Honesty, Part II

[RobBob]

I really think this story is more meaningful than most of you hard-over liberals want to believe it is. It's all about honesty. I'd love to vote for someone other than Bush, but I really want him to be more honest than Bush.

 

Statement of RADM William L. Schachte, Jr. USN (Ret.)

 

August 27, 2004

 

As was true of all "Swiftees," I volunteered to serve in Vietnam and was assigned to Coastal Division 14 for a normal tour of duty. I was a Lieutenant serving as Operations Officer and second in command at Coastal Division 14 when Lieutenant (junior grade) John Kerry reported to us in mid-November, 1968. Lt. (jg) Kerry was an Officer-in-Charge (O-in-C) under training in preparing to be assigned as one of our Swift Boat O-in-C's.

 

At some point following President Johnson's announcement of the suspension of bombing in North Vietnam in March 1968, we were directed to become more aggressive in seeking to find and destroy or disrupt the enemy in our operating area. As part of this effort, I conceived a new operation that became known as "Skimmer OPS." The concept was simple. A 15-foot Boston Whaler was sent into an area where, based on coordinated intelligence, North Vietnamese cadre and Viet Cong were expected to be meeting or where, for example, concentrations of enemy forces might be involved in the movement of arms or munitions. We were to draw fire and quickly get out of the area. This would allow more concentrated firepower to be brought against the enemy forces we had been able to identify.

 

These operations were carried out only in "hot" areas, and well away from any villages or populated areas. A Swift Boat would tow the skimmer to the general area of operations, and the ambush team would then board the skimmer and proceed to the designated area of operations. The Swift Boat would be riding "shotgun" and standing off, occasionally out of sight, to provide fire support and long-range communications. The Skimmer was powered by an outboard motor, and we carried an FM radio, handheld flares, an M-60 machine gun with a bipod mount, and an M-16 mounted with a starlight scope. If the night was heavily overcast, we brought an M-14 mounted with an infrared scope. We also carried an M-79 single-shot grenade launcher. In addition to our combat gear and flak jackets, we often carried .38-caliber pistols.

 

The operation consisted of allowing the skimmer to drift silently along shorelines or riverbanks to look or listen for sounds of enemy activity. If activity was identified, we would open fire with our automatic weapons, and if we received fire, we would depart the area as quickly as possible, leaving it to air support or mortar fire from a Swift Boat standing off at a distance to carry out an attack.

 

I commanded each of these Skimmer operations up to and including the one on the night in question involving Lt. (jg) Kerry. On each of these operations, I was in the skimmer manning the M-60 machine gun. I took with me one other officer, and an enlisted man to operate the outboard motor. I wanted another officer because officers, when not on patrol, were briefed daily on the latest intelligence concerning our sector of operations and were therefore more familiar with the current intelligence. Additionally, at these daily briefings, officers debriefed on their patrol areas after returning to port.

 

On the night of December 2-3, we conducted one of these operations, and Lt. (jg) Kerry accompanied me. Our call sign for that operation was "Batman". I have no independent recollection of the identity of the enlisted man, who was operating the outboard motor. Sometime during the early morning hours, I thought I detected some movement inland. At the time we were so close to land that we could hear water lapping on the shoreline. I fired a hand-held flare, and upon it bursting and illuminating the surrounding area, I thought I saw movement. I immediately opened fire with my M-60. It jammed after a brief burst. Lt. (jg) Kerry also opened fire with his M-16 on automatic, firing in the direction of my tracers. His weapon also jammed. As I was trying to clear my weapon, I heard the distinctive sound of the M-79 being fired and turned to see Lt. (jg) Kerry holding the M-79 from which he had

 

just launched a round. We received no return fire of any kind nor were there any muzzle flashes from the beach. I directed the outboard motor operator to clear the area.

 

Upon returning to base, I informed my commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, of the events, informing him of the details of the operation and that we had received no enemy fire. I did not file an "after action" report, as one was only required when there was hostile fire. Soon thereafter, Lt. (jg) Kerry requested that he be put in for a Purple Heart as a result of a small piece of shrapnel removed from his arm that he attributed to the just-completed mission. I advised Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard that I could not support the request because there was no hostile fire. The shrapnel must have been a fragment from the M-79 that struck Lt. (jg) Kerry, because he had fired the M-79 too close to our boat. Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard denied Lt. (jg) Kerry's request.

