Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.
- Thread starter Elwood Blues
- Start date
Dan Murphy
We are family.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2000
- Messages
- 84,060
Who is winnin' here???? 
What's the score??
What's the score??
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Dan, I think it's a tie.
Maggie, I hope you'll read the second article.
And yes, I've read every single one of the records Kerry has chosen to release. I've read Brinkley's book, Tour of Duty. I've read the transcript of the debate between Kerry and Oneil on Dick Cavett, and the transcript of Kerry's senate testimony. I'd like to watch the actual videos of those, but my computer speakers are broken.
I'm trying to get a copy of the Swifvets book, but so far, it's been sold out at the bookstore.
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Okay, you've read the records Bet. Don't you find that article you posted the least bit offensive when it questions his records like that?
I'll read the second article.
Elwood, until the post you posted to Bobbles, it was not clear to me that you meant you held all Vietnam Vets that served exactly as Kerry did, to the same standards. I thought you were singling our Kerry.
Hey Dan! No one told me before I entered ths thread that there had to be a winner!
I'll read the second article.
Elwood, until the post you posted to Bobbles, it was not clear to me that you meant you held all Vietnam Vets that served exactly as Kerry did, to the same standards. I thought you were singling our Kerry.
Hey Dan! No one told me before I entered ths thread that there had to be a winner!
WillyJ
<font color=purple>NyQuil Aficionado<br><font colo
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,951
Here is a draft of the executive summary points from the Commission on Civil Rights report on the 2000 Florida general election. ... the investigation done under the Bush Admin. and was released Tuesday, June 5, 2001 . . .
"Human Rights Commission's Report on Florida Election"
The opening paragraphs:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY POINTS
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted the most extensive investigation to date concerning allegations of irregularities occurring during the November 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission's subpoena power, comprised 3 days of hearings, over 30 hours of testimony from over 100 witnesses and a systematic review of more than 118,000 sheets of paper.
Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were wrongfully purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency.
During the November 2000 presidential election in Florida, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources in the election process denied countless Floridians the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while African Americans comprised about 11% of all voters in Florida in the November 2000 presidential election, African Americans cast about 54% of the ballots that were rejected in the election. Before and during the election state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters. . .
The Commission on civil rights did not find conclusive evidence that the highest officials of the state conspired to produce the disenfranchisement of voters. Instead, the Commission found that the governor and the secretary of state, in particular, chose to simply ignore the mounting evidence that many counties were experiencing rising voter registration rates in communities with out-dated voting technology. Furthermore, they ignored the pleas of some supervisors of elections for guidance and help. .
As a result, African American voting districts were disproportionately hindered by antiquated and error-prone equipment like the punch card ballot system. Voting districts that were predominantly white were more likely to have high technology including the optical scan system and lap top computers used for verification of voter eligibility.
Another acount of different problems there:
Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Friday, 24 October 2003, 11:18 am
And another. .
lSTATUS REPORT ON PROBE OF ELECTION PRACTICES IN FLORIDA DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
·In total, over 100 witnesses testified under oath before the Commission, including approximately 65 scheduled witnesses who were selected for the two hearings due to their knowledge of and/or experience with the issues under investigation. The Commission heard testimony from top elected and appointed state officials, including the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Director of the Florida Division of Elections and other Florida state and county officials. A representative of Database Technologies, Inc. [Choicepoint], a firm involved in the controversial, state-sponsored removal of felons from the voter registration rolls also testified.
- At least one unauthorized law enforcement checkpoint was set up on Election Day resulting in complaints that were investigated by the Florida Highway Patrol and the Florida Attorney General;
· Non-felons were removed from voter registration rolls based upon unreliable information collected in connection with sweeping, state sponsored felony purge policies;
· Many African Americans did not cast ballots because they were assigned to polling sites that did not have adequate resources to confirm voting eligibility status;
Not one shred of evidence?
You know, before someone refers to themselves as a "Rokket Sci.(Rocket Scientist) they should at least learn how to spell it. .
"Human Rights Commission's Report on Florida Election"
The opening paragraphs:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY POINTS
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted the most extensive investigation to date concerning allegations of irregularities occurring during the November 2000 presidential election in Florida. The investigation, utilizing the Commission's subpoena power, comprised 3 days of hearings, over 30 hours of testimony from over 100 witnesses and a systematic review of more than 118,000 sheets of paper.
Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were wrongfully purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency.
During the November 2000 presidential election in Florida, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources in the election process denied countless Floridians the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while African Americans comprised about 11% of all voters in Florida in the November 2000 presidential election, African Americans cast about 54% of the ballots that were rejected in the election. Before and during the election state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters. . .
