Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

Rating:
Summary: Disgusting
Review:
It's rather amazing how many five star "reviewers" have so much of the same bad information to impart about John Kerry but so little to say about the substance of this book. (And coincidentally, most misspell the author's name the same way.)

Rather than recycle chatroom effluvia, I will actually review the book:

Poorly researched, poorly written. Nasty, vindictive, and dishonest from start to finish.

For example, John O'Neill posits, in Chapter 5 of UFC, that George Elliott wrote a Silver Star citation that did not reflect what happened that day. He is not honest enough to use the actual citation written by Elliott, but instead uses a later version and then quotes things that Elliott NEVER WROTE. The original citation written by Elliott PRECISELY reflects what happened that day - things he claims he was never told - as do the after action report and Zumwalt's monthly summary.

In this connection, O'Neill claims that Elliott had no idea there were troops on the boats that day (even though he was division commander) and that they conducted the first sweep, or that Kerry shot a fleeing man - although both Mr. Elliott's citation and the after action report SPECIFICALLY state that there were troops on the boats (as does the monthly summary), that the troops conducted the first sweep, and that Kerry shot a fleeing VC. He also states that "[t]here is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched" - but the after action report SPECIFICALLY states that the man was wounded and fleeing.

In addition, O'Neill claims that Elliott had been told Kerry had "almost single-handedly" taken out a bunker of VC - except NOTHING OF THE SORT appears in Kerry's original citation, the after action report, the monthly summary, or the news release for the incident. In fact, Elliott made it quite clear in William Rood's Bronze Star citation that he didn't think anyone did anything "almost single-handedly" that day.

Again, O'Neill writes with regard to the Silver Star incident, that "most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received no medals for this action." (No kidding, he actually writes like that.) C'mon John, it is public information that there were only three American "non-PCF troops" there that day - the US Army advisors - and all three were awarded medals for the action, including two Bronze Stars.

And contrary to O'Neill's claim that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review," the record shows it was awarded after six days, and in 1996 Elliott and Lonsdale themselves insisted that all proper review procedures were followed (as did the Navy inspector general, in 2004).

Not such great research, Johnny boy.

Though maybe we should blame some of this on Mr. Corsi. When Corsi's bigotry was revealed in some of his freeper postings, O'Neill promptly claimed that Corsi was not really the coauthor, but that he acted "simply as an editor." Interesting, especially when you notice that good portions of Chapters 6 through 9 (at least) are virtually lifted from Corsi's writings at sites like wintersoldier.com .

Just a little short in the truth department, are we, John?

While we're at it, let's ask Jerry Corsi why he REMOVED the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with Gen. Giap, which hangs near Kerry's picture in the War Remnants Museum, from his webpage "documenting" the existence of the Kerry picture.

Of course it is well known how many other claims in this book have been thoroughly debunked by overwhelming eyewitness testimony, Navy investigators, Navy documents, and in fact some of the accusers' own documents. (Tom Wright didn't patrol with Kerry after he "complained" about him? Not true, according to the command history. And by the way, John, you might want to get someone a little more competent to analyze those designator numbers on the March 13 spot report.)

For more point by point rebuttals of the lies contained in this book, go to Eric Rasmussen's most excellent online review, "Truth and Unfit for Command." (I am not able to link at this page, but a Google will pull up the site quite easilly.)


(And by the way, it was SBVT member Steve Gardner, not John Kerry, who "killed a defenseless 12 year old boy and his father." And contrary to the claims of some posters here, George Bush didn't sign a Form 180 and didn't volunteer for Vietnam. Gotta start getting your info someplace besides Rush and Faux News, folks. With readers like these, it's no wonder O'Neill put so little effort into making the book even slightly credible.)




Rating:
Summary: Kerry's X-Mas in 68 Lie has him spending V-Day 05 in
Review: Boston. Really had a good laugh at watching Herman Munster last Friday nite telling everyone that the democrats don't need a makeover, they came ever so close "within inches" of winning the Presidency.

