May 29, 2006
— Ace If you can bring yourself to delve once again into John Kerry's fanciful war record, Just One Minute has a good rejoinder for the media's nth attempt at debunking the truth.
A little taste. A major dispute concerns whether Bob Schachte was on the skimmer with Kerry; he disputes Kerry's (varying) accounts of how he got wounded in one engagement. Two men, Runyon and Zaladonis, back Kerry and claim that Schacte wasn't there, so couldn't know.
The media, of course, takes this as dispositive. Schachte wasn't there; he's a liar; two guys say so.
They don't consider the possibility that perhaps Runyon and Zaladonis weren't there.
Now, I don't imagine the Times will follow up on a point they raised in the story when they wrote this:
"The three guys who in fact were in the boat all say he wasn't there and will tell you he wasn't there," he said. "We know he wasn't there, and we have all kinds of ways of proving it."
However, if they do have an investigative reporter to spare, they might ponder this - there is precious little evidence, beyond their say-so, that Zaldonis and Runyon were on that skimmer with Kerry.
These skimmer crews were put together on an ad-hoc basis, and Runyon never served with Kerry before or after that night. Zaladonis, however, ended up on Kerry's boat (PCF-44) a week later.
But puzzle over this - Kerry did not remember the names of the two men in the skimmer with him when he discussed it with the Boston Globe in 2003. And Douglas Brinkley, who wrote Keery's "Tour of Duty" did not identify the two men either, even though he interviewed Zaladonis for the book.
I find that odd - here is Zaladonis being interviewed about his personal history with Kerry and he never mentions that he was with Kerry when Kerry had his first combat and got his first Purple Heart? How did that not come up?
That is quite odd indeed. Zaladonis now has such a vivid memory of the engagement, but didn't mention it all when interviewed about Kerry's war record previously. Kerry is quite certain that Schachte wasn't on his skimmer, and yet couldn't remember who was on the boat when interviewed before.
Now, of course, he's quite certain that the men who back his war (fish) stories were the guys on that boat.
This is what the media means when it says stuff like "the Swift Boats' claims have been throroughly discredited."
It's also amusing that the media sets up a Swift Boaters vs. Kerry controversy regarding his Silver Star, when in fact no Swift Boaters were present for that engagement, and say so-- the controversy actually concerns Kerry's inconsistent reports about the engagement. So it's a Kerry vs. Kerry dispute, not a Kerry vs. Swift Boaters dispute.
Obviously, either John Kerry or John Kerry is lying about about it. But the media don't really like that dilemma, so they simply make the dispute between the Good Guys (Kerry and his supporters) and the Bad Guys (everyone else).
Just One Minute snarks:
John Kerry wants to re-fight the Swift Boats wars. My goodness, that is the only thing that could get the Times to cover this - during his campaign they stayed about as far from this story as Kerry was from Cambodia at Christmas time.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 29, 2006 09:49 AM (Bgd4v)
You have to wonder about the mental health of man. Why would he want to bring this up again?
Posted by: RoyalOak at May 29, 2006 09:57 AM (/hGhX)
I can think of only one reason: He has to get the story behind him to have any shot at the nomination.
Posted by: Brett Bullington at May 29, 2006 10:01 AM (/QYGF)
No, Kerry wants to run again. With him, Gore, and Billiary, it should be interesting. I suspect it will come down to who has the most $$$.
Posted by: shawn at May 29, 2006 10:32 AM (mWj01)
It just doesn't feel very good, is all I'm saying. Let the left have their illusions while we address problems of the post-Vietnam world.
Posted by: Mark V. at May 29, 2006 10:38 AM (2ipxY)
Posted by: sandy burger at May 29, 2006 10:44 AM (loL5+)
Many of my buds received wounds greater than John F'n Kerry, but these were confined to acts of stupidity such as drinking Everclear and tripping over sandbags, attempting to hang upside down from a center post, crawling into bed with a snake and lastly, getting caught stealing the red underware from the suitcase of Ann Margaret, and in the get-away phase, knocking himself out by running into a wall at night.
No Purple Heart for these wounds as they were already awarded a case of the Red Ass, and also received the Dumb Ass Oak Leaf Cluster!
Posted by: Grouper at May 29, 2006 10:45 AM (YiMz2)
Not even against the 'universally-hated' W, and that's saying something about him! (How can he possibly compete against a Republican (even) remotely popular?)
