Lots of analysis of Kerry's medals...First one was bogus

[dude1394]

Very long post and analysis of kerry's medals. I'm reading the swifties but the statement from his commanding officer, Grant Hibbard pretty much clinches it for me. Link started at captainsquarters

bandit

The following morning after Kerry's alleged first intense combat engagement, he requested a Purple Heart from his commanding officer, Grant Hibbard (Ret.). This is what Grant Hibbard recalls of the incident:

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he [Senator Kerry] trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant [William L. Schachte]. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound - he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom."

Also check out bandits site. It's dedicated to the kerry cover-up...
bandits hideout

[Drbio]

Sadly, none of this will likely hit the MSM.

[dude1394]

Pretty shocking isn't it. It would be interesting to see the pretzels that they are twisting themselves into to so blatantly give up all of the "journalisitc" integrity. I mean really think about it. You've lived most of your life kidding yourself that you are the fourth estate of the republic. The good guys who shine the light of truth no matter what befalls.

And then you are no longer a monopoly, fox kicks the alphabets ass during the RNC, talk radio won't stop, you get better and MORE reporting on the internet by amateurs blogs than you get in the msm.

You have to wonder how they can justify it. I expect however it's just being an elitist like epitome for example. THEY know what is right and good for us. They are "nuanced" enough to know the real truth, not the stupid ass voters. I mean for goodness sakes many of those voters live in the SOUTH!. Criminey, how can they be trusted to make the decisions.

Really going to be a tremendous shaking out I believe. Thank goodness.

[Chiwas]

Just the fact that Kerry stepped on Nam makes a difference.

However, I still insist, what the military service issue has to do with the ability -or disability- for being a good, regular or bad President? (In reference to both candidates).

[dude1394]

If his service was all it was cracked up to be release his damn records. That dog just won't hunt anymore.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Just the fact that Kerry stepped on Nam makes a difference.

However, I still insist, what the military service issue has to do with the ability -or disability- for being a good, regular or bad President? (In reference to both candidates).

his senate career would probably be more predictive of future leadership.
But the way he used and abused (and apparently deceived) the military for personal gain might also be telling.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
Just the fact that Kerry stepped on Nam makes a difference.

However, I still insist, what the military service issue has to do with the ability -or disability- for being a good, regular or bad President? (In reference to both candidates).

Sadly this piece of wisdom is lost on those who feel it is their crusade to find some negative in Kerry's service. Yet, while they continue to attempt to demean Kerry's volunteering for duty in the US Navy, they look askance at the Bush record during the same period. "Oh" they claim "we don't need to look at Bush's records 'cuz he doesn't talk about it." Using that logic as long as a person doesn't talk about their breaking the law we shouldn't have the police investigate the crime.

The continued focus on what did or didn't happen 30 years ago is a distraction from what is happening today. IMO that aids the incumbent...not too hard to see who wants this waste of time to continue.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
. . . Using that logic as long as a person doesn't talk about their breaking the law we shouldn't have the police investigate the crime.

If someone points to their own lawbreaking as grounds for hiring themself as your boss, maybe their lawbreaking should be investigated.

[Evilmav2]

The continued focus on what did or didn't happen 30 years ago is a distraction from what is happening today. IMO that aids the incumbent...not too hard to see who wants this waste of time to continue.

Hahaha... So, George Bush was the guy who has been constantly been talking about Vietnam over the last darned 14 months?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

If someone points to their own lawbreaking as grounds for hiring themself as your boss, maybe their lawbreaking should be investigated.

If anyone talks about their "lawbreaking" they should be looked at hard by law enforcement, no matter if they are seeking employment or whatever.

The question posed is if they don't talk about their acts do we not investigate a crime? Sure we do...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

Hahaha... So, George Bush was the guy who has been constantly been talking about Vietnam over the last darned 14 months?

No, he avoids the issue. Most likely with good reason, he doesn't have anything in his record from that time that puts him in a positive light. If it were me I wouldn't bring up my getting a pass due to priviledge or the failure to complete my commitment either.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Sadly this piece of wisdom is lost on those who feel it is their crusade to find some negative in Kerry's service. Yet, while they continue to attempt to demean Kerry's volunteering for duty in the US Navy, they look askance at the Bush record during the same period. "Oh" they claim "we don't need to look at Bush's records 'cuz he doesn't talk about it." Using that logic as long as a person doesn't talk about their breaking the law we shouldn't have the police investigate the crime.