Al Gore came within inches in 2000. Kerry got beat by a considerable margin and that was even after you take into consideration his lies about social security, the draft, help from the biased media, Michael Moore's lies, Al Frankenstein and others.

John Kerry needs to realize that when you lie you lose credibility. He lied about wheere he was on Christmas eve in 1968, didn't even remember who the real President of the US was (he thought it was Nixon, it was Johnson) lied about American troops in Vietnam all for his own benefit, lied on the Dick Cavett show in 1971 and was booed off the stage, lied during his run for the democrat front runner position to unseat Howard Dean, lied about ssi for the elderly, lied about the draft, said that if he were President he could have save Chris Reeve and that people like him would be able to throw away their wheel chairs and walk (holy snake oil Batman!)

And he even has his shills lying for him on this board with repeated 1 star reviews. Obviously this follower really thinks that Kerry has a chance to run and win in 2008. Sorry, polls show that if she runs, Hillary Clinton is ahead of Kerry by a margin of 65-35. And if Arnold is able to run, IT'S OVER!

So it really doesn't matter. The biased negative reviews you are seeing here on this board are only an extension of what we saw in the media last year. Funny, even with the mainstream media behind him, the fuss over the war, Michael Moore's Mockumentary based on flat out lies and distortion, numerous anti-Bush books, George Soros Billions, Kerry still got shellacked!

But the main theme in this book is showing John Kerry as he really was in the military not the hype up fake myth of John Kerry as a hero. And note that John Kerry will not accept to debate John O'Oniel on this subject (I guess he remembers being booed off the stage when he last debated John O'Niel in '71)

This is a good bookif you want the real dope on John Kerry. The facts by people who knew him and were there. Not the phoney media hype projecting this man as something he wasn't all due to their hate Bush ethnic.

This book is based on facts. Even the rating here at Amazon has been manipulated. Hey guys, the electionis over. Kerry got shallacked. And he has no chance to even win the democratic party vote in 2008. Do you really think that Howie Dean has forgotten what Kerry did to him a little over a year ago? Perhaps that was why Kerry was so uneasy when he was speaking at the celebration over Howie Dean being named as new DNC chairman.

Besides, as already mentioned, Hillary will mop the floor with Kerry and Arnold will mop the floor with both of them.



Rating:
Summary: John O'Neill Owes Kerry for everything
Review: Did you ever notice how John O'Neill was so important when he was debating Kerry in the seventies but when Vietnam ended he suddenly disapeared? Kinda funny, huh? That's because John O'Neill could never make a political name for himself, so everytime Kerry made a significant accomplishment O'Neill was there to complain and get another fifteen minutes of fame. John O'Neill is nothing but an attention grabber who loves the fifteen minutes.

Rating:
Summary: Agree with the title
Review: I got this book from a relative too. I read it before the election. I was not going to vote for Kerry if I did not read it. Senator Kerry was a trigger-happy clown who tried to get his men killed and was a babykiller (like abortionists). When he came back from Vietnam, he worked with the enemy (communists) to boo the war and the men he served with. In my opinion, he is a traitor who had no business being a candidate for President. If I was in Massachusetts, I would vote for the co-author running against Kerry in 2008.

Rating:
Summary: No camera shots of Kerry this Ash Wednesday!
Review: Notice that there were no camera shots of John Kerry getting ashes onhis forehead this Ash Wednesday? Could it be because he is not running for anything and doesn't need publicity? Or could it be that the Catholic Church no longer wants anything to do with this guy? Or could it be because Kerry is only a catholic when he is attempting to capture votes and pretend that he is something that he is not?

Or is it all three?

Unfit for Comman dispels the myth of Kerry as being a hero. Perhaps a catholic should write a book dispelling his so called religious beliefs too.

Rating:
Summary: A great historical and hysterical book!
Review: Thanks to the 99 cent bargain bin, I finally broke down to read this thing. Sadly, I could not stop laughing. It is so poorly written, and the spelling errors are a plenty.

However, the attempt to discredit Kerry is the most humorous. None of it makes sense. I could actually care less about Kerry. I would have voted for a monkey over bush. But you can tell that this entire thing called a book was rushed, and fabricated for election purposes only. The entire project was funded by Republicans who cannot think outside their programmed heads I guess.

