The Big Media Counterattack

[Dooby]

Wednesday, September 8 2004
BIG MEDIA COUNTERATTACKS: Old Media and the Left, enraged by President Bush's surge in the polls and what they view as an illegitimate examination of Kerry's record, has decided that today is the day they will counterattack hard in an attempt to reopen the Bush National Guard story as an issue in the campaign.

The Boston Globe unloads an above the fold, front-page story: "Bush Fell Short on Duty at Guard: Records Show Pledges Unmet." The Globe's parent corporation, The New York Times Company, gets into the action with Nicholas Kristof 's "Missing in Action." Then of course there is the headliner with CBS's Dan Rather interviewing former Democratic Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes II later tonight.

Kristof writes wistfully:

I've steered clear until now of how Mr. Bush evaded service in Vietnam because I thought other issues were more important. But if Bush supporters attack John Kerry for his conduct after he volunteered for dangerous duty in Vietnam, it's only fair to scrutinize Mr. Bush's behavior.

I love it when post-hippie 1970 liberals indignantly throw around words like "evaded service in Vietnam." Of course for eight years while Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief this was a non-issue, but suddenly they are enraged that somebody might have "evaded service in Vietnam" by serving in the National Guard. Now liberals will say the issue is not that Bush served in the National Guard, but rather how he got into the National Guard. But Kristof's own words accuse the President very directly of "evading service in Vietnam."

The hypocrisy here is so stunning and the gall of baby boomer, anti-war lefties getting all self-righteous about "evading service" is a joke. The fact the Left has decided to go back to the trough on this issue just shows how few attractive avenues of attack they have left against the President. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.

The Kerry campaign, The New York Times, the Boston Globe and CBS are all excited that they are going to "swift-boat" George W. Bush and turn these next two weeks into the equivalent of John Kerry's August for the President. But after the heat of the 2000 Presidential campaign and then the attempt several months ago to reignite the National Guard issue, the likelihood that there is going to be something substantive in all of this noise is extremely unlikely.

Now the Kerry folks and the liberal glitterati in the press will say that there was nothing substantive in the swift-boat story yet it caused tremendous damage to John Kerry. It is this logic that has probably deluded them into thinking that this old National Guard issue can be used effectively against President Bush.

But they are missing two key points to why this re-attack on President Bush's National Guard service will not have nearly the effectiveness of the swift boat attacks on Senator Kerry. First, and this is not a small point, George Bush has not made his stint in the National Guard one of the primary reasons to vote for him as President. Bush is more than happy to run on his 6-year record as Governor of the second largest state in country and his four years as President of the United States. It is Senator Kerry who decided to make his four-month service in Vietnam the prime qualification to lead this nation in war as opposed to his twenty-year public record in the United States Senate.

Second, and it is this point that infuriates the elites in the media, there happens to be quite a lot of substance in the swift-boat attacks. The Kerry campaign and their friends in the press like to pretend that this is all just a pack of lies conjured up by the right-wing slime machine, but the facts seem to suggest a different story. The reason the swift-boat controversy continues to resonate is there is significant evidence supporting the charges.

The media did their best to cherry pick one story here and another story there in an attempt to discredit the swift-boat veterans, but when you have over 90% of the people Kerry served with corroborating the story, at some point it becomes difficult to suggest the whole thing is all a pack of lies. As Bob Dole said very devastatingly just a couple of weeks ago:

Not every one of these people can be Republican liars. There's got to be some truth to the charges.

If Kerry is truly the victim of a right-wing slime attack and all of these scurrilous charges are really just a pack of lies, then why hasn't he put this story to bed by walking out in front of the press and the American people, stared in to the camera, and explained how his honor has been trashed? Why hasn't he been willing to talk open and fully about his Vietnam service and dispel once and for all these vicious attacks on his character? More than anything else it is Kerry's reluctance, or inability, to answer these questions personally that is the most damning piece of evidence for the American public.

We'll see where this George Bush National Guard service story goes on the umpteenth go around on this issue, but because of those two key points it is going to be difficult for this story to really hurt the President the same way the swift-boat story has hurt John Kerry. None of this is going to stop the Bush-haters in the press from trying to make it an issue, but it is going to be really hard unless there is something legitimately new, and substantive - and right now that doesn't seem to be the case.

The tag-team follow up to the National Guard foray is the unrolling of the Kitty Kelly personal attack on the Bush family that is scheduled for next week when Kelly is lined up to appear on The Today Show for three consecutive days. This should be of more concern to the Democrats than Republicans for this story has every bit as good a chance to hurt Kerry as it does Bush, because of the very real possibility of a backlash over the personal and tabloid nature of the attack.