 

 

 

 

Lt. (jg) Kerry detached our division a few days later to be reassigned to another division. I departed Vietnam approximately three weeks later, and Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard followed shortly thereafter. It was not until years later that I was surprised to learn that Lt. (jg) Kerry had been awarded a Purple Heart for this night.

 

I did not see Lt. (jg) Kerry in person again for almost 20 years. Sometime in 1988, while I was on Capitol Hill, I ran into him in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. I was at that time a Rear Admiral and in uniform. He was about 20 paces away, waiting to catch the underground subway. In a fairly loud voice I called out to him, "Hey, John." He turned, looked at me, came over and said, "Batman!" We exchanged pleasantries for a few minutes, agreed to have lunch sometime in the future, and parted ways. We have not been together since that day.

 

In March of this year, I was contacted by one of my former swift boat colleagues concerning Douglas Brinkley's book about Senator Kerry, "Tour of Duty." I told him that I had not read it. He faxed me a copy of the pages relating to the action on the night of December 2-3, 1968. I was astonished by Senator Kerry's rendition of the facts of that night. Notably, Lt. (jg) Kerry had himself in charge of the operation, and I was not mentioned at all. He also claimed that he was wounded by hostile fire.

 

None of this is accurate. I know, because I was not only in the boat, but I was in command of the mission. He was never more than several feet away from me at any time during the operation that night. It is inconceivable that any commanding officer would put an officer in training, who had been in country only a couple of weeks, in charge of such an ambush operation. Had there been enemy action that night, there would have been an after action report filed, which I would have been responsible for filing.

 

I have avoided talking to media about this issue for months. But, because of the recent media attention, I felt I had to step up to recount my personal experiences concerning this incident.

 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

[AlpineK]

So you want a long post about what a lying sack of shit Bush is...here ya go.

 

WE DELIVER HEADLINES!

BUSH WATCH

stories... issues... bushreport... comedy... site map... contact...

 

 

Bush Iraq Evidence Lies

 

 

The Ethics of Persuasion: Some Guidelines

 

by Edward L. Bernays

 

1. Do Not Use False Evidence

2. Do Not Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning

3. Do Not Falsely Represent Yourself

4. Do Not Conceal Your Purpose or Interest

5. Do Not Cover Up Consequences

6. Do Not Use Baseless Emotional Appeals

7. Do Not Oversimplify Complex Situations

8. Do Not Pretend Certainty

9. Do Not Advocate What You Don't Believe Yourself

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

POWELL'S UN CHARGES AGAINST IRAQ (And Some Plausible Explanations)

 

Recorded conversations - Iraqi officers discussing removal of a "modified vehicle" and deleting references to nerve gas from documents. If genuine, and not spliced, these radio intercepts suggest Iraq may have been hiding some biowarfare arms, or was racing to eliminate any residues or evidence of its 1980s weapons program in advance of UN inspections.

(Considering the U.S. military loses tens of millions worth of weapons and supplies each year, and the Los Alamos centre has misplaced large amounts of nuclear materials, it's not implausible that Iraq has bits and pieces of chemical arms scattered about, such as the empty 122-mm rockets recently discovered in a bunker, that escaped its UN-mandated inventory.)

 

Satellite imagery - ammo storage bunkers which Powell claimed were used for chemical weapons that were moved out prior to inspection.

 

(UN inspectors examined them and found nothing suspicious. "Sniffers" used by inspectors can detect the past presence of chemical and biological weapons.)

 

The infamous mobile biological weapons labs mounted on trucks - a.k.a. "Saddam's vans of death." Powell claimed defectors reported there were 18 of these cruising around Iraq.

 

(Defector information is always suspect. UN chief arms inspector Hans Blix said his men had examined some of the "death trucks" and found they were, in fact, mobile food-testing labs.)

 

Some 100-400 tons of chemical agents, including four tons of VX nerve gas, and some biological weapons, originally supplied in the 1980s by the U.S. and secretly developed by British technicians, were still unaccounted for.

