Dear John, Doves & Mr. Hoyle:
 
I have made every attempt to respond to Mr. Hoyle in an appropriate manner,
in light of what seems to be his own agitated rhetoric:
 
>Joe Hoyle (7 Aug 2004)
>"REPLY TO JOHN RUSSELL"
>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>   JOHN RUSSELL
>   Very strange.
>  I see my name in the subject box, or in "lights" as I call it; and I assume
>  that I'm personally being responded to.And then I open the post  up, find a
>  post not directed to me at all, but to the Five Doves readership, and with my
>  name plashed all through it.
 
The post was directed to you, and to the Five Doves readership, and it was in
response to what you had posted regarding the Swift Boat Veterans opposing John
Kerry. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
>   So what's going on with you Mr. Russell--are you a classic shyster; or are
>  you scared of me or what?I do expect you to show up here Monday full of
>  bravado and in denial mode for the "Five Doves" readers.
 
I find it illuminating that your opening statement accuses me of being a
"classic shyster", perhaps you might provide a definition of just what that
is Brother Joe?  And I have no idea why would you make the assumption that I
am "scared" of you? I fear nothing but God. You however, based upon your own
highly vitriolic response, appear to fear anyone who questions your statements.
Now as to whether or not I 'show up' on Monday depends on Brother John Tng.
 
>  You never directed anything in the post toward me personally at all until
>  the last sentence of the post when you asked whether I had spelled 'Yunker's
>  name right, after you already said that you had found several of them already.
 
My entire post was a response to the statements you made (made in an open public
forum I might add), and whether you choose to take them 'personally' or not is
entirely up to you.
 
>  So to me, the question was being either foolish or smart-lecky or both.
>   For your own record, "Yunker" was spelled right; and I didn't call him my
>  "friend"; I called him my "coworker". But since we always did get along, I
>   suppose he could be called a casual friend.
 
Whether Mr. Yunker was a 'friend' or a 'co-worker' isn't relevant. What IS
relevant is that you felt that his statements to you regarding his own duty
in Vietnam gave credence to, and supported what is clearly your own pro-John
Kerry opinions. You brought up Mr. Yunker's name first. I followed up with a
few questions and inquiries regarding him. Do you have a problem with that?
 
>  And then you go to a non government web site, or a quasi government web site
>  at best, to find official information for him; and failing to find it, you
>  want to automatically question Mark's service in Vietnam; you've got gall sir,
>  but that's about all.
 
I stated what I found, nothing more and nothing less - and in fact, I gave you
the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that perhaps his name had been incorrectly
spelled. That is hardly an 'automatic' questioning of someone's service. I note
too, that you immediately revert to the ad hominem attack, saying that I have
"gall..but that's about all". Personal insults Mr. Hoyle, accomplish nothing.
 
>  A normal thinking person seeking official information goes to the official
>  source.
 
As Ronald Reagan might have said "there you go again", your statement that a
'normal THINKING (emphasis mine) person' is just another semi-sly ad hominem
attack in which you are implying that I am not "a thinking person", and that
too, accomplishes nothing.
 
>   In this case, you go to the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--and then
>   go into either or both the Department of the Army or Navy; Vietnam records
>   division. You know, the Pentagon.......near Alexandria Virginia. Understand?
 
I understand that you are taking great offense at someone asking questions about
your own unsubstantiated statements. Perhaps you might contact Mr. Yunker to see
if he might have anything to add to this discussion? It could end benefiting your
own strongly held convictions in this matter, Mr. Hoyle.
 
>    Otherwise, what you call "inaccuracies"--I do not, and will stand on what
>    I said. And what you call "confusion"--is your own confusion; and add that
>    to that distortion. You wrote in your post, and tried to attribute it to
>    me somehow.
 
>>    <<<<<<<<<< What I believe Joe may be
>>  getting confused about is John Kerry's involvement in the bogus "Winter
>>  Soldier" affair in which all sorts of claims about war crimes and atrocities
>>  were made, many of those claims made by individuals who were NOT in Vietnam
>>  at all - and those statements were parroted by Kerry before Congress - claims
>>  I might add, that were never proven whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>
 
>    The fact is, I never mentioned anything about the above in my post; so the
>  confusion is yours Mr. Russell, along with distorting or trying to distort,
>  as well fabricate something I never said, into something you claim I did say
>  or brought up.
 
