Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
"I have to say, in thinking about it earlier today, it made me very sad to realize that it will be a difficult row to hoe for ANY war service Vet to run for president. McCain.....Kerry.....both have been basically demonized for serving their country. "

It's sad, but you're absolutely right..



"If Colin Powell or Stormin' Norman were to throw their hat in the ring right now, they'd get a huge amount of support from voters in both parties."

Sure, they'd have a great deal of support. But some slime somewhere would crawl out from underneath their rock and level charges against them, it's a foregone conclusion.

Ever wonder why men like them, don't run? It's because men like the SBVT are out there waiting to destroy them and there are plenty of onlookers who will believe whatever crap they put out.

Negative works. I find it disgusting when everyone starts whining about negative campaigns and how much they hate them. Well folks, if you don't like them, stop letting them work. Nothing works better for a candidate than getting down in the mud and slinging as much of it as they can.

It's worked for Bush quite well.

It's worked quite well for moveon.org and Michael Moore too, Peachgirl. Neither side has a good record on this. So why don't you level some of your disgust in a more bi-partisan manner?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Did I name names? Did I say everyone on this board? I can go back just a post or two and find the label "baby killer". I can promise you within 2 minutes I can find every name I listed and more..including calling him a dead cat.....whatever the hell that means.


Sometimes I say "one", sometimes I say "you" when referring to a collective group. If I'm talking to one person in particular, I'll name them.

I totally understand. But when you specifically said "My problem is not with investigating these claims." I assumed you were addressing me, because I'm the one who has repeatedly said that is exactly my problem.

 

[Saffron]

Peachgirl -- so far all I know about the "Christmas in Cambodia" story is this: apparently, back in 1986, Kerry was giving a speech on the Senate floor (I don't know about what) and started remembering a time in 1968 when he spent Christmas on a manuver in Cambodia. Nixon claimed not to have any troops in Cambodia, but he actually had tons there. Kerry claimed it was Nixon that had him and his men there, secretly. But, Nixon couldn't have possibly had Kerry there, because although he won the election in 1968, Nixon wasn't sworn into office until January 1969. As far as I know, this story was broken by either the Freepers, or SBVT, but that could just be an assumption I've made from my Google search, I could be very wrong and will stand corrected if I am.

If these alligations are true, that Kerry did say those things, and there aren't bits and pieces of the puzzle missing that print another story, than Kerry is a liar about that.

What makes me sick, is that now of these other false, disgusting, horrible alligations have been thrown around about Kerry, people may doubt his service record and believe all the other bogus stuff, and that makes me want to hurl.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
I have to say, in thinking about it earlier today, it made me very sad to realize that it will be a difficult row to hoe for ANY war service Vet to run for president. McCain.....Kerry.....both have been basically demonized for serving their country. I am beginning to wonder now if the safer bet for anyone thinking of running for President is to either dodge war service or avoid military service altogether. It really is a sad state of affairs, don't you think? I have to kind of wonder what'll happen in 20-30 years, when vets of the Iraq war are going to be at that stage in their lives where they could run for President.....whether their honor, too, will be questioned. No doubt it will; war is never pretty but who would've thought that the ugliness would continue so long after a war is over? I wonder how this situation will affect a war-time vet's decision to run for President in the future; how many good, and possibly great, men and women will opt out of trying for the higher office now that they've seen how likely it is for their military service to be twisted into something ugly rather than something honorable.

I read a story today of a young man who came home to Texas from Iraq minus one arm. He had won a purple heart. And he was saying that 20 years from now it would mean nothing. He said to his father: "Your hero Bush talks about soldiers all the time but when a veteran runs, he calls him a coward and a liar---what do you think people like that will turn my service into if I ever gave them a chance?"

The father called Kerry's injuries "nothing like yours, they were scratches" Jimmy told him: "any wound is serious and if no one has ever shot at you, you don't know what you are talking about. I won't judge another soldier's injuries---good for him he didn't lose a limb!"


