|
23 Aug 04 - 11:29 PM (#1255002) Subject: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,guess who... > Kerry contradicts self in his own war diary? At least 9 days after Purple Heart, wrote he had not 'been shot at yet'... |
|
23 Aug 04 - 11:35 PM (#1255007) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Naemanson So what? He's a politician. He lies, Bush lies, they all lie. How can you tell when a politician is lying? His/Her lips are moving. The real question is which set of lies ends up killing people. Bush's lies kill people. I don't think Kerry's has yet, at least not in the thousands Bush is responsible for. |
|
23 Aug 04 - 11:38 PM (#1255010) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST Sorry there guess who, but you are definitely shootin' blanks. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 12:01 AM (#1255025) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Stilly River Sage Let's see--is this a "close reading" of a Swift Boat political ad funded by a Texas millionaire (who is no longer going to "volunteer" on the Bush campaign)? |
|
24 Aug 04 - 12:29 AM (#1255036) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Little Hawk (yawn) They all lie. It's part of the job description. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 12:43 AM (#1255042) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Amos Especially about each other. A |
|
24 Aug 04 - 01:12 AM (#1255053) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Jack the Sailor From: GUEST,guess who... - PM John O'Neill? Corsi? |
|
24 Aug 04 - 08:17 AM (#1255197) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: kendall Guest, you don't have to be shot at to be wounded. Ever hear of shrapnel? |
|
24 Aug 04 - 11:52 AM (#1255350) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Jim Dixon The Swift Boat Veterans have been arguing (with a great deal of speculation) that Kerry was wounded by ricocheting shrapnel from his own gun, and therefore he's not entitled to the Purple Heart. But as I read the official criteria at the official website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, he IS eligible, even if all their allegations are true. The criteria specifically state that individuals wounded by "friendly fire" are eligible. It seems to me that ricocheting shrapnel from one's own gun would be considered "friendly fire." It also says "It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel." I understand this to mean that in cases of doubt, the rules should be interpreted liberally to the benefit of the wounded soldier. In other words, Kerry could have been telling the truth when he said he hadn't been fired on, and he could still be eligible for the Purple Heart. I don't buy the argument "all politicians lie." Politicians are people like the rest of us. Some lie, some don't. Some people tell only trivial lies, some tell whoppers that lead to immense destruction. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 11:57 AM (#1255359) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Little Hawk Yes, Jim. It's what they are lying about, and for whom, and with what purpose in mind, and with what EFFECT that is the pertinent matter. People who are extremely partisan, however, only focus on getting upset about lies told by candidates of an opposing party. :-) That is the case with the individual who started this thread. Therefore, I shrug. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 01:02 PM (#1255423) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd Yes, I'd argue that all PEOPLE lie, but the question is what the intentions and consequences of the lies are. Beyond that, there is no really good evidence that Kerry lied. What this story actually quotes is a passage from a biography about Kerry, which used his diary as a source. No one in the media has seen the actual diary. Could it be the biographer made a mistake? Could the quoted passage come from a different date? Here is a passage ffrom the original article: "While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire." Note the weird first sentence. Brinkley is the author of the biography. So if the date IS mentioned by Brinkley, where is it "not specified?" In the diary, perhaps? So what we have, it seems, is an undated passage in a diary, which is assigned a date by a biographer. That date is somehow taken to be Kerry's own word, and Kerry is accused of lying. Come on, guys! Finally, as to credibility, the same website which "broke" this story contains the following headline today: Amazing role of U.S., Israel, Iraq in Bible prophecy Their editor is the author of the right-wing diatribe "Taking America Back." The site began as a Clinton-bashing website in the 90s. It claims to be against all government corruption, but since Dubya has been in office, all the criticism has shifted to Democrats in Congress. How convenient! In other words, they're a bunch of kooks who are both right-wing and partisan. So who's doing the lying? |
|
24 Aug 04 - 01:07 PM (#1255427) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Wesley S I saw a great bumper sticker the other day that said - "When Clinton lied - nobody died" |
|