Perhaps you should re-read your own post Mr. Hoyle, in which you said:
 
>"Kerry people have hired investigators to check out these guys, and the report
>was that a lot of those guys was never in Vietnam at all!"
 
Let us get right to the point Mr. Hoyle. WHAT investigators? WHAT report? WHICH
of 'those guys' were never in Vietnam at all?  I suggested that you MAY have
been confused by reports of a prior investigation into the 'Winter Soldier'
affair, which WAS a series of bogus reports of war crimes, made by individuals
who claimed to have been in Vietnam, but were in fact never there. To the best
of my knowledge, there has been no investigation into the Swift Boat Veterans
who are challenging John Kerry, and each and every one of those Veterans served
in Vietnam, and I suggest that if you are going to suggest otherwise, that you
kindly supply your source for such allegations. As it is, your statement that
'Kerry people hired investigators' is without substance and totally unverified.
 
> I have to be honest and say that I really don't like people like disingenuous
> people Mr. Russell.
 
Do you like people who lie about their war records?
 
> And also stand on what I said that Bush being in cahoots with that
> Swiftboat.Com bunch--closely or at a distance.That video add cost 158,000
> dollars and 100,000 of that came from a Texas Republican, who may be linked
> to Karl Rove.
 
"In cahoots". You have no evidence of that. Only your own bias upon which you
are relying. As for 100,000 dollars being donated by a 'Texas Republican', I
say 'so what'? Is that somehow worse than millions upon millions of dollars
being donated to the multiple '527' attack groups by billionaire George Soros,
attack groups who have attacked President Bush as being comparable to Hitler,
labeling him a 'warmonger', a 'thug', and every other kind of shameful epithet?
 
And you say 'may be linked to Karl Rove'. Don't beat around the bush Mr. Hoyle,
why not just come out and accuse Karl Rove of some kind of wrongdoing? Surely
you don't fear making an accusation like that, now do you?
 
> This is still being looked into and this story is not finished yet for sure.
 
So, you concede then that there is a strong possibility that the Swift Boat
Veterans are in fact telling the truth about John Kerry, and that his four
month compilation of medals and awards are not all they're cracked up to be?
 
>  Plus. GWB was asked yesterday if he "disavowed"  the video, and GWB would
>  not, and will not disavow it--yetNow, most common sense people takes that to
>  mean that if a person doesn't want to disavow something, then it must mean
>  that they are actually concurring and going along with it; you do understand
>  this don't you Mr. Russell?No riding the fence Mr. Russell; every issue has
>  two sides and you pick one; that's a basic Kingdom Principle.
 
Mr. Hoyle, you were not listening to what President Bush said. He stated that
he thought he had done away with ALL of that sort of negative advertising when
he signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill into law. He in fact
disavowed ALL negative attacks, regardless of the source. Where was the outrage
Mr. Hoyle, when it was President Bush being savaged in attacks launched by all
of those Democrat Party advocacy groups? And while we're at it, why do you take
such offense at one, I repeat ONE such lawfully organized group that questions
the record of John Kerry? Can you explain for us, your hostility in this matter?
 
>  And then that Swiftboat.Com bunch is still claiming that there are 250 vets
>  out there who served with him; and are against him; so where are these
>  people,and who are these people.
 
Go to Swiftvets.Com and see for yourself. They're not hiding anything.
 
>  So lets see em man; walk em out on the national stage for everybody to
>  see--or simply shutup about them already! Like I already said, many of
>  those so called witnesses have been found to have not even been in
>  Vietnam at all.
 
Name your source. Cite your evidence. If you maintain that someone has NOT
been in Vietnam, like the old saying goes, "put up or shut up" Mr. Hoyle.
 
>  And I'm not talking about the group of bellyachers in the video either.
 
Would you call those decorated veterans 'bellyachers' if they were singing
the praises of John Kerry? I think not. You would support them as 'heroes'
if only they were not criticizing Senator Kerry. "Pardon me Mr. Hoyle, but
your bias is showing".
 