The continued focus on what did or didn't happen 30 years ago is a distraction from what is happening today. IMO that aids the incumbent...not too hard to see who wants this waste of time to continue.

Funny.....here's the issue though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Constitution of the United States of America- here is what the President of the United States is suppose to do....

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The President #1 is Commander in Chief. He is to run the military. He is to make international policy and decision. To do this you need integrity.

You ask how his time in/out of the military is relevant?? When the job he is applying for #1 responsibility is to the military. People today make economy, jobless ratings, etc their main focus. The main focus of the job, by the constitution is to be Commander in Chief. Yes, the Commander in Chief can influence jobs, laws, etc.; but that is not the main responsibility of the President.

Bush will build the military, Kerry will screw the military. Which would you like more? US troops in Iraq, or Iraq troops in the US.

Most of you never consider the other options. You just gripe about the way things are, when we are so blessed.

"If ever time should Come, When vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, Our Country will stand in need of it's experienced Patriots to prevent it's ruin" - Samuel Adams

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

No, he avoids the issue. Most likely with good reason, he doesn't have anything in his record from that time that puts him in a positive light. If it were me I wouldn't bring up my getting a pass due to priviledge or the failure to complete my commitment either.

I get so tired of hearing this nonsense. George Bush didn't get a pass due to privilege. He served his country. He flew a plane that defended our nation's airspace. If you want people to respect veterans, you shouldn't disrespect them yourself by mocking their service.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I get so tired of hearing this nonsense. George Bush didn't get a pass due to privilege. He served his country. He flew a plane that defended our nation's airspace. If you want people to respect veterans, you shouldn't disrespect them yourself by mocking their service.

George Bush "didn't get a pass due to priviledge"? The person who got him in the Guard, Ben Barnes, publically disagrees with you.

"I got a young man named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard when I was lieutenant governor [actually Texas House Speaker]. "Barnes said that he was moved to remorse by a visit to the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in D.C., and continued, "It was the worst thing I did, was help a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very sorry of that and I'm very ashamed, and I apologize to you as the voters of Texas."

I disagree that pointing out a) the opportunity that Bush took advantage of, or b) that he didn't fulfill his obligation in any way is expressing "disrespect" for veterans.
I certainly have been vocal in the view that neither Bush nor Kerry's service should be questioned (disrespected?) nor be pivotal in the decision of whom should get one's vote. I also will be adamant that if we are forced to go down that rotten path of digging into the service to our country by the waste fo time in examining Kerry's records, to the point that even his medical records are an issue, by golly in the spirit of equality what's good for the goose is good for the gander and we must do the same to George Bush's record's.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dalmations202
The President #1 is Commander in Chief. He is to run the military. He is to make international policy and decision. To do this you need integrity.

You ask how his time in/out of the military is relevant?? When the job he is applying for #1 responsibility is to the military. People today make economy, jobless ratings, etc their main focus. The main focus of the job, by the constitution is to be Commander in Chief. Yes, the Commander in Chief can influence jobs, laws, etc.; but that is not the main responsibility of the President.

That doesn't qualify Bush any more than it qualifies Kerry. If you look back at Clause 1 there are several responsibilities mentioned equally to that of Commanderin Chief, all are vital to our country's ongoing success.

Bush will build the military, Kerry will screw the military. Which would you like more? US troops in Iraq, or Iraq troops in the US.

Certainly your opinion although some support with facts would make such rhetoric more meaningful. To suggest that there was one iota of chance that there would be "Iraq troops in the US" if we had not invaded Iraq is ludicrous and laughable
As for me I'd prefer US troops in the US and Iraqi troops in Iraq.

[Chiwas]

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Good contribution, dalmations. I read it -and also I read the Section 1- and have some commentaries.

- It has some obsolescence, for example, it does not mention the Air Force. It makes me think that being Comander in Chief was a priority of the Presidency before, but I think it is not today.

- It does not mention that the President has to have special merits to accomplish the functions mentioned. Moreover, several other persons or entities are mentioned to help the President to do them.

- In the practice, the President has several experts for making such special duties, as in every area of the Administration. You know them better than me, but I can call the Secretary of Defense and the different heads of the Armed Forces; and of course there is the congress, as mentioned in the constitution.

- The President has to have a vision of the State, to be an statesman for taking the most appropiated decisions. On the issues of warfare, the security of the motherland and the keeping of the interests of the nation overseas, I think that to have been guarding a coast or to have been fighting at Nam, and their difference, helps little to make that visionary and stateman needed.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I read the same article and the same quotes from Barnes that you did. Of course, his comments have been refuted in the past.

