Check out this attack ad on Kerry

You want a 30 second ad or a 30 minute ad? Anyway Northgate maybe going to the web site would be a good idea?

That's dispicable slander by a buncha disgruntled opinionated Republican vets

and its about as low as you can get

Also I find it funny (ironic like a lie funny) that a military doctor remembers John Kerry 40 years later. Bullshit!!! Military hospitals are impersonal machines. You don't get aquatinted with a doctor and remember said healer 40 years later; likewise a doctor who treats a man in an afternoon (removed shrapnel and documented the removal of said shrapnel) and remember that face. Even if Kerry made his face known when he returned stateside. It's damn hard to remember causal contacts in the military because you see so many new people all the time(probably more-so in a military hospital in a war zone).

Originally posted by Anders
All these men served with John Kerry? I guess Bush is thinking "Damn. If only one of them would say I served with GWB" :lol:

Whether he was a good soldier or a sub standard soldier, he still fought for our country (for usa peoples).

Military service records are relative, if people in charge of you dont like you then they can write bad things about you. The truth can be distorted and misinterpreted later, and it is usually not worth the effort disputing derogatory information at the time if its really not that bad. Disputing what a superior has written about you could worsen the relationship between you and your superior (who thinks they are "leading" by pointing out what they feel to be your shortcomings).

If Kerry didnt get along with his superiors for whatever reason they would feel inclined to write poorly of him. This is just the way it is and Im sure its true for many jobs.

Even if his evaluation reports were subpar, as long as he had no misconduct I applaud his (and all other veterans) service in war.

Originally posted by faust9
Also I find it funny (ironic like a lie funny) that a military doctor remembers John Kerry 40 years later. Bullshit!!! Military hospitals are impersonal machines. You don't get aquatinted with a doctor and remember said healer 40 years later; likewise a doctor who treats a man in an afternoon (removed shrapnel and documented the removal of said shrapnel) and remember that face. Even if Kerry made his face known when he returned stateside. It's damn hard to remember causal contacts in the military because you see so many new people all the time(probably more-so in a military hospital in a war zone).

Maybe it stuck in his mind since he realized it was a self inflicted wound. :err:

Kerry is a joke.

Bush in '04.

i heard an interview with one of the guys in that group that claims that during the now famous incident where he (kerry) saves the life of one of the swift boat members, that Kerry ordered his boat to flee from the scene as one of the three boats were sinking and three guys were in the water and all of the crew on the sinking boat were unconscious. This guy was on the boat that stayed to get the downed crew. he claims that the boat was hit by a remote controlled mine in the water and it blew the boat 6 feet out of the water.

He said that Kerry's boat returned only after there was no more firing and it was clear. He claims that in Kerry's AAR, Kerry claims that he fled for three miles under fire. This guy said that they receive little to no return fire after the initial mine attack. These guys are the members of the other two boats that were on the same patrol and in the very same location at the time of this particular attack.

pflam i think that you are wrong about them just being disgruntled vets. They did the same job as him and actually served with and around him. I think that they may have a valid point of view, regardless of party affiliation.

Edit: If kerry is going to run on his Vietnam "hero" persona then his service record is fair game. And if there are people that are standing up and saying that it is not as sterling as he puts forth. You should at least take a listen. It has been my experience that Vets only talk highly of other vets unless there is good reason. Not to say that it could all be political, just that it is worth considering.

I was going to give a longer reply but Northgate already said it best.

Like I've said the mudslinging has already begun.

I imagine it would be easy to have served in Vietnam, had something against the war, and have a group of vets who don't like you. ;)

Originally posted by NaplesX
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands."

I checked out the site and there are no political references other than the fact that kerry is using their photos to forward his campaign and that the stories he is telling do not match the facts as they see them.

You're more naive than I thought Naples. You're usually more adept than this. Come on.

Originally posted by NaplesX
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a tax exempt non-partisan public advocacy "527" organization that consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands."

I checked out the site and there are no political references other than the fact that kerry is using their photos to forward his campaign and that the stories he is telling do not match the facts as they see them.
You didn't look hard enough:
Smear Boat Veterans for Bush
The "swift boat" veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the same vicious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

printe-mail

May 4, 2004 | The latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service.

These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004.

Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."

Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut.

Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)

Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)

Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)

In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)

When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator.

The veteran group's founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance.

Until now, Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and "scorekeeping" may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9/11 commission.

After journalist Gregory Vistica exposed the Thanh Phong massacre and the surrounding circumstances in the New York Times magazine three years ago, conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell took particular note of the cameo role played by Kerrey's C.O., who had warned his men not to return from missions without enough kills. "One of the myths due to die as a result of Vistica's article is that which holds the war could have been won sensibly and cleanly if the 'suits' back in Washington had merely left the military men to their own devices," Caldwell wrote. "In this light, one of the great merits of Vistica's article is its portrait of the Kurtz-like psychopath who commanded Kerrey's Navy task force, Capt. Roy Hoffmann."

Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq.

Originally posted by giant
You didn't look hard enough: You are right, I did not look to hard. But what i was looking for was blatant references and links to Kerry-bashing sites. You know the usual on smear sites. It appeard to me that they have legitimate issues with his service record. Mind, you I am not saying that I swallow everything or that I think that there is no political bias at play.

It seems that the motivation is to separate themselves from the Kerry Campaign rather than support Bush's, even though that may be a side effect. That is what I was commenting on.

Originally posted by NaplesX
It seems that the motivation is to separate themselves from the Kerry Campaign rather than support Bush's, even though that may be a side effect. That is what I was commenting on.
Would it hurt you to read before replying? Now posted for the second time
Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."

Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut.

Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)

Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)

Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)

In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)

When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator.

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me you aren't serious.

It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it. I am actually hoping more and more that the crazed left gets their wish. I mean, come on GWB is fairly predictable and we know that in this time that some see as "wartime", that what we really need to focus on is.. well, John Kerry.

"As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas."

"When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down."

"John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office."

"As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies."

"As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down."

"As president, John Kerry will implement a "Restore America's Waters" campaign, an integrated approach to protecting our precious, limited water resources. He will work with states on the toughest water quality challenges, restore damaged watersheds, protect wetlands, invest in our waterfronts and coastal communities, and protect our oceans."

"...John Kerry will reduce gang violence..."

"As president, John Kerry will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act..."

I'll give him one thing, he has confidence in himself.

Go Johnny, Go.

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me you aren't serious.

It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it.

Uh oh, SDW has popped a rivet...

"Insanely liberal"? His voting record in the senate puts him bout the middle of the pack, right wing talking points not withstanding.

"Screwed the intel, military and security of the US"? I guess you're talking about the distorted bookkeeping of the Bush campaign, where a vote against an omnibus spending bill that breaks the bank and has little support on either side of the aisle gets counted as a "vote against America's security" and a vote against any bill that anywhere in it proposes a tax decrease, no matter how otherwise flawed or unpopular, is counted a "vote to raise taxes"' and a vote against continued funding of a program never enacted, the money for which was being hoarded and which was de-funded even more decisively by the republican senate on the same day is counted as a "vote against intel".

You must know the "reenacted battle scenes" is bullshit, right? I mean, you would have to have your head completely up your ass not to have figured that out by now, and I would never say that of you.

As far as admitting war crimes, it's not a shameful secret that someone just happened to get on video. Kerry came back from Vietnam shaken by what he and his fellow soldiers had ended up doing. He spoke bravely of how the confusion of ends and means and us and them had led the soldiers in Vietnam into impossible situations. It is why he turned against the war, and he had the character to include himself among the guilty.

Naturally, bush would never be caught in the shameful act of admitting error.

So anyway, that's your list of Kerry crimes? Because they are all lies. And not "he said/she said" lies, but flat out lies that anyone who cares can verify from the public record.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me loath what has become of the American right: the deeply embedded dishonesty, the reflexive reach for whatever will serve to attack opponents without the least concern for accuracy, decency or sense.

When this kind of stuff becomes a regular part of the public discourse it does damage to our ability to solve our problems and move ahead. It shoots past the politics as usual, "cast the opposition in an unflattering light", straight into National Enquirer type slime.

A diet of which seems to be your preferred menu.

Originally posted by faust9
:lol:

Funny, I never thought of it like that. Good point because the term terrorism was first coined during the French Revolutionary War--oh around 1798'ish. So, if people have been fighting the tactic since it was brought into the vernacular (it was a tactic long before this though) what does that say about our war on terror? Hmmm I wonder:?: Hmmmm maybe it'll go as well as the war on drugs. One can only hope (sarcasm). It is actually a feeling.

