QandO
Questions and Observations| « Blog Note | Main | Weekly QandO roundup » |
|
August 07, 2004 Fact Checking FactCheck.org The usually reliable FactCheck.org sent out a release concerning the Kerry medal flap which I can only characterize as incomplete, if I chose to be kind about it. It pertains to the ad the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been playing in battleground states. FactCheck.org entitles its report "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record" and feels, “there’s reason to doubt the ad”. Their list of reasons include the following: 1. “For one thing, one of the men who appears in it, George Elliott, told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" by accusing Kerry of not deserving one of his awards. Elliott appears in the ad saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." Let’s deal with number 2 first. Where the financing came from isn’t relevant to whether the facts stated in the ad are correct or incorrect. What is germane is whether what is stated in the ad has factual credibility or not. The premise which FactCheck.org puts forth is if this is financed by Republicans, it must be false or at least must be viewed with a jaundiced eye because its purpose is to destroy Kerry’s credibility, not be factually correct.. Surprisingly, FactCheck.org commits the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Instead of zeroing in on the facts as presented, FactCheck.org infers that because a Republican may have financed the ad, the ad’s facts are in question. I've always been of the opinion that a fact is a fact and its irrelevant who brings them up or doesn't. They stand on their own. They're either accurate or inaccurate. This was my first disappointment with FactCheck.org's release. Let’s now look at claim 1. As reported yesterday, in the Boston Globe, by writer Michael Kranish, Elliott allegedly withdrew his claims made in an affidavit about Kerry’s service. Who is Michael Kranish? He’s a Globe writer with connections to the Kerry campaign. He’s also alleged to be the paid author of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book “Our Plan for America: Strong at Home, Respected Abroad”. He denies this and says Amazon has erroneously listed him as the author (how does that happen and why hadn't he protested it before now?). The Boston Globe also claims in a story yesterday that Amazon has acknowleged this and would revise the listing accordingly. As of this morning, the listed author of the book remains Michael Kranish. I bring this up for a simple reason. If it was so important for FactCheck.org to tie the ad in question to “Republican financing”, why wasn’t it equally as important to note that the Globe reporter who makes the claim that Elliott has recanted might have a conflict of interest at work here? Also absent from the FactCheck.org report is the fact that Elliott has since said he was “misquoted” by Kranish and has denied his alleged recantation. Of course there’s been more than adequate time to issue an update to the original FactCheck.org release, but to this point it hasn’t been done. Number 3 goes to the heart of the controversy. Did Kerry, in fact, receive some of his Purple Hearts and other awards under circumstance which didn’t warrant the awards? I’ve pointed out the statements that concern this in numerous posts and you can read the account of his 1st Purple Heart in the chapter posted here from “Unfit to Command”. In this particular case, though, I’m more interested in looking at the “facts” FactCheck.org uses to make its argument. But in order to understand the argument the context of the dispute is important. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds." So we have two “woundings” here. One when the bags of rice were destroyed and one when the alleged attack took place on Kerry’s boat later in the day. The allegations from the Swift Boat Vets is that neither injury were a result of “hostile fire” and thus claim the award wasn’t warranted. Fine. FactCheck.org then points to the following as an argument for Kerry receiving the Purple Heart whether there was hostile fire or not: In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters. Well that’s fine as far as it goes, but there are two key things FactCheck.org leaves out of its explanation. First, the entire cite they use to claim "friendly fire" qualifies one as a Purple Heart recipient: Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment. Note the key phrase, “in the heat of battle”. Now describe to me how blowing up an abandoned rice cache is “in the heat of battle?” Its not. There was no battle at that point. None. And it is this qualifier that removes the “friendly fire” argument from the table. Additionally FactCheck.org never cited the next paragraph in the regulation which states: Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence. Emphasis mine. Note again, that the qualifier "as a result of enemy action" appears in the last cite. In the case of both the 1st and 3rd Purple Heart, witnesses claim there was no enemy action associated with the slight wounds suffered by Kerry. In the case of his first Purple Heart and possibly his third Purple Heart (if the PH is based on the "shrapnel in the buttocks" claim), a strong and credible argument can be made that he was the victim of his own negligence based on testimony and statements of witnesses. In the case of his first Purple Heart, FactCheck.org makes the following assertions: Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm. Letson was the only doctor in the unit. Carreon, according to Letson, was a corpsman who worked for him. He was also told by Letson to fill out the paperwork concerning treating Kerry's wound after Letson completed doing so. There's absolutely no discrepency here at all. Letson treated the wound and had the corpsman who assisted him do the paperwork. That's why doctors have assistants, for heaven sake. Lastly, Letson isn't referring to his "two crewmates" when he says others told him there was no hostile fire. He's speaking of the people who were there on the Swift boat which was in support of the Skimmer. Kerry likes to tell the story like he was all alone out there, but he wasn't. He was part of a mission which involved a Swift boat and crew. Kerry, for that night, was also a part of that crew and not restricted to the two on the skimmer. In fact after the mission the skimmer was towed by the Swift boat, on which John Kerry rode. It is the crew who remained on the Swift boat, John Kerry's crewmates for the night, who told Letson that there was no enemy fire involved. This isn't something which hasn't been out there for a while, but FactCheck.org made no attempt to run it down. FactCheck.org then commits its final disappointment. It includes Sen. McCain’s statement as a “defense” of Kerry and as relevant to the argument. Another logical fallacy, this time known as “irrelevant authority”. In the past, I’ve found FactCheck.org to produce good and solid arguments which counter much of the spin you’re likely to see on both sides of the political spectrum. I was surprised and disappointed in this particular attempt to analyze the Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth’s ad. It appears to be biased, has a very incomplete and inaccurate analysis, commits horrible logical fallacies and frankly was not at all “factual”. If you're going to name yourself "FactCheck.org", you'd better make sure the product you produce lives up to the name. "When PublicAffairs subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended," Baron said. Well then why does the cover of the book, shown on the B&N webiste clearly state "With an introduction by Michael Kranish The Boston Globe"?! Some silly mistake? It would seem that the Kranish relationship wasn't severed, was it? Or did Osnos forget there was a previous cover out there which had that on it? Who has the "malign intent here", Mr. Osnos? |
As a Demo/Liberal/Bush-Hater, all I can ask is please keep talking about the Swift Vets. The more you talk about the fact that Kerry was in Vietnam, the better. As Dick Morris has said, you don't attack a candidate on his strongest point. And in any event, claims that Kerry shot a VC in the back do more than anything to defeat the notion that Kerry is some soft-headed Liberal. Gosh, I can think of a few wingnuts who would love nothing more than for Chimp Boy to be out there shooting a few Ragheads in the back.