 

(This remains a major question. Iraq says it destroyed them, but lacks proper documentation. They may be hidden. But most were made in the 1980s, and may be degraded or inert from age. Nerve gas and germs are weapons of mass destruction. Mustard gas, the bulk of Iraq's chemical weaponry, is not, being no more lethal than napalm or the fuel-air explosives the U.S. and Russia are using in Afghanistan and Chechnya.)

 

Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.

 

(UN nuclear inspectors have repeatedly contradicted U.S. claims. They concluded the notorious aluminum tubes Powell said were for uranium-enrichment centrifuges were actually conventional 122-mm rocket artillery casings.)

 

According to UN Resolution 687 after the Gulf war, Iraq is permitted missiles with a range of 150 km. The U.S. charges Iraq is testing missiles that have flown 14-20 km farther.

 

(This is nothing unusual when testing a new propellant system. Powell also accused Iraq of developing a 1,200-km missile that could reach Israel, based on photos of an enlarged test stand. Iraq may have a dozen or so old Scud missiles hidden away.)

 

Iraq is dragging its feet on private interviews of its nuclear scientists.

 

(True. Hawks in the Bush administration and Israel say the only way to ensure Iraq never builds strategic weapons is to jail all of its 10,000 military scientists and technicians - who also face the wrath of Saddam if they appear to turn over incriminating evidence.)

 

Powell claimed he had proof positive Iraq was linked to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam, a small, 600-man Islamist group in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (not under Saddam's control), and through a "deadly terrorist network" led by one Abu Musa al-Zarqawi.

 

(The first charge was immediately dismissed by Ansar's leader, Mullah Krekar, a longtime, bitter foe of Saddam. And al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list. His name came from suspects being tortured in Jordan. Many reputable experts on terrorism scoffed at Powell's overblown charges.)

 

Sitting silently behind Powell was Central Intelligence Agency chief George Tenet. His agency has contradicted White House claims that Iraq had nuclear capability and posed an imminent threat to the U.S. or anyone else. In a recent article, former CIA Iraq desk chief Stephen Pelletiere cast doubt on the charge, repeated by Bush and Powell, that Iraq gassed its own Kurdish citizens in the town of Halabja.

 

Faked intelligence

 

Note: America's two most recent major wars - Vietnam and the Gulf - began with release of faked "intelligence" information: the non-existent Gulf of Tonkin attack in 1964, and doctored photos of a non-existent Iraqi invasion buildup on the Saudi border in 1990.

 

A more neutral observer might have concluded the U.S. was exaggerating scraps of uncorroborated information, while Iraq was trying to appear co-operative while still hiding some of its most sensitive military secrets.

 

Polls show most people around the globe remain skeptical of Powell's charges. Starting a war that could kill tens of thousands on the basis of vague audio intercepts, photos of empty buildings and defectors' tales makes no sense. Further inspections, not war, is the right answer. --Eric Margolis, 02.09.02

 

***

 

BLAIR-POWELL "DECEPTION CAN ONLY CORRODE PUBLIC TRUST" "The Government has grudgingly admitted a failure to acknowledge sources - while insisting that the information remains valid. This misses the point. Plagiarism is not the main issue. The central issue is that of public trust. At best, this episode demonstrates incompetence and the failure to oversee the most important claims which the Government puts into the public domain. At worst, a deliberate attempt to hoodwink and mislead the public will undermine trust in anything the Government says about the Iraqi threat at this vital time." 02.09.03

guardian ed |related stories

 

INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT POWELL PRAISED AS EVIDENCE CUT AND PASTED BY SECRETARY OF BLAIR'S SPIN DOCTOR AND GOFERS FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, MAJOR ONE 12 YEARS OLD "Late last Tuesday night, a three-page email started circulating among a select group of friends concerned about the impact of sanctions on Iraq... Full of academic outrage, it explained how the so-called 'secret spy dossier' published last week by the Government as a crucial plank in the argument for why the West should go to war was largely cribbed from an American postgraduate's doctoral thesis - grammatical mistakes and all - based on evidence 12 years out of date... And, to cap it all, the finished document appeared to have been cobbled together not by Middle East experts, but by the secretary of Alastair Campbell, the Government's chief spin doctor, and some gofers...One crumb of comfort is that with Blair's reputation for trustworthiness on the war already dented - a poll last week found that, while 81 per cent of Britons believe UN inspector Hans Blix, only 43 per cent trust Blair to tell the truth over the war and only 22 per cent trust Bush - the dossier debacle is unlikely to make it any worse." 02.09.03

guardian |related stories

 

Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq, Cited by Powell As Reason For War, Came From Magazines With Obsolete Data "The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals.... The document, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was posted on No. 10 Downing Street's Web site on Monday. It was depicted as an up-to-date and unsettling assessment by the British intelligence services of Iraq's security apparatus and its efforts to hide its activities from weapons inspectors and to resist international efforts to force it to disarm. But much of the material actually came, sometimes verbatim, from several nonsecret published articles, according to critics of the government's policy who have studied the documents. These include an article published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs in September 2002, as well as three articles from Jane's Intelligence Review, two of them published in the summer of 1997 and one in November 2002. In some cases, the critics said, parts of the articles — or of summaries posted on the Internet — were paraphrased in the report. In other cases, they were plagiarized — to the extent that even spelling and punctuation errors in the originals were reproduced.... But critics of the government said that not only did the document appear to have been largely cut and pasted together, but also that the articles it relied on were based on information that is, by now, obsolete.... Critics of the British and American policy toward Iraq said the report showed how little concrete evidence the two governments actually have against Iraq, as well as how poor their intelligence sources were. " 02.08.03

nyt |related stories

 

POWELL'S CLAIMS OF IRAQ-AL QAEDA CONNECTION NOT CREDIBLE "The Bush administration creates the impression that the US is still as wounded and ready to lash out as it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Centre. I am not sure that this is true of the majority of Americans, but the country's moribund political structure and the Democrats' horror of appearing unpatriotic combine to make effective opposition very difficult. The President may take comfort from the thought that Tony Blair's Gladstonian vision lends him some moral authority, but it does not wash over here. If the world has become a more dangerous place since 11 September 2001, it is not solely because of the activities of a bunch of Islamic terrorists. " 02.09.03

smith |related stories

 

POWELL'S "TERRORIST FACTORY" TURNS OUT TO BE RUINS, BAKERY "If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.' Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking." " 02.09.03

hardy |related stories

 

***

 

"MUCH U.S. EVIDENCE MUST BE ACCEPTED ON TRUST" "This is the heart of the matter. Much of the US evidence must be accepted, if it is accepted at all, on trust. Mr Powell's sources were mostly anonymous defectors, detainees, third country spooks and US intelligence. His overall case was undercut by the recycling of old tales about al-Qaida "poison plotters" in Baghdad. He refused to accept the IAEA's conclusions on Iraqi nuclear bomb-making. His evidential interpretations were often harsher than those of Hans Blix. Mr Powell certainly did the UN a service in finally opening his Iraq dossier to public view. But the way forward must now be expanded, intensified inspections equipped with this new evidence, as France proposes. Iraq must disarm. The US and Britain must not jump the gun." 02.06.03

guardian ed |related stories

 

BRITISH INTELLIGENCE CONTRADICTS POWELL. NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA, THEY SAY "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past. But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. That conclusion flatly contradicts one of the main charges laid against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by the United States and Britain - that he has cultivated contacts with the group blamed for the 11 September attacks. The report emerges even as Washington was calling Saddam a liar for denying, in a television interview with former Labour MP and minister Tony Benn, that he had any links to al-Qaeda. " 02.06.03

bbc |related stories

 

IRAQI TERRORIST GROUP POWELL IDENTIFIES AS LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA RULES KURDISH TERRORITY NOT CONTROLLED BY SADDAM AND TARGETS SADDAM AS THEIR ENEMY "As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" — the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is now at the center of the U.S. case. Powell showed a satellite photograph of what he said was a chemical weapons training center in Northern Iraq, used by al Qaeda and protected by Ansar al-Islam. "Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq," said Powell. The group, whose name means "Supporters of Islam," rules a remote portion of the autonomous northern Kurdish territories in Iraq near the Iran border, which is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government...In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to al Qaeda. "They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim." 02.06.03

abc | related stories

 

***

 