Given the intensity of this campaign over the last few months and the vitriol (if not almost pathological hatred for Bush on the Left) it is not surprising that this campaign will continue to get uglier and uglier. The Democrats and the media began banging on Bush as far back as last fall when the Democratic primary campaign began in earnest. In August when Bush and Kerry's opponents struck back the Democrats howled at all the negative campaigning. This is going to be an intense two months and it is going to get considerably uglier between now and election day. J. McIntyre 7:58 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend

[LRB]

Hopefully this election will mark the beginning of the end for the big MSM media. The NY Times, Boston Globe, CBS sixty minutes etc. are becoming little more than the National Enquirer in terms of credibility.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Hopefully this election will mark the beginning of the end for the big MSM media. The NY Times, Boston Globe, CBS sixty minutes etc. are becoming little more than the National Enquirer in terms of credibility.

yeah, the Wash Times and FoxNews ("unfair and unbalanced" and bygod proud of it!) have so much more credibility [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]
It's shown with all those journalism awards they don't have and will never get.

would you like some cheese with that whine?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

yeah, the Wash Times and FoxNews ("unfair and unbalanced" and bygod proud of it!) have so much more credibility [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]
It's shown with all those journalism awards they don't have and will never get.

would you like some cheese with that whine?

You call any media outlet which isn't proleft, unfair and unbalanced. FoxNews is probably the very best of the networks and cable news services. However it's hard to get awards from liberals when you're competing with proliberal news channels.

With the common person Foxnews has tons more credibility than the the others, because they provide more news and less spin.

[razap]

With the common person Foxnews has tons more credibility than the the others, because they provide more news and less spin.

your kidding right? you mean the 3 week pimping of the swiftboat vets ads and book did not ring a bell? it was ridiculous.every show , all day long had something to do with the swift boat story..of course then fox news wonders in amasement how 1/2 of the country had heard about them with a budget of less than 500,000 dollars..

[knowitall]

Proleft reports left. Proright reports right. Nothing new. Period. But "Fox news has tons more credibility"???

I like the way they continue to rerun cheney telling us we'll be attacked if Kerry is elected.

Spread the fear Dick. Such a noble pursuit. You should be proud LRB.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: razap
With the common person Foxnews has tons more credibility than the the others, because they provide more news and less spin.

your kidding right? you mean the 3 week pimping of the swiftboat vets ads and book did not ring a bell? it was ridiculous.every show , all day long had something to do with the swift boat story..of course then fox news wonders in amasement how 1/2 of the country had heard about them with a budget of less than 500,000 dollars..

It was and is a legitimate story. It's funny how they are the only ones covering it more than just the smallest cursitory glance. However look at the tons of coverage the other MSM outlets have given to the incredibly less sustantiated claims about Bush's National Guard service.

Sorry, but you logic is faulty.

[razap]

Originally posted by: LRB

It was and is a legitimate story. It's funny how they are the only ones covering it more than just the smallest cursitory glance. However look at the tons of coverage the other MSM outlets have given to the incredibly less sustantiated claims about Bush's National Guard service.

Sorry, but you logic is faulty.

faulty logic? Well then you must be disapointed at Fox News fro not repeatedly airing Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil's charges in their new books. Funny how Fox also passed up replaying moveon.org ads over and over again..these fall along the lines of what you termed a 'legitimate story'.

[knowitall]

Razap, I give credit where credit is due. The swiftboat vets are a very well concieved, collusive, conspiracy created by the Bush campaign. You gotta admit. Bush is crafty.

[razap]

what amazes me is that these vets say they are coming out now because kerry trashed them and other vets in 1971. well call me crazy but doesn't the action of trying to diminish how GIs earned their medals doing the same thing? now bush supporters will say the vets were specifically talking about kerry..while they will not recognize that kerry testified about these acts as they were comminucated to him.. the commercial purposely leaves out the first part of his testimony saying he had heard from other vets..to starting this commercial having kerry saying GIs committed atrocities..that is not true.. yet people like LRB continue to support these guys.. amazing..

[LRB]

Originally posted by: razap

faulty logic? Well then you must be disapointed at Fox News fro not repeatedly airing Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil's charges in their new books. Funny how Fox also passed up replaying moveon.org ads over and over again..these fall along the lines of what you termed a 'legitimate story'.

This is a legitimate story. It has a great deal of eyewitness testimony, 100+. The Swiftvets have caught Kerry in a couple of lies which the Kerry campaign has already admitted to including the infamous Christmas Eve in Cambodia lie. They are talking about a campaign issue that has been repeatedly stressed by the Kerry campaign, Kerry's Vietnam service. They have the number one selling non-fiction book in the country. To not report this story with as much exposure as Fox did would be irresponsible journalism.

