New Web Site, Swift Boat Verterans for Truth - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cthulu23 · 07-29-2004, 07:46 PM

Geez....deja vu. Maybe (just maybe) we could stop equating the criticisim of the Vietnam war effort with criticism of the common soldier. Is that too much to ask?

Superbelt · 07-30-2004, 03:43 AM

It is when the goal is to smear a man.

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/tim...j_kerry_s.html

Quote:

Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington and Senator Pell.

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men sitting behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification [only] yesterday that you would hear me, and, I am afraid, because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970, at West Point, Vice President Agnew said, "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse," and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we cannot consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but, also, we found that the Vietnamese, whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image, were hard-put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that, all too often, American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism, - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai, and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free-fire zones--shooting anything that moves--and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings" with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using, were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and, after losing one platoon, or two platoons, they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese.

Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying, as human beings, to communicate to people in this country--the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions, such as the use of weapons: the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones; harassment-interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions; the bombings; the torture of prisoners; all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly: He told me how, as a boy on an Indian reservation, he had watched television, and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done, and all that they can do by this denial, is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission: To search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so, when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Superbelt · 07-30-2004, 03:50 AM

Anybody else here ever watch the movie Hamburger Hill?
Incredibly sad story. It's up there with movies like Platoon that everyone should see to really understand what was going on over there.

pan6467 · 07-30-2004, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
People are criticizing Kerry because upon his return from his four months in Viet Nam he testified before Congress that war crimes were common place among his fellow soldiers. He dishnored the memory and reputations of over 2.5M soliders.

Now, he cries up his Viet Nam service - Kerry is the one who made Viet Nam a campaign issue. His ads and other campaign materials make frequent mention of it. The people he dishonored don't like it.

I can't blame them.

First, he EARNED those medals and ribbons.

Who did he dishonor?

A country that used CHEMICAL WEAPONS illegally and poisoned there own men with those chemicals and then refused to treat them in VA hospitals?

Generals like Westmoreland to whom the battle was to be won no matter the cost only to turn around and say, "ok we won have the hill back."?

Military industrial companies like Dow (makers of Agent Orange), Boeing, McDonnell Douglass, for whom they made millions and kept the war machine moving by using lobbyists and payoffs?

I know he dishonored a President who had people break into Watergate and ordered Governor James Rhodes to call out the National Guard on a University demonstration in Ohio.... It was called KENT STATE and people lost their lives for pecefully demonstrating against that noble government and its war.

Or did he dishonor the FBI and the secret lists they kept of people who demonstrated and labelled them as non-patriots?

Or did he dishonor the men who committed these attrocities yet believed that the military like the NYC police department had a code of silence and was to turn a blind eye from the evils we were doing?

Or did he HONOR the US by bringing forth (what MANY 'Nam vets) brought forth and that was the negligence of the leaders and he questioned the government and wanted this country to do better.

So stick to issues. Stick to healthcare and the millions who have found themselves living in poverty within the last 4 years.

I just saw an article yesterday or thge day before I was going to post but figured someone else would (noone did, so I'll do a search and find it and post it). The report stated that the average family the past 2 years made less each year YET CEOS made 15% more each year (the report came from the IRS by the way.). ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.

Address why people must go into poverty because in this great nation our president cares more about the top 1% getting a tax cut than he does about a healthcare system that is affordable to ALL.

jcookc6 · 07-30-2004, 07:36 AM

Maybe if Jawnboy would stop starting every sentence with "I was in Viet Nam" maybe people would drop it.

pan6467 · 07-30-2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jcookc6
Maybe if Jawnboy would stop starting every sentence with "I was in Viet Nam" maybe people would drop it.

Perhaps, if the right debated the issues and showed that they truly aren't just the party of Limbaugh, Robertson and the rich but of all US citizens then you wouldn't have to worry about what John says or how often he says it.

Wax_off · 07-30-2004, 08:23 AM

I'll bite.

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
People are criticizing Kerry because upon his return from his four months in Viet Nam he testified before Congress that war crimes were common place among his fellow soldiers. He dishnored the memory and reputations of over 2.5M soliders.