The Commission on civil rights did not find conclusive evidence that the highest officials of the state conspired to produce the disenfranchisement of voters. Instead, the Commission found that the governor and the secretary of state, in particular, chose to simply ignore the mounting evidence that many counties were experiencing rising voter registration rates in communities with out-dated voting technology. Furthermore, they ignored the pleas of some supervisors of elections for guidance and help. .
As a result, African American voting districts were disproportionately hindered by antiquated and error-prone equipment like the punch card ballot system. Voting districts that were predominantly white were more likely to have high technology including the optical scan system and lap top computers used for verification of voter eligibility.
Another acount of different problems there:
Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Friday, 24 October 2003, 11:18 am
And another. .
lSTATUS REPORT ON PROBE OF ELECTION PRACTICES IN FLORIDA DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
·In total, over 100 witnesses testified under oath before the Commission, including approximately 65 scheduled witnesses who were selected for the two hearings due to their knowledge of and/or experience with the issues under investigation. The Commission heard testimony from top elected and appointed state officials, including the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Director of the Florida Division of Elections and other Florida state and county officials. A representative of Database Technologies, Inc. [Choicepoint], a firm involved in the controversial, state-sponsored removal of felons from the voter registration rolls also testified.
- At least one unauthorized law enforcement checkpoint was set up on Election Day resulting in complaints that were investigated by the Florida Highway Patrol and the Florida Attorney General;
· Non-felons were removed from voter registration rolls based upon unreliable information collected in connection with sweeping, state sponsored felony purge policies;
· Many African Americans did not cast ballots because they were assigned to polling sites that did not have adequate resources to confirm voting eligibility status;
Not one shred of evidence?
You know, before someone refers to themselves as a "Rokket Sci.(Rocket Scientist) they should at least learn how to spell it. .
WillyJ
<font color=purple>NyQuil Aficionado<br><font colo
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,951
And here is a link to an article that show's Bush betrayed America by lying about the reasons he invaded Iraq, and how the war was planned in Texas by a group of Neo-Cons that ended up in
Bush's cabinet. . including "Evil Dick" Cheney. . Project For a New American Century
Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
By Neil Mackay
15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. . .
And because you might find that particular site less then credible, here's a link to download the PDF file of the actual document. .
PNAC
Happy Reading! 
Bush's cabinet. . including "Evil Dick" Cheney. . Project For a New American Century
Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
By Neil Mackay
15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. . .
And because you might find that particular site less then credible, here's a link to download the PDF file of the actual document. .
PNAC
Happy Reading!
WillyJ---YOU ARE THE MAN!!:thewave:
Thanks for the link to the PNAC document. I had never had the
opportunity to read it having only heard snippits. I've printed
it and DH and I are both taking the time to read it. We're
actively campaigning here for Kerry so with this information
in our heads and on paper, we can have well informed discussion re this issue-it's a BIG one!
Again-thanks!
Thanks for the link to the PNAC document. I had never had the
opportunity to read it having only heard snippits. I've printed
it and DH and I are both taking the time to read it. We're
actively campaigning here for Kerry so with this information
in our heads and on paper, we can have well informed discussion re this issue-it's a BIG one!
Again-thanks!
WillyJ
<font color=purple>NyQuil Aficionado<br><font colo
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,951
Rokkitsci.
I understand that you have a grab-bag of RNC tested one-liners to toss at any given statement someone might make. I sincerely hope you do not think that these actually represent rebuttals of my statments.
Please don't confuse knee-jerk spasmodic reactions for rational thought process.
Additionally, when you make satirical statements, please know that I enjoy them. I am good at satire myself when I choose to be. But I try not to waste time on satire on a bulletin board. If we were face to face that would be better. However, if you use satire, please follow it up with some substance. Don't leave me wondering whether or not you really had some sort of idea percolating in your head. . .
I understand that you have a grab-bag of RNC tested one-liners to toss at any given statement someone might make. I sincerely hope you do not think that these actually represent rebuttals of my statments.
Please don't confuse knee-jerk spasmodic reactions for rational thought process.
Additionally, when you make satirical statements, please know that I enjoy them. I am good at satire myself when I choose to be. But I try not to waste time on satire on a bulletin board. If we were face to face that would be better. However, if you use satire, please follow it up with some substance. Don't leave me wondering whether or not you really had some sort of idea percolating in your head. . .
I took the time to read the PNAC reference provided by WillyJ - and I say thank you for that site. I have never seen nor heard of this project before.
I failed to locate even one substantiating statement in that document for the opinions voiced by Mr. Mackey in the excerpts posted by WillyJ. How anyone could read that document and come to those conclusions is beyond my ken.
