John Kerry for President!

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Well, he may have chosen to speak for all the military, but I seriously doubt that he was accurate and frankly it takes a lot of nerve to stand up and say such a ridiculous thing.

Btw, do you happen to have a link to the story you posted?

"Later, the Marines -- none of whom would give his name -- said they were Bush supporters. "He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one said. "I'm 100 percent against" Kerry, he said. "We support our commander in chief 100 percent." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28114-2004Jul30.html

hmmmm..They refused to give their names, but claim to speak for the military? Sorry, but anyone uncouth enough to not want to shake the hand of someone because they disagree with them has little standing to speak for anyone.

 

[richiebaseball]

Comments on this http://www.swiftvets.com/

Richard

 

[BKtoo]

My comment would be similar to what I posted above; obviously, there are going to be some for him and some against him, even among those who served with him. It comes as no surprise to me.

It seems from the website that their biggest beef is regarding Kerry's speaking out against the war after the war; and again, that is no surprise. Some who served feel as Kerry did, some don't. I honestly don't look at it as that controversial, but rather, to be expected.

 

[Nancy]

2 sides to every story...2 different viewpoints depending on which side you support.

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
hmmmm..They refused to give their names, but claim to speak for the military? Sorry, but anyone uncouth enough to not want to shake the hand of someone because they disagree with them has little standing to speak for anyone.

Why should they be required to give up their privacy because Kerry attempted to use them in a publicity stunt?

I had to laugh when I heard that Merrill McPeak is one of the retired generals backing Kerry. That man is absolutely reviled within the Air Force community.

 

[shortbun]

as stated by peachgirl:

"Yes, we'll never have to worry about Laura Bush saying shove it to a reporter who is obviously biased. They'd never allow such a person to get close to her."


Yeah-where is Laura anyway? She hasn't appeared for weeks.
She didn't even make it to Missouri for the after DNC Bush rebuttle. All George said was, " I'm sorry Laura couldn't be here.
She's a great First Lady." She won't add much to the race anyway. She's always dressed in a suit with her hands crossed
and her lips together. This is an awful thing to say because I
actually like her and understand her issues but: Stepford anyone?
She sure is the dutifull wife. Fine for her but this country needs
a power team in the White House.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Olaf
Why should they be required to give up their privacy because Kerry attempted to use them in a publicity stunt?

um......how about because they wanted their words and feelings publicized?




Oh...and as to those infamous swift vets......people might want to do a bit of reading about them

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040004Houston lawyer John O'Neill is a Republican -- as the Houston Chronicle noted the day after O'Neill's interview with Blitzer. According to the paper, O'Neill voted in the 1998 Republican state primary. But O'Neill's ties to the Republican Party extend far beyond party affiliation. During the CNN interview, Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O'Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O'Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an "articulate" and "credible leader" of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore "an immediate target of the Nixon Administration." As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to "create a counterfoil" to Kerry. Colson recounted, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration.

Beyond his role in the Nixon administration's strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O'Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O'Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O'Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy


http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index_np.htmlThe latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" , which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service.

These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004.

Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Dallas attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."


http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004 Let me show you the report of George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam. Here's what was said. Here's what he said. "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." That's a report of officer fitness from 1969 by George Elliott, who also graded Kerry. How do you account for that? Do you want to claim that everybody now is saying what you're saying? It's clearly not true.





http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002 As Media Matters for America has noted, both Patterson and O'Neill have a history of issuing false claims about Kerry. Patterson, author of the new book Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2004), severely distorted Kerry's record on defense spending, intelligence spending, and veterans' pay in two recent appearances on the FOX News Channel. Patterson also asserts in his book that "every terrorist" is "hoping" the Democrats win the upcoming U.S. election.

O'Neill's group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was founded to discredit Kerry's record during and after his service in Vietnam. His book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry is forthcoming from the conservative Regnery Publishing. As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Neill has long-standing ties to the GOP establishment, and O'Neill's own p.r. adviser has described O'Neill as sounding like "a crazed extremist." MMFA also noted O'Neill's participation in Republican efforts to smear Kerry, dating back to the Nixon administration.



http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Olaf
I had to laugh when I heard that Merrill McPeak is one of the retired generals backing Kerry. That man is absolutely reviled within the Air Force community.