I want to know how you think telling the truth dishonors those soldiers? Wouldn't the actual dishonor be to say that everything that happened in Vietnam was good and right and honorable? Perhaps you think lying or keeping silent about it would have been better. The real insult to those men and women was what the US government asked them to do.

roachboy · 07-30-2004, 08:33 AM

i looked at the website the citation of which started this whole thread, which i have kept out of until now.

i found it difficult to determine anything about these people that did not loop back onto the activities of the organization as they were cited in the press (wire services, papers, right think tank proceedings, blogs--mostly conservative).

while it is obvious that websites can be produced cheaply and that there is no requirement for wider support from the outside world, something about these people makes me suspicious--does anyone have any information about these "veterans for 'truth'"?

their line fits directly into the tradition established by the far right since the early 1970s of revisionist histories of vietnam. they might be individuals who are looping themselves for political reasons through the main right narrative--one that looks to erase the history of criminal actions by the americans in vietnam (from fabricating the tonkin gulf incident to agent orange to napalm to massacres on the ground) and replace it with some johnwayne narrative----as if thinking about the history of the veitnam war can be reduced to the assumption that either everyone was a war criminal or no-one was a war criminal--and that within this ridiculous framework, the "honor" of the military can only be salvaged if the idea is floated that no-one was a war criminal.

wonderwench · 07-30-2004, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
I'll bite.

I want to know how you think telling the truth dishonors those soldiers? Wouldn't the actual dishonor be to say that everything that happened in Vietnam was good and right and honorable? Perhaps you think lying or keeping silent about it would have been better. The real insult to those men and women was what the US government asked them to do.

Nobody is saying that everything that happened in Viet Nam was all sweetness and light - but neither was it the mass orchestration of war crimes as represented by John Kerry.

All soldiers receive training that they are not to participate in war crimes and if they have knowledge of them, they are to immediately report them. Kerry, by his own Winter Soldier testimony, must have violated his own training. He said he committed crimes and he did not report them at the time. Instead, he returned to the U.S. and accused the entire military of participating in war crimes.

Truth is one thing - exageration and lying for personal political gain are something altogether different and despicable. Kerry did the latter.

BTW, he stated in an interview in 2002 that he would not use his home movies from Viet Nam for campaign purposes. Another flip flop.

wonderwench · 07-30-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wax_off
I'll bite.

I want to know how you think telling the truth dishonors those soldiers? Wouldn't the actual dishonor be to say that everything that happened in Vietnam was good and right and honorable? Perhaps you think lying or keeping silent about it would have been better. The real insult to those men and women was what the US government asked them to do.

You are neglecting the fact that Kerry did not tell the truth. He implicated the entire military community in Viet Nam as being guilty of war crimes via vague generalizations.

The real insult is to the vast majority of soldiers who served honorably.

wonderwench · 07-30-2004, 10:03 AM

Quote:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Of this is true, why didn't Kerry report it at the time?

cthulu23 · 07-30-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Of this is true, why didn't Kerry report it at the time?

If the command structure is aware of and responsible for these war crimes, isn't it obvious why Kerry would not report these acts?

Quote:

Truth is one thing - exageration and lying for personal political gain are something altogether different and despicable. Kerry did the latter.

What lie? Isn't the existence of a "free-fire zone" a war crime in and of itself? It is not 1971 anymore....the American people now know what went on in Vietnam. Perhaps these ancient arguments need to be rethought.

filtherton · 07-30-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
People are criticizing Kerry because upon his return from his four months in Viet Nam he testified before Congress that war crimes were common place among his fellow soldiers. He dishnored the memory and reputations of over 2.5M soliders.

Now, he cries up his Viet Nam service - Kerry is the one who made Viet Nam a campaign issue. His ads and other campaign materials make frequent mention of it. The people he dishonored don't like it.

I can't blame them.

