General Wesley Clark- - - - - Under the bus! The Obama bus that is.

[Tigermike 3,046]

Obama has frequently spoken of McCain's military record, but the campaign is making a point of it today in light of Clark's comments on Face the Nation (and similar remarks in recent weeks on Morning Joe) that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president".

Earlier today, on Morning Joe, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs distanced the campaign from Gen. Clark's remarks.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...30/1175471.aspx

Call me cynical, but I think Clark's remarks were planned just so it could look as if Obama is walking the high road.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

Obama has frequently spoken of McCain's military record, but the campaign is making a point of it today in light of Clark's comments on Face the Nation (and similar remarks in recent weeks on Morning Joe) that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president".

Earlier today, on Morning Joe, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs distanced the campaign from Gen. Clark's remarks.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...30/1175471.aspx

Call me cynical, but I think Clark's remarks were planned just so it could look as if Obama is walking the high road.

No, but much ado about nothing. Context:

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

He was responding to that phrase.

[Tigermike 3,046]

Obama has frequently spoken of McCain's military record, but the campaign is making a point of it today in light of Clark's comments on Face the Nation (and similar remarks in recent weeks on Morning Joe) that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president".

Earlier today, on Morning Joe, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs distanced the campaign from Gen. Clark's remarks.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...30/1175471.aspx

Call me cynical, but I think Clark's remarks were planned just so it could look as if Obama is walking the high road.

No, but much ado about nothing. Context:

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

He was responding to that phrase.

What Clark was responding to is irrelevant. My post was about this.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

So is Clark under the bus or not? It seems definitions for Obama change from day to day.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

Obama has frequently spoken of McCain's military record, but the campaign is making a point of it today in light of Clark's comments on Face the Nation (and similar remarks in recent weeks on Morning Joe) that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president".

Earlier today, on Morning Joe, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs distanced the campaign from Gen. Clark's remarks.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...30/1175471.aspx

Call me cynical, but I think Clark's remarks were planned just so it could look as if Obama is walking the high road.

No, but much ado about nothing. Context:

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

He was responding to that phrase.

What Clark was responding to is irrelevant. My post was about this.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

So is Clark under the bus or not? It seems definitions for Obama change from day to day.

Funny you should say that. Especially when you change the meaning of your posts from minute to minute:

Call me cynical, but I think Clark's remarks were planned just so it could look as if Obama is walking the high road.

Unless Clark rehearsed with Scieffer, his remarks weren't planned.

But it does seem like Clark was thrown off the bus, at least, and unfairly so.

[AUTiger1 0]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

[arnaldoabru 11]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

[AUTiger1 0]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

You totally missed the point, but no surprise. Your hatred of anyone and anything that has an R beside their name blinds you.

Let me explain this to you. Wesley Clark said this and there is a link in the comments section to where you can find this

"I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect."

"That's why I am so outraged that the Republican party has systematically attacked the wartime service and patriotism of veterans who are running for office as Democrats. It is despicable -- the sign of a party more concerned about hanging onto power by any means possible than with giving veterans the respect they have earned."

Then what in the heck did he just do?? Yeah he is attacking McCain's service. So yeah I find him to have a short memory and to be a little hypocritical.

Out of that entire article all you got out of it was the mention of Kerry and the Swift Boaters! Amazing.

But then again you were the one posting on here that McCain wants to see another terrorist attack on American soil, so I don't really expect to see anything you say to not have Liberal Bias.

[AUTiger1 0]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

And no where did I claim this guy to be an "expert", I just simply said it was a good read.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

You totally missed the point, but no surprise. Your hatred of anyone and anything that has an R beside their name blinds you.

Let me explain this to you. Wesley Clark said this and there is a link in the comments section to where you can find this

"I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect."

"That's why I am so outraged that the Republican party has systematically attacked the wartime service and patriotism of veterans who are running for office as Democrats. It is despicable -- the sign of a party more concerned about hanging onto power by any means possible than with giving veterans the respect they have earned."

Then what in the heck did he just do?? Yeah he is attacking McCain's service. So yeah I find him to have a short memory and to be a little hypocritical.

Out of that entire article all you got out of it was the mention of Kerry and the Swift Boaters! Amazing.

But then again you were the one posting on here that McCain wants to see another terrorist attack on American soil, so I don't really expect to see anything you say to not have Liberal Bias.

He did not for one minute attack McCain's service.

Oh, this is fun. Today the McCain campaign held a conference call unveiling a new "truth squad" Web site designed to defend McCain from attacks on his military record.

This was in response to Wes Clark's claim yesterday that McCain lacks the necessary experience to be President, which wasn't an attack on McCain's military record at all.

Be that as it may, on the call, the McCain camp rolled out a leading surrogate named Bud Day -- who was described merely as a fellow POW of McCain -- who blasted such attacks. "John was slandered and reviled in the 2000 campaign in a way that denigrated his service enormously...it was absolutely important to face this issue right off the bat."

But guess what -- it turns out that this very same Bud Day was featured in the Swift Boat Vets ads attacking John Kerry in 2004!

