|
How ugly will it get?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
This was a snippet posted by Boortz today. Certainly is curious to say the least. What do you guys think of this?
| quote: | Swift Boat Veterans for Truth run an ad attacking John Kerry's Vietnam war record. In that ad a man named George Elliott, a retired Navy Lt. Commander, said that he made a terrible mistake when he signed the documents for Kerry's Silver Star. After that ad surfaced a story appeared in the Boston Globe written by Michael Kranish saying that Elliot had recanted his story.
Then things got curious.
After the Kranish story about Elliot's retraction ran, Elliot reportedly stepped forward and said that the Kranish article was wrong and that he had not, in fact, retracted his statement contained in the Swiftees' ad. It was also reported that Michael Kranish was somewhat of a Kerry insider, having written an introduction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book entitled "Our Plan for America." That led to this story in the Globe written by Susan Milligan. Milligan said that the Globe was standing by it's reporting, and that Kranish did not have any connection to the Kerry campaign and did not write any introduction to Kerry's book.
Then things got even more curious.
Did Kranish write an introduction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book or not? Has he been exposed as a Kerry supporter bringing his bias to his news reporting? Or has there been a simple misunderstanding.
Let's just say if you had searched Amazon.com or PublicAffairsBooks looking for the Kerry-Edwards book last week you would have seen a reference to an introduction written by Michael Kranish. Later, after the Kranish article about Elliot's supposed retraction appeared in the Boston Globe, the web pages for the campaign book suddenly dropped the references to Kranish and his introduction.
Interesting |
Link
Boston Globe Article |
|
|
| Matt |
but alas,
Kerry is the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Matt
but alas,
Kerry is the lesser of two evils. |
Well, someone explain this to me about Kerry. From his website, he promises to (among other things);
cut "job-producing businesses" tax, invest in hi-tech jobs, cut middle class taxes, cut health premiums, lower prescription drug costs, provide health care for everyone, invest in new energy resources, beef-up homeland security, make college more affordable, invest more in public schools, invest more in cleaning the environment, increase veteran's benefits...
...all while "cutting the deficit in half."
Like most non-encumbants, he enjoys the ability to spout off ideas and promises with no real-world backing. The second I see a budget where he can do all of these things while still cutting the deficit will be the day I even consider Kerry.
He can promise all these wonderful things to stir voters without a shred of hard support in the form of a budget. To me though, it's not hard to see that there is no way Kerry can even come close to fulfilling his promises. He has the classic democrat's "do-think-do" mentality and I hope that voters will be more realistic when thinking about voting for him. |
|
|
| imokruok |
This is an article from the NY Post from a couple of days ago. It's got a few interesting tidbits, and a fun contradiction for Kerry to answer.
| quote: |
MEDAL MUDDLE
By DEBORAH ORIN
August 6, 2004
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/26368.htm
WASHINGTON John Kerry got his first Purple Heart fraudulently for a minor wound in Vietnam at a time when he faced no enemy fire, according to a bombshell upcoming book by anti-Kerry Vietnam vets.
Questions have been raised before about Kerry's Purple Heart, but the new book, "Unfit for Command," provides new witnesses and new details to contend that it was a "faked award" rather than the result of Kerry's heroic action.
The book also accuses Kerry of fabricating his often-repeated claim that he was sent to Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 in violation of President Nixon's assurances that there was no combat in Cambodia.
"Even without minimal investigation, a critical press should have been able to spot the story as a total fabrication. Richard Nixon did not become president of the United States until 26 days [later]," the book notes.
The book is part of an escalating anti-Kerry attack by hundreds of Navy Vietnam vets who formed a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and just launched their own tough TV ad painting Kerry as a cowardly liar.
Kerry cites his four months of Vietnam service as the heart of his White House bid, buttressed by 13 crewmates. But the anti-Kerry vets are seeking to undermine his claim to be a war hero and thus undermine his campaign.
"Unfit for Command," published by Regnery, is due out Aug. 15 with an Aug. 17 news conference by the anti-Kerry vets. One chapter was released yesterday by conservative Human Events magazine, part of the same company as Regnery.
Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton declined to address specific points, but said the critics "have a partisan political agenda" and are "financed by Bush allies in Texas . . . It's wrong for others to try and smear an American war hero."
The book alleges that a normal Vietnam tour was at least 12 months, but Kerry came in as a "Purple Heart hunter" eager to have three wounds in the record time of four months so he could use "an obscure rule" to escape Vietnam.
A Purple Heart is supposed to be granted only for a wound that requires medical attention suffered during an engagement with the enemy.
The book says Kerry got his first Purple Heart on Dec. 2, 1968, but crewmates, his commander and a Navy doctor who treated him say it was a tiny injury a ricochet off a grenade that Kerry fired too close into a rock.
William Schachte, the officer commanding that mission, "berated Kerry for almost putting someone's eye out. There was no hostile fire of any kind," the book says.
Kerry's wound was so minor that in sick bay, Navy Dr. Louis Letson asked him, "Why are you here?" and used tweezers to take out a 1- or 2-centimeter metal fragment that barely stuck into his skin.
The Kerry camp has previously challenged Letson's account by noting that another medic signed the sick-bay report. Letson says both of them were on duty.
Kerry's commander, Grant Hibbard, is quoted as saying that Kerry came to see him the next day to seek a Purple Heart, but "I told Kerry to 'forget it.' "
Asked how Kerry got a Purple Heart, Hibbard replied, "It beats me."
Later that month, was ordered to more dangerous duty on inland waterways at a place called An Thoi but fellow Swift Boat veterans say he loudly bellyached until he got transferred out within a week, showing that he had "very little nerve for facing serious combat."
The book quotes fellow Swiftee William Franke as saying Kerry complained that he "had volunteered only for coastal patrol and not for the far more hazardous duty of missions within the inland waterway."
The book, by Vietnam vet John O'Neill who served with Kerry, adds: "What [Kerry's] fellow Swiftees concluded was that Kerry had a very high regard for his own wellbeing and very little nerve for facing serious combat."
|
|
|
|
| imokruok |
UPDATE on the bold-faced excerpt above:
Carl Cameron of FOX News just asked Kerry's press secretary about his Cambodia claims. The secretary stated that Kerry had never been in Cambodia. Cameron noted that Kerry's Cambodia claims appear in several of his Senate speeches. The press secretary told Carl that she would get back to him at the end of the day. Still no word from the Kerry campaign.
I love stories with legs. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
bring on the shortsided FOX bashing.
why that dumb made his war service the lynch-pin of his campaign
i'll never know.
not only did he flat out lie twice about this, it gives service to the claims of the swift boat veterans for truth.
i could care less about his war service. most people didn't like him regardless. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| the claims by the veterans is still on the border line.. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| kinda like that Madonna song? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| kinda like that Madonna song? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ture.html?id...
CAMPAIGN 2004
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. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
thats a touching story, but still doesn't address Kerry's conflicting words on record...again
it would be even less interesting if he himself stood up for what he has said about this on record, but he won't or can't. so this is what we're left with. it's stupid.
...but this is one step away from holding the highest office in the world only because the half the people in this country have been convinced that the current president is some sort of puppet or a liar or god fearing or just some dumb hick from Texas. none of that makes sense to me. i guess i'm just brainwashed.
i say bring on the debates because some people need to be reminded just how clever Bush can be and how he loves to be underestimated. |
|
|
| imokruok |
I think there are some key passages in this great opinion piece that sum up the issues that many have with Kerry. There is just something about him that doesn't add up. Despite the chastising of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, they have raised several questions that even NPR today wondered if there would be an answer.
| quote: |
Nuanced? Kerry's story just doesn't add up
by Mark Steyn
10 August 2004
The Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...08/10/ixop.html
John Kerry is too strange to be president. I don't mean "strange" in the way of his predecessor. Al Gore, the first Android-American to run for president, was weird. But Kerry's strangeness is of an entirely different order.