His parents tried to say that he misunderstood, that the "Kerry situation was different and it was not Bush but fellow veterans doing the campaign to 'tell the truth' " but Jimmy cut his father off and said that if "Bush trashes one of us, he trashes us all. I don't know anyone who is voting for that *******. They turned the TV off in the hospital because when he came on we threw things."

I am unable to provide a link for this, so you can choose to disbelieve if you will. But it is true. The ripples from this have only begun, no matter who wins this election.

 

[bsnyder]

A brief explaination of the Christmas in Cambodia story from US News and World Report:

By John Leo
A very Kerry Christmas

Some people wondered how long the major media would be willing to ignore the Christmas-in-Cambodia story. Well, the answer is in: at least 10 or 11 days. I first noticed the story August 6 on Glenn Reynolds's Instapundit blog. Soon it was all over the Internet, the conservative press, talk radio, and some cable shows. But the networks, the New York Time s , the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and other major media didn't run the story. Some papers, like the Kansas City Star, got protests from readers on what appeared to be a news blackout. Finally, after an agonizingly slow response from the Kerry campaign, big media took account of the issue, muffling and burying the story they didn't want to carry in the first place.

The story is simple and by now well known. For 25 years John Kerry has said repeatedly that on Christmas or Christmas Eve of 1968 he took his swift boat into Cambodia on a covert and illegal mission. He said he got shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians or by "our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas." In 1979, Kerry wrote a piece for the Boston Herald noting that "the absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." Kerry was wrong about Nixon, who was not yet president at the time--a minor and unimportant slip--but he said the memory of the Cambodian Christmas "is seared--seared into me."

The anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth book, Unfit for Command, argued that Kerry had never been in Cambodia. That charge was easily challenged as partisan. But a book supportive of Kerry and written with his help, Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, said Kerry was on patrol 50 miles from the Cambodia border on Christmas Eve 1968 and spent Christmas Day writing journal entries back at his base. As the Washington Times argued in an editorial, all living commanders in Kerry's chain of command denied that Kerry had been in Cambodia, and three of Kerry's swift boat crew denied they or their boat had been in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. Two others refused comment.

Like the issue of President Bush's National Guard service, the Cambodian Christmas story is important only for the light it may shed on a candidate's mind and character. But unlike the Bush story, Kerry's Cambodian story set off no media frenzy. Glenn Reynolds wrote of the big media: "They're damaging themselves as more and more people notice that they're ignoring it." Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut was asked to comment on the Cambodian Christmas story on Meet the Press. She blew off the question, possibly because her paper hadn't yet bothered to report the story.

Borderline. When the Los Angeles Times finally decided to notice the story, it had an obvious problem: How should it report news it had ignored for 11 days? Simple: Lump it in with Kerry's other Vietnam controversies in a long, boring, and indecisive report ("what actually happened about 35 years ago along the remote southern coast of Vietnam remains murky" ). And high up in the story, let readers know that the Times thinks the issue is old, irrelevant, and narrowly partisan ("the [anti-Kerry] ad, the book, and the people behind them have become staples of conservative talk shows and Internet sites" ). Of course, one reason it was a "staple" of conservative media is that the major news media ignored it. The Times did come up with one nugget of information: An archived Navy report said Kerry's boat destroyed a junk on a beach on Christmas Eve. A coordinate used by the military fixed the site at 40 to 50 miles south of the Cambodian border. This information seemed damaging to Kerry, but the Times helpfully pointed out that the junk incident occurred so early in the day (7 a.m.) that Kerry had plenty of time to take his boat over the Cambodian border before nightfall. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan offered a slightly different explanation--Kerry was on or near the Cambodian border on Christmas. This seems like a smooth way of withdrawing the Christmas-in-Cambodia claim.