As for not discussing the past, John Kerry is the one who can't let it go. His midnight speech in the wake of the RNC is proof of that. Not a single person at the RNC questioned John Kerry's Vietnam service, yet the first thing we hear from him is that the Republicans, particularly Bush and Cheney, were questioning his service -- a lie repeated over and over again this past weekend by the AP and other media sources.

I told you this about a month ago and I'll say it again -- John Kerry (NOT the Republicans) has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. If he doesn't want to talk about it, he shouldn't talk about it.


P.S. John Kerry took a cheap shot at Dick Cheney for getting military deferments (something which was legal at the time, I believe) instead of going to Vietnam, as if that somehow makes Cheney less of a person. Of course, John Kerry didn't mention the fact that coming out of school he applied for a deferment, but was denied. Nor does he, despite criticizing Bush for enlisting in the National Guard, ever bring up the fact that he enlisted in the Naval Reserves, not the Navy, because he was much less likely to actually be called into combat. He doesn't mention that his entire first tour of duty was spent on a naval vessel deep at sea, far from Vietnam. He doesn't mention that for his second tour of duty, when he had to enter the actual Navy, he asked for the Swift Boat assignment because those boats weren't being used in combat at the time, and he figured he wouldn't ever see actual combat. He doesn't mention how often and strenuously he objected when the Swift Boats were reassigned to a more active combat role. I could go on and on, by my point is simple. While I have the utmost respect for the fact that John Kerry actually fought for our country in combat (whether he is a bragger and exaggerator or not), I think it's intellectually dishonest for John Kerry to portray himself as this valiant war hero who went over to Vietnam to kick some ass while Bush and Cheney did everything they could to stay stateside, when the truth of the matter is, he tried to do the exact same thing he accuses them of.

[DwD]

Here is the dirt on Ben Barnes - I know it is a free republic url, but check out the links posted - they are all from pretty major news outlets.

[Mavdog]

KG-
No, I haven't read anything that refutes Ben Barnes. what, is there some personal attack on him now that will make him look like a dishonest publicity hound? That quote wasn't the first or only time he has admitted helping George W. get into the guard.

edit: just as I posted this, above post appears that is just what I expected. A link to a site that throws tons of dirt on Barnes, yet doen't provide one single fact, one other person's recollection, that contradicts what Barnes says about getting Bush into the Guard.

As for Kerry's "cheap shot" on Bush and Cheney, the battle had been joined. How long could Kerry not take the offense against the Bushies attacks on his past? Now, I agree that George never got his hands dirty with an attack on Kerry, the same is not true of Cheney nor the operatives who are coordinating the campaign of attacks on Kerry's service.

I find it all disappointing and a disgrace. My hope is that each side stops and we get down to discussing issues like Iraq, the economy, the environment, etc.

I'm not holding my breathe tho, for the sides are going to continue, Bush because they have seen the benefit and Kerry because he can't ignore the issue with the damage it has done. the mud is a slingin'...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

If anyone talks about their "lawbreaking" they should be looked at hard by law enforcement, no matter if they are seeking employment or whatever.

The question posed is if they don't talk about their acts do we not investigate a crime? Sure we do...

oh, ok. I didn't realize that you were arguing for the full investigation of the military claims of both Bush and Kerry.

[LRB]

The word and only the word of one partisan politician to what he did 35 years ago doesn't amount to hill of beans. Ben Barnes has no credibility in his claim against Bush without supporting documentation. And even if what he did help Bush get into the Guard, it sounds like Barnes did it without Bush's knowledge. So I really don't see much of an issue either way.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
KG-
No, I haven't read anything that refutes Ben Barnes. what, is there some personal attack on him now that will make him look like a dishonest publicity hound? That quote wasn't the first or only time he has admitted helping George W. get into the guard.

edit: just as I posted this, above post appears that is just what I expected. A link to a site that throws tons of dirt on Barnes, yet doen't provide one single fact, one other person's recollection, that contradicts what Barnes says about getting Bush into the Guard.

When I said refute, I guess I should have been more specific. What has been refuted is the notion that Bush or his father requested a favor from Barnes which was granted. And Barnes has been telling this story for a while now. In fact, he testified about it in a lawsuit in 1999. link The media would love for this to be the "smoking gun", but in reality it's just old news.

And yes, I think that when Barnes comes out with "admissions" at this point and time and does an interview on 60 minutes less than 60 days before the election talking about these "admissions", it is relevant to discuss the fact that he is one of the top 3 individual fundraisers for John Kerry in the entire country. He wouldn't have anything to gain by making these admissions now, would he?