24 Aug 04 - 01:47 PM (#1255450) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,JTT What a bizarre business this whole thing is. Who cares if Bush hid from the army and Kerry went off to Vietnam to kill people in an unjust war? Surely what Americans should be thinking about is how either of this pair of billionaires is likely to govern them? |
|
24 Aug 04 - 02:00 PM (#1255458) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: pdq Billionaires??? George and Laura Bush have a combined "forture" of 4-7 million. Total. That would not buy them a average house in the Hollywood Hills, an area where many of their critics reside. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 02:10 PM (#1255464) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: pdq ...dyslexia strikes again... it should be "an average" and "fortune" Are all U.S. president assumed to be "filthy rich"? Richard and Pat Nixon retired with a "fortune" of 450 thousand dollars, part of that was President Nixon's boyhood home in Whittier, California. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 02:48 PM (#1255494) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Clint Keller I don't reside in the Hollywood Hill, and I think ONE million is a fortune. Neither Bush nor Kerry is going to have to worry about their future. Interesting how wealth has suddenly become a bad thing when a Democrat has it. I do have sympathy with those who dislike the wealthy, but unfortunately, a person with my income can't afford to run. For anything. I heard Gerald Ford say twice on a TV program that he told Nixon accepting the pardon would be an admission of guilt. Nixon was indeed a crook, and he profited more by it than he deserved. I think the wealth of candidates is a non-issue. Unfortunately. clint |
|
24 Aug 04 - 05:31 PM (#1255651) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: artbrooks Teresa Heinz-Kerry has most of the money (about $500 million), inherited from her deceased first husband. Their assets are enumerated here. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 05:34 PM (#1255654) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Art Thieme To hell with all the absolutely worthless discussions about John Kerry. The idea is to focus on getting rid of Bush and all that he has done to destroy America in just four years. 9/11 was nothing compared to all that. Bush loves these discussions of Kerry's war record. It keeps us from focusing on HIS war record, the loss of Civil Liberties, the fact that there were no WMDs, the fact that he was never elected president, the fact that we never should've gone into Iraq, all the dead kids coming back from Iraq, and all the billions of dollars that the richest 20% of the USA has been allowed to run away with under Bush with only the smallest slap on the wrist to one or two. Good peopole, refocus----and put the light where it belongs to reveal the slime that has been spreading for at least four years. Art Thieme |
|
24 Aug 04 - 07:35 PM (#1255755) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: kendall Right on Art. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 07:44 PM (#1255765) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Naemanson You got it, Art! Note: Clinton's mistake involved the soiling of a dress. Bush killed several thousand people, almost a thousand of them our troops who did not die defending this country or our constitution. Further note: The oath of allegiance sworn by a soldier is to defend the constitution, not the president or his objectives. Maybe the Republicans were right. Back during the 1996 and 2000 campaigns they insisted that the president should have military experience. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 07:45 PM (#1255766) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Naemanson Sorry, that should have been "Clinton's mistake involved the soiling of a dress and a cigar." |
|
24 Aug 04 - 09:06 PM (#1255839) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: robomatic I've said it before and I'll say it again: Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth' = Willie Horton. This descent into Vietnam who dun whut is morbidly ludicrous for oh so many reasons. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 09:08 PM (#1255841) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,petr the Daily Show featured a clip of one of those swift boat veterans who said John Kerry Lied, in a previous campaign from '96 standing next to Kerry where he praised him and talked about how he rescued a guy under fire. What else was he supposed to say, Kerry was standing right beside him! and all the news repeat the slimy attack as if to present the 'other' side - but say it often enough that people just start believing it. Like repeating Saddam and Al Qaeda in the same sentence (but not actually linking them) THe thing that Americans ought to be up in arms about is the electronic voting. Whats wrong with a piece of paper with an x on it. We do it in Canada, They do it in France. why does it need to be done, to save money, speed up the counting? shouldnt the vote be sacred? I wouldnt put it past Jeb and his crew to scrub more legit voters of the list like they did in 2000. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 09:18 PM (#1255848) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Bottom Feeder Guest: Guess Who. HAHAHA!!!! Its probably the same dumbass that always starts these "Kerry bad, Bush good" threads. Your biggest problem Guess Who is that with your head shoved so far up your ass, all you can see is sh*t. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 09:57 PM (#1255871) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST So what? Bush tells people he was elected. |
