Dems attempt to stifle free political speech

And what about the Dems attempts to keep the swiftboat veterens from expressing their political opinions re Kerry’s fitness to lead?

Talk about a bunch of hypocrites!

Where are the cries of outrage at the attempt to deny this group’s civil liberties?

[quote][b]What if the allegations are true? What if Kerry truly did self-inflict, lie about, or embellish his wounds and other aspects of his reputed heroism? What if he did videotape himself reenacting combat scenes, all with an eye toward his future in politics? What if he did actually participate in atrocities as he said he did? (He’s gotten a complete pass on this.)[/b]

Concerning the veracity of the charges, consider that the “Swiftees” are not GOP mouthpieces – some are Democrats. They approached Regnery Publishing with their book proposal, not the other way around.

The Swiftees’ brief against John Kerry, if true, is the opposite of dirty campaigning, because we cannot overstate its relevance to his fitness for commander in chief. Conversely, if you want to witness a seminar in dirty campaigning, just watch as the DNC goes into action trying to suppress the story and smear those who repeat it – anything but an airing of the merits of the charges. It’s going to be ugly. [/quote]

This sounds very similar to the Joe Wilson scandal where he claimed that Bush lied about Iraq seeking nuclear materials from Niger. While Bush was vindicated by subsequent Senate investigations, the press was very eager in an election year to jump on this. Why not for those criticizing Kerry? Why isn’t this news? Has it been proved that what they are saying is not true? The press was not very quick to investigate Wilson, who was eventually proved to be a liar, so why the circumspection now?

[quote][b][url=]If the incidents it details are true, Kerry was a coward who fled in battle having unintentionally thrown his current supporter, Jim Rassmann, overboard in his panic. Kerry tried to get his first Purple Heart on the basis of a tiny self-inflicted wound from his own grenade. His supporter, Max Cleland, accidentally blew both his legs off and one hand off with one of his own grenades, but never asked for a Purple Heart because, just as in John Kerry’s case, there was no enemy action at the time. Kerry went behind the back of the commander who refused his medal request and the doctor who had treated him, and got one anyway.

Swiftvet officers watched this kind of behavior for four months into Kerry’s 12 month “tour of duty.” Then three of them told him pointedly that he’d better use the three Purple Heart escape clause and return to the States fast. Kerry left the next morning[/url][/b].[/quote]

The Magnificent Tigerman:

But why isn’t the press picking up on this? Has anyone proved that their allegations are malicious? or not true? and when has that ever stopped the media from reporting on such things in the past? What is up with this? Are they getting their messages out?

Why aren’t they more honest and change their name to Swift Boat Veterans for Vengence? They never served with Kerry. They are making their accusations for political purposes. Mostly to pay back Kerry for his anti-war stance.


Do you have proof of that?

They did in fact serve with Kerry.

Moreover, some of them are democrats who voted for Gore.

Isn’t that kind of like the “When did you stop beating your wife” question?
It’s a shame that any veteran would have to defend themselves from these low-life mud slingers.

After a bit of furor, the dust has settled, and it has now become clear that the “Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth” ads are a complete sham. Shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, coming as it does from Republiconmen… has a very good assessment of the manipulation and lies behind the ads.

‘While the veterans attacking Kerry in the ad are veterans of the Vietnam War and may have served at the same time as Kerry, as The New York Times reported on August 5, the Kerry campaign noted that “none of the men had actually served on the Swift boats that Mr. Kerry commanded.” Adm. Roy F. Hoffman, one of the veterans in the ad, has even “acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry’s claims to valor,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on May 6, “and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn’t know Kerry much personally.”’

Although the excellent NYTimes article is now in their $$ archive, you can check out the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article at … rmat=print

Let’s see… Admiral Hoffman, one of the founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth said: “He had absolutely no respect for the military. His idea was to get some medals and gild his future ambitions.” Oh, but then Hoffmann acknowledges he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry’s claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn’t know Kerry much personally. What’s going on here? Hoffman pretends like he knows Kerry personally and then has to back down and admit that he has no idea what he’s talking about. Looks like we got ourselves a big ol’ pile of stinking Bushit… typical for the no-facts Republican set.

Far from being a non-partisan group, the Smear Boaters are led by hardcore Republicans… whod’ve guessed!? … ex_np.html
has a good piece on their leadership’s ties to the Republican Party. O’Neill was chosen by Charles Colson (of Watergate fame) to try to counter some of the damaging things Kerry was saying about what was going on during the Vietnam War.

O’Neill, far from telling the truth, can’t stop himself from lying on national TV. … rry_smear/

So, now the main question is when will they issue an apology and start to pay compensation for the Smear Boaters’ false ads?

The group is a sham … people who never served with Kerry just doing the typical Republican thing: making shit up.

No, the main question is, if the swiftboat vets for truth are lying, why isn’t Kerry suing them in court to vindicate his honor?

The group did in fact serve with Kerry.

If the allegations are false, why doesn’t Kerry seek to vindicate himself?

Threads merged.

Moderator IP Forum

Tigerman, so it all depends on the definition of “serving with” is, is?? So, when my grandfather was serving in World War II, it would be fine to say he was “serving with” Eisenhower and “serving with” MacArthur and could, thus, accuse them of lying about events my grandfather was not present for?

How many of the Smear Boat Vets were there, actually present, when Kerry did any of the things that related to any of the medals he was awarded??

Looks like they’re talking about events they weren’t present for… and making it sound like they were there. In the case of Smear Boats co-founder, O’Neill, he transferred in after Kerry had already left. What’s his deal??

Please use some facts, instead of the usual Republican nonsense…

Have you any idea how the swiftboats operate? Why don’t the Dems want the stories to be told? Why doesn’t Kerry sue these guys for libel and slander? Why is the DNC rather trying to stifle the statements rather than repudiate them?

Quite a few, apparently. Why doesn’t Kerry release his war record so that the accusations can be refuted?

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Check out the former speechwriter for Gore’s article: Why Kerry should sure the Swift Boat for Truth - The New Republic Online. He includes a lot of analysis.

If you type Swift Boat Veterans on a search, you’ll come up with thousands of rants about this same subject, most of which are written by impassioned Republicans trying to strike while the iron’s hot.

Yeah, so why doesn’t Kerry sue them?

Doesn’t Kerry want vindication? Mofangongren?

Why doesn’t Kerry release his war record?

Probably will. Kerry’s war record is well-enough documented, but it seems to be an effort by Republicans to avoid the obvious questions about Bush’s military record.

How on earth is it that a multiply-decorated American hero such as Kerry has to answer questions about his history? I’d like to see more about Bush’s period as an AWOL and physical-exam failing (sniff-sniff goes the DEA dog…) rich-boy Texas Air National Guard pilot. If Bush has one legacy, it is that he has ensured that the National Guard is no longer the safe haven it was when he was in it.