The real question is for the other MSM outletts. Why are they covering the Bush National Guard scandal by almost an order of magitude more stories over the Swiftvets. And where are the majority of Swiftvets stories investigating the characters of the SwiftVets while the majority of the Bush National Guard stories are investigating the character of Bush. Add to it that the Bush National Guard story is much less substantiated than the Swiftvets. We're not even talking about being any where in the ballpark with the same ratio of coverage. There is a clear and pervasive media bias against Bush and for Kerry.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: razap
what amazes me is that these vets say they are coming out now because kerry trashed them and other vets in 1971. well call me crazy but doesn't the action of trying to diminish how GIs earned their medals doing the same thing? now bush supporters will say the vets were specifically talking about kerry..while they will not recognize that kerry testified about these acts as they were comminucated to him.. the commercial purposely leaves out the first part of his testimony saying he had heard from other vets..to starting this commercial having kerry saying GIs committed atrocities..that is not true.. yet people like LRB continue to support these guys.. amazing..

Kerry did say that GI's committed atrocities. To say otherwise is not blatantly lying. Sure he announced that he was speaking on behalf of the Winter Soldiers AS WELL AS HIMSELF. Kerry also spoke out against US service men on numerous occasions in anitwar rallies. Kerry also conspired with the enemy.

But attacking one person who served in Vietnam in particular for ignoble and selfserving service is a far cry from attacking all who served. They are accusing Kerry of lying and decieving to get his medals. Kerry would not be the 1st to have done this nor the last. What makes it important is Kerry is running for President of the US on a platform built in part upon those medals. We should also remember that Kerry once threw those medals away willingly.

[knowitall]

Their covering these stories more closely because Bush is a terrible leader. It's that simple.

[razap]

Originally posted by: LRB

This is a legitimate story. It has a great deal of eyewitness testimony, 100+. The Swiftvets have caught Kerry in a couple of lies which the Kerry campaign has already admitted to including the infamous Christmas Eve in Cambodia lie. They are talking about a campaign issue that has been repeatedly stressed by the Kerry campaign, Kerry's Vietnam service. They have the number one selling non-fiction book in the country. To not report this story with as much exposure as Fox did would be irresponsible journalism.

The real question is for the other MSM outletts. Why are they covering the Bush National Guard scandal by almost an order of magitude more stories over the Swiftvets. And where are the majority of Swiftvets stories investigating the characters of the SwiftVets while the majority of the Bush National Guard stories are investigating the character of Bush. Add to it that the Bush National Guard story is much less substantiated than the Swiftvets. We're not even talking about being any where in the ballpark with the same ratio of coverage. There is a clear and pervasive media bias against Bush and for Kerry.

Look LRB you seem to be a rational person but my point is most of these men were never in vietnam when kerry was there nor did any of them serve on his bat. secondly the US navy backs up all of kerry's stories and accounts. A handful of the swftvets said nice things about kerry to then do a 180 or (a flip flop) and say something negative.. Fox News never once mentioned that many of these men never met or saw John kerry ..that is iresponsible. I have no problem with fox news being slanted to the right but to replay a 'questionable' account of a presidential candiate ongoing for 3 weeks without pointing out obvious contradictions in their stories is insulting.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Their covering these stories more closely because Bush is a terrible leader. It's that simple.

Terrible leade is a biased judgement. Thanks for confirming my argument. Who says that trolls can't be useful at times.

[razap]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Their covering these stories more closely because Bush is a terrible leader. It's that simple.

you know custer was a decisive leader..never wavered from his decisions.. stayed the course..and payed for it with his life.. i enjoy hearing bush is a decisive leader..so what happens when he takes the wrong direction? stubbornly stay the coutrse ? or do you step back and re-evaluate your decisions?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

It was and is a legitimate story. It's funny how they are the only ones covering it more than just the smallest cursitory glance. However look at the tons of coverage the other MSM outlets have given to the incredibly less sustantiated claims about Bush's National Guard service.

Sorry, but you logic is faulty.

just how is the questions on Bush's service "less substantiated'? If anything they are MORE substantiated, the records (at lleast the one's which had not been "lost") clearly reveal a failure to show up when he was obligated to do so, and a failure to submit to a medical exam when he was obligated to do so. hmmmm, I wonder why he didn't submit to the medical exam? Taking the extreme unsupported position exhibited by some against Kerry ("release those medical records now, What is he trying to hide, The records must show he didn't deserve those medals!") and being equal in its application, what was George Bush trying to hide by not submitting to the required medical exam? He MUST have been doing something...could it be drugs? yes, that MUST be it, he was doing dangerous and illegal substances! Unfit he is!

OTOH, the "claims" about Kerry are based on personal recollection of over 30 years ago. Tell me, how could a doctor who treated hundreds if not thousands of servicemen have the clarity to recall a single episode of a patient with "superficial wounds" so clearly 3 decades later? Jon Stewart had a great joke on this a few weeks ago:

The Dr. writing home of his Nam experience;
"My dearest Eunice,
The War is so heavy upon my soul. Today I had the charge of treating a soldier who had the most memorable superficial wound that I could ever have imagined! I moved quickly to apply my medical training to this poor soldier, to reduce his suffering from his dramatic superficial wound. I was miraculously able to stop the superficial wound from becoming a debilitating injury, yet the episode and his name are forever woven into my memory..."
yuck yuck yuck

[LRB]

Look LRB you seem to be a rational person but my point is most of these men were never in vietnam when kerry was there nor did any of them serve on his bat. secondly the US navy backs up all of kerry's stories and accounts. A handful of the swftvets said nice things about kerry to then do a 180 or (a flip flop) and say something negative.. Fox News never once mentioned that many of these men never met or saw John kerry ..that is iresponsible. I have no problem with fox news being slanted to the right but to replay a 'questionable' account of a presidential candiate ongoing for 3 weeks without pointing out obvious contradictions in their stories is insulting.