His bias is clearly relevant.

As for Kerry's "cheap shot" on Bush and Cheney, the battle had been joined. How long could Kerry not take the offense against the Bushies attacks on his past?

Yawn. You keep begging the question. They aren't "the Bushies". They are "the anti-Kerrys". And if Kerry wants to take the offensive, he should actually address what Bush and Cheney SAID about him, or if he wants to talk about the Swift Boat charges against him, he should address THOSE CHARGES by coming up with more than just "they're all lying Republican operatives". It's a weak and untrue retort.

Now, I agree that George never got his hands dirty with an attack on Kerry, the same is not true of Cheney nor the operatives who are coordinating the campaign of attacks on Kerry's service.

He didn't attack the "operatives" who are coordinating the campaign of attacks. He attacked Cheney, and misstated everything that Cheney actually said about him. Cheney never questioned Kerry's patriotism. He questioned whether he would be the right person to lead the country in the next four years -- something that apparently a lot of people question, Kerry's ability to take criticism aside.

Notably, you never addressed my point about deferments. John Kerry acts like deferments make you somehow un-American or unpatriotic, which makes you wonder why he asked for one.

I find it all disappointing and a disgrace. My hope is that each side stops and we get down to discussing issues like Iraq, the economy, the environment, etc.

Bush is talking about those things. Maybe John Kerry will start soon. I've noticed a recent shift in his campaign rhetoric to actually distinguish himself a bit from Bush. That's a move in the right direction.

I'm not holding my breathe tho, for the sides are going to continue, Bush because they have seen the benefit and Kerry because he can't ignore the issue with the damage it has done. the mud is a slingin'...

Nonsense. You've begged the question so many times now it isn't funny. Bush isn't slinging mud about Kerry's Vietnam service, and a smart person like you shouldn't keep insisting that he is.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
When I said refute, I guess I should have been more specific. What has been refuted is the notion that Bush or his father requested a favor from Barnes which was granted. And Barnes has been telling this story for a while now. In fact, he testified about it in a lawsuit in 1999. link The media would love for this to be the "smoking gun", but in reality it's just old news.

It's no "smoking gun" as everybody knows it happened. As Barnes tesitified it was a Bush friend, not Papa or W, who asked for the favor:
"Barnes testified instead that the late Houston oilman (and Bush buddy) Sidney Adger, not Bush's family, had interceded on young George's behalf – a loophole that allowed the then governor (already a presidential hopeful) to claim (as he does still) that he knew nothing about it."

"And yes, I think that when Barnes comes out with "admissions" at this point and time and does an interview on 60 minutes less than 60 days before the election talking about these "admissions", it is relevant to discuss the fact that he is one of the top 3 individual fundraisers for John Kerry in the entire country. He wouldn't have anything to gain by making these admissions now, would he?

His bias is clearly relevant."

Yeah, but the "bias" of John O'Neill and the other SwiftAttack Vets isn't "relevant" eh?

Yawn. You keep begging the question. They aren't "the Bushies". They are "the anti-Kerrys". And if Kerry wants to take the offensive, he should actually address what Bush and Cheney SAID about him, or if he wants to talk about the Swift Boat charges against him, he should address THOSE CHARGES by coming up with more than just "they're all lying Republican operatives". It's a weak and untrue retort.

let's see; the primary benefactor who paid for the first commercial is a Bush Pioneer (MAJOR contributor), the attorney who got their 527 status accepted is a Bush attorney, the publicist who coordinated their PR is a Rove/Bush confidant/appointee. Nah, there is no Bush connection (wink, wink)

You mean "address those charges like in this speech ;"Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam."

He didn't attack the "operatives" who are coordinating the campaign of attacks. He attacked Cheney, and misstated everything that Cheney actually said about him. Cheney never questioned Kerry's patriotism. He questioned whether he would be the right person to lead the country in the next four years -- something that apparently a lot of people question, Kerry's ability to take criticism aside.

Notably, you never addressed my point about deferments. John Kerry acts like deferments make you somehow un-American or unpatriotic, which makes you wonder why he asked for one.

The reference to Cheney was directed at the failure of Cheny (or Bush for that matter) to denounce the attacks on Kerry's service, you know, like Kerry denounced the attacks on Bush's service. Their failure to stand up and act was tacit approval of those attacks.

The phraseology wasn't an attack on deferments as such, it was questioning how someone who used their deferment could have the ability to judge the actions of someone who went and served.