You are talking about the coined "War on Terror", no?

"War on terrorists" doesn't have the same ring, but anyone, including my 7 year old son, understands that we at war with terrorists and not the feeling or the tactic of terror. Although, a side effect would be that terror would be reduced.

I wonder if you guys really think that it is clever to say "GWB wants to fight a tactic, ha ha what a dummy". I remember this type of mocking being done in 6th grade.

You guys are truly comical.

In discussing security issues with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, Kerry campaign adviser Rand Beers took issue with the way the Bush administration has defined the effort to root out Islamic terrorists.

"The war is not against terrorism, which is a tactic, but in fact what we are talking about is a struggle against fundamentalist, Islamic jihahidists . . . who are bent on destroying the United States," he said.

Beers, former counterterrorism director in the Bush White House, said the administration has overemphasized military action at the expense of economic, diplomatic, political and other efforts in going after jihadists.

"That's why I chose to use the word 'struggle' instead of 'war' to actually define how I personally view this particular problem," he added.

From here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19393-2004Jul27.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004).

I surrender.

This is minor compared to Kerry's complete inabilibty to get out any sort of message other than "Bush sucks more than me."

Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah! They always seem to gloss over that one. ;)

Yea and France was peaceful before D day.:rolleyes:

Swift boat veterans for a big lie (http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504)
A newly formed group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has called upon John Kerry to release all his Vietnam service records. They also say Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."

Let's put "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" under a microscope:

1.__ Their call for Kerry to release his Naval records is a little odd, because, uh, Kerry's already released all his Naval records. The original documents can be downloaded from his web site here. I emailed "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to let them know where they can find the records (although the exact words I used were slightly less polite). You may want to do the same.

2.___ "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" says "We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam." That's just completely false, or, more diplomatically put, "a fucking lie." "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" also says, "They all signed a letter saying he is unfit to be commander-in-chief."
Hmmm... There are 29 pages of officer evaluation reports on Kerry (scroll down to "Fitness Reports" if you want to download) that were filled out by Kerry's commanding officers while he served in the Navy. How in the world could "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" read the following descriptions from Kerry's C.O.'s as "unfit"?

October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.:
LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program._
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech:
... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.

I could continue with more positive evaluations of Kerry's service, but quite frankly all the excellence is boring me a bit._

There aren't any negative descriptions. None.

3.__ _Perhaps more important than Kerry's C.O. evaluations are the evaluations of the men under his command. From USA Today (a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper) [correction: I'm wrong USA Today, as several helpful readers have pointed out, is owned by Gannett, but the point remains that they're no lefty outfit. My apologies for the mistake]:

Interviews with 18 officers and enlisted sailors who served with Kerry in Vietnam mostly portray a young leader with an aggressive command style. Many recall a warm, compassionate officer who cared deeply about his working-class crew. They also remember a warrior who ferried pregnant women and hungry villagers down river for medical care and food.

They recall how he initiated water-balloon fights to break the tension. How he asked his crew to call him "John" on the river and "sir" back at base. And how he listened to their problems in a way that foretold a career in politics.

"His concern for us was overwhelming," says Fred Short, a PCF-94 gunner's mate who would get the shakes when the adrenaline of battle wore off. "He would come around then and put his hand on your shoulder and ask if you're all right," says Short, 56, of North Little Rock "I never had another officer do that."

Even those soldiers who didn't like Kerry had respect for him:

"John was a master at looking out for John," says Larry Thurlow, a fellow boat commander. "John has never been bashful about saying, 'Man, I'm a war hero.' "

Yet, except for one crewmate, even those who felt betrayed by Kerry for later leading Vietnam Veterans Against the War and who call themselves Bush supporters acknowledge that he showed courage under fire. "He was extremely brave, and I wouldn't argue that point," Thurlow says. _

Stephen Gardner is the one guy who served alongside Kerry who has negative things to say about his courage under fire (some "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" guys claim they "served with" Kerry, but actually I think it would be more accurate for them to say they served "around the same time," and perhaps on a different planet, than Kerry did):

Stephen Gardner, a gunner's mate on PCF-44, spoke out for the first time last month after hearing conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh question Kerry's war credentials. Gardner, who says "this country's in a world of trouble" if the Democrat is elected president, calls Kerry a "hesitant" commander who shunned danger.