No, there are well over a 100 men who served in Vietnam while Kerry was there including most of his direct chaing of commanding officers.

True none of them did serve on Kerry's "bat" whatever the hell that means. However one did serve on Kerry's boat. Numersous others were in near perfect position to observe Kerry as they accompanied him on missions howbeit it in other boats in close proximity (i.e. easy visual and even audio range). I've yet to see substantiated reports of any of the Swiftvets doing 180's. I've seen a lot of decietful campaign spin and journalism trying to make it out that they have. However in every case it has been soundly refuted.

There is no slant to report a legitimate news issue. If you want to talke "questionable" talk about the Kerry's chief campaign guru coming out and questioning Bush's service and how the MSM are all over it. The word of one single man, and who claims neither Bush nor his family ever approached him asking for help in getting Bush into the National Guard. 60 minutes is doing a special on him. How many did they do on the SwiftVets??? That is slant.

Again you have no proof that the Swiftvets is not a legitmate news item. However there is tons of proof that they are. However it is still funny to see you repeating the Kerry campaign lies about the Swift Vets.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

just how is the questions on Bush's service "less substantiated'? If anything they are MORE substantiated, the records (at lleast the one's which had not been "lost") clearly reveal a failure to show up when he was obligated to do so, and a failure to submit to a medical exam when he was obligated to do so. hmmmm, I wonder why he didn't submit to the medical exam? Taking the extreme unsupported position exhibited by some against Kerry ("release those medical records now, What is he trying to hide, The records must show he didn't deserve those medals!") and being equal in its application, what was George Bush trying to hide by not submitting to the required medical exam? He MUST have been doing something...could it be drugs? yes, that MUST be it, he was doing dangerous and illegal substances! Unfit he is!

OTOH, the "claims" about Kerry are based on personal recollection of over 30 years ago. Tell me, how could a doctor who treated hundreds if not thousands of servicemen have the clarity to recall a single episode of a patient with "superficial wounds" so clearly 3 decades later? Jon Stewart had a great joke on this a few weeks ago:

The Dr. writing home of his Nam experience;
"My dearest Eunice,
The War is so heavy upon my soul. Today I had the charge of treating a soldier who had the most memorable superficial wound that I could ever have imagined! I moved quickly to apply my medical training to this poor soldier, to reduce his suffering from his dramatic superficial wound. I was miraculously able to stop the superficial wound from becoming a debilitating injury, yet the episode and his name are forever woven into my memory..."
yuck yuck yuck

1st of all unlike Bush, Kerry's records have not been released so all we have are a handful of records out of more than 100 and eyewitness testimony. Of course there are tons of other records that have been released that confirm portions of the SwiftVets testimony. Also the Navy is doing a full fledged investigation into Kerry's medals. And while the Bush records reveal a few discrepancies, there are a multitude of plausible explanations. Where are the eyewitnesses against Bush? Do we even have 1/10 as many as against Kerry. No we don't. And if you want to talk about discrepancies in records, there are far more than in Kerry's partial records that have been released than in Bush's. That's why the Navy is investigating Kerry.

AS for the Doctor's clarity of memory, I do have extreme clarity of memory of stupid acts people did over 30 years ago. Crying about a superficial wound and trying to get a purple heart for a self inflicted superfical wond are things that I definitely would remember. In other words, you tend to remember what's out of the ordinary. Kerry's baby whining about a self inflicted bandaid wound would definitely meet that criteria.

[knowitall]

LRB has some "personal issues" IMO. He's even stated in another thread that the American Muslim Community should beware of how they exercise their civil rights.

[razap]

Originally posted by: LRB

No, there are well over a 100 men who served in Vietnam while Kerry was there including most of his direct chaing of commanding officers.

True none of them did serve on Kerry's "bat" whatever the hell that means. However one did serve on Kerry's boat. Numersous others were in near perfect position to observe Kerry as they accompanied him on missions howbeit it in other boats in close proximity (i.e. easy visual and even audio range). I've yet to see substantiated reports of any of the Swiftvets doing 180's. I've seen a lot of decietful campaign spin and journalism trying to make it out that they have. However in every case it has been soundly refuted.

There is no slant to report a legitimate news issue. If you want to talke "questionable" talk about the Kerry's chief campaign guru coming out and questioning Bush's service and how the MSM are all over it. The word of one single man, and who claims neither Bush nor his family ever approached him asking for help in getting Bush into the National Guard. 60 minutes is doing a special on him. How many did they do on the SwiftVets??? That is slant.