|
24 Aug 04 - 11:50 PM (#1255926) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,guest GO FART,ART!!!! |
|
25 Aug 04 - 12:08 AM (#1255940) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,guest I am sorry, Art. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the pills I take that make me do this. It's the PILLLLLS. |
|
25 Aug 04 - 04:34 PM (#1256660) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Larry K I wish people would focus on Kerry's record instead of Viet Nam. The problem is that Kerry speant the whole primary and convention talking about Viet Nam. He only spoke 26 seconds about his 20 years in the Senate. That is a disgrace. The only reason we are having a debate about Viet Nam is becasue Kerry continues to bring it up. He tells us "Reporting for Duty" and Bring it on. When the Swift Boat people contradict his story, we cries like a baby and sues to stop their ads. Total phony. So lets talk about Kerry's record. He voted against most major weapons and arms, he voted against the death penalty for terrorists, he voted for a 50 cents a gallon gasoline tax, the the big dig in Mass. was one of the most corrupt and over budget projects in history. Lets look at his positions in Iraq. He voted against the first gulf war even though Sadaam had invaded Kuwait and there were proven attrocities. The than said he supported the war. He voted for the 2nd Iraq war even though there were no proven WMD's but than said he was against it. A year later he says that knowing everything he knows now he would still vote to give Bush the authority to go to war. That sounds more like a Jacky Mason routine than a cohesive policy. Yes all politiicans lie- but there is certainly a difference between a Bill Clinton and a Jimmy Carter. All people sin but Mother Theresa is not Ted Bundy. Therefore, it is to easy to only say they all lie- I think quantity, and context must be considered. Those who continue to say that Bush lied about WMD's are just making bafoons out of them selves and alienating independent thinkers. The senate panel, 9/11 commission, Lord Buckley Commission, Putin, Blair, and Tommy Franks have all independently concluded that Bush didn't lie. Yet many of you still continue that montra. Wishfull thinking. You are only lying to yourselves. Finally- Clinton Lied and no one died- unless you count the innocent people in the asperin factory, or the innocent killed in the bombings from 10,000 feet over Bosnia. How about the americans killed in the first world trade center bombing, US cole. Coball Towers, two African embassies, Sudan, and Black Hawk down in Somalia with no response. Do those americans count. How about the 3,000 killed on 9/11 when Clinton refused to accept Bin Laden from the Sudanese on 4 separate occations as doccument by Monsoor Obiz, Dick Morris, and in the book Losing Bin Laden. (3 separtate sources) When Art Thime said in an earlier thread "Kerry is strong enough to be wishy washy" can we really take that seriously. I guess than Kerry is smart enough to be an idiot, and brave enough to be a coward. |
|
25 Aug 04 - 04:52 PM (#1256682) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd LarryK, now YOU are lying. For example: the 9/11 commission did not find that Bush did not lie. In fact, they did not yet consider that question at all. That's one of those "sound bites" the right puts out and people like you either accept uncritically or purposely spread. It's also a lie to say he voted "against most major weapons and arms." In fact, it's not even specific enough to address. Most weapons and arms are included in appropriations that also cover other areas, so it is impossible to tell what a given senator is voting for and against. It's all dealt with nicely by Snopes.com, the Urban Legends site: Weapon Killer Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988." Status: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Sen. John Kerry Democrat from Massachusetts HE says he is strongest Presidential Candidate on National Defense! He said Check the Record.. We Did ! Here is what we learned. He voted to kill the B-1 Bomber He voted to kill the B-2 Stealth Bomber He voted to kill the F-14 He voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle He voted to kill the F-16 He voted to kill the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter He voted to kill the AH-64 Apache Helicopter He voted to kill the Patriot Anti-Missile System He voted to kill the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System He voted to kill the Trident Missile System He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle He voted to kill the Tomahawk Cruise Missile In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. Origins: Numerous variants of this message claiming that Senator John Kerry of Masschusetts "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988" have been circulating since at least February 2004. The message's implication ? that Senator Kerry distinctly and specifically voted to kill upwards of a dozen different weapons systems ? is inaccurate and grossly misleading, however. A 22 February 2004 Republican National Committee (RNC) research briefing includes the list of weapons systems found in this message and citations that purportedly support the claim that Senator Kerry voted to kill each one. But all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems. The three votes cited ? regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) ? were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars ? including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others. Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons ? because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military. The inclusion of some of the items listed here is all the more ridiculous given that they were weapons systems that a previous Republican administration advocated eliminating. For example, it was Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . 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. (Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.) Likewise, on 1 February 1992, Secretary of Defense Cheney complained to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was being "forced" to spend money on unneeded weapons such as the M-1, the F-14, and the F-16: Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s ? all great systems . . . but we have enough of them. And President Bush noted in his 1992 State of the Union address that he was phasing out several weapons systems, including the B-2, to "reflect the changes of the new era": Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. In other words, many of the weapons Kerry is accused of voting against are weapons that Dick Cheney ASKED congress to eliminate, back when he was defense secretary! It's disengenuous to say the least for Cheney's supporters NOW to blame Kerry for "killing" weapons programs. |
|
25 Aug 04 - 06:10 PM (#1256769) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: DougR Naemanson: Kerry has not killed people? Are Vietnamese people? He admitted before Senate committee in 1971 that he, himself, had committed atrocities in Nam. I guess that don't count though. The problem with Kerry is you can't tell when he is telling the truth, speaking from conviction, talking out of both sides of his mouth. There is an excellent column by David Brooks in the New York Times today about Kerry and his convictions. I would recommend any Kerry supporter to read it. DougR |
|
25 Aug 04 - 06:11 PM (#1256772) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: DougR Oops! The column may have been yesterday, August 24, because it is in our paper today. DougR |
|
25 Aug 04 - 06:58 PM (#1256853) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: artbrooks Doug R: the part that is missing from the "Swifties for Bush" ad is the part of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he said "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, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.... [insert atrocity stories here]". He never said that he personally participated in any of these things, that he witnessed them, or even that he believed that they were true. He was passing on information provided to him. The full test of his 1971 statement is here. |
|
25 Aug 04 - 07:39 PM (#1256898) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,petr repeat the lie often enough and people believe it. of course, if one were to mention My Lai and lt Calley are we dishonouring the veterans? the ironically named swift boat veterans for truth are neither truthful nor particularly swift. one of them was shown on a previous clip from an earlier campaing standing next to Kerry praising him for his heroism under fire. Another who said Kerry was never under fire also received a medal for being under fire at the same time. Go figure. |
|
25 Aug 04 - 07:56 PM (#1256909) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: DougR True, Art, I have heard that too. I also heard, even today on radio, a transcription of Kerry's voice giving testimony to a congressional committee, perhaps at another time, another place, that he HAD participated in the atrocities. DougR |
|
25 Aug 04 - 08:03 PM (#1256914) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,guest from NW given that the transcript from kerry's testimony shows clearly that he did not say he participated in atrocities, dougR, can you post a link or give a source for what you say you heard? you know, soundbites are just as easy to extract from their context as the printed word. |
|