Posted by: Fred Fry at May 29, 2006 10:58 AM (HJnrm)
When my liberal friends ask why I voted for Bush, I never talk about Vietnam. I usually start with John Kerry's inability to articulate his plan for Iraq: Kerry kept saying he had a plan, but we never heard it. (I've asked liberals what they think his plan was, and their guesses vary on important details such as timetables, conditions for withdrawal, what to do if things get really bad, etc.) Everybody knew Bush's plan: leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, keep doing what we're doing. Liberals hate this plan, but at least they knew what it was. But with John Kerry, we never knew, and that would send a bad message to our enemy.
There's no point getting too bogged down discussing the Vietnam war, while a war is being fought today.
Posted by: sandy burger at May 29, 2006 11:07 AM (loL5+)
Posted by: at May 29, 2006 11:35 AM (QTv8u)
Posted by: robert108 at May 29, 2006 11:36 AM (NZ0gD)
The casual reader will, of course, conclude from this paragraph that Kerry has signed form 180. To my knowlege, he has not.
Biased? Nah. Propaganda is what this is.
Posted by: The Warden at May 29, 2006 11:42 AM (7rad0)
If he does indeed want to revisit this part of his history, there are more than enough individuals that will oblige him. If he is concerned about his "integrity" or "reputation" or whatever, all he has to do is unconditionally release all his service records (including his diary or journal that he supplied to Brinkley).
That he has not yet done this is telling. If the official records support his narrative, he should be glad to get them into the public sphere. I imagine that is not the case.
Posted by: RLS at May 29, 2006 11:55 AM (Lh7Vt)
The war record is an issue now because Kerry insists on making it an issue.
Remember, too, that the media made George Bush's war record an issue - to the point of trumpeting forged documents to blacken his reputation.
If Bush's record is an issue, then so is Kerry's. If Kerry's record is beyond questioning, so is Bush's.
Posted by: Brown Line at May 29, 2006 12:40 PM (JwJhN)
Posted by: Code Lavender at May 29, 2006 01:21 PM (NuGC3)
Posted by: UGAdawg at May 29, 2006 02:08 PM (alGm/)
I guess JF'nK is looking at this as an opportunity to show just what kind of tough-guy fighter he really is.
"Ya know, a few years after it is meaningless to anyone and everyone, I am really going to get tough on the Swift Boat guys. But not right now, ya know, when it could actually make a difference. That just wouldn't be cricket, don't ya know..."
- Stuff John F'in Kerry Said. Vol 2
Please, John, run again. Please. Honestly, the right could run a lump of concrete against you at this point and still win.
Posted by: wiserbud at May 29, 2006 02:08 PM (56ssE)
RLS, first of all, thank you for your service. Service people like you and the Swifties waited many years for JFKerry to be held to account. Too bad for him that it bit him in the ass when he decided to run for President.
Posted by: at May 29, 2006 03:21 PM (i0N3d)
I love Mike.
Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2006 03:26 PM (Gddcx)
I see Bush is still in his usual freefall.
Imeachment is on the way...so...prepare to drag those pointy little heads out of his ass.
Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2006 03:27 PM (Gddcx)
Posted by: Master Tang at May 29, 2006 03:40 PM (+DMjG)
We absolutely must "dirty our hands" with this story again, and again. As many times as it takes to bury this particular batch of leftwing lies.
That's what the damn blogosphere is for!
We went through a 50+ year period where the socialists were allowed to write the history of our country unfettered.
Did that get us accurate history, or did it get us socialist brainwashing which we call "history"?
When Stalin said that "history is written by the victor", he had it exactly right.
Anyone who cares about truth will argue even small points with the left, so that they don't become tomorrows conventional wisdom.
Posted by: rickinstl at May 29, 2006 03:49 PM (UpnQE)
I think this is a Mike imposter. If not, fuck you, Mike.
Posted by: Mike! at May 29, 2006 03:50 PM (aGpO3)
Posted by: Master Tang at May 29, 2006 04:23 PM (+DMjG)
Posted by: H.D. Miller at May 29, 2006 04:26 PM (479A5)
Posted by: M/ke at May 29, 2006 04:36 PM (mA9tr)
Posted by: Master Tang at May 29, 2006 05:05 PM (+DMjG)
Posted by: Master Tang at May 29, 2006 05:08 PM (+DMjG)
Posted by: HayZeus at May 29, 2006 05:08 PM (r2X9D)
Posted by: spurwing plover at May 29, 2006 05:24 PM (M9D/B)
"They gave me a hat," Mr. Kerry says. "I have the hat to this day," he declares, rising to pull it from his briefcase. "I have the hat."Well, I'd say that settles it. After all, if he hadn't been to Cambodia, he wouldn't have a hat, right? Right?