Again, thank you. If you stay on this long enough, even John McCain might come to Kerry's aid. No wait, that has already happened. Even better than having him in the VP spot.
Posted by: mkultra at August 7, 2004 05:32 PM
Well, Mkultra, if you believe shooting someone in the back is some sort of measure of manhood, then I feel sorry for you.
As for Dick Morris, I think he's pretty savvy, but he's wrong about this one. This is hardly Kerry's strongest point. But do me a favor, will you ... explain his "Christmas in Cambodia" for us if he's such an upfront sorta guy with VN as his "strong point". He lied out his ass and got caught in it.
So, no problem, we'll keep referencing the Swift Boat Vets and they'll keep showing him up for the liar he seems to be. Or, to be charitable about it, the "nuanced" little fellow he seems to be.
Posted by: McQ at August 7, 2004 06:04 PM
Not only was Kerry not in Cambodia for Christmas, 1968, he said he was fighting Nixon's war at the time. Curious, because Nixon didn't take office until January 20, 1969. But why let a few facts stand in the way of a good rant? :)
mkultra, can you point to anything the SBVT have said that is false?
Posted by: Steverino at August 7, 2004 06:14 PM
Hey, Mkultra, exactly the same post as you left at Tom Maguire's site. Word for word. Can't you vary it even a little?
How many drive-by's have you done today?
The commenters at Tom's site did a good "gutting" on him so you can read them there rather than wasting time here with him. ;)
Posted by: capt joe at August 7, 2004 07:18 PM
If Kerry's service in Vietnam is his strongest point (and I tend to agree with mkultra on that) then he's set to lose all 50 states.
That will make for a really dull election night.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 8, 2004 10:36 AM
Question on logical fallacies, is #2 Circumstantial Ad Hominem or Guilt By Association?
Posted by: Gordon at August 10, 2004 01:41 PM
I have to admit, being a successful president like Bush has been, by having a soaring economy, freeing millions of people, and sheparding us through our worst disaster in ages, is a strogner point than having been a "hero" 30 years ago.
Why admit that Kerry has done nothing greater? Becuase its true. his rhetoric in the campaign contradicts decades of his voting history. He has harmed us greatly in congress, and helped us seldomly. Vietnam is his strongest point. And when your stongest point is a lie, expect your strongest point to be invalidated.
Posted by: Dustin at August 10, 2004 01:54 PM
Kerry is a liar and a weasel.
If Factcheck is willing to whore for Kerry's campaign, and destroy its own credibility for the indefinite future, that just shows how desperate the left has become.
Yes, Virginia, leftists really can be that stupid.
Posted by: Ann at August 10, 2004 01:55 PM
Just a bit more amplification re Lewis Letson, from Jim Geraghty's The Kerry Spot on August 6th:
Lewis Letson, who discusses Kerry’s wound in the Swift Boat Vets’ ad, is appearing on NRANews.com with me."I am the doctor [who treated Kerry]," he said. “Let me explain that. My critics are pointing to the [signature on the medical record], J.C. Carreon. If they look it carefully a scribble after the words, saying, "HM1." HM1 is a hospital man first class. Jesus C. Carreon was one of my medics at that naval base. He was a top-notch fella. Real prince of a fella."
"Unfortunately, my friend Carreon died about 1992. He’s not around to back this up," he said.
"Kerry might have thought my name was J.C. Carreon. I was the only medical officer at that base. September 68 to Sept. 1969. I can verify that with commanding officer."
"I didn’t want to be a public figure. This has its downside, don’t have any desire to be notorious. This has some ill effects on an individual and my family. I had TV crew on my front lawn in the last hour, they just appeared at my house and rang my doorbell."
But none of those reporters seems to have time to, for example, confirm that Jesus C. Carreon is dead or that he had the rank and posting Dr. Letson asserts. Nor have they produced evidence that Dr. Letson was lying about his own rank, responsibilities, or posting. So what do they do — not just the Kerry campaign, but Media Matters and FACTCHECK.ORG and all those other powerhouse research teams?
They keep repeating, "It's not Letson's signature on the report." Well, duh.
Now, what else could the SwiftVets do beyond providing this story, in full and in an affidavit signed under oath by Dr. Letson? Umm, short of digging up Hospitalman Carreon to come tell his version of events, I'm not quite sure.
This isn't a case of "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" It's just a simple case of "You don't want the truth!"
Posted by: Beldar at August 10, 2004 02:02 PM
Mkultra, his eyes red, squeezes them shut one more time, making his desperate prayer, but alas, when he opens his eyes Cambodia is still there.
Cambodia
Cambodia
Like Poe's Telltale Heart, it just won't stop beating.
"But, but, Kerry's a War Hero!" His eyes red says.
Yet every time Mkultra's lids shutter, there it is, that cold shudder:
Cambodia
Cambodia
Mkultra won't say the forbidden word, tries to pretend it isn't there, tries to erase it from the map, the langauge, the world, but his eyes are red for his mind buzzes with the word he cannot say:
Cambodia
Posted by: Mkultra His Eyes Red at August 10, 2004 02:03 PM
MKULTRA is an unfortunate pseudonym. It's like signing yourself Paranoid Schizophrenic.
Posted by: Jim Durbin at August 10, 2004 02:05 PM
"mkultra", eh? Interesting. I have to believe the name is a handle, not a true identity: it seems too close to "nyet kulturyi", the penultimate
insult in a Soviet Russia obsessed with its fear the world would laugh at its oafish attempts to be taken seriously.
Posted by: John Earnest at August 10, 2004 02:06 PM
Oh — one more thing re Letson. McQ links Letson's story as recounted on the National Review Online. Well, maybe the Dems don't read that. (Heh, yeah, right.) But the same consistent, credible, and straightforward version of events as explained by Dr. Letson appeared on the newswire of that right-wing wingnut bastion, The Los Angeles Times on May 5. (My link is to a Seattle Times reprint of the LA Times story because the Dog Trainer — errrr, LAT makes its archives subscription-only after a few weeks. But ya know, I think there may be liberals who live in Seattle too!)
Posted by: Beldar at August 10, 2004 02:12 PM
Elliott regretted the emotionally charged rhetoric about shooting the VC in the back. He never regretted saying Kerry lied or that he did not believe he deserved the silver star for finishing off a fleeing VC.
Oddly enough, the full quote confirming this appears in Kranish's article, though it is buried farther down from where Kranish spun it to fit his own story line.