25 Aug 04 - 11:17 PM (#1257040) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Art Thieme What I said was that I admire people who have the strength to change their mind when the facts indicate that is the correct thing to do. I admire John Kerry for becoming a soldier and doing that well. And I admire his ability to become a war critic when that war proved to be a travesty. These things were said by me to show that being "wishy-washy" and/or "flip flopping" is, often, a great strength rather than being the negative thing some might portray it as. It is like pointing out that something or someone is "politically correct" as a way of denigrating someone's expressed point of view. "Flip-flop" is used as a way of saying that everything someone says is worthless. Stupid semantic games all. If John Kerry voted to lessen those military programs you mentioned, please know that those are ALL great reasons why I will vote for him for president. After the fall of Soviet communism, lessening our arsenal was the correct way to think about all those situations. Now, after nine-eleven, I am confident that Mr. Kerry will, once again, be strong enough to "flip-flop" on one or two of those positions that may just need altering in the face of modern realities. Courageously adapting to new realities without over reacting is a part of his personna that I admire and see as an extremely positive trait. |
|
26 Aug 04 - 11:14 AM (#1257333) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd DougR, What Kerry said was that he participated (with hundreds of others) in such things as free-fire zones, harrassment fire, and burning empty houses, which he later found out were technically war crimes under the Geneva conventions. He did not, I think, know whether he himself had killed anyone by doing these things. He DID, on at least one occasion that I know of, kill a Viet Cong soldier. I assume you of all people won't start wagging your finger disapprovingly at THAT. |
|
26 Aug 04 - 11:50 AM (#1257374) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,grammar nazi Nerd "Yes, I'd argue that all PEOPLE lie, but the question is what the intentions and consequences of the lies are." And you have the brass to lecture us Folkies about grammar? Go the F away and stay there! |
|
26 Aug 04 - 01:12 PM (#1257433) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd I never claimed to use perfect grammar, grammar nazi. I usually don't bring up trivialities such as grammar or spelling until someone else does. Like, er, you. Now that you have done so, let's have a look. My grammar was, I admit, colloquial, but yours is equally so. You should not begin a sentence with "and." To put a question mark at the end of an otherwise declarative sentence is not strictly correct, either. There is no reason to capitalize folkies, or the unconvincingly dainty euphemism "f." So to be strictly grammatical, your post should have been something along these lines: Nerd, you wrote: "Yes, I'd argue that all PEOPLE lie, but the question is what the intentions and consequences of the lies are." How can you have the brass to lecture us folkies about grammar? Go the f away and stay there! Thanks for playing, grammar nazi! |
|
26 Aug 04 - 01:50 PM (#1257476) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Larry K I also have heard the audio of Kerry stating that he personally burned down villages, and committed war atrocities. All you have to do is listen to Sean Hannity who plays it at least once a week. There is no ambiquity in the audio. Kerry clearly states he violated the geneva convention. So who do you believe? 254 Swift vets have come out against Kerry. 16 have come out in support of Kerry. Kerry won't comment but his staff has now stated that he may not of been in Cambodia in Christmas 1968, and that his first purple heart may have been from a self inflicted wound. (Kerry's memory might be seared that Nixon was president in 1968, but all the history books are seared that he wasn't) So who do you believe? Lets look at Kerry's response to the swift Boat ads. Rather than confront them on the facts, their lawyers try to sue radio/tv stations to keep them off the air, and they now have hired private investigators to dig up dirt on the Swift Boats. Did you know that one of the Swift Vets has a reckless driving violation. (That news came out today) I guess that proves that me must have been lying about Viet Nam. So who do you believe? It seems to me that Kerry is doing all the things that make him like he is the one lying. Last night O'reilly suggested that Kerry have a one time only press conference to answer all the Viet Nam questions and then refuse to discuss it anymore. IN that way we could all move on from this quaqmire. I think that is the best suggestion I have heard on this issue. |
|
26 Aug 04 - 02:11 PM (#1257497) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd 254 Swift boat vets who did not witness any of Kerry's actions have come out against him. 16 who did witness his actions have come out for him. Some of the ones who are now against him were for him when he ran for the Senate. Since then, something has convinced them that he has been lying all along. The people funding the Swift Boat ads are the same ones who claimed McCain was a traitor last time around. The facts are there in Kerry's military records, which are public information. In those records, he is repeatedly praised for heroic actions leading to his medals, and no doctor ever questioned the validity of his wounds. Suddenly, a different doctor from the one on the official report claims in the ad that HE was the one to treat Kerry's wound, and that it did not merit a purple heart? What is Kerry supposed to say to this farcical nonsense: "No you didn't. Yes, it was." The ONLY viable alternative is to sue. Otherwise it will be "I saw you do this!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" Really, Larry K, the whole thing is so full of shit it amazes me anyone pays any attention to it. But with that lying, splotchy bully O'Reilly hollering up a storm, I guess it's not that surprising! Finally, Kerry obviously was not lying, but mistaken, about Nixon being president in 1968. (In fact, Nixon had already been elected president, and so was president-elect, at Christmas 1968). THAT is your big evidence that Kerry is lying? How impressive! |