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2006 05:48 PM (dc5zY)
It was tacky for the Dems to demonize President Bush, who SERVED and was firmly in the Government's arsenal to be sent to die if deemed necessary, and so was Senator Kerry. The attacks upon either of these guys for THAT reason were, and continue to be TACKY.
The Senator was in 'Nam, the President was ready and trained to go. Both served, so leave them the fuck alone... BOTH of 'em. I don't give a shit if one was wiping the wings of an aircraft in Texas and the other was shining his medals in 'Nam. The fact is, they both SERVED and they both SUCK. They probably both SUCKED then, and they DEFINITELY still suck NOW.
But they both served, and my hat is off to both of them for that, even if they both turned out to be treasonous assholes later in life. Beat them up for what they did after they served, but not for their service would be the CLASSY way to do it.
Try them both at The Hague for their war crimes after their Honorable service I say. But don't beat either of 'em up for those few, short years where they both risked their freedom, liberty and lives Honorably. Believe it or NOT, both men have actually served this nation honorably in the past before they both went on to become war criminals.
Let us not forget that.
Posted by: Gun Toting Liberal at May 29, 2006 07:16 PM (OKBoD)
Posted by: The Machine at May 29, 2006 09:52 PM (L/jMX)
Anybody who thinks the past should be left in the past is not familiar with the extent of Kerry's crimes against his fellow soldiers. That this man jold high elected office is an embarrassment to the nation and a testament to the power of propaganda.
By his own claims, Kerry should have been prosecuted as a war criminal. Yet instead it served as a platofrm for his getting laid and elected. The damage he ha done to this and other nations is immense and giving him higher office still is unthinkable.
Posted by: epobirs at May 29, 2006 10:00 PM (5Z3yA)
A man who would borrow honor and glory has none of his own.
Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at May 30, 2006 12:11 AM (vXnsl)
Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia. Al Gore's Summer of Existentialism at Cannes. Bill Clinton's lifetime membership in the NRA. Blair stowing away in the wheel well of an airplane to visit Africa as a child. Hillary the lifelong Yankees fan.
Vividly remembering so much stuff that simply didn't happen is, like, scary crazy.
Posted by: S. Weasel at May 30, 2006 12:26 AM (1HKrT)
The guys get the hats.
Pol Anka Pot
Posted by: JackStraw at May 30, 2006 12:49 AM (rnOZq)
Hee Hee! Good one, Jackstraw.
How long did you hold on to that one, waiting for your chance to drop it into a thread?
Posted by: rickinstl at May 30, 2006 12:56 AM (UpnQE)
If so, heh.
Posted by: Slublog at May 30, 2006 02:40 AM (R8+nJ)
That would be proof postitive that Kos is active in "helping" Democrat candidates.
Posted by: Gordon at May 30, 2006 02:56 AM (GzHh/)
Posted by: Retired Geezer at May 30, 2006 04:52 AM (A6u5v)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 30, 2006 05:05 AM (J8+2b)
Give me a break. This guy is dead and buried. Let's leave him and Hoffa where they are.
Next topic, please.
Posted by: Pixelflash at May 30, 2006 06:29 AM (O+1/6)
Sounds great. The only problem is that most of the Democratic party sounds like Mike.
Posted by: Slublog at May 30, 2006 06:41 AM (R8+nJ)
They also need to consider that Kerry ran on his war record, and still won't let it go. The same thing can not be said for President George W. Bush.
Kerry also has consistently refused to release all of his miltary records to the public. The same can't be said for President George W. Bush.
I was all over the blogs yesterday, watching the parade of moonbats who arestill defending Kerry and dismissing the SBVT as a bunch of liars. This issue will not be dead, if Kerry runs (for president) again.
Posted by: JannyMae at May 30, 2006 08:47 AM (LfIsL)
I just think it's a lousy shame that a guy who was in the military until his honorable discharge by JIMMY FRIGGIN CARTER would be so maligned. I mean, he was in the Vietnam war until the 1980's! It must be some kind of a record!
Heck, this guy may have more military experience than John McCain!
Posted by: Steve O at May 30, 2006 03:07 PM (R0Csm)
Kerry bailing with a dixie cup like Sean Penn is something I could truly enjoy.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 01, 2006 04:05 PM (gf5iT)
62 queries taking 1.3574 seconds, 283 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.