Posted by: Reid at August 10, 2004 02:27 PM
I've got no love for Kerry, but Jim Geraghty at NRO's Kerry Spot has a good description of what might have happened to Kranish. Looks like the publisher put his foreward on different book.
Posted by: Chris B at August 10, 2004 02:29 PM
Strange that Osnos pushes the whole thing off on Drudge and Amazon, Public Affairs' web site had the very same information about the book. Go figure why the google cache disappeared.
Posted by: Deb at August 10, 2004 02:48 PM
Barnes and Noble has changed the cover of the book on their website.
Posted by: Spoons at August 10, 2004 02:55 PM
Well its apparent that the leftie/liberal parasite going by the name, "mkultra" wants everyone to know just how much of the real world doesn't interfere in his/her/its delusional view of the reality...
Kerry being a coward on a Swift boat is his strongest suit?!?! Well I guess in the eyes of a leftie/liberal parasite this is the case...
Kerry lying about his very abreviated career in the Swift boats is a good thing?!?!
Again I guess in the eyes of a leftie/liberal parasite this is the case...
I guess it takes a liar (a.k.a. leftie/liberal parasite) to appreciate a liar like Kerry...
Posted by: russ at August 10, 2004 03:13 PM
In addition, the arm wound Kerry suffered was described as "minor" on the spot reports listed on his own site. The bottom of Page 3 here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/SpotReports_March1969.pdf
Posted by: Jim Thomason at August 10, 2004 03:18 PM
I am constantly amazed by all the left-wingers who are convinced that repetition of this story will help Kerry and hurt Bush. If that's the case, why are they letting us know?
Posted by: Brainster at August 10, 2004 03:20 PM
Something not yet discussed - the way that FactCheck relates the Bronze Star dispute. They give the Swifties version quickly then they contrast it with Jim Rassmann's version given in great detail. Since Rassmann is given the final say we are left with the impression that his is the correct version.
Take a close look at where the different parties are. The Swifties are on boats, scanning the shore. Rassmann is in the water, diving as much as he can. By his own account, "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."
So Rassmann was hardly in a position to tell if he was still being fired on or not. This makes him a poor witness.
Posted by: Mark G at August 10, 2004 03:21 PM
I think the worst lie in factcheck's piece is this:
"And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for 'shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94,' Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury."
Baloney, as a matter of grammar (note the absence of a comma or semi-colon after "buttocks")it clearly says the shrapnel wounds were received when the mine exploded. And Jim Rassman has to know that is untrue, because he (and Larry Thurlow) witnessed the exploding rice-a-roni escapade.
Also, if it was known that there were two separate wounds (which a bruised arm wouldn't qualify as anyhow) wouldn't there be TWO PURPLE HEARTS due Kerry?
Further, when PCF-3--which was not skippered by Jack Chenowith, because he's the guy whose boat picked up the other men in the river that day--WAS hit by a mine, there was extensive damage, with everyone on board being injured or knocked overboard.
Contrast that to Kerry's boat; no damage reported whatsoever. And it was Kerry's boat that towed PCF-3 home, with two other Swifts surrounding it to keep it from sinking.
Also, Rassman can't be correct that he was all alone in the river if he was blown overboard only moments after PCF-3 hit the mine. At least two of that boat's crew were blown off it, so they would have to have been in close proximity to Rassman. And it is undisputed that Jack Chenowith's boat picked them up (and eye-witnesses apparently say he was about to pick up Rassman too when Kerry got him).
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at August 10, 2004 03:21 PM
And where was Bush this whole time?
That's what I thought.
Posted by: driveby at August 10, 2004 03:22 PM
The Left has always had this problem about Vietnam: foolishly launched, poorly and incompletely fought, and riddled with atrocities though it may have been, it was nonetheless essentially an idealistic, altruistic act by the U.S. The electorate, and vets especially, don't quite buy it when you try to tell them Vietnam was a Bad Thing.
That's why Vietnam is a minus, not a plus, for Kerry. The more he talks about it, the more people wonder just why he felt it was right to portray the whole venture as an evil act and slander his comrades in arms in the process.
Posted by: JustSomeGuy at August 10, 2004 03:23 PM
Driveby: he was flying an F102.
Mark G: Rassmann said: "When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left...".
But they hadn't. PCF 3, the boat he was riding on was dead in the water and two of the other three remaining boats were lending assistance. Only the 94 boat, commanded by Kerry, had left the scene.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 03:25 PM
It was my understanding that the arm "wound" was a contusion (that's a bruise to the rest of us), which is not eligible for the purple heart anyway.
Also, that would mean that his arm was not "bleeding" when he saved Rassman from the imminent danger of being picked up by a boat with a less politically-destined skipper.
Posted by: Deoxy at August 10, 2004 03:26 PM
Gordon: re: fallacies ... could be ... regardless, its a logically fallacious argument.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 03:28 PM
"Driveby: he was flying an F102."
That he truly VOLUNTEERED for, by the way, instead of "volunteering" to be in the Navy (judged to be less dangerous) to avoid being drafted by the Army.
After trying to (desperately, it would at least appear) to get exempted, I might add.
So, Kerry was basically an attempted draft-dodger; when he couldn't pull that off, he dodged what he thought would be the more dangerous assignment, and in the Navy, he requested one of the (at the time) least dangerous missions there (the Swift boats).
Bush volunteered for a fighter unit that had pilots IN VIETNAM at the time he volunteered.
So, which one is brave again?
And that's without mentioning that he fled the scene of an apparent ambush and came back when it appeared safe to "rescue" Rassman...
Posted by: Deoxy at August 10, 2004 03:32 PM
McQ: I'll be done laughing in...another 10 minutes or so.
Posted by: driveby at August 10, 2004 03:33 PM
Deoxy: You're correct, it was a bruise, however as mentioned the third PH, from what I've been able to research, only refers to the "shrapnel in the ass" wound. That wound, by any measure would be caused by negligence and ineligable as well.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 03:34 PM
Just for you, Deoxy
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes"
George W. Bush in a 1994 interview
Definition: Champagne Unit
A Champagne Unit is a pejorative term used to describe US Military units that are staffed by people from wealthy or politically powerful families, entertainment figures, or sports figures. Such units are often part of the National Guard, and assigned to lower-risk duty inside the United States.
An example of such a unit was the Texas National Guard unit in which George W. Bush served during the Vietnam War. Other members of this unit included the sons of Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, Treasury Secretary John Connally, and several members of the Dallas Cowboys football team. One of the duties of this unit was to patrol the coast line of the Gulf of Mexico.