To make matters even better, recall that McCain himself condemned the Swift Boat Vets. Yet now the McCain campaign is cheerfully enlisting someone who did what McCain claimed to decry -- attacks on Kerry's credentials -- and using him to defend McCain against the same sort of attacks.

That's a good one.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...ndemning_at.php

McCain was once an honorable man who is now an extremely desperate one who will bend any previously held principle to be President.

[AUTiger1 0]

Come on Tex, do you want me to actually believe that whenClark referred to this:

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

That he really didn't mean this ---(Oh, it wasn't a wartime squadron, so who cares, right? As long as it isn't wartime it doesn't show any leadership skills)

and this:

"I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Or that he really didn't mean this either---(You know b/c all McCain supporters are saying that is his sole qualification to be President )

[TexasTiger 12,980]

Come on Tex, do you want me to actually believe that whenClark referred to this:

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

That he really didn't mean this ---(Oh, it wasn't a wartime squadron, so who cares, right? As long as it isn't wartime it doesn't show any leadership skills)

and this:

"I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Or that he really didn't mean this either---(You know b/c all McCain supporters are saying that is his sole qualification to be President )

To look at McCain's first ad, you'd think it believes it is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...dycDg&hl=en

[AUTiger1 0]

Well, to not tout one's military experience wouldn't be a wise move. Clark touted his own when he ran and so has others. It's part of their resume.

But you know that McCain supporters are not saying that is the only reason that he is qualified to be President. On the other hand that is exactly what Clark was trying to say. Clark said that McCain didn't have the leadership experience to be President and then cited part of his service for his reasoning. If he truly believes that and he truly believes that

"I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect."

He could have simply pointed out an issue that he doesn't agree with or pointed out something in his voted record that he didn't agree with or something else, but left the service record alone.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

Well, to not tout one's military experience wouldn't be a wise move. Clark touted his own when he ran and so has others. It's part of their resume.

But you know that McCain supporters are not saying that is the only reason that he is qualified to be President. On the other hand that is exactly what Clark was trying to say. Clark said that McCain didn't have the leadership experience to be President and then cited part of his service for his reasoning. If he truly believes that and he truly believes that

"I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect."

He could have simply pointed out an issue that he doesn't agree with or pointed out something in his voted record that he didn't agree with or something else, but left the service record alone.

He in no way said McCain's service was disqualifying, he simply said that it was not close to on par with being commander-in-chief. He didn't say it in any way diminished him as a candidate to have it, he was saying that McCain was overplaying his hand.

[arnaldoabru 11]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

And no where did I claim this guy to be an "expert", I just simply said it was a good read.

If the 'blogger' was going to attck Obama by somehow linking Clark's remarks to him and then trying to say this does not equate to the 'SWIFT BOATERS FOR DISTORTION" then he needs to get his facts straight. A simple wickpedia search would have cleared this up for the "blogger"

[Tigermike 3,046]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

The "Swift Boaters for Truth", for the most part, served in the sae squadron as Kerry. There were crew members of Kerry's boat who were part of "Swift Boaters for Truth".

[AUTiger1 0]

Well, to not tout one's military experience wouldn't be a wise move. Clark touted his own when he ran and so has others. It's part of their resume.

But you know that McCain supporters are not saying that is the only reason that he is qualified to be President. On the other hand that is exactly what Clark was trying to say. Clark said that McCain didn't have the leadership experience to be President and then cited part of his service for his reasoning. If he truly believes that and he truly believes that

"I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect."

He could have simply pointed out an issue that he doesn't agree with or pointed out something in his voted record that he didn't agree with or something else, but left the service record alone.

He in no way said McCain's service was disqualifying, he simply said that it was not close to on par with being commander-in-chief. He didn't say it in any way diminished him as a candidate to have it, he was saying that McCain was overplaying his hand.

Then why even mention it at all if he wasn't trying to diminish his service record? And Clark did say that his service did not qualify him to be President. I'll give you credit that Clark didn't say that it disqualified him, but he never said that it didn't now did he?

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

That is exactly what he did, he stated that McCain doesn't have the leadership experience to be President and then in the very next statement that comes from his mouth he mentions him commanding a squadron in the Navy and threw in that it wasn't "wartime". Sounds exactly like he was insinuating that McCain's service record credentials meant nothing.

Once again I state, that McCain supporters are not saying that his service record is the only reason that he is qualified to be President. Heck even Yahoo News (not exactly a conservative news outlet) called it what it was, that he took a swipe at McCain's military record.

[Tigermike 3,046]

He did not for one minute attack McCain's service.

Well if he didn't do that, then why did the Obama campaign do this?

Obama has frequently spoken of McCain's military record, but the campaign is making a point of it today in light of Clark's comments on Face the Nation (and similar remarks in recent weeks on Morning Joe) that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president".

Earlier today, on Morning Joe, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs distanced the campaign from Gen. Clark's remarks.

*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service. "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...30/1175471.aspx

Answer: They knew what Clark said and what he meant. In fact Clark is not the first Obama surrogate to attack McCain in this manner.

McCain was once an honorable man who is now an extremely desperate one who will bend any previously held principle to be President.

