August 24, 2004

Kiss it, Kerry!
Posted by McQ

[Begin brief vulgar interlude]

Drudge is reporting that Kerry called one of the Swifties and had the following conversation:

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

If so, and as one of the "rest of the veterans" I'd like to say to Mr. Kerry ... you can kiss my ass, you lying sack of shit. You still don't get it, do you, you freakin' clown!?

[End brief vulgar interlude.]

Back to your regularly scheduled programs

TrackBack

Comments

I'm not a vet, but I too thought that was a particularly rude and egregious comment.

Posted by: Chris at August 24, 2004 04:09 PM

LMFAO what a clown. His support with Vets is going to drop another 18 points.

He truly is his own worst enemy. He can't handle this, can you imagine him facing down Kim Jong Il or Iran?!?! We'd be toast.

Posted by: shark at August 24, 2004 04:34 PM

All I did was stab millions of soldiers in the back while they were serving their country, why do they hate me? I just dont get it, oh yeah i'm a billionaire!

Posted by: The KGB at August 24, 2004 05:15 PM

Frankly, after the things he's said, it's hard to imagine any veteran could vote for him.

Posted by: MartiniPundit at August 24, 2004 05:40 PM

Did you read this?

Wow, the front wheels must have popped right off.

Posted by: capt joe at August 24, 2004 05:40 PM

What a perfect, crystalline balance of arrogance and ignorance.

Posted by: Jumbo at August 24, 2004 07:17 PM

Gullible does not begin to describe this post.

What is Drudge's source for the story? "Sources." That's it.

Given that most if not all of these Swift Vets have turned out to be f***ing liars, (today it was French and Gardner's turn), why in the world would anyone believe Drudge?

Sources my ass.

Here's comes the backlash ....

Posted by: mkultra at August 24, 2004 08:01 PM

MK: Were you going to tell us about Alston? Or was it "Christmas in Cambodia"? Or that first Purple Heart?

Can't remember which.

Posted by: McQ at August 24, 2004 08:17 PM

Since Kerry had not in fact accused "all the rest of the veterans" (he was relaying the testimony of 150 veterans who had asserted that they themselves committed such acts), I think it's very unlikely he would now assert that he had made such a huge over-generalization.

On the other hand, people attacking him have frequently misrepresented what he said in his testimony — as his claiming to have witnessed the events in question personally, or as his accusing all Vietnam veterans, neither of which were true — when his actual words were still on the record to prove the misrepresentations false.

So I think it's quite possible and even likely that this has happened again — that his words are now being misrepresented in a situation where what he actually said is not on the record to refute the misrepresentation.

In fact, we are being offered no evidence, beyond the bare assertion, that this conversation ever took place.

But this is consistent with the rest of the smear campaign, since bare assertion is also all the evidence the SBVT have presented for any other accusation.

Posted by: Raven at August 24, 2004 08:22 PM

Raven,

Nice try. Now go look up what Kerry said in interviews around the same time, e.g. on Meet the Press in 1971. You'll find that illuminating.

Posted by: Fredrik Nyman at August 24, 2004 09:28 PM

Since Kerry had not in fact accused "all the rest of the veterans"

You are in error. From Kerry's 22 April 1971 testimony:

"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.

[...]


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.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 24, 2004 09:28 PM

Hmm. I'm picturing MK curled up in a fetal ball right about now whimpering, a la the folks at the Dhimmicrat convention, "c'mon backlash . . . cue backlash, where the f is the f'in backlash, what's wrong with you people . . . I need more backlash . . . please pretty please backlash . . . backlash? . . . backlash? . . . and gently sobbing itself to sleep.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at August 24, 2004 10:53 PM

mkultra: "What is Drudge's source for the story? "Sources." That's it.....Sources my ass."
====
Associated Press http://snipurl.com/8n4j :
Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant, a member of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said Kerry called him Sunday night and asked if he was aware of the group's activities.

"I said, `I am one, John,"' said Brant, who had appeared at a news conference announcing the group in May. "There was a moment of hesitation and he said, `I appreciate your honesty.' He said, `Well, why are you?"'

Brant said he told Kerry he was most upset about Kerry's protests after returning from the war, when he accused soldiers of committing atrocities. "I said, `You know that's not true,"' Brant said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "That's been simmering in me about 35 years."

Brant said Kerry said he didn't mean everyone in the war was involved in the atrocities. The Massachusetts senator also offered to meet to discuss their differences, Brant said. He said he declined, saying, "I know what I know."

Brant, who like Kerry was skipper of a Navy swift boat patrolling the Mekong Delta in 1968-1969 and now lives in Virginia, said he did not witness any of the incidents that led to Kerry winning medals. Others in the swift boat group have appeared in a television ad questioning whether Kerry lied to get them. . . .

Posted by: The Third Man at August 25, 2004 12:22 AM

Well Clinton must be doing handstands as Kerry implodes. Saywhat you will about Clinton, Kerry makes him look like a saint.

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at August 25, 2004 01:13 AM

Matt Drudge and a Swiftliar? Funny.

I'm still waiting for the first conservative blogger to mention what happened to the #1 Swiftie tonight on Hannity & Colmes. He was exposed for the liar, hypocrite, and hack that he is. Poor student of history too--forgetting that Nixon taped their little chats.

When you get bitchslapped by Alan Colmes, you are not ready for this level of competition.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at August 25, 2004 03:10 AM

Geek, could you possibly give some details that support your contention about Hannity & Colmes? Your over-the-top style does not give you much credibility on this: details might give you some.

Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 25, 2004 09:16 AM

See this link:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/004317.html

The Nixon tapes have been the worst thing for the Republican party, ever.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at August 25, 2004 09:41 AM

Colmes took some quotes out of context. Par for the course for the MSM.

Posted by: Harlan Pepper at August 25, 2004 09:41 AM

Geek: What in the world does that URL (which does not mention Hannity and Colmes and just imagines a contradiction where none exists) have to do with your previous post?

Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 25, 2004 11:52 AM

Lance Jonn Romanoff says,

Since Kerry had not in fact accused "all the rest of the veterans"

You are in error. From Kerry's 22 April 1971 testimony:
And then Lance quotes a portion, highlighting in boldface the portions he views as accusing all the veterans: "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 ... I would like to talk, representing all those veterans ..."

Wow, that's some serious accusation he's making there, Lance.   He's representing 1,000 veterans, and that somehow accuses all the veterans?

But here's what you seem to think is your money quote:

"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."

So here's the heart of Kerry's "accusation":   that Vietnam veterans will feel angry and betrayed because they've been sent to die for nothing; and that such anger on the part of trained warriors is something to watch out for.

So that's what you find offensive?   Wow.   As if claiming someone wouldn't feel angry over such a reason wouldn't be a worse accusation.

Posted by: Raven at August 28, 2004 09:01 AM