You think Bush had a better chance of getting shot here or in Vietnam?
Posted by: driveby at August 10, 2004 03:41 PM
Fact checking FactCheck.org. I think Kerry has made such a huge mistake in banking his candidacy (as well as his political career) on his service in VietNam. It was probably a great way to get girls and sympathy when he was younger, but will ruin him now. Personally, I don't think that service in VietNam says a darn thing about who he would be as president. There are plenty of heroes in battle who turn out to be scumbags, crooks and corporate executives, even presidents and dictators. I think that for over thirty years, Kerry has relied upon his war stories to carry him. It's likely that this will now sink him.
Posted by: Pop at August 10, 2004 03:43 PM
Can't resist:
"On his application to the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War, Bush checked a box indicating he did not want to serve overseas." [Dallas Morning News, 7/4/99; WP, 7/28/99; Houston Chronicle, 5/8/94]
Posted by: driveby at August 10, 2004 03:47 PM
Did Max Cleland get a purple heart for blowing all his shit off by picking up his own live grenade on his way to drink beer?
Negligence not during the heat of the battle. By all indications, he should not have.
Posted by: Sargasm at August 10, 2004 04:04 PM
Must have missed it Driveby, but what's that got to do with Kerry's medals?
Let's see, while Bush was flying and F102, wasn't Kerry spending "Christmas in Cambodia?"
Oh, that's right, that was a lie. I guess, instead, he was wounding himself with a grenade launcher. Or was he wounding himself with a grenade at the rice cache. You'd think he'd learn to stay away from anything to do with grenades after wounding himself twice.
But hey, there were Purple Hearts to be had and 4 months was more than he wanted to put in VN anyway.
Bugout city!
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 04:05 PM
The safest place to spend Christmas of '68 would be Cambodia ... right alongside Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Bill Clinton's spectral traveller vision-questing for the definition of the word "is", and John Kerry.
That's the kind of trip that's seared -- seared -- into a person's memory.
Peace.
Posted by: Santa Claus at August 10, 2004 04:05 PM
PoP: Personally, I don't think that service in VietNam says a darn thing about who he would be as president.
So lying and exaggerating it say nothing about his character and thus nothing about who he would be as president?
I disagree.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 04:07 PM
Frankly, if simple repetition of a story were beneficial to a candidate regardless of the actual content of the story, George Bush would be polling about 90% approval on handling the Iraq war.
Posted by: dr at August 10, 2004 04:09 PM
The difference is, Mr. Driveby, that GWB made no bones about it, he was a messed up idiot until he met Laura and straightened himself out.
Whereas Kerry has, as usual, waffled his way from college deferment to reluctant enlistee to REMF, to... barracks-lawyer glory-hound? to anti-war activist who 'committed war atrocities' to politician, to war hero and presidential candidate.
I'll vote for a reformed drunk who's performed in the crunch over a weasel who can't take a stand he didn't repudiate within a few months.
Any. Time.
PS: so tell me, are you for or against the war in Iraq? And which is your candidate of choice?
Posted by: ubu at August 10, 2004 04:18 PM
Re the FactCheck point 2 - funded by Republicans!
First, this is a one-step removed charge - they aren't even saying the SwiftVets are partisan, just that partisans are helping get the message out. Has FactCheck only just now discovered how little money is available for dispassionate truth-seekers to buy TV time? Or, did they seriously expect Dems to help pay for these ads?
Taken from another direction, here are the FactCheck archives. I have just checked a couple of their reviews of MoveOn ads, but they seem unfazed by the possibly partisan funding there.
My point - if FactCheck has some evidence that the SwiftVets were dedicated, partisan Republicans, let them show it. If the SwiftVets have disliked Kerry since his Jane Fonda days, and Evil Reps are helping to fund them, well, say that.
Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 10, 2004 04:25 PM
Just for you drivebay,
Bush never claimed otherwise. Kerry talks repeatedly about how he "volunteered".
The problem is not that Kerry didn't want to go to Vietnam (who did?), it's that he's basing his candidacy and qualifications for President on the "fact" that he DID want to go (which he didn't), that he DID get bravely wounded in action (2 of which seem to be significantly falsified), etc.
In short, if Kerry himself weren't talking about how wonderful he is because of his Vietnam service, I wouldn't care.
If Bush were talking about how wonderful HIS Vietnam service was, I'd care. He isn't.
"You think Bush had a better chance of getting shot here or in Vietnam?"
Shot? There. Die in an accident? ANYWHERE. Pilots contemprory with him DID die in training or patrol accidents.
Bush volunteered to risk his life.
Kerry volunteered to serve in the least risky position he could get away with (which didn't turn out that way, admittedly).
And Bush doesn't brag about things he did that he actually didn't. (Like spending Christmas in Cambodia, just as an easy example.)
Posted by: Deoxy at August 10, 2004 04:28 PM
My theory is that George Soros or some other liberal is secretly funding the Swift Boat Veterans group. (joke)
Let's face it, their t.v. ad is exactly the sort of attack that led to Bill Clinton having higher approval ratings than Ronald Reagan.
All the public will hear is that Kerry has a bunch of war medals, and that a bunch of partisan haters claim Kerry is lying.
The last thing George and Karl want are two more weeks of talk about Kerry's medals. Kerry loves it.
If Kerry wins by 0.5%, I'm blaming the Swifties.
Posted by: G.J. at August 10, 2004 04:38 PM
To the majority of us Navy "Brown Water" vets, it is blatently obvious that Kerry was a "no load." The problem is that if you haven't been there and done that, it is like explaining color to a blind man. The average young, left-leaning person is so disconnected from the reality of the experience that they don't know the difference between the fact and fiction, so they are reduced to argueing over semantics. I suppose that is fine if you are a lawyer, as that is what they do for a living, but it doesn't help get to the truth. To anyone who is not strongly partisan, the testimony of about 200 people should outweigh the testimony of about a half-dozen.
Posted by: Bill at August 10, 2004 05:53 PM
Did you know that besides being a war hero John Kerry was a secret agent?
He performed a mission in Cambodia so secret that only he has ever talked about it. It is so secret three of his crew claimed it never happened.
Form 180. Release the records
Posted by: M. Simon at August 10, 2004 05:54 PM
G.J.,
It is early in the swifties campaign. It is being run by a trial lawyer who is used to destroying a man's reputation if it does not match his character; and doing it on a time schedule with opposition.