What I read in that document was a well-thought out analysis of the military situation of the US Armed Forces, and a set of recommendations for force modification, deployment, and utilization for the anticipated threats of the 21st century.
I scanned in vain for references to "Bush's plan to change regimes in Iraq regardless of Saddam Hussein." I will admit I scanned the article hurredly, but I would appreciated a post telling me the page number where this conclusion can be deduced.
The closest thing I could find to that concept is the strategic analysis of the authors that the USA should maintaing a permanent military presence in the Middle-East and SouthEast Asia for the forseeable future. I found this basic sentence in two places in the document - once in discussing the mission of our military and the other in discussing the deployment priorities.
I happen to agree with that analysis. Recent events seem to bear out the prescience of those authors on this point.
Now, before I leave this forum for a while - allow me to make a couple of observations.
ONE
The US Commission on Civil Rights was headed by someone by the name of Francis Berry, or something like that. I dont know who is heading it now. However, Ms Berry succeeded in turning that Commission into nothing more than a political attack machine, in my OPINION. So, anything that appears over the signature of Ms. Berry does not have credibility in my OPINION.
TWO
I will not go to any site on the predicate that it will tell me all about the "evil Dick Cheney." However, in reading the excerpts posted by WillyJ I do note the following curious circumstances. The learned Mr. MacKay seems to have deduced what the "bush administration" had in mind BEFORE the election. The PNAC article was published in 2000 and had been gathering information on the status of our forces since 1997. For Mr. MacKay to decide from that document what the "bush administration" had in mind is certainly a leap of faith.
Again, if I missed the incriminating portion of the document, I apoligize in advance. Just point it out to me.
THREE
I find it incredible that a document that purports to provide a
'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'
could in any way be of concern to any AMERICAN. I can see where this mission might give some unrest to terrorists in the middle east, or to socialists who wish for a return of the USSR, or for pacifists in general who would trade their freedom for slavery rather than fight to preserve liberty.
But how this statement - as posted by WillyJ - could be the basis for his concern about the motives of the yet unborn 'bush administration' baffle me.
NOW - I am off for a while - I will check with you good people later.
This is actually quite interesting.
I failed to locate even one substantiating statement in that document for the opinions voiced by Mr. Mackey in the excerpts posted by WillyJ. How anyone could read that document and come to those conclusions is beyond my ken.
What I read in that document was a well-thought out analysis of the military situation of the US Armed Forces, and a set of recommendations for force modification, deployment, and utilization for the anticipated threats of the 21st century.
I scanned in vain for references to "Bush's plan to change regimes in Iraq regardless of Saddam Hussein." I will admit I scanned the article hurredly, but I would appreciated a post telling me the page number where this conclusion can be deduced.
The closest thing I could find to that concept is the strategic analysis of the authors that the USA should maintaing a permanent military presence in the Middle-East and SouthEast Asia for the forseeable future. I found this basic sentence in two places in the document - once in discussing the mission of our military and the other in discussing the deployment priorities.
I happen to agree with that analysis. Recent events seem to bear out the prescience of those authors on this point.
Now, before I leave this forum for a while - allow me to make a couple of observations.
ONE
The US Commission on Civil Rights was headed by someone by the name of Francis Berry, or something like that. I dont know who is heading it now. However, Ms Berry succeeded in turning that Commission into nothing more than a political attack machine, in my OPINION. So, anything that appears over the signature of Ms. Berry does not have credibility in my OPINION.
TWO
I will not go to any site on the predicate that it will tell me all about the "evil Dick Cheney." However, in reading the excerpts posted by WillyJ I do note the following curious circumstances. The learned Mr. MacKay seems to have deduced what the "bush administration" had in mind BEFORE the election. The PNAC article was published in 2000 and had been gathering information on the status of our forces since 1997. For Mr. MacKay to decide from that document what the "bush administration" had in mind is certainly a leap of faith.
Again, if I missed the incriminating portion of the document, I apoligize in advance. Just point it out to me.
THREE
I find it incredible that a document that purports to provide a
'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'
could in any way be of concern to any AMERICAN. I can see where this mission might give some unrest to terrorists in the middle east, or to socialists who wish for a return of the USSR, or for pacifists in general who would trade their freedom for slavery rather than fight to preserve liberty.
But how this statement - as posted by WillyJ - could be the basis for his concern about the motives of the yet unborn 'bush administration' baffle me.
NOW - I am off for a while - I will check with you good people later.
This is actually quite interesting.
Willy, thanks for the link. I haven't read it in detail, but from what I have read the shadings given to it by your original quote is way, way off, kinda like :space:.