Bush is talking about those things. Maybe John Kerry will start soon. I've noticed a recent shift in his campaign rhetoric to actually distinguish himself a bit from Bush. That's a move in the right direction.

Yeah, the Bush line this weekend "Kerry wants to tax your job" sure is discussing "those things"...what hyperbole.

Nonsense. You've begged the question so many times now it isn't funny. Bush isn't slinging mud about Kerry's Vietnam service, and a smart person like you shouldn't keep insisting that he is.

It is not realistic to take the position that the attacks on Kerry aren't a part of the Bush effort. Your claims that these people are "anti-kerry" and not pro-bush flies in the face of the facts of who composed the group (John O'Neill, repub) who financed the ads (Bob Perry and Harlan Crow, both repub contributors), who did their legal work (Ginsberg, repub attorney) and did their PR (another repub operative). Where there is smoke there is fire.

Bush doesn't sling the mud for he has subordinates to do it for him.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Yeah, but the "bias" of John O'Neill and the other SwiftAttack Vets isn't "relevant" eh?

You're comparing apples to oranges and trying to put words in my mouth again.

Is John O'Neill a top 3 Bush campaign fundraiser/contributor? Has he contributed ANY money to the Bush campaign? From his own words, he's voted mostly Democratic for the past 30 years or so, which shoots holes in your claim that he's a Republican operative.

The Swift Boat Veterans have indicated that they are a mix of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. No one has demonstrated to the contrary.

Barnes has motivation to lie and misrepresent. The Swift Boat Veterans don't.

let's see; the primary benefactor who paid for the first commercial is a Bush Pioneer (MAJOR contributor)

I see. So if someone gives money to a candidate and to another cause, the two are automatically linked?

the attorney who got their 527 status accepted is a Bush attorney

You fail to mention that he's one of the top campaign finance lawyers in the country (a very specialized niche). They couldn't have gone to him for his expertise in complying with the campaign finance reform laws and the tax code, could they? Nah. MUST be because they wanted to conspire with Bush.

the publicist who coordinated their PR is a Rove/Bush confidant/appointee. Nah, there is no Bush connection (wink, wink)

I see. They shouldn't use anybody that has worked for the Republicans in the past, right? That necessarily denotes a connection (and, somehow, control by Bush's campaign)?

Poor logic, man.

You mean "address those charges like in this speech ;"Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam."

The Navy's now looking into that; it'll be interesting to see what they turn up.

That still doesn't really go to the point of my comment, which is that John Kerry was trying to imply that Bush and/or Cheney had questioned his Vietnam service -- something they never did.

The reference to Cheney was directed at the failure of Cheny (or Bush for that matter) to denounce the attacks on Kerry's service, you know, like Kerry denounced the attacks on Bush's service. Their failure to stand up and act was tacit approval of those attacks.

What in the hell are you talking about? Here are the relevant Kerry quotes about Cheney (and Bush):

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve."

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said. "I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified than two tours of duty."

This has absolutely nothing to do with any "failure to denounce" attacks on Kerry. It's John Kerry taking a cheap shot at Dick Cheney for getting deferments -- something John Kerry sought himself.

The phraseology wasn't an attack on deferments as such, it was questioning how someone who used their deferment could have the ability to judge the actions of someone who went and served.

The comments were an attack on Cheney for taking deferments, as if what he did was illegal and/or unpatriotic. Never mind the fact that Kerry sought a deferment himself.

Also, Cheney didn't judge the actions of someone who went and served. His only comment about John Kerry's service was that he respects him for it. His criticism was of Kerry's Senate record -- something that Cheney is entitled to criticize.

Yeah, the Bush line this weekend "Kerry wants to tax your job" sure is discussing "those things"...what hyperbole.

Who said it was? That's not the only thing that Bush has said in the past week, is it?

It is not realistic to take the position that the attacks on Kerry aren't a part of the Bush effort. Your claims that these people are "anti-kerry" and not pro-bush flies in the face of the facts of who composed the group (John O'Neill, repub) who financed the ads (Bob Perry and Harlan Crow, both repub contributors), who did their legal work (Ginsberg, repub attorney) and did their PR (another repub operative). Where there is smoke there is fire.

Bush doesn't sling the mud for he has subordinates to do it for him.

It is realistic to take that position, as I outlined above. And the bottom line is, whether you want to call it mud slinging or not, the Swift Boat Veterans genuinely believe what they are saying, and they really have nothing to gain from taking such a stance. In fact, many of them have been unfairly villified and attacked by the media. More scrutiny has been given to the military records of some of the Swift Boat Veterans than has been given to the military and medical records of John Kerry.