Gardner, 56, claims Kerry retreated during a firefight under the pretense that he wanted to get Gardner medical attention. "It was a panic run," says Gardner, who calls his wound superficial. While he refuses to call Kerry a coward, he recalls "a guy who was protecting himself most of the time."

That view does not square with the recollections of eight other enlisted sailors who served with Kerry and were interviewed for this story. Kerry and other PCF-44 veterans say the shooting was over when they turned back to base.

"I never saw John back down from anything," crewmember Bill Zaladonis says.

"I have no idea where he's coming from," Kerry says of Gardner.

Rassmann also dismisses the idea of a cautious Kerry. He says he is alive today because of Kerry's courage during a vicious battle in March 1969. The special forces soldier had been blown off PCF-94 by a mine that also injured Kerry's right arm. Swimming in the river while being strafed from both banks, Rassmann was convinced he was about to die before Kerry's boat returned. As the soldier struggled to climb scramble nets draped over the boat's bow, Kerry reached down with his uninjured arm and pulled him on board.

"He was frankly nuts coming up to the bow and exposing himself" to the barrage of bullets and mortars, Rassmann says.

4.__ _Okay, so who's behind "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? Two really terrific guys. Meet...

Roy Hoffman

Rear Admiral Hoffman (ret.) was a Captain who headed up a Coastal Surveillance Force unit under which Kerry served. Douglas Brinkley writes about him on pages 177 and 178 in Tour of Duty:

...The new commander, hawkish Captain Roy Hoffman was ecstatic about Sealords. He knew that military reputations were made in wartime, and he was determined to make his in Vietnam. What's more, he had a genuine taste for the more unsavory aspects of warfare, and truly wanted to smoke the Viet Cong out of their tunnels, burn their jungle outposts, and annihilate them once and for all. Decades later, many Swift boat veterans under Hoffman's command would compare him with the rough-hewn colonel in the movie Apocalypse Now who boasted that he "loved the smell of napalm in the morning." In short, Captain Hoffman sought to convince his Swift boat skippers to do whatever it took to notch splashy victories in the Mekong Delta and thereby get him promoted.

Kerry would never forget how ardently Captain Hoffman lauded the exploits of one "enterprising officer" from the Danang Swift division. The officer had surprised some thirty Vietnamese who were fishing in round, floating baskets just off the shore of a peninsula in an area that was, unfortunately for them, a free fire zone. Hoffman considered it ideal military thinking that the Swift skipper had shown the presence of mind to sneak his boat in between the baskets and the shore, cutting the fisherman off from escape and then opening fire on them. All the baskets were sunk, and so were the fishermen. "Fantastic," Hoffman reportedly proclaimed upon hearing the news. Kerry himself would later hear Hoffman praise such "industriousness" at a remarkable meeting in Saigon. Clearly, the Navy had undergone a sea change. Not only were cowboy antics on the rivers of Vietnam no longer frowned upon, they were rewarded with medals.

Sounds like one hell of an American._

Months ago, Hoffman told The Boston Globe that Kerry was a problem and asked to get more specific he said:

"He was just going off on excursions that were not part of the plan at the time." But Hoffman said those problems were corrected and that he admired the gutsy way Kerry later went after the enemy.

It sounds like Hoffman values ingenuity less than gutsiness, and perhaps discretion least of all.

The other "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" point person is...

John O'Neill

After Kerry made a mark as an anti-war veteran in 1971, he earned a spot on Nixon's enemies list. On the Nixon tapes, White House special counsel Charles Colson can be heard assuring Nixon that "We'll keep hitting him [Kerry], Mr. President." In addition to putting Kerry under FBI surveillance, Colson and Nixon recruited cleancut Vietnam vet and toe-the-line right-wing ideologue John O'Neill, who had an hour-long meeting with the President in which Nixon coached him to "Give it to him, give it to him." I've seen a picture of O'Neill and Nixon sitting in front of that White House fireplace. I suppose O'Neill saw his "Kerry character assassination" assignment from Nixon as a 33 year gig.