I'm told he is pretty good. And he has the support of about 2.5 million Viet Vets. That is 1% of the voting population right there. They have friends, wives, children. And they talk.
We haven't even got to Winter Soldier yet.
I think MSM is doing us a big favor by not covering this yet. Let us work to build grass roots pressure.
Jokes about Kerry are very good.
===========================
Did you know that John Kerry was a secret agent?
He performed a mission in Cambodia so secret that only he has ever talked about it. It is so secret three of his crew claimed it never happened.
I wonder how secret his plan for Iraq is?
Release the records
Form 180. Release the records.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 10, 2004 06:10 PM
Repeating variations of the same joke is kind of stale. How bout an epigram. I suppose if you are a leftie it is a joke.
====================================
John Kerry told us cut and run was the right thing to do in Vietnam. Three million died. He is proposing withdrawal from Iraq.
I suppose three million was not enough.
Form 180. Release the records.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 10, 2004 06:16 PM
I would like to see a rebuttal to the FactCheck.org take on the Bronze Star and on the Silver Star.
Also, as far as the first PH is concerned, I've heard Letson claim he had been told there was no enemy fire, and FactCheck says the Kerry claims otherwise--and those are both hearsay. Anybody have leads?
Also, could someone explain what the award process is like? What reports get written, when, who signs off, and all that. FactCheck.org has the PDFs of the citations, which appear to have been written some time later, but I have no way of knowing whether that is irregular.
Posted by: Bostonian at August 10, 2004 06:21 PM
I've heard there's a rumor that Kerry spent some time in the US Senate. Anyone have any confirming or disconfirming evidence? Any bills passed or anything? Was he seen on the Senate floor by anybody? Or was this part of the double-secret top secret agent thing dating clear back to 1970?
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 10, 2004 06:49 PM
Amazing stuff. Bush supporters think Kerry lied because they want it to be true. Kerry supporters think Kerry is a war hero because they want it to be true. The reality is that both conclusions are mere conjecture, especially the one about Kerry lying his way into 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star. This all happened 35 years ago during the fog of war. Forget about ever finding the facts because there are as many stories for what happened on that swift boat as there were people there to witness it. Everyone on Kerry's boat thinks he was a hero. A bunch of guys who served near Kerry think he was a lier. I suggest reading Tim O'Brien "The Things They Carried" as his main theme basically deals with truth and war (he served in Vietnam).
Ultimately this whole thing will have weak legs because it relies on memory and has no real proof of anything. Semen stains on a dress is proof, the memory of a doctor from 35 years ago who treated thousands is not proof. Nor are assurances from officers that Kerry was never in Cambodia. Remember the Trooper-gate scandal with Clinton. IN that scandal a whole bunch of state-troopers said they helped Clinton get women into his room and lied for him. They swore by it. It turns out they were paid off and just the other day the one guy who continued to stick by his story finally admitted to lying about the whole thing. I'm not saying all these swiftboat guys are lying but they might be or they might simply be mis-remembering things from 35 years ago because they don't like Kerry. We do know that the authors of the book are partisan hacks, and I mean huge partisan hacks. Most of the guys who are members of the group weren't around Kerry at all as they are mostly outraged by his testifying after the war. Nobody should paint this as if this is 240 sets of eyes versus 6.
I'm voting Kerry of course, but I too am a bit sick of his constant Vietnam this Vietnam that crap. But do you actually think that Kerry is stupid enough to put his reputation on the line testifying against the war and then base his entire career on a set of lies? Lies that, according to you guys, took 35 years to come out and are all based on memories. Is it really that hard to believe that Kerry was in Cambodia? Maybe it wasn't Christmas Eve, but Christmas day or December 23. In the chaos of Vietnam it is pretty easy to believe that this happened and why make the statement multiple times if it is so easily proven wrong by the chain of command. The whole damn war was organized chaos. To rely on 35 year old memories is ridiculous. What made John Kerry so memorable back then? How about some journal entries or letters about the guy? That I might put some merit in it. If Kerry was such a lying coward, did any one write about him? I doubt it.
Keep dreaming about Kerry the coward and us liberals will keep dreaming about Bush the liar. Hopefully somebody out there will think about the various policies they are proposing. Does Bush have any of those?
Posted by: kj at August 10, 2004 06:56 PM
KJ: I dont' believe anyone is saying Kerry's a coward.
Instead it appears he's a liar. Sure would like to know what Christmas carols he was singing after being order by Nixon to go to Cambodia for Christmas of '68 (oh, wait, I meant Johnson).
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 07:03 PM
The Barnes & Noble (not "Barnes & Nobel") cover does not have an Introduction By splash at all (maybe they changed it?), nor does the Public Affairs site.
Posted by: Fred at August 10, 2004 07:18 PM
Fred: Look when I wrote this ... a couple of days ago. It was there and others have noted the same thing I did. The fact that it is now been removed doesn't change that fact.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 07:22 PM
What blows me away is FactCheck's product. Bias or laziness or ? I'm a newbie to blogs and had just discovered FactCheck back in Jan. I really thought I had found an accurate, unbiased resource. What do I do now ?
Posted by: Mike at August 10, 2004 07:25 PM
I'm surprised anybody even needs the swiftees to expose this bum for the fraud that he is.
We can just go by Kerry's own testimony.
He admitted that he, John Kerry, had committed atrocities.
This alone should disqualify him in any sane person's mind from the Presidency. Either he's telling the truth, and he is a war criminal, or he's lying, and he committed perjury before Congress.
Here's the ad somebody should produce:
Scene 1: [Kerry's testimony before Congress] "I committed atrocities in Viet Nam, cutting off people's ears, bla bla bla..."
Scene 2: [the Convention] "John Kerry reporting for duty!"
Posted by: Mick McMick at August 10, 2004 07:26 PM
Mike: They seem reasonably bi-partisan. That's not to say that they're always right, of course, but they do excoriate both sides equally.
I find Spinsanity reliable, and the Daily Howler is useful, too.
Mick: Kerry has already addressed this, and conceded that "atrocities" was hyperbole on his part. Based on what he described, I'm inclined to agree with him. Based on the zeitgeist of the time, I'm inclined to understand his zeal.
I don't agree with it, but I understand how a passionate young activist might easily get carried away. I would note, though, that he didn't say that *he* cut off ears, etc. That was just a repitition of (as it turns out) mostly unreliable testimony.