This is odd. Previously, Kerry was very specific--it was definitely Christmas or Christmas Eve and he was 5 miles inside Cambodia, not at or near the border. The event was "seared" into his memory. Perhaps Kerry is vague because he was on a secret mission, but if it was so secret, why did he spend 25 years talking about it? Perhaps the Christmas in Cambodia was just a self-dramatizing touch that Kerry made up and never expected to get called on. He has said he was heading upriver like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now. An interesting story. It isn't too late for a big-time media outlet to grow curious about it.

 

[peachgirl]

than Kerry is a liar about that.

Why does he have to be a liar? Is it not possible, that if this is true, he simply made a mistake?

It's pretty pathetic when the best you have to offer about your candidate is that you might be able to find a discrepancy in fact about the other guy from a incident that happened 30+ years ago.

Weren't we supposed to pay no attention to Bush's possible cocaine use and his over drinking because it happened a long time ago?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I read a story today of a young man who came home to Texas from Iraq minus one arm. He had won a purple heart. And he was saying that 20 years from now it would mean nothing. He said to his father: "Your hero Bush talks about soldiers all the time but when a veteran runs, he calls him a coward and a liar---what do you think people like that will turn my service into if I ever gave them a chance?"

The father called Kerry's injuries "nothing like yours, they were scratches" Jimmy told him: "any wound is serious and if no one has ever shot at you, you don't know what you are talking about. I won't judge another soldier's injuries---good for him he didn't lose a limb!"


His parents tried to say that he misunderstood, that the "Kerry situation was different and it was not Bush but fellow veterans doing the campaign to 'tell the truth' " but Jimmy cut his father off and said that if "Bush trashes one of us, he trashes us all. I don't know anyone who is voting for that *******. They turned the TV off in the hospital because when he came on we threw things."

I am unable to provide a link for this, so you can choose to disbelieve if you will. But it is true. The ripples from this have only begun, no matter who wins this election.

Where has Bush ever called Kerry a coward or a liar? Can you provide even one single source where he's done this? On the contrary, he's repeatedly said that he served honorably in Vietnam.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Why does he have to be a liar? Is it not possible, that if this is true, he simply made a mistake?

It's pretty pathetic when the best you have to offer about your candidate is that you might be able to find a discrepancy in fact about the other guy from a incident that happened 30+ years ago.

Weren't we supposed to pay no attention to Bush's possible cocaine use and his over drinking because it happened a long time ago?

Peachgirl, here are two exact quotes from Kerry, about his Cambodia experiences:


On the floor of the Senate on March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry issued this statement: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

Mr. Kerry's statement at the time was similar to other statements he had made after returning from duty in Vietnam, and throughout much of the 1970s. Writing for the Boston Herald in October 1979, Mr. Kerry said this: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

How can he be claiming he made a mistake when he clearly states the memory was "seared" in him? That's defies logical thinking.

 

[peachgirl]

TOUR OF DUTY author and John Kerry historian Doug Brinkley is rushing a piece for the NEW YORKER: to set-the-record-straight on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia tale, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Well, so far, here's what I see about it. And I used Sludge just to avoid the predictable gripes about sources. Which btw, is getting really tiresome. The Dem's use the NYT and it's a crime and the story means nothing, yet sludge apparently is the poster boy for truth...at any rate:

"Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor.

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE."

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me."

Geez! Christmas or January....we're talking a week or two time difference. So what?????

 

[peachgirl]

the memory was "seared" in him?

I would imagine he's talking about the memory of the event........perhaps what he did was more memory searing than the exact day he did it.


Hell, I remember the day the first dog I ever owned died. It's "seared" in my memory, but for the life of me I couldn't tell you within a week or two of when he actually died. And that certainly wasn't 30 years ago.

Desperate is a good word to describe this one....

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I would imagine he's talking about the memory of the event........perhaps what he did was more memory searing than the exact day he did it.


Hell, I remember the day the first dog I ever owned died. It's "seared" in my memory, but for the life of me I couldn't tell you within a week or two of when he actually died. And that certainly wasn't 30 years ago.

Desperate is a good word to describe this one....

And if your dog died on Christmas Eve, I bet you'd remember the day!