SMOLDERING GUN OF IRAQ'S NUKE PROGRAM LEFT IRAQ IN '95 FOR U.S. "In the summer of 1998, when Hamza first went public with his story about Saddam's relentless desire for the Bomb, much of the press ignored him. The country was transfixed by the saga of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But in March 2001, the scientist found himself sitting next to an influential Republican named Richard Perle at a seminar at George Washington University. He briefed Perle, one of the earliest and most vehement proponents of regime change in Iraq, about his past. "I came away very impressed, thinking this is a sensible, sober fellow," says Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's advisory Defense Policy Board. Hamza said he'd been debriefed only by low-level "civil servants" in the Clinton years. Perle soon introduced the defector to the top tier of the Bush administration, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. " 02.06.03

wp |related stories

 

IRAQI NUKE SCIENTIST LIVING IN CANADA SINCE '98 CONTRADICTS HAMZA

 

"Given its history, US intelligence should come with a health warning " "We know from experience that politicians about to go to war are not above manipulating information to heat up public opinion. They have manufactured international incidents - the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin "clash", for example, which President Johnson used to deceive the Senate into giving him a declaration of war against North Vietnam. They can be the simple peddling of "evil Hun" stories, as with the discredited accounts of Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators. History has revealed the truth about such episodes, but too late. On the few occasions we are allowed sufficient facts to form an independent assessment, the intelligence on offer is rarely persuasive. " 02.06.03

bennett+perman |related stories

 

QUESTIONED PENATGON CLASSIFIED PHOTOS USED PRIOR TO FIRST GULF WAR REMAIN CLASSIFIED "The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior's national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon's line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks." 02.06.03

o'kane |related stories

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

US claim dismissed by Blix

The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council. Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found." Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production. He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear. --The Guardian, 02.05.03

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

BUSH SPEECH "SKIMMED ALONG EDGES OF REALITY," PARTICULARLY RE SADDAM AND AL QUEDA "As far as the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is concerned, one of the most prominent authorities on the deadly terrorist group remains unimpressed by the evidence offered up to date - including Bush’s stab at connecting those dots in the State of the Union, during which he insisted that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc. (Free Press, 2001) and a fellow at the New America Foundation, told me after the speech that the Saddam/Osama connection "is really [the administration’s] default mode, isn’t it?" Bergen pointed me to his December article in the Nation, in which he pooh-poohs the Iraq/Al Qaeda link as "somewhere between tenuous and nonexistent." "Al Qaeda members live in 60 countries around the globe," Bergen wrote in the Nation, "so by the law of averages a few of them will show up in Iraq. Indeed, intelligence estimates suggest there are some 100 Al Qaeda members at large in the United States, although that is not an argument to start bombing Washington." " 02.03.03

byrne | related stories

U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS PUZZLED BY BUSH, POWELL CLAIMS OF SADDAM-AL QUEDA CONNECTION "Intelligence officials said they are puzzled by the administration's new push. "To my knowledge, there's nothing new," said a senior U.S. intelligence official who asked not to be identified. The expectation within the CIA regarding Powell's speech, the source said, "is that it's going to be more comprehensive than bombastic and new." Intelligence officials have discounted if not dismissed other information believed to point to possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA said it can find no evidence supporting post-Sept. 11 reports that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers in the attacks, met with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, Prague, in 2001. Similarly, intelligence officials described reports that Hussein is funding an Al Qaeda-connected extremist group in northern Iraq as "wildly overstated." There is no evidence so far to confirm that Iraq is arming, financing or controlling the group, known as Ansar al-Islam, one official said. "There isn't a factual basis for such assertions," the official said. " 02.03.03

lat | related stories

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Evidence For Iraq Attack Found...In U.S.

 

At a moment when Americans were hungry for reassurance that the monomaniacal focus on Iraq makes sense when the economy is sputtering, Mr. Bush offered a rousing closing argument for war, but no convincing bill of particulars. Republican senators tried to back up the president. While admitting that there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction yet, John Warner told reporters that an attack was justified "if you put together all the bits and pieces that are out there right now." Americans will never understand the Bush rationale for war if they simply look at the bits and pieces of physical evidence. They will understand the Bush rationale for war only if they look at the metaphysical evidence, the perfect storm of imperial schemes and ideological stratagems driving the desire to topple Saddam. --Maureen Dowd, 01.29.03

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

"LAST NIGHT BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"

--Katrina vanden Heuvel

 

Bush is going to get a visit from the 20 mule team soon.