Although O'Neill had taken over Kerry's Swift boat command after he left Vietnam, before they met on a Dick Cavett Show debate he had never seen Kerry in person. But he despised him. He admonished Kerry everywhere for standing up against Nixon: "The President does our talking for us, as with most Americans. Mr. Kerry certainly does not."

33 years ago O'Neill wanted everyone to shut up so Richard Nixon could lay down the law, just as I'm sure he'd like to crush all dissenting voices to Bush's today. John Kerry stood up then to Nixon, and he stands up now to Bush.

According to Brinkley, O'Neill "truly believed in the U.S. incursions into Cambodia and Laos." That's pretty much all you need to know about the guy, that he would provide unwavering support for a war in Cambodia that was not only blatantly illegal, entirely secret, and abhorrently inhumane, it was also a complete tactical failure. It accomplished absolutely nothing except multiples of thousands of deaths of poor Cambodians. I can't even begin to understand somebody whose ideology is so unclean that he can see goodness in that. You could take a stroll with O'Neill and spot some dogshit and he'd try to convince you that it was a delicious green apple.

Tomorrow, I'll get a little deeper into O'Neill's ideology and the roots of his hatred for Kerry...

It is disgusting that these 'vets' would willfully lie so baldfacedly in order to get a political win . . . they should have more self-respect.

Originally posted by faust9
What say...What say...How 'bout

Why? He can't communicate in public--he has no legs [read mantra] for the media to pick up on--except for "I don't suck as bad as Bush".....sorry, I don't see the point. The only thing he hasn't done in that regard is pick Michael Moore as his VP.

Also, Kerry could be running against Fred Fintstone--it wouldn't make him an effective communicator. Hell, at least Clinton could lie effectively.

Originally posted by dmz
Why? He can't communicate in public--he has no legs [read mantra] for the media to pick up on--except for "I don't suck as bad as Bush".....sorry, I don't see the point. The only thing he hasn't done in that regard is pick Michael Moore as his VP.

Also, Kerry could be running against Fred Fintstone--it wouldn't make him an effective communicator. Hell, at least Clinton could lie effectively.

Legs? Mantra? In that regard? Michael Moore? In public?

Are you sure you want this to be the post wherein you criticize Kerry's communication skills?

Originally posted by Scott
Point #2 they make is a little dishonest. If I understand it correctly SBVfT feel that Kerry is unfit based on what he did after he got out of the Navy. So siting his naval record and claiming that then there's nothing there to say he's "unfit" is a bit of a straw man of a rebuttal.

Absolutely untrue. They go to great lengths to give the impression that they "served" with Kerry and that his behavior in country (which they claim to have observed first-hand) was cowardly, glory seeking and shameful.

Originally posted by addabox
Legs? Mantra? In that regard? Michael Moore? In public?

Are you sure you want this to be the post wherein you criticize Kerry's communication skills?

Sorry, I'll keep my metaphors to a minimum for the eclectic intolerant here. ;)

Man, they're being discredited one by one:

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The whole swift boat veterans smear campaign is collapsing.

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me you aren't serious.

It doesn't matter how much of FAKE Kerry is exposed to be. It doesn't matter how insanely liberal he is. It doesn't matter what his voting record is. It doesn't matter how many times he's SCREWED the intel community and military and security of the United States itself. It doesn't matter that he delibrately reenacted footage after his "combat" tour. It doesn't matter that he's on VIDEO admitting war crimes.

He's not George Bush and that's all that matters to giant, et al. I wish they'd just admit it.
Calm down. I can't even tell which side you're arguing for.

Originally posted by groverat
Poor George.

Well he made a bad judgement in the heat of fire. Thats why he doesnt seek promotion to commander in chief ;)

Hey, Check it out (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010).

Turns out one of them is just a freeper nutcase:
While much has been written about the identity and history of John E. O'Neill -- one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protg of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD.

Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

...

