaster....Sorry I don't have time to address the rest of your post. School has started again, and I won't have much time for this forum. This debate could be unending anyways.

Well, that depends on whether or not Kerry lied about his war record... I think Bush did the honorable thing. There's no way to know %100 for sure what happened back then and its stupid to get mired into this pointless debate. I think Bush has gained a consistent respect for everyone who volunteers to serve no matter what the details are surrounding their service, so naturally he would not want to quibble about these things. I think he also now realizes how easy he had it back in the national guard and feels greatly indebted to all service-men and women.I think Kerry's campaign thought bringing up Kerry's swift boat service would send the message that Kerry can handle a war, but I think they lacked a lot of insight in realizing the controversy it would stir and the ways it would backfire. Now they're forced to busy themselves digging up 30 years of dirt on anyone who formally challenges Kerry's service and perpetuating this meaningless debate.

Well, it must have been a friendly smear because I watched McCain's speech last night, and he came out strongly in support of George Bush.Dude, the SBV's are not just blind Bush supporters. Some of them are typically democrats. They are speaking up for the truth. Why should they let Kerry have a pass if they believe he is lying? Kerry made his war record fair game by making it a primary qualification for becoming president.

hahahaha... Its not like he's in control of the SBV's. They are people countering Kerry's statements and that is all. He has no right to try to stop them from speaking. On the contrary, Bush has never attacked Kerry's war record personally and admits that Kerry's service was more heroic than his own since Kerry was in "harm's way" and he wasn't.Kerry's guys, on the other hand, have threatened lawsuits, asked stations not to air their ad, and dug up personal and medical records on these guys to try and find any dirt to silence them. What happened to free speech? Guess that doesn't apply to anyone opposing Kerry.don't know what you're talking about in the rest of your post. My gosh.. you people really do see only what you want to see. You're divorced from reality.

Beautiful!!! You made the point for me. Maybe it takes honesty, sincerity, communication, and GOOD LEADERSHIP SKILLS to do such a thing. Oh... you don't want honesty, sincerity, communication, and good leadership skills in the white house? I guess you should vote for Kerry. Then fuckin sue the SBV's for libel and slander!!! lol! you'd think the Kerry camp or SOMEBODY would do that instead of whine about it, malign THEIR characer, and try to stop their ad by empty threats. If the SBV's really were lying then why only bluff or why care?The Kerry camp should have either let the whole vietnam/SBV issue go and let the facts speak for themseleves or immediately sue were the SBV's statements not true. The fact that the Kerry camp made such a big fuss about it and is trying to wipe out the SBV's voices through slander and threats speaks volumes to me. No you dont.. the only people who truly know what happened were the people that were there. I've heard arguments back and forth about it and I don't really care what you've come up with because people have dug up enough stuff and "manufactured" enough stuff, especially on the internet, that you can come up with whatever the hell you want to support your position. Kerry's reaction to all this is more telling to me than anyone's testimony about those 4 months almost 3 decades ago.

Just saw this. And as I said in my previous post, you and anyone who feels like it is free to sue the SBV's for libel and slander.People have publicly lied about and slandered Bush and what does he do? He ignores them and they just bounce right off.When someone starts a rumor about you in high school do you:
a) "take them to court" by producing evidence to the contrary in front of everyone thereby smartly making THEM look like the fool
b) ignore the rumor, let it die, and let people think what they want to think knowing eventually your true character will be made plain
c) get upset, scream "its not true!", go tell the teacher to tell them to quit spreading the rumor, and tell everyone they are bad peopleBush has done (b). Kerry has done (c). Either a or b would be acceptable, but preferably b as it wastes less time and money.C is not acceptable in a man who would be president.

Hahaha... I'm sorry, I really shouldn't be laughing, but this is just funny.You admit that it takes those qualities I listed to do what Bush has done, but you refuse to believe that Bush has those qualities because in your subjective viewpoint "Bush doesn't act like he has those things."Through the lens of your subjectivity and hatred of this man you see him as a "arrogant, vindictive, tyrant" even though the fruit of his actions show just the opposite. He doesn't becuase... no matter what happens... everything that is bad is Bush's fault in your mind. Even the things that are good that are twisted by a liberal media you swallow and fuel your hatred of him by it.So when the image of Bush in your mind fails to meet what Bush is REALLY LIKE as evidenced by McCain and others like him who have been drawn in by Bush's winsome personality and leadership skills, its no surprise that you find this schism disturbing.THIS is what I call divorcement from reality. As I've said several times, what happened 3 decades ago over four months in a twisted war matters not to me. What matters to me is how Kerry has proved himself as a leader in the senate and in the direction of his campaign. If he can't handle a little political heat, how's he going to handle healthcare or the budget or a terrorist attack? Again, I have not debated the claims as I don't know enough to debate the claims. I've heard arguments both ways. What matters to me is not what happened back then, but how Kerry has handled this situation now. EASY!!! ignore them, remain firm, resolute, and let your character be shown through firm and effective leadership.

Haha! my roomate (who I like a lot and is really cool except for being for Kerry) ascribes to this same ridiculous conspiracy theory. If this were true, McCain is the best damn spineless actor POW politician I've ever heard of... and Bush too, as he comes across to most people as the most genuine down to earth guy to be president in a long while.You're theory is nuts and you only ascribe to it because you hate Bush and refuse to admit any good about him.

I'm sorry for misrepresenting you then -- most people against him have a venemous hate for him. I'll repeat again: I've heard good arguments both ways and inconsistencies in both the SBVs and Kerry's stories. Of course you swallow every bit of fact or propoganda that supports Kerry's account which itself has changed. I don't know to what extent who lied about what; I don't think I can ever know for sure, and what happened during 4 months over 3 decades ago doesn't really affect my decision much. If you think that is a lack of respect for truth, in the words of Dick Cheney... oh no I can't say that, haha.. You mean your edited photoshopped version of the story to show him the best light possible. This is the lamest possible argument... almost lamer than the one about Bush coercing McCain.Look, you'll believe what you want to believe, and neither one of us will change our minds... and I have class to attend, so I'm going to have to get out of this debate. Thanks for the debate. It was fun.