It is a misrepresentation to say that the men making up the Swift Boat Veterans group were “chicken hawks”. The group was founded by people who served with John Kerry. Every single officer in John Kerry’s chain of command endorsed the group.

John Kerry returned from the war and slandered these same individuals. He made many claims that were demonstrable false and ultimately he admitted as much. These claims included illegally being in Cambodia on Christmas day and witnessing atrocities committed by U.S. servicemen.

Obviously those that were slandered were furious. The very members of the group you would have expected to be in his own “band of brothers” were his biggest critics. I have never been in combat. I agree with hs that it is up to the people who were there to judge the actions of other servicemen. That is exactly what happened in this case.

Excellent points, Dan. It’s unfortunate that the anti-Kerry smearers chose to denigrate a decorated war hero for his war service. It’s no accident that the chickenhawk Republicans did this. These are the same people that disrespected and insulted wounded vets, and all people in the service, by handing out Purple Heart band-aids at the 2004 convention. They are remarkably anti-vet, and incredible hypocrites.

Comment by William

Sorry William, the republicans are not anti-vet. In fact, veterans benefits increased under the Bush administration by than more than 20% But if you want to look at hypocrisy, look no farther than your beloved democrats and Bill Clinton. Who is the one dodged the draft during the Vietnam War and then condemned our military overseas during that war. Clinton. Then who sent our troops into battle in Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia , which by the way, who are still there? It was Clinton. So it was Clinton who refused to serve when his time came, but yet had no problem sending other soldiers into battle. This all gets lost among the hypocritial liberal democrats as it always does. You hav e the gall to call, the republicans hypocritical. There are other facets of hypocrisy concerning the dems. But that’s for a later argument.

Some good points made in here. Lost in all of this debate though, in my opinion, is this: Did it really affect the outcome? I don’t think it did. He would have lost anyway in my opinion. I disagree with Bush as much as anyone, but I don’t think Kerry would have done any better of a job as Bush in the end.

Excellent point David H. Let’s not forget how this traitor John Kerry accused his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes by which he showed absolutely no evidence in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So yes, these veterans had every right to be angry at this piece of crap. I have a good friend living in Chicago who served in Vietnam. And it was good thing Kerry was standing before or he would punched Kerry’s lights out. And so would have I, if I was in that situation. And for Kerry to call these soliders war criminals is saying this friend of mine committed war crimes. If a person is going to accuse American GIs of such atrocities, then show the evidence. HE DID NOT. John Kerry is a loser as far as I’m concerned.

I doubt John Kerry really meant what he said when he accused Vietnam veterans of behaving in a matter reminiscent of Genghis Khan. He was just trying to impress Jane Fonda. Who could blame him after seeing Barbarella. She sure looked better in that movie than sitting on that anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi wearing that goofy helmet.

However, I think Jane has paid her dues after being married to the insufferable Ted Turner for all those years.

In his book, “Tour of Duty,” Kerry made the blanket statement that the Cobra gunship pilots average age was 19 and that they killed civilians, “for sport.” He didn’t name any dates. Didn’t give any names. Didn’t list any places. When he came back, he said everybody in Nam committed war crimes and that it was sanctioned all up and down the chain of command.

When he ran for President, he said he was “reporting for duty” and made his four months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. When the almost 300 men who were there with him, tried to dispute his accounts, they were smeared. Their claims have not been repudiated.

For almost four decades, he has been smearing Vietnam vets. We are tired of being “kerry’d.”

The Swift Boat Veterans and POWs organization disbanded, after the election. They no longer talk about him. When Kerry endorsed Obama, he started pushing the term “swiftboated,” again.

By the way, he STILL has not signed the DD180 form.

William,

Do you even KNOW what a “chickenhawk” is?

Who cares about Lurch…he’s got his ketchup fortune now and seems to be happy with his crazy wife - but why the long face?

JMP should be careful when casting stones at Bill Clinton for utilizing deferments…seems that Mr. Cheney made no bones about having “had other priorities than military service”,,,,,

And how about Karl and Roy and Pat and Newt and Phil and George and Clarence and Dennis and Dick and Tom and Trent and - oh, heck, my fingers are tired…

Oh I just have to throw this out there. Considering the chorus, no anthem of the left regarding military service and the ability to lead. Specifically “chickenhawks” and Congressionals without family serving. Does that mean that John McCain has an instant one up on both Obama and Clinton? Since he dutifully served and spent time as a POW for our nation. Since he has two sons serving in the military, one returning home from Iraq. Does that me he has the moral authority and knowledge to lead above and beyond Obama/Clinton as was the argument for Kerry over Bush? Just curious.

Didn’t Al Gore also do his duty in Viet Nam? I realize he wasn’t in a combat unit, but he was actually THERE, and did what the army required him to do.