He said he participated in "free fire zones" and things like that. Not quite an atrocity.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 10, 2004 07:33 PM
"MKultra" is close to "Maya kulturnaya", which would mean "my culture"
The citations are not the applications. The applications are not polished for hanging above your desk. My citations read with portions like this
"...For over two hours, you controlled the 108 migrants [armed with clubs and spears], .....you were able to pacfy the once rebellious migrants.. ....in an agressive yet disciplined manner.......returned them to their camps....reflecting the highest credit upon [yourself], and are keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Marine Corps"
I didn't even get a medal for that.
Makes me sound like rambo, doesn't it?
real story:
a bunch of detainees escaped and started to get out of hand, and my platoon was called in to "pacify" the uprising.
So we did.
With bayonets.
They never had a chance; we just walked up and started wailing on them.
The stuff that we did that probably rated a slew of medals was generally not the kind of stuff that Clinton wanted people to know about, I guess.
So, instead of medals, we got a case of snapple passed around, and a few words by the gunny.
'course his words meant more than the fucking citation listed above.
btw, in all likelihood, Kerry wrote his own application for each medal.
Posted by: doc Russia at August 10, 2004 07:43 PM
The McCain reference has nothing ot do with the facts of the ad (or the book which is coming soon)...FactCheck gives themselves away on that one alone.
Posted by: ed at August 10, 2004 07:46 PM
McQ: Yeah, that's what I figured. But it's been fixed. Given how these book jackets get done it's absolutely no surprise that an early one got put up with an error. Happens all the time (really). It's almost certainly not something that you can really read much into.
Ed: It is the SVT who are putting McCain up to counter Kerry, pointing out that McCain's captors would taunt him with Kerry's words. I think FactCheck does a poor job of pulling that all together with a rebuttal of SVT's McCain points with the later McCain quote in response to their mudslinging (which is what it really is). If they couldn't directly make the case they should have dropped the reference, IMO.
BTW, Disinfopedia does a decent job with this too, including the Cambodia reference not covered by FactCheck: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
Jon: Ditto. And good to "see" you here.
Posted by: Fred at August 10, 2004 08:08 PM
I guess what's interesting, Fred, is both B&N and Amazon carried him as the author, but its written off as their mistake. Don't buy it. Secondly, the cover was printed with the "Introduction by Michael Kranish, The Boston Globe". How'd that happen? And if it was a mistake, why was it distributed that way?
Sorry, but this just doesn't add up at all.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 08:20 PM
Well, I think you'd have to understand how the covers are done up and distributed, often months before books are released. The book's release depends upon cover art being begun very early in the process (and, in this case, being done on what's referred to as a "crash" schedule for obvious reasons.
You also have to realize that Amazon and B&N both have a messed up method for sorting the books--anyone who is listed as a writer in the book (introduction, forward, afterword, even chapter/selection authors) are listed as the "author" of a book. It allows you to look up all the books in which a writer may have contributed something, but it also indicates that a book is by a writer in which they might have only contributed a small piece.
Obviously Kranish was to have done an Intro, but did not (we don't know why). But the project specs (made up, often by Marketing, at the very beginning of the project) never changed when the information was moved down the line (such as applying for the LoC information, etc).
Moral here? Crash schedule plus decentralized publisher = stupid mistakes that look more than they are for a book about politics.
Posted by: Fred at August 10, 2004 08:35 PM
You're missing my point Fred. Booksellers don't decide who the author is ... publishers do (nor do they decide who's writing the intro). And publishers provide that information to booksellers along with little blurbs to shill the book. The two book sellers didn't arbitrarily and independently decide that the book was authored by Michael Kranish. The publisher did.
So again, I'm not buying here.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 08:39 PM
No, they didn't arbitrarily decide, and I'm sorry if my posts seemed to indicate that. My point is that publishers tell the booksellers, through forms they fill out (such as LoC classification data) the book information. If Kranish was involved early on, the LoC information would have listed him as an author. Amazon and B&N would have picked up the name (as "other author" on the forms) and put it in their systems.
To be blunt: I'm not selling. Just telling. You seem intent on reading much into this, which is fine. But I won't let you do so without knowing the background of how book publishing works. This kind of stuff happens all the time--it's only because it's happened on this particular title that you are putting a deeper meaning on it, when it just ain't so.
Posted by: Fred at August 10, 2004 08:50 PM
Fred: common sense. You've essentially validate my point with a whole bunch of "this is how books are published" in the middle. OK, but the point stands ... it wasn't the seller, but the publisher who made the mistake. However, the publisher is now trying to blame it on the sellers.
Again, I don't buy it. The publisher listed Kranish as the author and/or the intro writer. That means he was included in the project at some point and apparantly to such a point that he was credited with authorship to the sellers. Now you may choose to write that off to the chaos of book publishing,etc. I don't. Too much time available to fix that sort of problem.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by: McQ at August 10, 2004 08:55 PM
Oh no, I'm not writing it off at all--I think this is the part upon which we actually agree.
:)
To quote myself: Obviously Kranish was to have done an Intro, but did not (we don't know why).
PA is whitewashing this obvious (to me) early involvement, which doesn't make sense given the fawning bio on Kerry they also publish (with Kranish as one of the authors), titled JOHN F. KERRY: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best). In other words, Kranish has already tipped his hand on his pro-Kerry leanings.
This could have been a contractual snafu, or something else, but the publishimg history of this book had Kranish involved at some point--even if he never actually did anything.
Posted by: Fred at August 10, 2004 10:07 PM
Mick,
I sure hate to confuse anyone with facts and all, but here goes:
JOHN KERRY 1971 TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS (excerpt): [quote] Several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. [end quote]
Mr. Kerry does not say he had committed atrocities.
I am equally certain that this will not cause any person supporting Mr. Kerry nor those supporting Mr. Bush actually to take the time to do anything but knee-jerk their reaction (Ugh! My candidate = good; their candidate = evil incarnate).
Posted by: Andy at August 10, 2004 10:55 PM
Once the Swift Boat Veterans are done, the next group up to bat is POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry. He shouldn't have illegally ordered the shredding of the documents on the POW/MIA investigation, especially considering that his cousin Stewart Forbes then got a $900 million contract with Hanoi. But at least he didn't get a Purple Heart in a self-inflicted paper shredder accident.