That is absolutely hysterical coming from an Obama supporter. That would be the Obama who has changed positions more often than a Bourbon Street hooker.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

The "Swift Boaters for Truth", for the most part, served in the sae squadron as Kerry. There were crew members of Kerry's boat who were part of "Swift Boaters for Truth".

List them.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

Well, to not tout one's military experience wouldn't be a wise move. Clark touted his own when he ran and so has others. It's part of their resume.

But you know that McCain supporters are not saying that is the only reason that he is qualified to be President. On the other hand that is exactly what Clark was trying to say. Clark said that McCain didn't have the leadership experience to be President and then cited part of his service for his reasoning. If he truly believes that and he truly believes that

"I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect."

He could have simply pointed out an issue that he doesn't agree with or pointed out something in his voted record that he didn't agree with or something else, but left the service record alone.

He in no way said McCain's service was disqualifying, he simply said that it was not close to on par with being commander-in-chief. He didn't say it in any way diminished him as a candidate to have it, he was saying that McCain was overplaying his hand.

Then why even mention it at all if he wasn't trying to diminish his service record? And Clark did say that his service did not qualify him to be President. I'll give you credit that Clark didn't say that it disqualified him, but he never said that it didn't now did he?

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.

That is exactly what he did, he stated that McCain doesn't have the leadership experience to be President and then in the very next statement that comes from his mouth he mentions him commanding a squadron in the Navy and threw in that it wasn't "wartime". Sounds exactly like he was insinuating that McCain's service record credentials meant nothing.

Once again I state, that McCain supporters are not saying that his service record is the only reason that he is qualified to be President. Heck even Yahoo News (not exactly a conservative news outlet) called it what it was, that he took a swipe at McCain's military record.

McCain makes his military background the centerpiece of his campaign. See his very first gen election ad.

He puts it out there, and then says, "Don't dare even question how it applies."

[mec814 0]

A political stooge such as Wesley Clark should not be given air time to

knock anyones service record. His time at NATO wasn't that stellar!

[Tigermike 3,046]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

The "Swift Boaters for Truth", for the most part, served in the sae squadron as Kerry. There were crew members of Kerry's boat who were part of "Swift Boaters for Truth".

List them.

I'm not listing crap. Their motives, who they are, where they served and what they intended to expose to the light of day has been hashed out many times. Many times here when it was happening. The left wanting to denegrate them for telling the truth about the French guy is just more reisionist history.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

The "Swift Boaters for Truth", for the most part, served in the sae squadron as Kerry. There were crew members of Kerry's boat who were part of "Swift Boaters for Truth".

List them.

I'm not listing crap. Their motives, who they are, where they served and what they intended to expose to the light of day has been hashed out many times. Many times here when it was happening. The left wanting to denegrate them for telling the truth about the French guy is just more reisionist history.

Of course you won't.

Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT.[18] He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.

All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[19][20][21]

No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star; he stated that based on discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present.[22][23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans#Membership

One guy. Who was discredited:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,599034,00.html

[Tigermike 3,046]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

The "Swift Boaters for Truth", for the most part, served in the sae squadron as Kerry. There were crew members of Kerry's boat who were part of "Swift Boaters for Truth".

List them.

I'm not listing crap. Their motives, who they are, where they served and what they intended to expose to the light of day has been hashed out many times. Many times here when it was happening. The left wanting to denegrate them for telling the truth about the French guy is just more reisionist history.

Of course you won't.

Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT.[18] He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.

All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[19][20][21]

No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star; he stated that based on discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present.[22][23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans#Membership

One guy. Who was discredited:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,599034,00.html

You want to limit it to being on his boat. But how many were in the same squadron?

You limit it to knowing where they were and when. Hells bells the French guy doesn't even know that. Remember Christmas in Cambodia?

Despite leftist dim propangda the Swift boaters were the ones telling the truth. It was not the French guy.

[TexasTiger 12,980]

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/06/co...e-of-enemy.html

Good read on Clark, notice the first comment in the comments section. Clark does have a short memory.

Your expert "blogger" has his facts wrong. The "Swift Boaters for Truth" did not serve in the same boat and did not serve "along side" of John Kerry

The "Swift Boaters for Truth", for the most part, served in the sae squadron as Kerry. There were crew members of Kerry's boat who were part of "Swift Boaters for Truth".

List them.

I'm not listing crap. Their motives, who they are, where they served and what they intended to expose to the light of day has been hashed out many times. Many times here when it was happening. The left wanting to denegrate them for telling the truth about the French guy is just more reisionist history.

Of course you won't.

Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT.[18] He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.

All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[19][20][21]

No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star; he stated that based on discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present.[22][23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans#Membership

One guy. Who was discredited:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,599034,00.html

You want to limit it to being on his boat. But how many were in the same squadron?

You limit it to knowing where they were and when. Hells bells the French guy doesn't even know that. Remember Christmas in Cambodia?

Despite leftist dim propangda the Swift boaters were the ones telling the truth. It was not the French guy.

Rule of thumb: When your argument devolves to the point that you start calling an American, especially a decorated war veteran, "the French guy," you've officially lost the argument.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Weasle Clark is an embarrassment to the uniform. The guy is nothing more than a Left wing hack.