|
26 Aug 04 - 03:30 PM (#1257551) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Jim Dixon I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the sentence "Yes, I'd argue that all PEOPLE lie, but the question is what the intentions and consequences of the lies are," even by the strictest standards. |
|
26 Aug 04 - 03:37 PM (#1257555) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: robomatic The main problem with fighting with folks like the Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth' is that they are making much hay simply by the assertions of their stories. The fact of their existence becomes the story and free publicity ensues. Then you have the age old problem of wrestling with a pig. "Never wrestle with a pig, my son. You get muddy, and the pig enjoys it." The logical response is to get a pig of your own in the movement. This would be making allegations of 'W's free ways with his National Guard obligations, and the possibility that his substance abuse made them only too happy that he didn't show up and try to fly their planes! It is the hardball politics of the day. |
|
26 Aug 04 - 03:57 PM (#1257562) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd From the NY Times: [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth]'s arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted. Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment. Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it." The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade. But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself. Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment. The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals. The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts. "Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual." According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water. Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign. But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying." "If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was." Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author. A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command." Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday. etcetera, etcetera. There is no merit to these allegations at all! |
|
26 Aug 04 - 04:41 PM (#1257602) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd More from the NY Times: The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements. Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year. In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man." In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that." George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats." "Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers." Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group." |
|
26 Aug 04 - 04:50 PM (#1257607) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Nerd Jim, I think Grammar nazi would have preferred the following: Yes, I'd argue that all PEOPLE lie, but the question is: "what are the intentions and consequences of the lies?" As I wrote it originally, my grammar was somewhat colloquial...but still better than grammar nazi's! If grammar nazi is the GUEST I think he is, he has repeatedly embarrassed himself in this fashion by launching ungrammatical attacks on my grammar. It reminds me of...oh, I don't know...dishonest attacks on Kerry's honesty? Hmm, could guess who and grammar nazi be the same GUEST? |
|
26 Aug 04 - 05:13 PM (#1257625) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: artbrooks Who is Sean Hannity? |
|
26 Aug 04 - 06:06 PM (#1257668) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Jim Dixon Nerd: I wonder what the grammar nazi would make of this: "To be, or not to be: that is the question." |
|
26 Aug 04 - 06:47 PM (#1257694) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: McGrath of Harlow I'm not clear - is the problem supposed to be that Kerry, in common with other US military personel, was involved in war crimes in Vietnam, or is it that he subsequently admitted that he had done so? Surely no one is denying that such war crimes were committed? |
|
26 Aug 04 - 08:38 PM (#1257753) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST I can't wait till November when Kerry loses and then I can read thread after thread by all you whining blowhards about how "we was robbed" (again).John Kerry is a whining, self serving, hypocritical liar and fortunately at least 51% of those who vote will validate that shortly. |
|