For purposes of comparison, go back a couple of months to that fevered few weeks when Michael Moore, bigshot Democrats and the media were hounding Bush over his allegedly spotty attendance in the Texas Air National Guard during the early Seventies.
The point is, even if it were true, it fits the Bush narrative: he was a lackadaisical son of privilege who goofed around, drank too much, found Jesus, sobered up and got his life together. If you've got 30-year-old pictures of him dancing naked on a bar in Mexico when he was supposed to be back at the air base, so what? It's compatible with the official version. That's Bush: the bad stuff still fits the picture.
But with Kerry, even before any gaffes or scandals, the official narrative makes no sense. He's publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it. Then he comes back disgusted with his experience in war, publicly hurls his medals away (or someone else's: that story keeps changing), denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists, and claims that he personally committed atrocities.
But then he decides to run for president and suddenly Jane Fonda morphs into John Wayne and all those war criminals are war heroes he wants at every rally and he's got his medals back and his disgust at his wartime experience has mysteriously turned into pride in his wartime experience to the exclusion of all else.
If Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand or any of his other Hollywood supporters got a script like that, they'd send it to rewrite. Either that or they'd figure they'd got an early, rejected draft of the new Manchurian Candidate.
That's what people mean when they talk about how "complex" and "nuanced" Kerry is. They don't mean his positions on the great questions of the day are complex and nuanced.
Quite the contrary: for the purposes of this campaign, his entire political career 20 years as Senator, Lieutenant-Governor to Michael Dukakis has been dropped from his CV. If Kerry had exhibited the slightest trace of any interestingly complex view of any policy matter, you can be sure we'd have heard about it. But he hasn't.
So the only "complex" aspect of the Kerry campaign is the man himself, who's complex in ways that don't seem entirely healthy. My chums across the page were rather dismissive yesterday about "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth", a group of fellow officers who think he's unfit to be president.
Let's take it as read that Swiftees who support or oppose Kerry are "politically motivated": the fact is, the Swiftees opposed to him significantly outnumber the four who support him, which is interesting in itself. But consider just one of the items from their new book about him.
For decades, John Kerry has told anyone who'd listen that at Christmas 1968 he was on an illegal mission inside Cambodia. On the floor of the Senate in 1986, while attacking President Reagan for turning Central America into another Vietnam quagmire (wrong as usual), Kerry said: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared seared in me."
The illegal Yuletide foray was so seared into him that he brought it up at every opportunity.
As he told the Boston Herald in 1979, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."
LBJ was President on Christmas Eve 1968, but let that pass. Here's an Associated Press story from 1992: "Navy Lt John Kerry knew he had no business steering his Mekong River patrol boat across the border into Cambodia, but orders were orders
By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry's patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia."
Just one problem. It never happened. Every living officer up his chain of command says Kerry was never ordered to Cambodia. At least three of his five crewmen say their boat was never in Cambodia. And if you don't believe any of his fellow veterans, read the excerpt from Kerry's own journal published in Tour Of Duty, the recent hagiography by Douglas Brinkley.
On December 24 1968, Kerry was at Sa Dec that's well inside Vietnam, 55 miles from the Cambodian border and waxing wistful to his diary about a quiet Christmas far from home: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."
I'm Vietnammed out. But it's the centrepiece of Kerry's campaign: the other day, asked a straightforward question about 9/11, he stuck to the current millennium for a good 20 seconds and then veered off into "the war that I fought in was a war where we saw America lose its support for the war, where the soldiers came back having had to do what our soldiers are doing today, carry an M-16 in another country, try to tell the difference between friend and foe. I know what it's like to go out at night on patrol", etc, etc. So, since Vietnam seems to be the only subject on which he has anything to say, it would be reassuring to know that at least he's got that right.
For most of his adult life John Kerry has peddled as his central Vietnam anecdote the one that drove him to turn on his nation's leaders what appears to be a complete fantasy. Why would he do such a thing? If there's a good answer to that question, maybe someone in his doting press pack would like to ask it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