Again you have no proof that the Swiftvets is not a legitmate news item. However there is tons of proof that they are. However it is still funny to see you repeating the Kerry campaign lies about the Swift Vets.

Unlike you LRB I am no blinded partisan but what lies are you referring to? did all of these men serve in vietnam when kerry was there? no. Did any of these men searve with him on his boat? no. Did the US Navy back Kerry's accounts? Yes. I don't care about bush's record I think his presidency is more than enough to vote him out of office. Now referring to the vets who once praised him I belive O'delle was one of them and he is one of the leaders of this group.. is this another one of those kerry camapign lies?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
LRB has some "personal issues" IMO. He's even stated in another thread that the American Muslim Community should beware of how they exercise their civil rights.

Another worthless comment by the forum troll.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

No, there are well over a 100 men who served in Vietnam while Kerry was there including most of his direct chaing of commanding officers.

True none of them did serve on Kerry's "bat" whatever the hell that means.

I guess it means "boat". What does "chaing" mean? How about "Numersous", or "talke"

physician heal thyself....

However one did serve on Kerry's boat. Numersous others were in near perfect position to observe Kerry as they accompanied him on missions howbeit it in other boats in close proximity (i.e. easy visual and even audio range). I've yet to see substantiated reports of any of the Swiftvets doing 180's. I've seen a lot of decietful campaign spin and journalism trying to make it out that they have. However in every case it has been soundly refuted.

There is no slant to report a legitimate news issue. If you want to talke "questionable" talk about the Kerry's chief campaign guru coming out and questioning Bush's service and how the MSM are all over it. The word of one single man, and who claims neither Bush nor his family ever approached him asking for help in getting Bush into the National Guard. 60 minutes is doing a special on him. How many did they do on the SwiftVets??? That is slant.

Again you have no proof that the Swiftvets is not a legitmate news item. However there is tons of proof that they are. However it is still funny to see you repeating the Kerry campaign lies about the Swift Vets.

How about these "180's"? No "deceit" (or "decietful" as you put it), no "spin", just the facts.

In 1996 Retired Amiral Zumwalt defended Kerry against similar dispersions on his record with a statement calling them “an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the facts.”

George Elliott also came to Kerry’s defense in 1996. He described Kerry’s behavior that day on the river as an “act of courage.” He would repeat the claim in 2003. Interviewed by the Boston Globe, Elliott said that Kerry’s Silver Star was “well deserved.”

Those are about faces by two of those in the SwiftAttack Ads.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: razap

Unlike you LRB I am no blinded partisan but what lies are you referring to? did all of these men serve in vietnam when kerry was there? no. Did any of these men searve with him on his boat? no. Did the US Navy back Kerry's accounts? Yes. I don't care about bush's record I think his presidency is more than enough to vote him out of office. Now referring to the vets who once praised him I belive O'delle was one of them and he is one of the leaders of this group.. is this another one of those kerry camapign lies?

Well you sure sound like a blind partisan. However maybe you're just plain stupid instead. Want me to give you the benefit of the doubt?

What Lies am I referring to? How about the whopper that MOST of the swiftvets did not serve in Vietnam during the time Kerry Served in Vietnam.

And to answer your Question, the US Navy has not officially backed Kerry's account. There are some official Navy documents which are alledged to have been written by Kerry that back Kerry's story. I can show you document that I wrote that contradict Kerry's story though. The Swiftvets have tons of affidavits that contradict these few documents. None of Kerry's supporters to the best of my knowledge have been willing to sign affidavits backing Kerry.

Oh let's not forget the big lie that none of the Swiftvets served on Kerry's boat. Yes one SwiftVet did serve on Kerry's boat. However it is a red herring speaking about serving on Kerry's boat. Serving on his boat was not necessary to observe him in action or lack thereof. In fact a better view of Kerry would be available in one of the boats accompaning him on his missions.

And if you're talking about O'Neil, he has not defended Kerry. He did talk out against people making slurs against Vietnam vets in general which was used by a Kerry campaign I believe. That's not the same as praising Kerry's service though.

Anyways you can go back to your blind political following now.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I guess it means "boat". What does "chaing" mean? How about "Numersous", or "talke"

physician heal thyself....

How about these "180's"? No "deceit" (or "decietful" as you put it), no "spin", just the facts.

In 1996 Retired Amiral Zumwalt defended Kerry against similar dispersions on his record with a statement calling them “an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the facts.”

George Elliott also came to Kerry’s defense in 1996. He described Kerry’s behavior that day on the river as an “act of courage.” He would repeat the claim in 2003. Interviewed by the Boston Globe, Elliott said that Kerry’s Silver Star was “well deserved.”

Those are about faces by two of those in the SwiftAttack Ads.