Well don't leave us hanging. Tell us why.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by shortbun
as stated by peachgirl:

"Yes, we'll never have to worry about Laura Bush saying shove it to a reporter who is obviously biased. They'd never allow such a person to get close to her."


Yeah-where is Laura anyway? She hasn't appeared for weeks.
She didn't even make it to Missouri for the after DNC Bush rebuttle. All George said was, " I'm sorry Laura couldn't be here.
She's a great First Lady." She won't add much to the race anyway. She's always dressed in a suit with her hands crossed
and her lips together. This is an awful thing to say because I
actually like her and understand her issues but: Stepford anyone?
She sure is the dutifull wife. Fine for her but this country needs
a power team in the White House.

A power team in the White House???? I don't vote for a First Lady. I vote for a President and Vice President...that is supposed to the team in the White House.

 

[peachgirl]

I don't vote for a First Lady.

Then why am I continually reading posts knocking Theresa Kerry? I've read post after post about how important a first lady's behavior and actions are.

If the First Lady's actions don't matter, then what Mrs. Kerry does or says is totally irrelevant.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by Nancy
A power team in the White House???? I don't vote for a First Lady. I vote for a President and Vice President...that is supposed to the team in the White House.

Like Nancy and Ron, Jimmy and Rosylyn, Franklin and Eleanor,
Bill and Hillary......these First Ladies ALL made a big difference.
It is the 21st century. Women no longer sit and knit while the
men rule the roost-or hadn't you heard. The First Lady is very
important in my book. Obviously George W Bush thinks so too.
The other day on CSPAN he said the biggest reason for voting
for him for president was to keep Laura in the White House.
This was Friday in Missouri and I saw and heard him say it. It
was, of course, a semi-closeted slam against Terese Heinz Kerry
but it is what he said.

 

[faithinkarma]

Yep, he said it. Here is a transcript. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040731/nysa015_1.html

It is interesting reading. I would have thought that given his poor public speaking skills he might have sounded better on paper, but he doesn't. Particularly when he said

"He said he's only going to raise the tax on the so-called rich. But you know how the rich is, they've got accountants. That means you pay. That means your small business pays. It means the farmers and ranchers pay. That's the wrong medicine for this economy, and we're not going to let him prescribe it."

Showing a firm grasp of economics along with good grammar.

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Well don't leave us hanging. Tell us why.

It's complicated, but I'll try. McPeak was a fighter pilot who thought that fighters were what the AF was all about. He totally realigned the command structure, giving more power and control to the fighter community. He also attempted to change the AF uniform to something that looked like a commercial pilot might wear. That was very unpopular. The minute he was gone, the new guy (Fogelman) wasted no time and changed everything back, despite the fact that it cost a boatload of money.

I found an article which goes into a bit more depth.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_uniform_052104,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

 

[faithinkarma]

I'm sorry. I read the entire article. Are you saying this man is to be discredited because he was involved in controversy over the look of uniforms? Surely you have more than that? And since the artcile starts out with

Air Force leaders are pushing ahead with plans to outfit personnel with new combat fatigues, which seems like an innocent enough undertaking.

it sounds like someone else is doing exactly the same thing. Should this person be booted out right away and save time?

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I'm sorry. I read the entire article. Are you saying this man is to be discredited because he was involved in controversy over the look of uniforms? Surely you have more than that? And since the artcile starts out with it sounds like someone else is doing exactly the same thing. Should this person be booted out right away and save time?

Not exactly. The uniforms were just the last the straw for everyone. You have to understand the military culture and the love of tradition. Changes to the uniform are very big deal. He just did it, he didn't ask anyone, nor did he ask for input. It was a total disaster. Once he was gone, the uniform was changed back, and the base tailors were kept busying trying to modify that airline pilot thing into the classic blue jacket. It was a huge deal and cost everyone a lot of money.

The uniform they're talking about in this article, are the current BDU's, and they're not very popular. They're ugly, they have to be professionally cleaned and starched (if you want them to look nice), and they're hot as hell.

The bigger issues were of course the changes to the command structure, and most of his realignments have been thrown out the window.

I met him once, after he retired. I found him humorless and condescending.

btw if you want to know what the military thinks of Kerry, there's a link to a board at the bottom of that article.