Why do you care? Did he dishonor you? How are you in any position to comment on whether or not kerry portrayed vietnam as he experienced it accurately? You have no right to claim that anyone was dishonored because you don't know. Are you pretending that this new veteran's group is any less biased than kerry? That they have less of an axe to grind? Certainly atrocities happen, they're just as much a part of war as apple pie and civilian beheadings. Is it that much of a stretch to acknowledge that they actually may have been endorsed by a c.o.? Is that so implausible or are you blinded by conservative talking points to actually consider the possibility?

The republicans made vietnam an issue way back when clinton was up for election. Kerry didn't start it, he just turned the table. If only the newt gingrich republican could have forseen that the next republican administration would be composed almost completely with chicken hawks.

jbuffett · 07-30-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosmoknight
Mainly because Bush gets an anal probe down to payroll records base commanders etc. none of which is good enough for Dems. Kerry has people who where in his unit question his performance questioned his last medal, questioned his 4 month tour and now his staged 8mm films. Why is ok for Bush to be constantly checked yet Kerry is supposed to get the same pass as Clinton did simply because he's your guy.

What pass did the So Called Liberal Media ever give bubba? That man was hounded from day one.

jcookc6 · 07-30-2004, 04:03 PM

Did anyone hear the guy on the Michael Savage show tonight? I think his name was Steve Gardner and he was a Gunners Mate on Jawn's boat for 2 months.

cthulu23 · 07-30-2004, 04:50 PM

I don't listen to lunatics or charlatans.

Edit: Michael Savage, not the other guy. I don't know him.

pan6467 · 07-30-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jcookc6
Did anyone hear the guy on the Michael Savage show tonight? I think his name was Steve Gardner and he was a Gunners Mate on Jawn's boat for 2 months.

Again, the right refuses to just stick to the issues and have to keep trying to "drudge" up this Vietnam issue.

Ok, so let's say the Vietnam issue causes enough people in swing states to vote for Bush and cost Kerry to lose the vote. It wasn't done on issues it was done on mudslinging.

What does that tell the future candidates? Tells me they will not win on issues just on who has the less mud on them.

It's a slippery slope we have been going down because when we elect officials because of less mud and not on substance then we get what we vote for. All glitter no substance and that is no way to run a great nation and make it better.

To me that is a hollow victory that is more dangerous than having someone who made mistakes or did what they believed and were crucified for their beliefs.

jcookc6 · 07-30-2004, 06:07 PM

I WAS IN VIET NAM

filtherton · 07-30-2004, 06:46 PM

I bet you wake up every day and curse the hour that john kerry disgraced you and all of those that served alongside you.

Even so, for every vet that hates kerry there is a vet that loves the shit out of him. It isn't as simple as a talking point.

Zeld2.0 · 07-30-2004, 09:30 PM

And suddenly everyone served in Vietnam...

Few if any veterans come back from Vietnam saying it was a "good war" and a "fun war." Even those who volunteered seeing it a noble goal often came back changed - very changed.

Just look in their eyes and you will see what they mean - and it is always the same, they never wish to force war upon another generation after what they have gone through. They always hope their sacrifice and war would end future wars - but it always happens.

Anyways my point is this - such disgrace that the same ideology that honors soldiers and the military goes out to slam other veterans simply based on ideology. Rather than thank them for serving in a war few kids remember, few want to remember, and one that we lost - they go out and slam those veterans as "commies" and "traitors." Yes, believe it or not, there are many veterans that are "liberal" just as there are those who are "conservative."

Even if you disagree with those vets, I think one could show more respect rather than claim respect, but mudsling when it comes down to ideology - it just doesn't make any sense.

wonderwench · 07-30-2004, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Why do you care?

I care because Kerry is running for President. It matters to me that he lied about his fellow soldiers to further his own political career.

Quote:

Did he dishonor you?

I have a policy of pre-emption regarding for whom I vote. In Kerry's case, I want to prevent him from dishonoring me - which he would certainly do if he were able to fulfill his promise to subordinate our national security interests to the U.N.

Quote:

How are you in any position to comment on whether or not kerry portrayed vietnam as he experienced it accurately?

I am literate and I have a brain.

Quote:

You have no right to claim that anyone was dishonored because you don't know. Are you pretending that this new veteran's group is any less biased than kerry?