Posted by: George Turner at August 10, 2004 11:36 PM
The VillageVoice of all sources takes JFKerry(D) to task on exactly that:
http://villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php
Posted by: DANEgerus at August 11, 2004 12:26 AM
"MKULTRA (also known as MK-ULTRA) was the code name for a CIA mind control research program lasting from the 1950s through the 1970s. Starting from 1964, the project was renamed to MKSEARCH. The project's goal was to produce a perfect truth drug for use in interrogating suspected Soviet spies during the Cold War, and generally to explore any other possibilities of mind control. Experiments were often conducted without the subjects' knowledge or consent. The project was headed by Dr. Sydney Gottlieb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA
Posted by: Andy at August 11, 2004 01:09 AM
I agree that FactCheck is usually reliable, but I have seen them do a poor job on "analyses" before. I suspect that they have lots of the Penn student interns working there part time, and some of them either are showing themselves to be poor and shallow "analysts", while others simply can't resist the lure of promoting their man when they think thye can make a case OR when the issue is critical to Kerry.
The last situation of this kind that I encountered and wrote about was on April 27th, when they were trying to save Kerry from the fallout of having voted against so many military weapon systems by comparing his positions in the pre-Cold War end early-to-mid-1980s to those of then Sec. Cheney during the DoD budget draw-down in FY1990- read this piece I posted back then, it is self-explanatory:
---------------
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
FactCheck.org Needs a Fact Check
It appears that "FactCheck.org", run out of the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania has really screwed up in some basic ways in their zeal to help Senator Kerry as he tries to extricate himself from his latest self-made disaster, this time about medals.
The self-styled media watchdogs are not always wrong; but this time they let the kiddies write the post and their total ignorance of DoD budgeting and procurement policies and practices is embarrassing.
At: "http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177"
they take issue with the Bush-Cheney ads that criticize Kerry for his Defense budget voting record, and allege that the ads are not truthful because then-SecDef Cheney proposed cancelling the same projects in 1989 (FY90 Appropriation, I believe) that Kerry had tried to kill in 1984 (from the FactCheck post):
------
"Missing Context
"It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter. What the ad lacks is the historic context: the Cold War was ending and the Apache was designed principally as a weapon to be used against Soviet tanks. And in fact, even Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:
"Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.
"Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.
"Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time."
---------- (end of quote)
Only someone who can't spell "FYDP", "POM", or "Inventory Objective" could make such silly charges.
The underlying issue is the fact that Kerry has a 20 year record of opposing military Authorizations and Appropriations. The jockeying before the final Bill is largely parliamentary. One can vote for or against most anything at one point or another, but what counts in the end is a total record, not one parliamentary vote, which is why several different votes are cited to illustrate that total record lacking concern for the US military readiness posture.
The FactCheck "analysis" reveals people who are ignorant of military procedures. To suggest that pulling one good example (body armor) out of a wildly irresponsible vote, as described by Kerry himself on "Face the Nation", against the $66B in military support funds (out of the Supplemental total of $87B) included is somehow misleading, reveals how either partisan the writer is, or how dumb he or she is. The body armor example is totally appropriate- and Kerry effed up big time when he made that vote. It is easy to see how and why Kerry did it- it was one more short term political calculation to try and stop the Dean juggernaut and peel off a few anti-war votes himself. Now he pays a price for that in the general election- that's life.
The comparison with Cheney is almost worse, and reveals these people as having rotten egg on their collective face.
It is because of two things: first, in 1990 the Cold War was effectively ended and Cheney was presiding over the drawdown and decommissioning of significant pieces of the force structure. Back in 1985 there was no such prospect on the horizon; we were still preparing militarily for an apparently viable USSR, and Kerry proposed shutting down the most important Army combat aviation asset right in the middle of the Cold War- if that doesn't reveal his flawed and anti-military view, I don't know what else would show it better, other than marching through Lafayette Park with his old V-VAW "Band of Brothers" (the real B-O-B should be insulted by the terminology when associated with the Senator) and urging that all weapons be beaten into love jewelry (we don't do plowshares any more).
Second, this example shows that the writers have no idea how the DoD appropriates funds and runs their programs, and has no interest in finding out before waxing eloquent and self-righteous on the subject.
There is a huge difference between cancelling a program in FY90 (which would be Aug 89) and FY85 when Kerry wanted to kill the Apache. By FY90, the Army had built at least 50 to 100 more Apaches (at an assumed, for lack of budget history specifics, production rate of 1 or 2 per month) than they had in 1985, so the likely revised procurement objective would be about complete at that point. Generally, the argument would be over whether to keep a warm line at a minimum sustaining rate or let the line go down and just provide spare parts. At that time there was a replacement attack helo on the drawing boards and no war on the horizon, so likely all the TDA were filled to support the revised and reduced authorized or anticipated future troop strength. Killing the program at that time would have made sense.
If you had had Cheney on record in 1985 as saying that the program should be ended, then you would have had a disingenuous twisting of fact, criticizing Kerry for proposing killing the same procurement program in the same context. But 1984/5 versus 1989/90 makes a huge difference.
The same thing applies to combat vehicles, such as the Bradleys. By 1990, the Army was consolidating multiple combat vehicle production capabilities- there were BMY in York, PA, the Army plants in Toledo and Detroit, and the FMC plant in San Jose. Eventually the BMY and FMC merged into United Defense Company, so that the readiness objective could be met to keep one warm base to build self-propelled howitzers, infantry combat vehicles, etc., with mod-refurb and spares lines in the government plants (with the usual jockeying by Congress over what is built where because of the district jobs issues).
In the case of the Bradleys, you had seven years of production runs, after Kerry first tried to kill the program, to fill the inventory.
The FactCheck discussion equates Kerry's Cold War disarmament with the post-Cold War drawdown and treats them as the same. Time to get the grown ups into the media analysis business, because these folks are not up to it.
Posted by: Duane at August 11, 2004 08:50 AM
Rebuttal in summary: THEN HE SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING ON HIS VIETNAM RECORD.
If all the stuff you say is true (35 years ago, bad, memeories, etc, etc), then he shouldn't be asking us to judge him by that. HE ASKED US TO, so we are. And thn he (and his supporters) complain that we don't just take thei word for everything. That's the essence of arrogance.
"Semen stains on a dress is proof, the memory of a doctor from 35 years ago who treated thousands is not proof."
But apparently, writtn documentation isn't proof either. Is ANYTHING that counters Kerry's position "proof"? Or is it inhrently "not proof" because Kerry says otherwise?!?
"Is it really that hard to believe that Kerry was in Cambodia?"
When everyone else ON HIS OWN BOAT says otherwise? Yes, it is hard to believe. As you say, let's have some PROOF, not someone's (Kerry's) 35 year-old memeory.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. And you are getting upset that some people object.