 

[faithinkarma]

Believe it or not, your personal assessment of him carries more weight with me than the uniform story. However for all we know the military men who were in Wendy's have character flaws that would equally discount their opinions.

I am unable to list any sites to confirm this, but I did read that the military who once were massively behind Bush are no longer so. I cannot say that the majority are for Kerry, or for Bush for that matter. I simply cannot recall the exact numbers. But I do know it is not a group that Bush can count on for total support the way he once could. And I thought it was really ridiculous for someone to try to use the words of a couple of men who refused to be named as proof positive that the military did not back Kerry.

I followed the link at the bottom of the page. I assume you meant the discussion board? It's hard to determine any valid percentages from message boards. Look at this board. It is not reflective of the polls nation wide.

 

[treesinger]

Keeping it light...
I listened to Kerry's speech and I have one thing to say. That man can't tell a joke to save his life! He had a couple good jokes buried in his speech. His delivery was so bad that I couldn't laugh. and then I DID laugh because the joke was good but the delivery was terrible.

 

[treesinger]

As far as Kerry's remarks (and Michael Moore's dialogue with Bill O'Reilly) about Bush lying about WMD's, I see the point as disingenuous. If I were President, and the CIA, MI:5, AND Russian Intelligence AL said that Iraq had WMD's, and the UN said the Saddam had them and had not provd that he had destroyed them, I would have to assume overwhelmingly that Saddam had WMD's. As it turns out (so far) we are very wrong. Except for the rogue chem weapon, there is no large stockpile found. But is that lying? No. Lying is when you know a certain situation to be true and willfully disregard that proof in favor of contrary action. Bush would only be lying if he KNEW or had very strong reason to believe that Saddam did NOT have WMD's. If that were the case and Bush went to war regardless, then he'd be a big fat liar. But he didn't.

I just don't understand the charge that Bush lied. Is he the one ultimately responsible? Yup. But I don't think he made an irresponsible decision. The litmus test for me is, "Would I have decided the same thing with all of the same information he had?" Yeah, I would. Would that make me a liar, deliberately misleading the Ameriican public? Heck no! I used supposedly reliable information and made a judgement call. I'd be responsible for the aftermath, but I shouldn't be called willfully negligent. And, IMO, neither should Bush.

Put another way. If one of my kids had a serious mysterious illness, I would take her to a doctor. If I went to 3 doctors, and they all had the same diagnosis, I would have reason to believe that the illness must be what is affecting my child. I would accept whatever treatment the doctors would perform for that particular illness. But what if it turns out the doctors were wrong? And what if the medical treatment actually HARMED my child because there was no illness at that particular point to treat? Now, am I responsible for that choice? Yes. Am I a liar? No. If my family is off-the-hook angry, they may say, "You lied! You told us that she would get better with this treatment, but the treatment is actually making her worse! How could you lie like that to us and especially to her?"

IT IS NOT A LIE! It is taking the best info you have, verifying it at different places to assure congruency, and making decisions based on the info. It would be patently unfair to call me a liar in my "sick child" scenario. It would be equally unfair to call Bush a liar for exactly the same reasons.

Can anyone tell me why I'm wrong?

 

[ToriLammy]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
"Later, the Marines -- none of whom would give his name -- said they were Bush supporters. "He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one said. "I'm 100 percent against" Kerry, he said. "We support our commander in chief 100 percent." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28114-2004Jul30.html

hmmmm..They refused to give their names, but claim to speak for the military? Sorry, but anyone uncouth enough to not want to shake the hand of someone because they disagree with them has little standing to speak for anyone.

I think maybe the one they quoted was speaking for the four Marines present at Wendy's and not the entire military. As for not wanting to shake his hand did they say that (?)...maybe they just didn't want the attention his interrupting their lunch brought on them with the press corps that is following Kerry. I can't blame them for not wanting to be a "Photo Op." It is kind of rude to assume that people want to talk to you when they are eating. It probably would have been better to have a handler ask them if it was okay before he just walked over to them at their table.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
um......how about because they wanted their words and feelings publicized?




Oh...and as to those infamous swift vets......people might want to do a bit of reading about them

Yea, they might. Also the upcoming book "Unfit For Command"

I'm sure all the liberals will rush out and buy it so they can make an informed decision. Wouldn't want to judge it without seeing it, er, I mean reading it after all.

