Vet backs off attack on Kerry's War Record

[jennyanydots]

"freeper" is Free Republic. it's as far to the right as Michael Moore is to the left. in other words, take everything they say with a grain of salt -- they're out to further their agenda.

I love this quote, by the way:

McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

 

[year2late]

Originally posted by Saffron
I believe Bush himself said he would not question Kerry's military service.

Yes, but he did little to denounce what they had done. Does anyone here really think he really was upset by the ad?

I am sick of this crap (yes on both sides).

 

[Saffron]

Sorry Tiziminchac --- I've been trying to read the FBI files about the V V A W, specifically what you were wondering about, and I can't access them from any site. The link at the SBVFT linked site, Winter Storm (the Freeper site) just happens to not work, just like the home page link didn't work. I've only been able to find one other site with the files, and they come up blank in PDF form.

I've read different accounts of the Urgo story than what the timeline says. But without reading the actual FBI files, any of the stories, pro or anti or neutral Kerry, are worthless. One account on a website says the FBI files claim that Urgo brought home proposals from the North Vietnamese to make tapes and send a delegation to negotiate POW release. Not that he took proposals to the North Vietnamese. That makes sense to me, because then the FBI would then be stating something that happened here, not something that happened over in Vietnam. I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense.

This is exactly what it said, but darn it, I didn't copy down the web site! *I think* it might have been Paperless Archieves, but I have no idea about the credibility of the site. It could be way left, way right, or way nothing, just a site.

According to an FBI report filed on November 24, 1971, Urgo reported that he had traveled to Hanoi in August 1971 to work directly with North Vietnamese leaders. Urgo brought home proposals for the VVAW to: (1) create tapes to be sent to North Vietnam for broadcast over Radio Hanoi urging US servicemen to stop fighting in Vietnam, and (2) send a delegation to Hanoi to negotiate the release of American POWs, a proposal that echoed Hubbard's report from Paris.

Bringing home proposals or suggestions from the North Vietnamese is a lot different than taking proposals to the North Vietnamese. Taking them says this is something we are willing to do, bringing them home says this is something they would like us to do. Taking them says we will do this if you want, bringing them home the V V A W has the right to say "Okay" or "No way". And the "delegation in the future" was to negotiate for POW release, I think that would be a good thing!

Let me see if I can find the FBI files on Find Law, although I doubt I will.

 

[faithinkarma]

Looks like the whole thing might have backfired. In June, Bush had a 15 per cent lead among vets. A CBS poll now shows Kerry leading 48 to 47.

 

[Tiziminchac]

Originally posted by Saffron
Sorry Tiziminchac --- I've been trying to read the FBI files about the V V A W, specifically what you were wondering about, and I can't access them from any site. The link at the SBVFT linked site, Winter Storm (the Freeper site) just happens to not work, just like the home page link didn't work. I've only been able to find one other site with the files, and they come up blank in PDF form.

I've read different accounts of the Urgo story than what the timeline says. But without reading the actual FBI files, any of the stories, pro or anti or neutral Kerry, are worthless. One account on a website says the FBI files claim that Urgo brought home proposals from the North Vietnamese to make tapes and send a delegation to negotiate POW release. Not that he took proposals to the North Vietnamese. That makes sense to me, because then the FBI would then be stating something that happened here, not something that happened over in Vietnam. I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense.

This is exactly what it said, but darn it, I didn't copy down the web site! *I think* it might have been Paperless Archieves, but I have no idea about the credibility of the site. It could be way left, way right, or way nothing, just a site.



Bringing home proposals or suggestions from the North Vietnamese is a lot different than taking proposals to the North Vietnamese. Taking them says this is something we are willing to do, bringing them home says this is something they would like us to do. Taking them says we will do this if you want, bringing them home the V V A W has the right to say "Okay" or "No way". And the "delegation in the future" was to negotiate for POW release, I think that would be a good thing!

Let me see if I can find the FBI files on Find Law, although I doubt I will.

