Swift Boat Vets to set record straight

I did read it, it seems that Elliot wants to play both sides of the fences.

:shrug:

Why would he recommend him and also give him props in 1996, get in touch with a bunch of guys who didn't serve on the boat with him, and then change his mind? Why wouldn't he talk to the guys who were on the boat with him, that confirmed that he did what was said in his citation?

Hmmm?

Could it be that it's funded by one of the biggest Republican donors in Texas? Couldn't have anything to do with it, huh?

-A

P.S. The source of the Swift Boat group's financing wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston.

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .(Which is located at: http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSe...p;formType=E72)

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according the a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Ilvane]

He isn't playing both sides of the fence. The article in the Boston Globe was full of crap, and to prove it he signed an affidavit reaffirming his position the day after it came out. The author of the article in the the Boston Globe took statements out of context, along with a few minor fabrications to make it seem like Captain Elliot supported his own view point.

Read over the affidavit he signed. it makes things pretty damned clear.

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Jack]

Wait Jack..he came and was campaigning with Kerry in 1996, said Kerry deserved his medal, and then changed his mind and said that Kerry didn't deserve his medal, then said he did deserve his medal, and he had made a mistake, then said he didn't deserve his medal again, and signed another affidafit.

So he's a reliable source, right?

-A

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ilvane
Wait Jack..he came and was campaigning with Kerry in 1996, said Kerry deserved his medal, and then changed his mind and said that Kerry didn't deserve his medal, then said he did deserve his medal, and he had made a mistake, then said he didn't deserve his medal again, and signed another affidafit.

So he's a reliable source, right?

-A

---

Kerry does the same thing, I guess that means he isn't reliable either?

Read the affidavit. His position never changed. He did not tell the reporter at the Globe that his position changed.

I'm sorry all the guys on his boat were there to support him. The one that was not there was not alive anymore. Read about those who were on the boat with him, and the guy who he pulled on board and saved his life..

Whatever you say, you can't take that away.

-A

He shot a wounded man in the back while he was running away, then put himself in for the silver star. Yep, he's a war hero all right.....

You do realize in a war you're not supposed to let people who want to kill you escape so they can try to kill you again? And if he had let him go? And the wounded, enemy soldier got to cover, turned and opened fire, killing several of them? Had that happened Bush's paid attack dogs would be on Kerry's case for that. Or calling him an enemy sympathizer if the guy had got away. Pathetic.

Raven

He shot a man that was running to get more weapons to blow up his boat, and did it to save the lives of his shipmates.

You know, even Bush says he doesn't dispute Kerry's service. Some of these attacks are pathetic and sad, and the simple truth is they are still angry that Kerry came back after the war and protested. Plain and simple.

It's a disgusting way of politics, and well..very similar to what the same group of ad makers did to McCain when he was running for president, questioning his mental stability.

They have nothing else to run on, so they resort to personal attacks.

-A

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Ilvane]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You do realize in a war you're not supposed to let people who want to kill you escape so they can try to kill you again? And if he had let him go? And the wounded, enemy soldier got to cover, turned and opened fire, killing several of them? Had that happened Bush's paid attack dogs would be on Kerry's case for that. Or calling him an enemy sympathizer if the guy had got away. Pathetic.

Raven

---

Exactly. Take Saving Private Ryan for example. Shows what happens when you let the enemy go.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ilvane
They have nothing else to run on, so they resort to personal attacks.

---

If by they you mean the swiftboat vets, then yes, they have nothing else to run on. They are only swiftboat vets, not politicians.

[Edited on 8-7-2004 by Hulkein]