I have the inalienable right to evaluate the information and make my own conclusions, thank you very much.

The veterans' (note usage of plural noun) group has just as much right to speak up as Kerry does. It is up to each individual to decide who is more credible. I believe John O'Neill - he does not have his personal ambition at stake, as does Kerry. He also doesn't have a long history of flip-flopping, as does Kerry.

Quote:

That they have less of an axe to grind? Certainly atrocities happen, they're just as much a part of war as apple pie and civilian beheadings. Is it that much of a stretch to acknowledge that they actually may have been endorsed by a c.o.?

Yes, they do have less of an axe to grind - they haven't built their lives upon the defamation of over 2.5M of their fellow soldiers. (It takes a lot of grinding to sharpen an axe enough to whack that many necks.) Military personnel receive training to immediately report war crimes. Is it possible that there are corrupt COs? Yes. Is it a common place, day to day circumstance - highly doubtful.

Quote:

Is that so implausible or are you blinded by conservative talking points to actually consider the possibility?

Here's a little story about that: No.

Quote:

The republicans made vietnam an issue way back when clinton was up for election. Kerry didn't start it, he just turned the table. If only the newt gingrich republican could have forseen that the next republican administration would be composed almost completely with chicken hawks.

1992 has absolutely nothing to do with 2004. Kerry has made Viet Nam his main qualification to be Commander in Chief. This is rather odd considering that he spent four months in Nam over 35 years ago. He mentions this far more than his 20 or so years in the Senate. Don't you wonder why? He also has avoided mentioning his activism (read: smear campaign against his fellow soldiers) upon his return. This part of his background was completely left out of the bio piece at the convention. Again, don't you wonder why? Could it be because Kerry himself has said he exagerated his testimony (which he has since admitted).

He is a fraud. I would rather not have a fraud for President.

Zeld2.0 · 07-30-2004, 10:10 PM

And around and around in a circle we go...

What is the point of debating if one simply brings the same things back up, avoids evidence, avoids the subject, brings up other things, and spins in a circle again?

In those cases, the words 'debate' shouldn't be even used.

+2cents

cthulu23 · 07-30-2004, 11:49 PM

Wonderwench,

I think that we al know where the real smear campaign is coming from. We can repeat the same, tired logic from 30 years ago, but it doesn't make it any more true then it was then. In fact, history has shown that much of what Kerry said then had some validity.

hammer4all · 07-31-2004, 01:16 AM

I don't anything about their claims, but just so ya guys know, these "swift boat veterans" are headed by the same right-wing operatives that took down John McCain 4 years ago.

Smear Boat Veterans for Bush

And here you can listen to John Kerry's anti-war speech before the 1971 Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I wish that (anti-war) Kerry was still here today!

Sparhawk · 07-31-2004, 04:48 AM

Kerry certainly did mention his anti-war activism, and it also figured prominently in the bio piece. I suggest watching it again.

Thanks for the article, hammer4all, here it is for those who don't want to listen to some ads:

Quote:

May 4, 2004 | The latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service.

These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004.

Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."

Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut.

Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)

Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)

Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)

In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)

When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator.

The veteran group's founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance.

Until now, Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and "scorekeeping" may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9/11 commission.

After journalist Gregory Vistica exposed the Thanh Phong massacre and the surrounding circumstances in the New York Times magazine three years ago, conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell took particular note of the cameo role played by Kerrey's C.O., who had warned his men not to return from missions without enough kills. "One of the myths due to die as a result of Vistica's article is that which holds the war could have been won sensibly and cleanly if the 'suits' back in Washington had merely left the military men to their own devices," Caldwell wrote. "In this light, one of the great merits of Vistica's article is its portrait of the Kurtz-like psychopath who commanded Kerrey's Navy task force, Capt. Roy Hoffmann."

Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq.

wonderwench · 07-31-2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
Wonderwench,

I think that we al know where the real smear campaign is coming from. We can repeat the same, tired logic from 30 years ago, but it doesn't make it any more true then it was then. In fact, history has shown that much of what Kerry said then had some validity.

John O'Neill is a Democrat.

History has shown that most of what Kerry said was exageration and for self-promotion.