On Catholics and the Pope

CORSI: Maybe while he's there he can tell the UN what he's going to do about the sexual crimes committed by "priests" in his "Church" during his tenure. Or, maybe that's the connection -- boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press. (03/03/2003)

CORSI: So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it. (12/16/2002)

On Islam and Arabs

CORSI: Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary? (04/24/2004)

CORSI: Islam is like a virus -- it affects the mind -- maybe even better as an analogy -- it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects... No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body. (11/26/02)

CORSI: Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed. (11/22/2002)

CORSI: How's this as an analogy -- the Koran is simply the "software" for producing deviant cancer cell political behavior and violence in human beings. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Think the liberal press will ever let out that these 2 were lovers -- typical Islamic boy-buggering -- older man, younger man -- black Muslims? I doubt it. Not a pretty picture, but one certain to be hidden by PC media. (11/08/2002)

CORSI: Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote "gays in the military." RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together. (11/18/2001)

...

[see link, keep reading]

Ha, even Bill O'Reilly defended Kerry on this issue. Priceless.

and the BEST part is McClellan's attempt to clean it up . . . which digs the hole further:

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said." :lol:

I notice that this Cambodia thing is going to be the newest line against him. Apparently the Kerry campaign hasn't really disputed this, and so he probably wasn't in Cambodia. But his biography says that he was in Vietnam, an hour from Cambodia by boat. Well. So he was on a boat off Vietnam near the border of Cambodia. What a big liar. He probably shot himself to get that purple heart, too.

Another 527 has allready come out with a rip-off add ( http://www.slate.com/id/2104939/), it seems to be a very popular style.

Originally posted by pfflam
You're a stooge if you believe this barrage of character assasination . . . how can you regurgitate the non-stop slander machine word-for-word without even thinking about it?!

We all knew it would happen, It is the way that this dispicable mean-spirited crew of criminals have operated since they first got their dirty hands together: they did it to two other veteran/politicians who's records were equally distinguished, they destroyed them with lies and insinuations which are as dispicable as the non-stop balderdash that they are using today . . . doesn't that make you pause for a second?!

Each of the 'swift boat' vets that are now against Kerry have been, for a very long time, VERY big supporters of the GOP . . . not just in rah-rah support but in cash . . . which means that they have invested something and want a return . . . hell, they have invested their self-respect apparently . . . cause they sure don't have it anymore!!
And that is one thing that can't be returned to them no matter who wins.

Here here!

Originally posted by pfflam
You're a stooge if you believe this barrage of character assasination . . . how can you regurgitate the non-stop slander machine word-for-word without even thinking about it?!

We all knew it would happen, It is the way that this dispicable mean-spirited crew of criminals have operated since they first got their dirty hands together: they did it to two other veteran/politicians who's records were equally distinguished, they destroyed them with lies and insinuations which are as dispicable as the non-stop balderdash that they are using today . . . doesn't that make you pause for a second?!

Each of the 'swift boat' vets that are now against Kerry have been, for a very long time, VERY big supporters of the GOP . . . not just in rah-rah support but in cash . . . which means that they have invested something and want a return . . . hell, they have invested their self-respect apparently . . . cause they sure don't have it anymore!!
And that is one thing that can't be returned to them no matter who wins.

Believe what you want but these guys are very credible if you actually take the time to listen to what they are saying. You are the stooge if you believe this is something that is politically motivated. They are now being threatened by the DNC's pack of lawyers who are using Nazi intimidation tactics. Their threats to this nation's media outlets are completely mischaracterizing (lying about) this group in their complaints to the various TV and radio stations. They claim that these guys did not serve on Kerry's boat as they claim (which they never have - they only claim to have served alongside them on other boats but still in a position to see what they are now claiming). You have NO PROOF that these guys are what you say you are. You are just regurgitating the DNC's talking points about this issue. Face it: Kerry and the DNC are scared of these guys because they are extremely credible and well-spoken. You want us all to believe that these 60 or so guys are all part of a vast conspiracy and they are willing to put their reputations on the line. I guess all 60 of these guys are lying and Kerry is the only guy that is telling the truth. So what about this Cambodia thing? I think it is becoming very clear that he lied about that. What do you have to say about this? I am sure you will come back with some lame explanation that either he was misquoted or he simply made a simple mistake. You cannot explain it that easily because he did not just say he was in Cambodia. He went on to develop this story further and it is not a situation where he got his countries mixed up. He lied. Deal with it.