> And speaking of the bellyachers, everybody knows by now that Kerry's
> commanding officer is now waffling all over the landscape about that
> affidavit he signed in the past as being the truth.
 
Wrong. Captain Elliot's views were misreported and distorted by reporter
Mike Kranish of the Boston Globe, and Captain Elliot has in fact executed
an ADDITIONAL sworn affadavit in which he states that, and RE-affirms his
original criticism of John Kerry. You are too eager to seize on what turned
out to be an inaccurate and misleading story in order to support your views.
 
Here is a link to help you get this straightened out in your mind:
 
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html
 
> That guy is now all over the map about his 'truth', and is groping around
> like nobody's business. And he's supposed to be an alleged centerpiece of
> that O'Neil book of yours; what a laugher thats getting to be.And what
> would O'Neil know about Kerry's service anyway, if O'Neal followed after
> Kerry--except nothing much?
 
O'Neill took over command of PCF-94 after Kerry made his 'swift' exit from
Vietnam after only four months. And as I have already pointed out to you,
Captain Elliot is NOT 'groping around' as you so dearly wish to think. I
find it curious that you (among others) have become so rabid about what is
only ONE television ad (running in only three states, Wisconsin, Ohio and
West Virginia) and ONE published book, based upon the accounts of over 200
of Kerry's military peers - I must ask: what is it you are so afraid of? If
the book contains nothing but lies (as you apparently believe), it will fail
to have any impact whatsoever. On the other hand, if it is in fact truthful?
 
That will result in the House of Cards constructed by John Kerry and his own
followers, tumbling down in short order.
 
>  And then Mr. Russell, you seem to want to bash and trash Green Beret
>  Lieutenant James Rassmann, who had his life saved by Kerry, and Rassmann
>  also acknowledged that he was the one who put in the paperwork for Kerry's
>  Bronze star.
 
The fact is Mr. Hoyle, I never even mentioned Mr. Rassmann by name. I asked
the question why you are willing to wholeheartedly accept the words of ONE
man (who in fact is Rassmann) without any reservation, but you choose to
dismiss the words of other men, equally brave, equally decorated, all of
whom spent as much (or MORE) time in Vietnam than John Kerry himself?
 
>  So yeah, I do give Lt. Rassmann more credence, who was actually saved by
>  Kerry, and who was the johnny-on-the-spot, then I give that to that Van Odell
>  guy who was on another boat, and was no where near the incident and yet
>  contests it adamantly.
>  In fact that Odell guy was on Hannity and Cohns the other night;
>  and he melted like soft butter during questioning by a visiting female host,
>  who is U.C.L.A. law professor; lucky for him he had a few canned and by now
>  well used responses.
>  Then a little later they showed an old clip of him on a 1971 Dick Cavett show
>  reading from a prepared statement about Kerry; so all this guy has going for
>  him is crutches of some kind; and he's one of your bastions of truth? HA!And
>  to think he, and these others have been carrying around this anger, bitterness,
>  and hatred for probably 35+ years.
 
It is sad Mr. Hoyle, to see YOU ridiculing veterans in a spirit of hatred, all
because they refuse to march in lockstep with the handful of veterans who are
traveling around the country with John Kerry, singing his praises and glory.
 
>  What they seem to forget is that Kerry had no hallo shield to protect him,
>  and he could have been killed like anybody else.
 
John Kerry had more of a shield than most servicemen - he was able to make
good his escape from Vietnam after only four months. He is the ONLY Swift
Boat veteran to do so. What does that suggest to you?
 
>   Anyway-below is Lt. Rassmann's own personal version of the rescue from
>  Wikipedia
 
<Wikipedia reference snipped for space>
 
How about this quote from John Kerry, made in Portland Oregon on the subject
of his old buddy Jim Rassmann?
 
"God didn't just give me the privilege of pulling a life [Jim Rassmann] out
of the water, I pulled a vote out of the water."
 
Some would call that the King of Freudian slips.
 
May the Lord guide you, Mr. Hoyle.
 
Regards,
 
John Russell