He spent more time disparaging the reputations of his fellow soldiers than he spent in Viet Nam. Why isn't he highlighting his anti-war activities in his campaign?

Superbelt · 07-31-2004, 10:52 AM

So is Zell Miller, who, by the way is speaking at your convention next month.

And John Ritter (UN Weapons Inspector to Iraq) is a Republican and has come out full force against Bush for Invading Iraq over flimsy WMD evidence and not listening to the experts who were telling him he was wrong. (He also voted Bush in 2000)

Being a democrat doesn't mean you are a liberal and love Kerry.

wonderwench · 07-31-2004, 11:49 AM

I'm a registered Democrat who agrees with Zell Miller that the party has gone downhill.

Kerry is of the unfortunate new Democrat model in which class politics and divisiveness are played up in high relief - to the destruction of civil society.

Small example: Kerry's statement that Bush is "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America" in his acceptance speech.

The cynisicm of this statement is almost indescribable - and poses a mock choice. Fire stations in Iraq and the U.S. are not mutually exclusive.

cthulu23 · 07-31-2004, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
John O'Neill is a Democrat.

History has shown that most of what Kerry said was exageration and for self-promotion.

He spent more time disparaging the reputations of his fellow soldiers than he spent in Viet Nam. Why isn't he highlighting his anti-war activities in his campaign?

Party may be relevant to you, but it means little to me.

Your interpretation of history says that. I make no such conclusion.

Once again we come to the same point....I consider Kerry's criticism of the conduct of American soldiers in Vietnam as a condemnation of the policies that shaped the war, not the soldiers themselves. This is getting tiresome. You can keep repeating arguments that lost their vitality thirty years ago if you'd like. You can paste a transcript that talks about the breaking of the NVA by the South Vietnamese and consider it relevant, too. Personally, I'm getting sick of fending off the same Republican talking points over and over and over. If we can't come up with something more original than channeling our parties press releases, then it's going to be a long wait for november.

cthulu23 · 07-31-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
I'm a registered Democrat who agrees with Zell Miller that the party has gone downhill.

Kerry is of the unfortunate new Democrat model in which class politics and divisiveness are played up in high relief - to the destruction of civil society.

Small example: Kerry's statement that Bush is "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America" in his acceptance speech.

The cynisicm of this statement is almost indescribable - and poses a mock choice. Fire stations in Iraq and the U.S. are not mutually exclusive.

Indescribable cynicism? Are you kidding? Are Democrats allowed to criticise Bush at all, or does that qualify as hate speech? And liberals are accused of hyper-sensitivity....sheesh.

Since when have politics not been divisive? Class warfare? Most freakin' Democrats won't even admit that there is a class system in this country. Jesus, do we have to become total mouthpieces for our parties? I'm not even a Democrat, but I find myself in the uncomforatable position of defending Kerry just because these attacks on him are so furious yet baseless. I wonder where all of those who cried "politics as usual" in the July surprise thread have gone. It seems that that sentiment is missing from this thread.

wonderwench · 07-31-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthulu23
Indescribable cynicism? Are you kidding? Are Democrats allowed to criticise Bush at all, or does that qualify as hate speech? And liberals are accused of hyper-sensitivity....sheesh.

Since when have politics not been divisive? Class warfare? Most freakin' Democrats won't even admit that there is a class system in this country. Jesus, do we have to become total mouthpieces for our parties? I'm not even a Democrat, but I find myself in the uncomforatable position of defending Kerry just because these attacks on him are so furious yet baseless. I wonder where all of those who cried "politics as usual" in the July surprise thread have gone. It seems that that sentiment is missing from this thread.

This is funny.

filtherton · 07-31-2004, 01:53 PM

Is this the same wonderwench who started the f9/11 thread to bash it without even seeing the movie. You don't even pretend to take in both sides of an issue.