I had problems with the FBI stuff too. Finally I gave up and called a friend who knows much more than I about computers. He downloaded it for me. I wanted him to copy the text and just e-mail it to me but he has been unable to do so. Something about it being photocopied stuff or something. So now I have him making copies on the printer for me. If we (he) figures out how to relay this info online I'll make it available to anyone interested.

 

[WillyJ]

MJames,

Thanks so much for taking a look at the speech and for your comments. .


My take is that I agree with what Faithinkarma said; if these vets want to hammer Kerry for his post-service words/activities then more power to them. . but if they are indeed making inaccurate and false accusations about his actual combat record to punish him for what he said after he came home, that is unacceptable to me and beneath contempt. . .

I also have to wonder: Kerry has been a Senator for 20 years and ran in some pretty heated campaigns against some popular Republican opponants, plus running as the Dem nominee for the past year. . . if these hundreds of guys had these awful "facts" against them did they wait until now when he has a very legit chance at being President to make them public??


Again, my best guess is that it has to do with Kerry running against someone who has Karl Rove has thier campaign manager.


Thanks everyone for thier input here- just think how much better we'd all be informed if CNN, Fox, ABC, etc. took half as much time to investigate the facts before reporting things as news. . .

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Looks like the whole thing might have backfired. In June, Bush had a 15 per cent lead among vets. A CBS poll now shows Kerry leading 48 to 47.

Very good points FIK! I was kind of thinking that maybe this would happen. I like the reverse psychology effect.

 

[jrydberg]

As a guy who's not exactly a supporter of Kerry, I really wish they'd drop all this criticism of his military record. He obviously served and did a pretty darn good job.

And from a Bush PR perspective, I don't think the Bush people really want Vietnam to be the focal point of the campaign. Just not a wise PR move.

 

[Saffron]

I'd be interested in the files Tiziminchac if you can find a way to post them! I would just like to satisfy my own curiosity now since I started searching yesterday.

I think you're right jrydberg.

 

[Galahad]

Bush had a 15 per cent lead among vets. A CBS poll now shows Kerry leading 48 to 47.

Then, IMO, one of the two polls is wildly inaccurate. A swing that large in the span of a few days over an issue like this really doesn't make any sense.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Galahad
Then, IMO, one of the two polls is wildly inaccurate. A swing that large in the span of a few days over an issue like this really doesn't make any sense.

It is not a few days, the previous poll was two months ago. It is a CBS poll, and is detailed at their site.

And I am not convinced that an issue like this would not swing a large number of people. It has certainly been the talk at legions around the country. And they are extremely angry about this. What was not anticipated is that in trying to diminish Kerry's service and medals, many other vets took the slur personally.

 

[peachgirl]

What was not anticipated is that in trying to diminish Kerry's service and medals, many other vets took the slur personally.

I agree, it's not going over well in many circles.

It puts in question any medal any veteran ever received. The fact is, these things are researched very well before they are awarded. You don't get a silver star because your buddy wanted you to have one.

Many loyal Republicans don't like it either. The reasonable ones know full well that Bush's military service cannot compare to Kerry's and they'd just as soon see all military service discussions end. After all, the more we talk about Kerry's service, the more we might start looking at Bush's again.

These guys aren't doing their cause any good at all. They'll get rich though and that's quite an incentive for some people.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
It is not a few days, the previous poll was two months ago. It is a CBS poll, and is detailed at their site.

And I am not convinced that an issue like this would not swing a large number of people. It has certainly been the talk at legions around the country. And they are extremely angry about this. What was not anticipated is that in trying to diminish Kerry's service and medals, many other vets took the slur personally.

Ah, OK then a CBS poll to CBS poll comparison has some more validity to it. I was referring to a Rasmussen poll taken just a week or so ago that showed the president way ahead with Vets (but behind with people that never served at all). That was why I thought it was a few days. I'm intrigued by the supposition that there is so much anger about this. I don't watch much TV news, cable or otherwise, so perhaps they are trotting out angry vets to spin their story. I know a lot of vets and anecdotally the claims by the "negative" vets only confirm their negative opinion of Kerry rather than make them want to rally round him.