 |
|
« Fun with Voter Fraud! | Main | NY Sun: "Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge" (UPDATED) » October 13, 2004
Another Interview with a Swift Vet
Posted by Bill Dean has another exclusive interview, this time with anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vet George Elliott. The fact that Elliot previously helped John Kerry in his 1996 Senate Campaign has been a major criticism of the "Swift Vets and POW's for Truth," so I found this snippet particularly interesting: DW: Are you a Republican? GE: No I'm not. I'm registered as an independent voter and have never voted a straight ticket in my life that I recall. I have not always voted for one party or the other on the national ticket--presidents, senators, congressmen, so forth. DW: Is it true that you campaigned on behalf of Senator Kerry in the 1990s, and if so, why are you involved in this effort against him now? GE: Campaign is the wrong word. In 1996 a Boston Globe reporter named, Warsh I believe it was, in 1996, he wrote an article that very strongly implied that John Kerry, in the Silver Star incident, had simply executed a wounded Viet Cong soldier. In Warsh's words, he had issued a "coup de grace," which we found deeply offensive. So, with several members of John Kerry's crew, Admiral Zumwalt and Captain Adrian Lonsdale and I went to speak out against accusations of war crimes by the Navy. We went to Boston to support Kerry in this accusation of a war crime. It was as much to defend the Navy and my outfit as it was to stand with John Kerry. This was a specious inference and we couldn't let it stand. It had very little to do with politics in my view. In my opening remarks at the press conference on the piers down at the old Boston Navy Yard in Massachussetts, my remarks were, "I am not here to support Senator Kerry, I am here to support Lt(jg) Kerry." And I made that distinction for two reasons. First I didn't want anyone to think I was a carpetbagger there to inject myself into a campaign in Massachussetts, and second I wanted to make it clear that I was there to defend the Navy against accusations of war crimes. I still find it pretty strange that he would have bothered to support Kerry at all, but he continues: DW: Were you aware of what Kerry said about war crimes in his testimony before Congress in the early 1970s? GE: Absolutely. At that time I think most of us considered that in the past. As long as John Kerry was a Massachussetts Senator we had no, I had no reason to interject myself into any campaign he was running or not running. DW: I've also been asked why it is you guys took 30 years to come forward with your allegations against the Senator. Do you have any response to that? GE: Absolutely I have a response. First of all as I just said, when Kerry was a politician in Massachussetts, representing Massachussetts, we had no stake in that game. Now that he wants to be Commander In Chief, we have a big stake in the game. His actions over the years were despicable and dishonorable. It's now a national position that he's seeking. It's certainly possible to arrive at different conclusions about the Swift Vets' various condemnations, but it's shameful the way that the Mainstream Media initially ignored these men, and then wrote them off by promoting a deceptive conventional wisdom about partisan motivations. Read the whole thing and decide for yourself. Posted by Bill at October 13, 2004 12:39 PM | TrackBack (1) CommentsUmmmm, he's almost as good a flimflam man as Kerry. Posted by: mshyde at October 13, 2004 01:28 PM mshyde: Explain? Posted by: Jay Allen at October 13, 2004 01:31 PM Explain what, my personal impression of what this fellow is stating NOW? Posted by: mshyde at October 13, 2004 01:34 PM Well, that gives us a clue ... Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 13, 2004 01:38 PM mshyde - What flim-flam? Elliott spoke up in defense of his outfit and the Navy and only by extension, Kerry. As a senator, Kerry had nothing to do with command decisions or apparently anything else as his senate voting record shows. It is a far different thing to be running for the job of Commander in Chief. Elliott and his fellow Swift Boat veterans had to speak up. They couldn't allow a fraud and a charlatan to stand in front of the American people and tell lies about his war record and let stand the disgraceful accusations against Viet Nam war veterans. So I ask again, what flim-flam? Posted by: erp at October 13, 2004 01:48 PM If he found the "coup de grace" accusations against Kerry "deeply offensive" in `96, why is he now associating himself with a group that is making precisely the same accusation today? "Flip flop" doesn't begin to describe this nonsense! Posted by: A Hermit at October 13, 2004 02:05 PM Hermit, If you had bothered to read the books or transcripts of the interviews you would know that the Swift Vets are not accusing Kerry of providing a "coup de grace". In fact they said it was brave of him to have jumped off the boat to shoot a wounded but obviously still armed and dangerous viet cong. What they dispute is what was in the action report that was written by Kerry. I'm not going to rehash it here. Do some reading. From what I have investigated these are honest men. Kerry is the opportunist. Posted by: Somebody who reads at October 13, 2004 02:36 PM Guess it's my day in the barrel! :) His timing guys. He could have stood up and said this earlier and didn't. Posted by: mshyde at October 13, 2004 02:46 PM I think it's legit to debate the motivations and all, but it's not legit when the media dismisses 200+ decorated vets as republican shills that have no other point. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 13, 2004 03:03 PM I don't want any of you to get the wrong impression about my original post. Considering there are swift vets that are campaigning FOR Kerry, I am questioning this ones timing. That is all. Posted by: mshyde at October 13, 2004 03:10 PM I didn't get that they campaigned for Kerry, mshyde. I get that they were in a position to defend his honor and his record when Kerry was wrongly accused and/or misrepresented for executing a VC. That was the truth. And now, the truth is, Kerry is misrepresenting his own service in order for political gain. These 200-some-odd men disagree with the claims he's made to do that so, once again, they're setting the record straight. That's what happens when you let priciples (contrary to politics) guide your actions - sometimes you defend someone's honor, sometimes you deride the same person when they in turn act dishonorably. I don't see anything incongruous or hypocritical about any of their actions. They're Swift Vets for Truth, not Swift Vets for Bush, nor are they Swift Vets Against Kerry. Posted by: willow at October 13, 2004 04:04 PM To be fair, they are pretty much Swift Vets "against Kerry" and not "for Bush." The claims that they somehow support Republicans are BS. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 13, 2004 04:28 PM That's probably closer to the mark.. Posted by: willow at October 13, 2004 05:00 PM Hmmm... thought a 5 yard penalty should have been assessed for back-peddaling by mshype.... but let's go to the booth for a review.... Posted by: OneDrummer at October 13, 2004 05:10 PM OneDrummer Let's get one thing straight. I am not backpeddling. Besides, I don't play football. :) Posted by: mshyde at October 13, 2004 05:53 PM That's okay. Bill has a new penalty system in place that doesn't involve football, but it sounds like it. ;) I agree with Willow's statement about Elliot.. and yes, many things can be reported out of context, truncated etc. IMHO, it seemed like labeling Elliott almost as good a flim-flam man as Kerry deserved a penalty... but, I don't get to carry a lil yellow flag in my pocket. :) Posted by: OneDrummer at October 13, 2004 07:37 PM "His timing guys. He could have stood up and said this earlier and didn't. AT what point earlier? Honestly, I can see not being all the concerned about a senator from a state you aren't a citizen of, but being concerned, when that person is going to become commander in chief. Also, keep in mind that what really bothers these men is what Kerry did, when he came home, and branded veterans with the broad brush of "war criminal" I have seen some interviews with these guys, and none of them have said they believed Kerry was a war ciminal. The charge they were defending Kerry against in his senate campaign was just that-one of Kerry being a war criminal. These guys didn't/don't paint Kerry with the dame brush Kerry painted them with, when he gave his testimony and protested the war. Their motivation is anger at Kerry's actions-not so much a love for Bush. Also, I think the MSM has done these guys a bit of disservice, while I don't think all of them have altruistic motivations, I think it is unfair and wrong to paint all of them as liars-I think there is a lot of truth in what most of these guys are saying.
Posted by: Just Me at October 13, 2004 07:56 PM Along with Just Me's comment, several of the Swift Vets have pointed out that Doug Brinkley's version of Kerry's history was very motivational. You don't necessarily know how someone's representing their history to others. But when you put the different histories together and they don't line up - something is fishy. Posted by: Al at October 14, 2004 01:24 AM Hyde, your rationalizations remind one of a adolesent. The public school system (I'm assuming you're one of their products based on many years of observations) is that far gone that reading comprehension of materail with any complexity (hence the MSM's gearing their material for a sixth grade comprehension level) context and differentiation are totally lost on so many people. Posted by: Sharpshooter at October 14, 2004 10:43 AM its not a conservative thing, its not a liberal thing, its not even a democratic or republican thing...ITS A MILITARY thing--If you haven't served within earshot of angry gunfire, and juuuust possibly (but I kinda doubt it)if you have served, but in only a peacetime support function---you wouldn't understand-- hence alla this DU hand wringing I see above Just saw the latest ones--think I read they bought time to air em on ABC's Monday night football---wonder if they'll try to spike em or is the capitalist spirit there just too strong?? He's toast...that should answer some of the (scratch out snide) skeptical observations I read above This is the difference between a driveby shooting in S Central LA by wanna be thugs and a raid in Fallujah by SOLDIERS-- those "torpedoes" are gonna enter you know where, and explode just under his adam's apple Choose...Domesticate or Eradicate Posted by: Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain at October 15, 2004 11:41 AM just look across that "formation" of men---do you see your dad, grandfather, brother, husband looking back at you?? I can't get the hyperlink insert to work--there's a direct link to them on Beldar's Blog, though "Look at Bud Day, in his flight jacket and his Medal of Honor, and listen to him deliver, in measured, deadly serious tones, this simple, devastating question: "How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?"
This is the parade they never got, to paraphrase Ralph Peters Posted by: Ignore the Man Behind The Curtain at October 15, 2004 12:15 PM 4420 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org Posted by: free credit report at October 24, 2004 04:56 AM 3152 http://www.slots-big.com slots Posted by: slots at October 24, 2004 07:49 PM 2383 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem Posted by: texas holdem at October 25, 2004 02:11 AM 4496 http://www.online-casino-one.com Posted by: online casino at October 26, 2004 01:09 AM |