 

[RobBob]

But the point is that voters need an honest candidate to run against Bush. Claiming that you are the CO of a mission when you're not, claiming that you received enemy fire when you didn't...this is more than puffery. It's dishonesty. It's like saying that you graduated with honors from university when in truth you didn't.

 

Voters are offered the choice between re-electing an idiot who has surrounded himself with lying scoundrels, or voting for a candidate who has attempted to build a "war hero" image on things he really didn't do. He's spent more time on this than he has on enunciating exactly what he'll do differently as president. Poor choice.

[foraker]

Regardless of who is lying about what and who allegedly did or didn't do something, it should at least be a requirement that the president is not, or at least does not appear to be, a complete boob.

[Off_White]

Yeah, Schachte has changed his story several times, I definitely suggest you don't vote for him, since his honesty is as much in question as anyone's in this campaign.

 

As far as the relative honesty of the two major presidential candidates, I have no doubt that both sides dissemble and mislead, but I sincerely believe that the secretive Bush administration has made lies that have killed a lot of people and squandered billions and billions of dollars. That weighs far more heavily on me than the grave doubts I have about Bush's own stories from 33 years ago, or any suspicion that Kerry may have sprayed about his war experiences. All this obsession with relatively ancient history detracts from focussing on the things that really matter, and I weary of the tired he said-she said bickering about old stuff.

 

BTW, the original "Honesty" thread was about media representation of the recent Russian hostage horrorshow, not about the US presidential campaign.

[RobBob]

OW, what motivation does a retired rear admiral have in telling the above story other than the way he remembers it? And has he changed his story about who the mission CO was, or wether or not he recommended Kerrey for a medal?

 

I think that "all this obsession" about "ancient history" came about because Kerrey chose to make the image of war hero his primary persona as a candidate. The testimony of career military people who were "there" is something entirely different from media pundits. And honesty is honesty. I started another thread because this is another example where the original issue of honesty is getting lost in people's haste to defend the positions that they have already decided to take.

[ChrisT]

All the different swift boat stories reminds me of the Meg Ryan/Denzel Washington movie "Courage Under Fire"...good flick if you haven't seen it.

[foraker]

Funny, it reminds me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz where the Wizard sez, "Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[AlpineK]

All that Swiftwater crap is just obfuscation from the real issues of the day.

 

The folks doing the obfuscating are all republican hacks trying to cover for the fact that Bush has hurt the economy, hurt our international standing, fucked the environment, and moved the country towards the christian version of a Taliban regime.

[iain]

swiftboat talk =

[RobBob]

Swiftwater is a composite of Whitewater and Swift boats?

 

AlpineK's statement pretty much sums up the dismissive approach of those who don't want to think about it. I submit to you that the likes of Schachte aren't hardened Bush cronies---they are career military guys calling bullshit because they are offended.

[foraker]

Actually, I think he's dismissive of it because it doesn't rank as high on his list as other issues which aren't getting discussed. Same as for me. For this, I blame Bush, I blame Kerry, and I blame both political parties and their supporters.

 

Oh, I also blame the news for not stepping up and taking the candidates to task over policies. It's a lot easier on their talking heads to simply report "Bush said today..." or "Kerry said..." blah blah blah.

[Off_White]

Robbob, two other veterans say they were there on the boat that night, and that Schachte wasn't.

Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte's account. Zaladonis stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." They recounted that the skimmer opened fire on suspected guerrillas attempting to evade the patrol, as they ran from sampan boats onto the shore. Both Runyon and Zaladonis believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [17] (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/) [18] (http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.htm) Zaladonis has noted that Schachte went on "a bunch of" other skimmer missions and speculated that Schachte might have inadvertently mixed up his dates. [19] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180/)

 

( source)What motive do they have to lie? Unlike Schachte, they aren't lobbyists for companies securing multi-million dollar contracts from the Bush administration. In an April 2003 Boston Globe interview, Schachte described the event as a "firefight" and that Kerry was hit (but that the injury was minor), so why did he change his story now? As I understand it, all but one of the men who served under Kerry are on his side in various SVT matters, so I'm not just taking the word of media pundits. I'm also aware of the fallibility of memory, and I know you're old enough to have 36 year old memories, and I'll wager they differ from those of others who were there with you during whatever youthful shennanigans you were engaged in.