You seem to think that everyone on your side of the aisle is incapable of underhandedness or deception and you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of intellectual dishonesty and foolishness. Is it that difficult to see that the "swift boat veterans for truth" are nothing more than a republican allied political organization? They aren't bipartisan. They are exploiting the "dishonored veterans" to help the republican party reach its political goals. Just like you're exploiting "dishonored veterans" to get all up in arms about the democratic presidential candidate. I doubt you'd bat an eye if bush ever did anything to that could be percieved as unbecoming towards veterans.

note: if you're going to try and nitpick my grammar, and imply that you are still in high school in the process, at least choose something that is clearly grammatically wrong.

Superbelt · 07-31-2004, 03:04 PM

Like gouge veterans benefits?

pan6467 · 07-31-2004, 08:07 PM

Let's face it some people just cannot or will not ever argue issues because they know the GOP can't win. All they can do then is try to smear and call names and do whatever they can to try to make Kerry more repulsive to independants and fence sitters than Bush has made himself already appear.

They will change history to make Vietnam look like it was a great wholesome, moral war.

They will call Kerry a UN pussy and say he will sell us out to them.

They will call him unpatriotic.

They will try to turn voting records against him (and yes, there are many Senators and Reps that change their votes on issues because the issues and what is in them changes, but for some they don't want to admit that fact).

They will take any fact based debate against Bush and within 2 sentences start slamming Kerry personally and on this threads subject and not on facts concerning his politics NOW.

We have all done things we choose to forget or that embarass us, a politician is no different and for him to explain himself every time he talks takes time away from him discussing the issues and his platform, and that is why those GOP people want so desperately for this subject to stick to Kerry. They can't win real debates on real issues (because all they know is hate and they are blind to facts), so they resort to cheap tactics and partisan politics and hate mongering.

I have no respect for those types of GOP members. The GOP members that can debate issues civally and show respect have my undying respect, because in the end those people and I truly want a better country. Hate mongerers and cheapshot artists and bullies don't want a better nation they just want things their way and fuck anyone else.

And before I get slammed, YES there are people on the left that do the same thing.

cthulu23 · 07-31-2004, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
This is funny.

Not as funny as some people's peddling of empty rhetoric and party line adherence as debate. I suppose that if one screams into an echo chamber long enough that it might begin to sound like a conversation.

VTBrian · 08-01-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Let's face it some people just cannot or will not ever argue issues because they know the GOP can't win. All they can do then is try to smear and call names and do whatever they can to try to make Kerry more repulsive to independants and fence sitters than Bush has made himself already appear.

Thats so funny cause I was talking to my gradfather and he said almost the exact same words except subbing, dems for GOP, Bush for Kerry, you get the idea. It seems like more and more both the Dems and the Rebs use the exact same disses on each other. If we accomplish nothing else this election year I say one of the parties at least come up with some origanal smack talk. I mean come on this is America talking shit is one of those things we do well. This whole no I'm not you are kinda third grade thing we've got going is not at all representative of the highschool level smack whe could throw around. In fact I'll get us started.

Keri's mom is so fat that when she goes to a movie she sits next to everyone.

In all seriousness how is a concerivitive minded voter, who would be more than willing to vote dem if the right guy came along, such as myself ever suposed to sort anything out when it seems like both parties insult each other for the same things. Any one have any sources for non biased facts. Do those even exist.

Just so this can at least be sort of on topic. I don't like the way Bush handled the Viatnam thing, but I think its important to remember that had his unit been called, yes I know very unlikely, but had it been he would have had to fight just like anyone else. At least he wasn't in another country completely hiding out. As far as Keri goes I don't know a whole lot about what went down, but it seems like his men liked him, and they don't award bronze and silver stars for being a jack off so he must have done something right. Chalk that up as Keri 3 points Bush 1 point, in november the canadite with the most points gets my vote.

Sparhawk · 08-01-2004, 01:17 PM

^ what was it winston churchill said about five minutes with the average voter? (please take in good humor, not as a flame...)

Superbelt · 08-06-2004, 04:13 AM

Something new
Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander George Elliot retracts his smear on Kerry. He has decided to now tell the truth and says Kerry acted correctly and deserved his honors.

Quote:

a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

...

Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

Score one for the truth.

onetime2 · 08-06-2004, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Something new
Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander George Elliot retracts his smear on Kerry. He has decided to now tell the truth and says Kerry acted correctly and deserved his honors.