Desparate is right! Especially since it doesn't look like there's any proof Kerry was ever in Cambodia. We're suppose to just take his word for it.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Where has Bush ever called Kerry a coward or a liar? Can you provide even one single source where he's done this? On the contrary, he's repeatedly said that he served honorably in Vietnam.

Did "I" accuse Bush of anything???? Good grief...focus will you. I was quoting what the soldier believed. He said many many worse things in the story and I chose to leave them out. I left that in because it was a direct quote and I would not take words out of a direct quote.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Did "I" accuse Bush of anything???? Good grief...focus will you. I was quoting what the soldier believed. He said many many worse things in the story and I chose to leave them out. I left that in because it was a direct quote and I would not take words out of a direct quote.

Of course you didn't say it. You posted it! Why quote the damn thing in the first place? What's the point?

 

[Saffron]

I have a problem with the statement. Nixon secretly put the troops in Cambodia, not Johnson, if I'm correct. Then how could Kerry make those statements, unless at the end of Johnson's days in office, he secretly put troops in Cambodia? I guess as the story makes the rounds, more and more information will come out about it and we can all make our own judgments.
Right now, I don't understand why he made those statements. Could they be a mistake? I dunno. Does it change my mind about him and make me not want him as President? Not at all! I wouldn't want to start comparing lies politicians or President tell now, or we'd all be on this thread for a thousand pages!

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Of course you didn't say it. You posted it! Why quote the damn thing in the first place? What's the point?

The point ( sorry that it eluded you ) was to show the effect all this crap flying around is having on some of the soldiers. Sorry that you do not think it is a topic worthy of discussion, but since I was replying to a completely different person's post, you need not concern yourself any further. You do have the ignore option, I urge you to use it.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Of course you didn't say it. You posted it! Why quote the damn thing in the first place? What's the point?

The point is, that young soldier made Bedknobbery2's point that she so eloquently stated in a previous post. What's wrong with that!

 

[bsnyder]

Maggie, I certainly wouldn't expect this to change your mind. From a policy standpoint, you would have no reason to vote for George W. Bush. And yes, politicians do stuff like this all the time.

But when they get caught doing it, it's usually a pretty big news story. You and Peachgirl have both admitted in this thread that you hadn't heard anything about it until today. If that doesn't prove my point, I guess nothing will.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
And if your dog died on Christmas Eve, I bet you'd remember the day!

Desparate is right! Especially since it doesn't look like there's any proof Kerry was ever in Cambodia. We're suppose to just take his word for it.

Well, so far I haven't found a quote in his testimony that says Christmas EVE, what I've seen so far is that he said Christmas.

For those who would like to see what McCain had to say about the dirty tricks that were pulled on him, take a look at the video where he confronted Bush about this in 2000. You don't have to sign up, just click play video.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php

 

[peachgirl]

So why don't you level some of your disgust in a more bi-partisan manner?

Why don't you?

And I don't see Michael Moore out there with a commercial blasting the air waves. I don't see him getting the air time the SBVT are getting. Moveon has been condemned by Kerry, why doesn't Bush do the same?????

I can tell you why. There's a significant number of veterans who will never forgive John Kerry for speaking his mind. Some of those, for whatever reasons, despise Kerry to the point that they want to destroy him.

Bush doesn't want to piss off that voter segment so he let's this go on without saying a single word. Saying Kerry is a hero then standing silently while others say just the opposite doesn't cut it.

Kerry wasn't afraid of losing the extremists on the left, Bush should be as brave. But, it's not going to happen.

 

[Saffron]

Does it always make breaking news though when a politican tells a lie, 20 years ago, that had no consequences attached to it except causing credibility issues? He didn't lie to cover up something, start something, accuse somebody of something. Hell, I have no idea why he did it, if he did it!

Is the mainstream media not reporting it *at the moment* because the mainstreet media is liberally biased? Or ... is the mainstream media not reporting it *at the moment* because they are investigating it, because they don't want to be protrayed as conseratively biased?