Sad.

Very sad.

But... I could not stop laughing.

Rating:
Summary: Incredibly interesting book
Review: We're intrigued by this great book and by Mark Reed's 'SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!!' (our two favorite books.)

Rating:
Summary: Revisionist History
Review: Well, Republicans and Conservatives never fail to use dishonesty to back their claims, and here's another example.

So what is the premise of this book. John Kerry went to Vietnam and decided "You know, I may one day find myself running for President against a Draft Dodger, so I probably should shoot myself and fake an injury so I can get a fake Purple Heart and build myself up as a War Hero."

And we all know that Kerry had so much influence over the military that he could get medals and such things for not doing anything...

And even though all of the people who were actually on the boat with Kerry say he was a hero, we should believe other veterans who don't like him for his comments about the war after he left Vietnam, who though they were not actually on the boat with Kerry, claim they have some sort of inside information on Kerry not actually getting wounded.

Anyway, what this book really is, is a book of conspiracy theories used by pro Vietnam people to shoot down an anti Vietnam candidate for President. It's also a way of using whatever dirty tactics possible to get Bush back in the White House.

Heck, we all know Bush had nothing else to run on.

"Kerry's a flip flopper!" "Kerry wants to put America's defense in France's hands!" Bush ran on that, then the morning Kerry conceded Bush flip flopped and decided we needed more help from the Europeans. Condy Rice was recently in Belgium trying to get the French to like us again.

All Kerry meant was a) we can't have a draft b) not many people are going to join the military voluntarily now while we're still in Iraq. So, let's get more allies. Bush clearly agrees, because he's been looking for more allies since he got elected, he simply ran against what Kerry said because he knew Conservatives would interpret it as Kerry being some sort of cowardly Liberal to afraid to defend America and putting our defense in the hand's of the 'evil' French.

Nothing Bush ran on made any sense. Bush is not an expert on terrorism, he has no more ability in the field of fighting terrorism then Kerry does. All of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq have been shot down, even he has more or less admitted it. The flip flopper thing would have been pathetic had not so many Republicans bought it. Bush flip flopped on WMD's, he flip flopped on the 911 Commission, he flip flopped on Europe, he flip flopped on the need to capture Bin Laden etc.

Bush's economic plan is basically "don't look at me."

His Civil Liberties policy is "Whether your a Jew, a Christian, an Atheist, a Buddhist or a Shinto, so long as you follow the Bible you'll have all the right's you need." No Gay Marriage, less abortion, no Stem Cell Research, more unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.

If I ever had a conversation with Bush I think it would go like this. Me: "Why did we go into Iraq?" Bush: "To fight Terror." Me: "But Iraq was a Secular Dictatorship." Bush: "But they were still evil" Me: "But that's still not a war against Islamic Terrorism." Bush: "But he tortured his own people." Me: "So do the Saudi's, why don't we attack them?" Bush: "Because they do not support Terror." Me: "But they do, and you just said Iraq didn't either." Bush: "But Iraq was evil!" and so on and so forth.

Now if we had invaded Iran, I wouldn't have had a problem. Iran is an Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracy, with WMD's, with a Nuclear Program, and clearly fund's Terrorism. Saddam did none of those thing's, he was still a tyrant, but not one involved with our war on Terrorism. Saddam was a secular threat (if that,) not an Terrorist threat.

Kerry would have kept pressure on the real terrorists, would have better equipped our troops in Iraq, would have preserved our Civil Liberties, and would have at least attempted to fix our economy and our environment. He would have asked for more help from our allies, but Bush has done the same thing. Many people voted for Bush because they did not want to lose Collin Powell... Powell recently resigned. Kerry would have gone after Bin Laden, Bush is going after homosexuals who want to have the same rights everyone else has.

If Kerry was "Unfit for Command" then Bush is unfit to run a laundromat. It's also funny how people are now painting the Democratic party as a "struggling party." We lost by what, 2%? Ahh, run for the hill's...