26 Aug 04 - 10:48 PM (#1257818) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,GROK GUEST: 1) You will HAVE to wait for November because it is over two months away. 2) Fifty-one percent validated the election last time, but Bush got appointed anyway. 3) "Self serving" should be hyphenated because you are using it as an adjective. 4) Have you tried Prozac? |
|
27 Aug 04 - 12:21 AM (#1257861) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST witty comeback, grok. I'm sure we are all impressed with your punctuation skills |
|
27 Aug 04 - 01:00 AM (#1257872) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,GROK Thank you, GUEST. Uh, you missed the period after skills. LOL. Have a little fun, will you? And GUEST, you don't speak for 'we'. You speak for 'thee'. |
|
27 Aug 04 - 01:03 AM (#1257876) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: TIA I! sure am, When we degenerate to examing punctuation; our arguments are exhausted aren*t they? |
|
27 Aug 04 - 07:48 AM (#1258069) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: bbc Art, Sean Hannity is a conservative afternoon radio talk show host. He also has a pm tv show on Fox News. bbc |
|
27 Aug 04 - 09:18 AM (#1258160) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: artbrooks Thanks, bbc. An authoritative source then, eh? |
|
27 Aug 04 - 11:06 AM (#1258226) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: The Beast of Farlington As a Brit, I found that thread fascinating. No, really. What worries me is how much of the argument for and against Kerry centres on his war record. Bush has shown himself to be a disaster as far as peace is concerned without a war record. Kerry's got one, whether or not he is telling the truth about it - perhaps that will make him less willing to enter into war on flimsy excuses. Kerry's lied. So what? Had Bush never lied? Has anyone here never lied? I just hope you'll choose your next President for positive reasons because it affects the rest of the world too. |
|
27 Aug 04 - 11:28 AM (#1258240) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: Little Hawk It's just the usual sort of partisan nonsense you see whenever the Democrats and Republicans stage their periodic political superbowls, in the process of defrauding the American public and siezing power for 4 years. I'd say, though, that it's worse this time, because there is an unusually criminal lot in charge of the government at the moment. Whether Kerry and his lot will turn out to be any better remains speculative....assuming they win. |
|
27 Aug 04 - 03:12 PM (#1258404) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,GROK Kerry is the better choice because we KNOW that Bush is the bad choice. Bush is stupid. Yes, stupid. The man can't speak, can't read, can't respond in a manner that makes sense. He has people running around cleaning up his messes. Come on fer crissake. Your pet turtle has more brains than Bush. Even if the turtle drowned an hour ago, it is guaranteed smarter than the American President. Get real about your situation in the USA. You are in deep shit. Four more years of Bush and your country will be bankrupt. The man has raised the national debt to SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS. He and his friends get rich. You see something wrong with that picture? God help us all. |
|
27 Aug 04 - 03:17 PM (#1258409) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,GROK "When we degenerate to examing punctuation; our arguments are exhausted aren*t they?" Absolutely# |
|
27 Aug 04 - 10:03 PM (#1258634) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Frank Thanks Nerd, Where is the credible info on this as you say? Once again, the Repubican Party operates on "smear and fear". . Frank |
|
28 Aug 04 - 01:11 AM (#1258700) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: DougR Gee whiz, Frank, and the Democrats don't? DougR |
|
28 Aug 04 - 03:52 AM (#1258740) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,GROK DougR: Your bias is showing, and in the above statement you admitted that the Republicans operate on "smear and fear" dear. Hear, hear. GROK |
|
28 Aug 04 - 03:27 PM (#1259020) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Dougie - "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That was said by some obscure Democrat whose name escapes my mind... What I hear from Republicans lately is "Code Orange, and we can't tell you why, but be very afraid." And there was some obscure triple-amputee veteran who was defeated by a Republican who implied he was disloyal to this country. No Democrat that I know of has done anything that chickenshit, (to use the technical term.) clint |
|
28 Aug 04 - 04:08 PM (#1259047) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,TIA Name one instance DougR. Just one. (Of Democrats practicing "smear and fear"). If you can name three (with references cited of course, not just your say-so)", I'll switch to your team (I know, you guys probably don't want a sensitive weenie like me). |
|
28 Aug 04 - 04:55 PM (#1259085) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry is lying again... From: GUEST,guest from NW you won't see dougR citing any references TIA (other than fox news). that would require research and analysis. doug would rather let others make the points and then go"yeah, right" or "and the democrats don't?". the perfect bush syncophant. |