It apparently is okay to trash some veterans who served their country but if you attack Kerry you are un-patriotic and un-American. These guys are signing affidavits testifying to what they saw. This is not like the bomb throwers on the left with their hit and run tactics. Kerry has not gone to the lengths this group has done to prove his side of the story. He has made statements about the war that he is not standing by and that makes a lot of people ask questions about his service. By doing so these gentlemen can be sued if their stories are proven to be false so why would they go to that length unless they actually are telling the truth? John Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the cornerstone of his campaign and is the basis for proving that he is fit to be President. I guess it is shame on us for asking questions about it when there are clearly a lot of unresolved issues regarding this apparently very important time in his life.

So cut your indignant rant and listen to what these guys have to say. Mean spirited criminals? Is this the way you treat those who serve their country? Oh, I guess it is okay if they are questioning Kerry's record. They earned the right to tell their side of the story. They were actually over there and in a position to comment on all this.

Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, he said that he was in Cambodia at a specific time that he appears not to have been. He was near the border, and he probably only actually went into Cambodia later. But it's just hard to see why this is some kind of big lie - what political gain is there in saying that he was there at a specific time, when he was really only close to being there, and was actually there later?

Apparently you have not been paying attention. The issue is that NOBODY is backing his story that he was ever in Cambodia - not even the illustrious "Band of Brothers" who were actually on his boat is supporting this lie. Swift boats did not serve there and were not permitted to enter Cambodia and there is no living commander that will support Kerry's ridiculous notion that he was sent to Cambodia. It is a lie - plain in simple. The Kerry campaign and the DNC is not responding to this allegation and it is clear why they have not. You cannot explain away a lie so they are simply hoping the story will go away. This is not a simple matter that he is mistaking the time period he was there: he simply never was there at any time. He certainly did not mention this story in the recent book that told his story about his service in Vietnam. Now why did he not mention it? He was only there for four months so one would think he would have talked about it since he told this impassioned story on the floor of the Senate. He simply was never there. I am waiting for a reporter to ask Kerry about this. How much do you want to bet that he won't answer the question?

Originally posted by 7E7
Apparently you have not been paying attention. The issue is that NOBODY is backing his story that he was ever in Cambodia - not even the illustrious "Band of Brothers" who were actually on his boat is supporting this lie. Swift boats did not serve there and were not permitted to enter Cambodia and there is no living commander that will support Kerry's ridiculous notion that he was sent to Cambodia. It is a lie - plain in simple. The Kerry campaign and the DNC is not responding to this allegation and it is clear why they have not. You cannot explain away a lie so they are simply hoping the story will go away. This is not a simple matter that he is mistaking the time period he was there: he simply never was there at any time. He certainly did not mention this story in the recent book that told his story about his service in Vietnam. Now why did he not mention it? He was only there for four months so one would think he would have talked about it since he told this impassioned story on the floor of the Senate. He simply was never there. I am waiting for a reporter to ask Kerry about this. How much do you want to bet that he won't answer the question? Here's an anti-Kerry blog (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/08/brinkley_on_ker.html) that cites excerpts from the book about his service. The blog says it contradicts Kerry's story that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, which may be true, but 1) he was there at other times - one of his missions was to bring SEALs to Cambodia and 2) even on the Christmas in question, one of his crewmates said "we were getting close to Cambodia." You can read the actual excerpts for yourself in that link.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a big story. Maybe he mis-remembered - after all, Bush said he watched the first plane hit the WTC live on TV, which is impossible. Or maybe he was close enough to the border that he figured he might as well have been there - remember he was in a boat, so he probably would never have gone on actual Cambodian land anyway.

I also just don't see the strategy here with keeping Kerry's Vietnam service an issue and attacking it. It's only going to backfire.

From WSJ

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.

BY JIM RASSMANN
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

Originally posted by 7E7
Like everything Kerry does in his life, we have multiple versions of what exactly he did during that time period. Does he ever stick with one story or one position? If he did, there would be a lot fewer questions about him. Like everything Bush does in his life, we have multiple versions of what exactly he did during that time period. Does he ever stick with one story or one position? If he did, there would be a lot fewer questions about him.

At least he's got those military payroll documents to back up his claimed duty record.... oh, wait...

This is a good Jon Stewart (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9016.html) on the vets

BTW, I saw the add air here in Wisconsin . . . it comes across as an incredibly mean-spirited attack add . . . I can't he;p but to think that this add will do harm to the Republican party . . . it is so obvious: it is outright character assasination without any other reason for being . . . is that the kind of people that we want to run our country?