Originally posted by faithinkarma
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040004Houston lawyer John O'Neill is a Republican -- as the Houston Chronicle noted the day after O'Neill's interview with Blitzer. According to the paper, O'Neill voted in the 1998 Republican state primary. But O'Neill's ties to the Republican Party extend far beyond party affiliation. During the CNN interview, Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O'Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O'Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an "articulate" and "credible leader" of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore "an immediate target of the Nixon Administration." As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to "create a counterfoil" to Kerry. Colson recounted, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration.

Beyond his role in the Nixon administration's strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O'Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O'Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O'Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy

Okay so some of these guys vote Republican. Now I understand in some circles that automatically means they lie but not in the real world. And someone has ties to Richard Nixon. Are you suggesting Nixon is running this from the grave? I'm sorry but the title "Queen of Conspiracies" belongs to another. There are 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers in the picture with John Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth claim that of the 19 men pictured, 11 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 2 are working with the Kerry campaign. They also claim four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry. Does this article prove this claim false?

Originally posted by faithinkarma

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/index_np.htmlThe latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" , which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service.

These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004.

Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Dallas attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."

Again, it seems there are Republicans involved. Imagine that. Should we wait for a group of loyal Democrats to criticize Senator Kerry? I'm sure we'll see them right after the group of loyal Republicans start criticizing President Bush. Again, there are 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers in the picture with John Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth claim that of the 19 men pictured, 11 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 2 are working with the Kerry campaign. They also claim four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry. Does this article prove this claim false?

Originally posted by faithinkarma
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004 Let me show you the report of George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam. Here's what was said. Here's what he said. "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." That's a report of officer fitness from 1969 by George Elliott, who also graded Kerry. How do you account for that? Do you want to claim that everybody now is saying what you're saying? It's clearly not true.

You know, I'm willing to bet you'll find more than one guy to say Senator Kerry is a swell fella. Wonder if I can find one to say the same for President Bush? I think the odds are in my favor. What's your point? Again, there are 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers in the picture with John Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth claim that of the 19 men pictured, 11 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 2 are working with the Kerry campaign. They also claim four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry. Does this article prove this claim false?

Originally posted by faithinkarma
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407290002 As Media Matters for America has noted, both Patterson and O'Neill have a history of issuing false claims about Kerry. Patterson, author of the new book Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2004), severely distorted Kerry's record on defense spending, intelligence spending, and veterans' pay in two recent appearances on the FOX News Channel. Patterson also asserts in his book that "every terrorist" is "hoping" the Democrats win the upcoming U.S. election.

O'Neill's group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was founded to discredit Kerry's record during and after his service in Vietnam. His book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry is forthcoming from the conservative Regnery Publishing. As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Neill has long-standing ties to the GOP establishment, and O'Neill's own p.r. adviser has described O'Neill as sounding like "a crazed extremist." MMFA also noted O'Neill's participation in Republican efforts to smear Kerry, dating back to the Nixon administration.



http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Again, we should let Democrats criticize Democrats and Republicans criticize Republicans? Because people are Republicans they can't have an opinion about a Democrat. And Senator Kerry's voting record on defense is abysmal and that is a public record. Once again, there are 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers in the picture with John Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth claim that of the 19 men pictured, 11 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 2 are working with the Kerry campaign. They also claim four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry. Does this article prove this claim false?

That picture is used in a short video about Senator Kerry. While that picture is up, it mentions John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam. Immediately after that, two gentleman praise him as a hero. It then mentions his medals and purple hearts. It sounds like 15 of those 24 swift boat veterans in that picture consider him unfit and don't want him to use that picture as a political advertisement making it seem like they endorse him. Do they see him as unfit because some of them have voted Republican?

Imagine this: It's the early 1970's and George Bush is in Alabama with half a dozen other pilots from the National Guard. Some of the fellows even have their wives with them. They all get together and a picture is taken. 30 years later President Bush is using that picture in a video for his re-election campaign. It talks about camaraderie and the brotherhood of pilots. Maybe it even has one or two of the wives remarking how dashing and brave the young George W. Bush is. Well, one of the wives in that picture is you. You know the question. What would you do?

Richard