 

I agree that the Kerry campaign made a decision to place Vietnam in the forefront of their sales pitch, and it didn't win them any points with me. I understand their reasoning, democrats traditionally have a hard time looking tough about things military, but it's not what I want to hear about it. It also makes sense that the republicans would counterattack in any way possible to make Kerry look bad, since they can't trumpet about the superior service of their candidate.

 

But don't take my word for it, St. John McCain has also denounced the whole slanderous mess.

[mattp]

I don't think you'll make much headway trying to convince anybody of anything by referring to Schachte or any of the others swifties for truth, RobBob. They've changed their own stories a few times, too, and even your post about what Schachte says fails to refute Kerry's earning a purple heart on the night in question -- unless I missed the part where he says that Kerry deliberately hurt himself.

 

It is a very well documented fact that our memories play tricks on us, especially when we are recounting traumatic events, and even more so when we have had time to sift through our memories over and over again. "Honest" accounts will differ, and it is no surprise that there might be different "memories" as to who was at the helm on some night thirty years ago. The bottom line here is that virtually everybody who served with Kerry says he is telling the truth about his record.

 

Contrast that to Bush, where there is not a single person who has come forth to say he was telling the truth about his service.

 

The bottom bottom line is that you will not believe anything good about Kerry's service, no matter what. The repubs have done a wonderful job of convincing their base that Bush represents "good," and anybody who opposes him represents or facilitates "evil." The democrats, instead of calling it for what it is, have really bungled their response to the republican smear campaign. I don't know what their problem is.

 

The Bush people lie lie lie with impunity and, despite the frequent complaints about a liberal media, the Press too has utterly failed to hold Bush and Co. responsible for its constant lying.

[j_b]

honesty? more orwellian speak from a conservative. shame on you robbob.

 

AlpineK's statement pretty much sums up the dismissive approach of those who don't want to think about it.

 

there isn't one shred of evidence supporting the swift liars' version of events. schachte wasn't even on the boat: "Bill Zaladonis and another enlisted man back up Kerry's story. They say they were in that boat with Kerry that night and Schachte was not there."

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5842595/

 

I submit to you that the likes of Schachte aren't hardened Bush cronies---they are career military guys calling bullshit because they are offended.

 

come on. it's well documented that most of these guys are long time supporters of bush/ kerry haters.

 

"schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47542-2004Aug30.html

[Greg_W]

The Bush people lie lie lie with impunity and, despite the frequent complaints about a liberal media, the Press too has utterly failed to hold Bush and Co. responsible for its constant lying.

 

Matt, let's be fair: both sides lie/spin to their own advantage. It sucks, but it's true.

[Off_White]

let's be fair

 

Let's be honest: this is not really your forte.

[RobBob]

Mattp,

 

I will agree with you on these points-

 

It is a very well documented fact that our memories play tricks on us, especially when we are recounting traumatic events, and even more so when we have had time to sift through our memories over and over again.

 

...

The Bush people lie lie lie with impunity and, despite the frequent complaints about a liberal media, the Press too has utterly failed to hold Bush and Co. responsible for its constant lying.

 

What I won't agree with you on is that I would not be willing to think highly of Kerry if there were a persuasive amount of evidence saying that he was in fact a war hero in his swift boat days. It's pretty clear that he wasn't, and he engaged in a steady effort to build a resume.

 

A buddy of mine, who worked around a lot of swift boats while inserting into and extracting from the Vietnamese jungle at night, puts it this way: "He protested the war after he served; I don't think that's a character flaw. He bullshitted about his career, which I've got a problem with. But perhaps the biggest offense he committed was that he testified before congress that most of us who were there committed atrocities. I certainly didn't, and I know of no one who did."

[ChrisT]

From the NYTimes:

 

The Latest Poll

By LEE KALCHEIM

 

Published: September 7, 2004

 

 

 

40 percent of parents who dislike 30 percent of their children prefer George W. Bush.

 

•

 

60 percent of households that fly flags think America can do no wrong 26 percent of the time.

 

•

 

70 percent of women who think Mr. Bush is more likeable than their husbands preferJohn Kerry.

 

•

 

52 percent of people with wall-to-wall carpeting dislike Mr. Bush's plan for redecorating Iraq.

 

•

 

98 percent of people who are hearing-impaired like 50 percent of what they hear from Mr. Bush.