Score one for the truth.

So, now what he says is the truth? Before what he said was a lie but now that he supports Kerry he's telling the truth.

How about just discounting his opinion since he can't seem to decide what the truth really is?

Superbelt · 08-06-2004, 04:41 AM

That would be the most logical avenue actually. As well as assuming that this is the standard for which SBVFT accepts statements and "accounts"
This is the kind of character people they are represented by.

Good luck with that smear campaign. Especially with McCain vocally denouncing their statements, and tactics.

07-30-2004, 08:33 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i looked at the website the citation of which started this whole thread, which i have kept out of until now. i found it difficult to determine anything about these people that did not loop back onto the activities of the organization as they were cited in the press (wire services, papers, right think tank proceedings, blogs--mostly conservative). while it is obvious that websites can be produced cheaply and that there is no requirement for wider support from the outside world, something about these people makes me suspicious--does anyone have any information about these "veterans for 'truth'"? their line fits directly into the tradition established by the far right since the early 1970s of revisionist histories of vietnam. they might be individuals who are looping themselves for political reasons through the main right narrative--one that looks to erase the history of criminal actions by the americans in vietnam (from fabricating the tonkin gulf incident to agent orange to napalm to massacres on the ground) and replace it with some johnwayne narrative----as if thinking about the history of the veitnam war can be reduced to the assumption that either everyone was a war criminal or no-one was a war criminal--and that within this ridiculous framework, the "honor" of the military can only be salvaged if the idea is floated that no-one was a war criminal. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-31-2004, 01:53 PM	#72 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Is this the same wonderwench who started the f9/11 thread to bash it without even seeing the movie. You don't even pretend to take in both sides of an issue. You seem to think that everyone on your side of the aisle is incapable of underhandedness or deception and you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of intellectual dishonesty and foolishness. Is it that difficult to see that the "swift boat veterans for truth" are nothing more than a republican allied political organization? They aren't bipartisan. They are exploiting the "dishonored veterans" to help the republican party reach its political goals. Just like you're exploiting "dishonored veterans" to get all up in arms about the democratic presidential candidate. I doubt you'd bat an eye if bush ever did anything to that could be percieved as unbecoming towards veterans. note: if you're going to try and nitpick my grammar, and imply that you are still in high school in the process, at least choose something that is clearly grammatically wrong. Last edited by filtherton; 08-01-2004 at 10:01 AM..

07-31-2004, 08:07 PM	#74 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Let's face it some people just cannot or will not ever argue issues because they know the GOP can't win. All they can do then is try to smear and call names and do whatever they can to try to make Kerry more repulsive to independants and fence sitters than Bush has made himself already appear. They will change history to make Vietnam look like it was a great wholesome, moral war. They will call Kerry a UN pussy and say he will sell us out to them. They will call him unpatriotic. They will try to turn voting records against him (and yes, there are many Senators and Reps that change their votes on issues because the issues and what is in them changes, but for some they don't want to admit that fact). They will take any fact based debate against Bush and within 2 sentences start slamming Kerry personally and on this threads subject and not on facts concerning his politics NOW. We have all done things we choose to forget or that embarass us, a politician is no different and for him to explain himself every time he talks takes time away from him discussing the issues and his platform, and that is why those GOP people want so desperately for this subject to stick to Kerry. They can't win real debates on real issues (because all they know is hate and they are blind to facts), so they resort to cheap tactics and partisan politics and hate mongering. I have no respect for those types of GOP members. The GOP members that can debate issues civally and show respect have my undying respect, because in the end those people and I truly want a better country. Hate mongerers and cheapshot artists and bullies don't want a better nation they just want things their way and fuck anyone else. And before I get slammed, YES there are people on the left that do the same thing. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 07-31-2004 at 08:10 PM..

08-01-2004, 01:17 PM	#77 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	^ what was it winston churchill said about five minutes with the average voter? (please take in good humor, not as a flame...) __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

07-29-2004, 07:46 PM	#41 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Geez....deja vu. Maybe (just maybe) we could stop equating the criticisim of the Vietnam war effort with criticism of the common soldier. Is that too much to ask?