Posted by: Deoxy at August 11, 2004 09:38 AM
Andy,
Actually Kerry does admit to committing war crimes, listen here (on WinterSoldier.com): http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/audio/kerry2.mp3
April 18, 1971
Posted by: dave at August 11, 2004 01:21 PM
"Frankly, if simple repetition of a story were beneficial to a candidate regardless of the actual content of the story, George Bush would be polling about 90% approval on handling the Iraq war."
If simple repetition of the truth about Bush's accomplishments took place at all, he would be polling about 90%.
The "Mainstream Media" is nothing but a fake turkey.
Thank goodness for bloggers. These "amateurs" are the only professionals in journalism.
Posted by: Simple Truth at August 11, 2004 02:04 PM
Just a note: Neither Amazon nor Barnes and Nobel currently list Kranish as the author of the "Our Plan for America" book, nor does his name appear on the cover.
Posted by: btp at August 11, 2004 07:05 PM
btp: Understand ... both have now been changed. But both, at the time of the writing of the bolg on the 7th carried Kranish as the author and B&N carried a different cover which had Kranish as writing the into (printed on the cover).
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 07:14 PM
I just found this blog today and wanted to point that out for anyone interested.
Also of note is the Capitol Hill Blue article cited as evidence of Elliot's denial of his recantation describes the Drudge Report's connection between Kranish and the book as "erroneous."
Posted by: btp at August 11, 2004 08:19 PM
Understand btp: that's why it was noted in the blog about Kranish that:
"He’s also alleged to be the paid author of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book “Our Plan for America: Strong at Home, Respected Abroad”. He denies this and says Amazon has erroneously listed him as the author (how does that happen and why hadn't he protested it before now?). The Boston Globe also claims in a story yesterday that Amazon has acknowleged this and would revise the listing accordingly."
Posted by: McQ at August 11, 2004 08:38 PM
Fisk was fisked for being fiskable. That's really all that matters. Who cares who he worked for?
Kranish's associations are less important than whether the things he asserts are true or false. Guilt-by-association is so 50 years ago.
Posted by: No McCarthy at August 12, 2004 04:06 PM
Nixon had been elected at the time Kerry refers to the Viet Nam Conflict as Nixon's War. IT is true he had not taken office. Such things always seem to be something people track when they feel the dot at the end is more important than what a sentence says. I propose a real comparing of Kerry's and Bush's military service be placed side by side... ALL and COMPLETE... isn't this really what we deserve?
Posted by: steven at August 13, 2004 12:08 PM
Nixon had been elected at the time Kerry refers to the Viet Nam Conflict as Nixon's War. IT is true he had not taken office. Such things always seem to be something people track when they feel the dot at the end is more important than what a sentence says.
That is not the most stupid remark I've ever heard, but it's certainly right up there. John Kennedy sent the first troops to Vietnam. Myndon Johnson, from 1963 to 1968, increased the American Troop levels to more than 500,000. Dick Nixon hadn't even taken office yet.
I think it is important to point out that this wasn't, in any sense, Richard Nixon's War. JBJ was the poresidnet when began Serving in Vietnam.
I propose a real comparing of Kerry's and Bush's military service be placed side by side... ALL and COMPLETE... isn't this really what we deserve?
You may be right. I urge you to contact the Kerry campaign and ask him to release all of his service records, FITREPS, and military medical records.
Just like George W. Bush did months ago.
Posted by: Dale Franks at August 13, 2004 12:28 PM
The mysterious bunny that spirited Kerry into Cambodia in Christmas of '68, in the surprise sequel to Donnie Darko, turns out to be ... John Kerry himself!
I guess you could say it's the only time Kerry has ever been ... "Frank" ...
Posted by: Donnie Darko at August 13, 2004 05:13 PM
where can i view the application john kerry made when he applied for the Purple Heart for himself. If this is true? Thank You
Posted by: robert at August 20, 2004 02:36 PM
It's reported that "Unfit for Command" is hard to find?
Possibly because most of the purchasers have never before been in a bookstore.
Scientist for Kerry,
because;
I'm not super wealthy
I'm not from Texas, or in the oil business, and don't work for Halliburton
I believe the 1st Amendment is more important than the 2nd.
I believe Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft are eroding the 4th,5th,6th 7th and 8 amendments.
I believe we need a commander in Chief more alert than indicated in chapters 6 and 8 of the 911 commision.
I know what a stem cell is.
Posted by: dark matter at August 21, 2004 08:42 PM
The discussions here reinforce my beliefs on American politics. All politicians are liars and the American people create them. Both sides are guilty of not wanting the truth, because they live on Michael Jackson’s
NERVER-NEVER LAND. The hypocrisy of condemning the politician for lying, and then will not elect them when they tell the truth is the foundation of our politics. The American way of life is deteriorating for most people and with our budget deficit and trade in-balance it is gong to keep going down.
I am very concerned about what is coming out of the medal debate. Even Mr. Truwell of the swiftboat ad was exposed as being dishonorable when interviewed on TV. He was asked how he could be claiming there was no enemy fire during the time of Kerry’s injury, yet his own medal citation stated there was enemy fire. He stated he accepted the medal, even though the citation was a lie, because he deserved it when he pulled someone to safety. Where is the logic? It is OK for one person to receive but not another under the same circumstance. It gives me the impression that a lot of the medals given out really didn’t mean much, and this demeans the value of the medals for the true heroes.
Both Kerry and Bush were working towards their political careers. Kerry while in Nam with a possibility of being shot, while Bush was campaigning to get others elected. I challenge anyone to make a choice of the following. Walk through a drug and gang infested neighborhood at 2:00 am everyday for one week, or spend six months in an office putting out reports on how to reduce gang and drug activities. Which would you choose? Which presents the most danger?
RA
Posted by: Riley Abshire at September 4, 2004 08:56 AM
Sucks when you don't hear what you wanna hear, doesn't it?
I'm for Kerry 100%.
He's smart and has led a life of sacrifice for his fellow man.
Enlisting voluntarily.
Fighting in a war.
Protesting the same war. (What guts!)
Lifetime of public service.
Genuine integrity from day one.
Now tell me about Bush's life.
Posted by: Swift Vets for Boats at September 16, 2004 05:40 PM
3+ years as President of the United States. 2 terms as governor of Texas.
IOW 11 years of leadership v. 4 months in VN.
Why do you ask?
Posted by: McQ at September 16, 2004 05:43 PM
We cannot surrender our security to French permission, nor can we improve the economy by eating the rich. Isolationism and socialism are a prescription for disaster. This is the most important election of our lives. Our very way of life is at stake. Please vote (Once, and before the polls close)
Posted by: Economan at October 8, 2004 09:47 AM