Zumwalt was defending Kerry against the same sort of attacks Kerry launched against all Vietnam vets in 1971. These were not the same or even close to the same allegations as the Swiftvets have brought against Kerry.

Elliot has no 1st had knowledge of Kerry's silver start. When presented with overwhelming evidence that contradicted Kerry's version, Elliot changed his opinion.

[razap]

What Lies am I referring to? How about the whopper that MOST of the swiftvets did not serve in Vietnam during the time Kerry Served in Vietnam.

well over 100 did not ..so your definition can suffice. US Navy does back up kerry's acoount and you won't accept that. Unlike you neocons I do not need to offer name calling and deregatory statements into my political discussions. Do I refer to you as ditto head now? or is it mr ditto head?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

1st of all unlike Bush, Kerry's records have not been released so all we have are a handful of records out of more than 100 and eyewitness testimony.

LMAO! They have been trying to find Bush's records, some of them were even thought to have been "lost". Bush's records have NOT all been released, they haven't all been located (or "lost" yet either)

Of course there are tons of other records that have been released that confirm portions of the SwiftVets testimony.

Show ONE Navy record which "confirm portions of the SwiftVets testimony". I'd love to see it.

Also the Navy is doing a full fledged investigation into Kerry's medals.

Politicizing what should be an apolitical department IMHO.

And while the Bush records reveal a few discrepancies, there are a multitude of plausible explanations.

like....what was the "plausible explanation" behind his failure to take a mandatory medical exam? How about the "plausible explanation" on why he was absent during his time in Alabama?

Where are the eyewitnesses against Bush?

Don't look now but they are appearing on 60 Minutes speaking about how Bush was not present in Alabama like he was supposed to be.

Do we even have 1/10 as many as against Kerry. No we don't. And if you want to talk about discrepancies in records, there are far more than in Kerry's partial records that have been released than in Bush's. That's why the Navy is investigating Kerry.

Couldn't be that the Navy is investigating Kerry cuz the Bush White House told them to? Yes, that's plausible..

AS for the Doctor's clarity of memory, I do have extreme clarity of memory of stupid acts people did over 30 years ago. Crying about a superficial wound and trying to get a purple heart for a self inflicted superfical wond are things that I definitely would remember. In other words, you tend to remember what's out of the ordinary. Kerry's baby whining about a self inflicted bandaid wound would definitely meet that criteria.

odd, as the doctor isn't involved in the medal request. His supposed "clarity" is highly suspect and even more so when he is not even listed as the doctor of record. Yes, the holes are so very evident for those who have their eyes open.

Payback is hell.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Zumwalt was defending Kerry against the same sort of attacks Kerry launched against all Vietnam vets in 1971. These were not the same or even close to the same allegations as the Swiftvets have brought against Kerry.

Elliot has no 1st had knowledge of Kerry's silver start. When presented with overwhelming evidence that contradicted Kerry's version, Elliot changed his opinion.

BRINGGGGG! Wrong answer. Maybe you should do a little investigating first:

"In 1996, the Boston Globe, a liberal newspaper that has never been foursquare behind Kerry, published an article calling into question Kerry’s behavior that day. The reporter, David Warsh, connected two apparent facts, that the Viet Cong soldier Kerry killed was already wounded and had sought to retreat behind a hootch, and then speculated: “What’s the ugliest possibility? That behind the hootch Kerry administered a coup de grace to the Vietnamese soldier – a practice not uncommon in those days but a war crime none the less.” But it was all speculation, and utterly irresponsible. There is no evidence then or now that Kerry did what Warsh imagined as the “ugliest possibility.”

Among Kerry’s defenders in 1996 was the late Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., who had pinned the Silver Star over Kerry’s heart, and who described the Globe article as “an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the facts.”

[LRB]

Originally posted by: razap
What Lies am I referring to? How about the whopper that MOST of the swiftvets did not serve in Vietnam during the time Kerry Served in Vietnam.

well over 100 did not ..so your definition can suffice. US Navy does back up kerry's acoount and you won't accept that. Unlike you neocons I do not need to offer name calling and deregatory statements into my political discussions. Do I refer to you as ditto head now? or is it mr ditto head?

1st of all you need reading comprehension classes. I never said that well over 100 did not server in Vietnam while Kerry was in Vietnam. What I did say was that well over 100 did serve in Vietnam when Kerry did. In fact more than half severed there when Kerry did. Less than half not serving there when Kerry did hardly conforms to the definition of "MOST of the swiftvets did not serve in Vietnam during the time Kerry Served in Vietnam."

Unlike you neocons I do not need to offer name calling and deregatory statements into my political discussions.

LMAO that's funny. We'll for the sake of argument throw "neocons" out since that would just be too easy to bust your ass on. So let's go with the sterling example when you said "Unlike you LRB I am no blinded partisan." Blinded partisan is both name calling and a derogatory statement by any reasonable person's definition.