 

•

 

100 percent of Spanish-American War veterans are dead.

 

•

 

98 percent of World War I veterans can't remember the name of either candidate. Both prefer Coolidge.

 

•

 

43 percent of women think Mr. Bush has more presidential hair. 26 percent think John Edwards has more vice presidential hair. 47 percent think Mr. Edwards has more presidential hair and 26 percent think Mr. Kerry has more vice presidential hair. 92 percent think Dick Cheney has no hair. 73 percent think Mr. Bush's hair is irrelevant. 54 percent think Mr. Bush is irrelevant.

 

•

 

76 percent of women think Teresa Heinz Kerry colors her hair. 53 percent of those women would prefer a different color. 42 percent would prefer a different first lady.

 

One-half of all Jewish mothers like one-half of Mr. Kerry.

 

•

 

63 percent of single women over 50 think John Kerry is too tall for his own good. 71 percent of divorced women say George Bush would be an ideal ex-husband.

 

•

 

Before the Republican convention, 86 percent of the population thought Zell Miller was a professional golfer. After the convention, 92 percent of the population would not like to be in his foursome.

 

•

 

50 percent of the electorate think that polls are misleading, inaccurate and inconclusive. The other 50 percent agree 30 percent of the time with 40 percent of the results.

 

Lee Kalcheim is a writer for television and theater whose most recent play is "Defiled."

[iain]

80 percent of oregon state fans are considering suicide after this weekend's game vs. LSU.

[mattp]

Lets be fair then, Greg. What lies have the Dems told that comes close to

 

A. lying about the fundamental reasons why we invaded Iraq (yellow cake ring a bell? terrorist training camp on Iran border? ongoing weapons programs?)

 

or, more recently,

 

B. lying about Kerry's record of voting against military weapons programs (apparently, none of the programs in quesiton ever came up for a vote, and the votes in question were supported by the Bush company's hawks).

 

C. Repeatedly insinuating as a theme at the National Convention that the Clinton admin was weak on terrorism and Bush was strong on this issue - before 9-11 (Bush's team tanked Clinton's anti-terrism efforts, Condoleeza did not attend any meetings on this topic, and they even complained how the Clintonites were "obsessed" with terrorism)

 

 

Oh yes. "I did not have sex with that woman."

[mattp]

RobBob,

I haven't really paid much attention to Kerry's Vietnam heroism other than to think, like Off White, it was probably a mistake to try to capitalize off his 33 year old record. I am willing to cede that his service may not have been quite as heroic as they portray. But the main reason we are even talking about this is because the Bush company has worked so hard to smear him, knowing they are vulnerable on this issue. Otherwise everybody would be going, zzzzzzzzzzz.

 

His testimony before Congress about atrocities, as far as I recall, was simply a restatement of what had already been reported elsewhere. I haven't read where he said that MOST of the Americans serving in Vietnam committed atrocities. Can you cite a source?

 

If what you are saying is that he was self serving, and this is something you dissapprove of, I agree. However, isn't the Bush administration the most self-serving administration we've seen in recent memory?

[Greg_W]

HOLY FUCK, MATT!!! YOU'RE RIGHT: THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF HONESTY, TRUTH, AND WHOLESOMENESS!! I'LL RUN OUT RIGHT NOW AND REGISTER AS A DEMOCRAT. THEY'LL MAKE AMERICA GREAT!! JOHN KERRY WILL BE MY SURROGATE DAD AND JOHN EDWARDS CAN BE MY BESTEST, FAVORITEST UNCLE!!

 

You are fucking dillusional if you think that the Democratic machine is all squeeky clean and honest in their communication and media releases. That is what you are implying, or simply avoiding, by bashing Bush. I see this as nothing more than blindly following whatever liberal ideology you have. Bush isn't my favorite, but he's better than Kerry, in my opinion.

 

Greg_W

[mattp]

Instead of replying with a bunch of BS, Greg, how 'bout you answer my challenge? Have the Democrats, and Kerry in particular, lied about such significant matters?

 

Are you going to trot out "Kosovo" again? Whitewater?

[AlpineK]

Greg and RobBob are portraying typical republican tactics. They want to avoid the real issues of the day because the current president is a spineless fratboy who ran three businesses into the ground and is now in the process of running the USA into the ground.