07-30-2004, 03:50 AM	#43 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Anybody else here ever watch the movie Hamburger Hill? Incredibly sad story. It's up there with movies like Platoon that everyone should see to really understand what was going on over there.

07-30-2004, 07:36 AM	#45 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	Maybe if Jawnboy would stop starting every sentence with "I was in Viet Nam" maybe people would drop it.

07-30-2004, 04:03 PM	#55 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	Did anyone hear the guy on the Michael Savage show tonight? I think his name was Steve Gardner and he was a Gunners Mate on Jawn's boat for 2 months.

07-30-2004, 04:50 PM	#56 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I don't listen to lunatics or charlatans. Edit: Michael Savage, not the other guy. I don't know him.

07-30-2004, 06:07 PM	#58 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	I WAS IN VIET NAM

07-30-2004, 06:46 PM	#59 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I bet you wake up every day and curse the hour that john kerry disgraced you and all of those that served alongside you. Even so, for every vet that hates kerry there is a vet that loves the shit out of him. It isn't as simple as a talking point.

07-30-2004, 09:30 PM	#60 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	And suddenly everyone served in Vietnam... Few if any veterans come back from Vietnam saying it was a "good war" and a "fun war." Even those who volunteered seeing it a noble goal often came back changed - very changed. Just look in their eyes and you will see what they mean - and it is always the same, they never wish to force war upon another generation after what they have gone through. They always hope their sacrifice and war would end future wars - but it always happens. Anyways my point is this - such disgrace that the same ideology that honors soldiers and the military goes out to slam other veterans simply based on ideology. Rather than thank them for serving in a war few kids remember, few want to remember, and one that we lost - they go out and slam those veterans as "commies" and "traitors." Yes, believe it or not, there are many veterans that are "liberal" just as there are those who are "conservative." Even if you disagree with those vets, I think one could show more respect rather than claim respect, but mudsling when it comes down to ideology - it just doesn't make any sense.

07-30-2004, 10:10 PM	#62 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	And around and around in a circle we go... What is the point of debating if one simply brings the same things back up, avoids evidence, avoids the subject, brings up other things, and spins in a circle again? In those cases, the words 'debate' shouldn't be even used. +2cents

07-30-2004, 11:49 PM	#63 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Wonderwench, I think that we al know where the real smear campaign is coming from. We can repeat the same, tired logic from 30 years ago, but it doesn't make it any more true then it was then. In fact, history has shown that much of what Kerry said then had some validity.

07-31-2004, 01:16 AM	#64 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	I don't anything about their claims, but just so ya guys know, these "swift boat veterans" are headed by the same right-wing operatives that took down John McCain 4 years ago. Smear Boat Veterans for Bush And here you can listen to John Kerry's anti-war speech before the 1971 Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I wish that (anti-war) Kerry was still here today!

07-31-2004, 10:52 AM	#67 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	So is Zell Miller, who, by the way is speaking at your convention next month. And John Ritter (UN Weapons Inspector to Iraq) is a Republican and has come out full force against Bush for Invading Iraq over flimsy WMD evidence and not listening to the experts who were telling him he was wrong. (He also voted Bush in 2000) Being a democrat doesn't mean you are a liberal and love Kerry.

07-31-2004, 11:49 AM	#68 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	I'm a registered Democrat who agrees with Zell Miller that the party has gone downhill. Kerry is of the unfortunate new Democrat model in which class politics and divisiveness are played up in high relief - to the destruction of civil society. Small example: Kerry's statement that Bush is "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America" in his acceptance speech. The cynisicm of this statement is almost indescribable - and poses a mock choice. Fire stations in Iraq and the U.S. are not mutually exclusive.

07-31-2004, 03:04 PM	#73 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Like gouge veterans benefits?

08-06-2004, 04:41 AM	#80 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That would be the most logical avenue actually. As well as assuming that this is the standard for which SBVFT accepts statements and "accounts" This is the kind of character people they are represented by. Good luck with that smear campaign. Especially with McCain vocally denouncing their statements, and tactics.