And as for you bogus claim that the US Navy backs Kerry statement, show me one official Navy document or press release by an official Navy Spokesperson where the Navy officially back John Kerry's statements.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

BRINGGGGG! Wrong answer. Maybe you should do a little investigating first:

"In 1996, the Boston Globe, a liberal newspaper that has never been foursquare behind Kerry, published an article calling into question Kerry’s behavior that day. The reporter, David Warsh, connected two apparent facts, that the Viet Cong soldier Kerry killed was already wounded and had sought to retreat behind a hootch, and then speculated: “What’s the ugliest possibility? That behind the hootch Kerry administered a coup de grace to the Vietnamese soldier – a practice not uncommon in those days but a war crime none the less.” But it was all speculation, and utterly irresponsible. There is no evidence then or now that Kerry did what Warsh imagined as the “ugliest possibility.”

Among Kerry’s defenders in 1996 was the late Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., who had pinned the Silver Star over Kerry’s heart, and who described the Globe article as “an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the facts.

What are you a complete moron. This article is accusing Kerry of breaking the Geneva Conventions. That is not a claim that the SwiftVets have made against Kerry but one which Kerry has made against all Vietnam Vets.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

LMAO! They have been trying to find Bush's records, some of them were even thought to have been "lost". Bush's records have NOT all been released, they haven't all been located (or "lost" yet either)

Show ONE Navy record which "confirm portions of the SwiftVets testimony". I'd love to see it.

Politicizing what should be an apolitical department IMHO.

like....what was the "plausible explanation" behind his failure to take a mandatory medical exam? How about the "plausible explanation" on why he was absent during his time in Alabama?

Don't look now but they are appearing on 60 Minutes speaking about how Bush was not present in Alabama like he was supposed to be.

Couldn't be that the Navy is investigating Kerry cuz the Bush White House told them to? Yes, that's plausible..

odd, as the doctor isn't involved in the medal request. His supposed "clarity" is highly suspect and even more so when he is not even listed as the doctor of record. Yes, the holes are so very evident for those who have their eyes open.

Payback is hell.

Oh what a pack of lies and politica spin Mavdog completely lacking in any useful grains of truth.

1. The DOD has released all of Bush's records that they have been able to find. The DOD has not released but a handful of more than a 100 records of Kerry that they have been able to find.

2. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Bush had anything to do with the DOD not being able to find some records. In fact many of the latest records were saved in spite of official policy 30 years ago that they be destroyed.

3. If I show you supporting documentation of the SwiftVets claim, then will you admit that you're wrong about them being unsubstantiated? Probably not. However I'll see if I can did around and find you a link just for the hell of it. I know that it's practically impossible for you to admit that you were wrong about anything.

4. I havent' seen the 60 minute piece, so who are these witness? Are you talking about one of Kerry's chief sof campaign finance by any chance?

5. You still haven't explained why CBS should give credibility to a story with so much less witnesses that the SwiftVets story that they refuse to give credibility to.

6. There is no valid evidence to suggest that the Navy is investigating Kerry's medals because of Bush. In fact Bush has publicly praised Kerry's military service on numerous occasions and come out opposed to the SwiftVets and all 527's. A stance which Kerry has refused to adopt I might add. Furthermore it would be the height of stupidity for Bush to order such an act. If exposed, and it would come out eventually, it would make Watergate look like a bunch of friends singing "For he's a jolly good fellow". Bush has a good lead in the polls and doesn't need this.

7. However it should be noted that Kerry has major discrepancies in at least 3 of his medal citations. That alone meets the standard of evidence to open an investigation.

8. There is no doctor of record listed. There is a medic, not a doctor, who signed Kerry's medical record. There are Navy records which show that the doctor in quesiton was the only doctor stationed at the hospital at the time of Kerry's "injury". It was SOP for medics to sign for the doctor.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

What are you a complete moron. This article is accusing Kerry of breaking the Geneva Conventions. That is not a claim that the SwiftVets have made against Kerry but one which Kerry has made against all Vietnam Vets.

Bringggg! wrong again (does two wrong answer give you the self title of "moron"?), this is in reference to the action that was the basis for Kerry's Silver star medal, which the SwiftAttack Vets say is unearned.

Still waiting on the Navy record(s) which "confirm portions of the SwiftVets testimony".....

[LRB]

Mavdog you truely are a complete moron at times. Read the damn article again. Sure the article is talking about Kerry's Silver Star, but the point is that Kerry may have committed a war crime in earning it, not that he he didn't deserve the medal for lying about the event. Case in point:

“What’s the ugliest possibility? That behind the hootch Kerry administered a coup de grace to the Vietnamese soldier – a practice not uncommon in those days but a war crime none the less.”

Now what is Zumwalt's response to this:

Among Kerry’s defenders in 1996 was the late Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., who had pinned the Silver Star over Kerry’s heart, and who described the Globe article as “an absolutely outrageous interpretation of the facts.