[knowitall]

You said if someone gives money to a candidate and to another cause, their linked?

Yes. If it's this candidate and this cause.

Your saying Ginsberg + SBVT's =Bush?

Of course, don't kid yourself.

They shouldn't work with Rep's from the past?

Who cares! Cats out of the bag.


I'll look at the rest of your post later. Making me dizzy.

[kg_veteran]

Better if you just saved us the bandwidth and waited to post until you had something insightful to say.

[knowitall]

Yeah KG, there is no connection at all............keep saying that, keep saying that, and when I count to 3 you will wake up feeling refreshed.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Yeah KG, there is no connection at all............keep saying that, keep saying that, and when I count to 3 you will wake up feeling refreshed.

I guess my viewpoint on this is different than yours because of my profession. I deal with the burden of proof every day. And the burden of proof has NOT been met. Until there is some direct evidence of communications between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans, it will not be met. You can come up with all the circumstantial evidence you want; there's no proof that the Swift Boat Veterans have ever directly communicated with the Bush campaign, except for the exchange through the media where Bush told them to stop and they told him "no".

[knowitall]

Then you must also know that circumstantial evidence can be very convincing. With Ginsberg alone, it's difficult to remove that odor.

[Drbio]

Troll. Nothing more.

[dude1394]

As soon as kerry releases all of his records then he'll have some credibility. Until then he's hiding something. Many would say that bush volunteered for a more dangerous tour of duty than kerry did initially as the swift boat tour that kerry signed up for was the safest in the military. But they changed tactics on him.

They both served their country honorably, certainly more than anyone on this board (if not true I apologise). But if kerry wants to address this he can release his records or at LEAST grant someone an interview. It's been about 1 month and a week sinces he's talked to anyone about this. He'd dodging.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
You're comparing apples to oranges and trying to put words in my mouth again.

Is John O'Neill a top 3 Bush campaign fundraiser/contributor? Has he contributed ANY money to the Bush campaign? From his own words, he's voted mostly Democratic for the past 30 years or so, which shoots holes in your claim that he's a Republican operative.

The Swift Boat Veterans have indicated that they are a mix of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. No one has demonstrated to the contrary.

Barnes has motivation to lie and misrepresent. The Swift Boat Veterans don't.

Interesting that you grant O'Neill independence while his working for and with repubs goes back to 1972. The SBV also get full credibility, while at the same time, you dimiss Barnes and his recollections.
After all, we should take each of them at their word, right?

So if someone gives money to a candidate and to another cause, the two are automatically linked?

If all we were discussing was "give money" that's one thing, but we have Bush Pioneers here, donors who give the most and are ones who get access to W.

You may deride the "poor logic" of the connections, yet the connections do exist. The web is pretty visible if you just step back.

That still doesn't really go to the point of my comment, which is that John Kerry was trying to imply that Bush and/or Cheney had questioned his Vietnam service -- something they never did.

As your quotes show Kerry referrred to the attack on his "patriotism" not his service. Cheney said in a speech that Kerry would not put his country first but ask "permission" to defend his country, something a patriot would never do:
"President Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of the United States"

This has absolutely nothing to do with any "failure to denounce" attacks on Kerry. It's John Kerry taking a cheap shot at Dick Cheney for getting deferments -- something John Kerry sought himself.

That was not attacking deferments, it was saying to Cheney that Kerry had the guts to enlist in the service while Cheney did not, how can he sit there and say that Kerry didn't have the guts to do what's best for America.

And the bottom line is, whether you want to call it mud slinging or not, the Swift Boat Veterans genuinely believe what they are saying, and they really have nothing to gain from taking such a stance. In fact, many of them have been unfairly villified and attacked by the media. More scrutiny has been given to the military records of some of the Swift Boat Veterans than has been given to the military and medical records of John Kerry.

I don't share your view of the SBV being "unfairly villified", and I don't believe that more scruntity is being given to those SBV records than Kerry's. I haven't heard of anybody demanding that the SBV release their medical records, medal records, or other minutia, while the Bushies are screaming for Kerry's.

BTW you believe that the SBV have "nothing to gain" from all this? Look at the sales of their book, and all the interviews. It's their 15 minutes!

[dude1394]

Roll 'em both out there. Bush has had everything thrown at him anyway, most people think anything else that comes out is straight out of the maggott moore playbook. But look at kerry's record with the same scrutiny.