Zumwalt is saying the interpretation that Kerry is a war criminal is totally bogus. And I would heartedly agree. Kerry may be a lot of not so nice things, but I've seen no credible evidence to suggest that he's a war criminal. Spin this all you will, but it is not what the author of the statement said he meant nor would any reasonable person conclude that this was the same type of attack as the Swiftvets are making on Kerry. There is a huge differnce between a lying braggart and a murdering war criminal. I'm sorry if you're too damn stupid today to make that distinction.

[razap]

THE problem with people like LRB is that they cannot keep a consistent argument to back up all of thier claims. For example he wants me to produce Naval documents that support kerry's accounts. I go on the assumption that the Navy could have easily debunked Kerry's accounts long ago but they have not. Why? Well either they are in on the conspiracy to get kerry elected or there is no documentation that refutes anything he says. Secondly when aksed to provide Navy records to back up his claims concerning the swuftboats vets being supported by Navy documentation.. he does not provide them..the conservative spinning is getting me dizzy..

[LRB]

Originally posted by: razap
THE problem with people like LRB is that they cannot keep a consistent argument to back up all of thier claims. For example he wants me to produce Naval documents that support kerry's accounts. I go on the assumption that the Navy could have easily debunked Kerry's accounts long ago but they have not. Why? Well either they are in on the conspiracy to get kerry elected or there is no documentation that refutes anything he says. Secondly when aksed to provide Navy records to back up his claims concerning the swuftboats vets being supported by Navy documentation.. he does not provide them..the conservative spinning is getting me dizzy..

It would have taken an investigation by the Navy to debunk or even support Kerry's claims with any accuracy at all. Guess what genius, the Navy just started that investigation recently. Why did they not do it earlier? Well for one there was no compelling reason, ie no leagal petition to do so like the one which the Navy has been recently presented with and ruled on as worthy to justify an investigation into Kerry's medals. Part of the reason why this hasn't been petitioned before is because there hasn't been as much evidence readily available to make a case against Kerry and Kerry has adamantly refused to release his personal journals and more importantly the majority of his Navy records for public scrutiny.

[knowitall]

LRB, You really do treat me unfairly. Heh, don't blame me! What you said is true! I believe you said "Muslim leaders are idiots". There are Muslim leaders all over the world! That must be a real pisser. And I think you threw in " stupid Palestinians" just for good measure I guess. It's called xenophobia.

[LRB]

Ah the forum troll quotes out of context, still for Knowitall I would say any quoting of a post would be an improvement on past actions. FYI the full post in context was:

Muslim leaders are idiots. The best way to overcome ostracization for supporting terrorism is to become hard asses on opposing it. Had the stupid Palestinians done this they would have their freedom long ago. Unfortunately it seems most American Muslim leaders feel more loyalty to terrorists who kill innocents just because they profess to be Muslims than to their fellow American citizens. That is just sad and pathetic.

[knowitall]

I love the way you think you have your finger on the pulse of the Muslim community. And how the Palestinians are somehow getting what they deserve.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
I love the way you think you have your finger on the pulse of the Muslim community. And how the Palestinians are somehow getting what they deserve.

I never claimed to have my finger on the pulse of the Muslim community. All I know is about the outspoken leaders who appear in the media, most of whom I disapprove of. Hense my critique. As for the Palestinians getting what they deserve, I don't think that they are. However if they want their freedom the people with the most power to make it happen are the Palestinians. Root the terrorist out from amongst themselves and they will get their freedom. Fail to do this and it's highly doubtful that they will ever get their freedom. Maybe I don't have my finger on the pulse of Muslims, but if it were me I'd choose freedom and economic prosperity over targeting and killing innocent children.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Mavdog you truely are a complete moron at times. Read the damn article again. Sure the article is talking about Kerry's Silver Star, but the point is that Kerry may have committed a war crime in earning it, not that he he didn't deserve the medal for lying about the event. Case in point:

Now what is Zumwalt's response to this:

Zumwalt is saying the interpretation that Kerry is a war criminal is totally bogus. And I would heartedly agree. Kerry may be a lot of not so nice things, but I've seen no credible evidence to suggest that he's a war criminal. Spin this all you will, but it is not what the author of the statement said he meant nor would any reasonable person conclude that this was the same type of attack as the Swiftvets are making on Kerry. There is a huge differnce between a lying braggart and a murdering war criminal. I'm sorry if you're too damn stupid today to make that distinction.

oh, another one of your issues with the subject of the statement? how "moronic", how "too damn stupid" to notice...

I've already posted with the statement..
Zumwalt is speaking to the charge that Kerry shot the Vietnamese without cause. That would, if true, classify Kerry a a war criminal. The "outrageous interpretation" is that Kerry did not do the right thing when "the facts" are examined. Zumwalt supports the description as in the citation, the SwiftAttack Vets have derided Kerry's actions that day.

Of course, it isn't Zumwalt who has signed anything, it is his son. who wasn't there and didn't serve with Kerry so actually should not have lent his deceased father's name IMHO.