It talks about how to keep America strong in the future and well protected. Some of it came across as very intuitive - "There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today." Considering it was written in September of 2000, I think it hit the mark pretty well.
I did a search on "Iraq" and no where in the document does it call for more than a maintenance of the status quo in regards to Iraq, or is it the author's idea that we should read between the lines? Or, would he have us become even more defensless so we can be even weaker to attack from 3rd world countries?
After all, wasn't Kerry one of the key ingredients in cutting the intelligence budget by billions, and then after 9/11 one of the loudest (especially after he announced his candidacy) asking "what happened"? So we should cut intelligence so that we don't know an attack is coming, and we should cut our defense spending so that when an attack happens we are not ready for it? Sounds like a strange policy to me.
It talks about how to keep America strong in the future and well protected. Some of it came across as very intuitive - "There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today." Considering it was written in September of 2000, I think it hit the mark pretty well.
I did a search on "Iraq" and no where in the document does it call for more than a maintenance of the status quo in regards to Iraq, or is it the author's idea that we should read between the lines? Or, would he have us become even more defensless so we can be even weaker to attack from 3rd world countries?
After all, wasn't Kerry one of the key ingredients in cutting the intelligence budget by billions, and then after 9/11 one of the loudest (especially after he announced his candidacy) asking "what happened"? So we should cut intelligence so that we don't know an attack is coming, and we should cut our defense spending so that when an attack happens we are not ready for it? Sounds like a strange policy to me.
On ABC'S "This Week," former White House chief of staff John Podesta compared Kerry's tour to Bush's National Guard Service during Vietnam. "Senator Kerry carries shrapnel in his thigh as distinct from President Bush who carries two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard, which seems to be his only time that he showed up," Podesta said.
kbeverina
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 3,106
Originally posted by peachgirl
Yeah, right.
What the heck?
I assumed it must be a conservative blog, I googled it, and got "The Page Cannot Be Displayed". I figured you'd cut me a break and provide the link so I didn't have to spend time searching for it.
You say, "Yeah, right." i.e., "Liar".
Then you admit you know that, but that's not what you're laughing about--then what the heck are you saying "Yeah, right." i.e., "Liar." for? It was the only statement I made in that post.
So then after reading your post I google "freepers" as suggested and find a bunch of headlines posted where people comment on them underneath.
What in the world does this have to do with Joe Wilson and how is it "coincidence"?
Great editorial in the NY Post on the internet's role in this year's Presidential campaign and in exposing John Kerry's many inconsistencies - something the mainstream press has refused to do.
Deborah Orin
August 20, 2004 --
THERE'S now some real angst in Dem ocratic circles be cause of the growing evidence that Democrat John Kerry's claim to have a memory "seared in me" of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was false and just didn't happen.
But what worries some pro-Kerry Democrats is the fear that Kerry has, as one put it, "an Al Gore problem" that he's a serial exaggerator. (Remember how Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and inspired the novel "Love Story"?)
Remember Kerry's claim that "I've met foreign leaders" who told him he had to beat Bush? Turned out he hadn't met any foreign leaders in years.
Kerry's campaign Web site claimed credit for Vietnam missions when another man, Tedd Peck, was the skipper (that was removed when he protested) and last week was claiming credit for former Sen. Bob Kerrey's service as Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman.
"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey similar names," blithely explained Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, as if Kerry didn't know his own bio.
Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy, recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam.
Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.
Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared seared in me."
Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas yes or no.
For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.
The story has unraveled so badly that Kerry's court biographer, Douglas Brinkley, is said to be preparing a new account in which Cambodia is said to come post-Christmas. So why did Brinkley leave it out of his campaign bio?
The other fascinating part of this story is the key role that bloggers on the Internet have played in pointing out the holes in Kerry's story even as much of the press tries to ignore them.
For instance, when Team Kerry held a press conference featuring his crewmates this week, one was conspicuously missing David Alston after the Internet-fueled revelation that he may have only served on Kerry's boat for one week.
A Web blogger, captainsquartersblog, began questioning whether Alston (who has spoken emotionally about how they "bled together") ever served with Kerry. National Review examined the records and concluded maybe for just one week.
This whole story could be a test of the Internet's impact in this campaign. While most papers have been ignoring the story until Kerry went ballistic at the Swift vets yesterday bloggers have been examining it in detail.
On Web sites like Instapundit.com, captainsquartersblog.com, hugh- hewitt.com and rogerlsimon.com, skeptical veterans are trading details on Kerry's service and raising intricate questions about his veracity based on their own experience.
Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.
Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility and its liberal anti-Bush bias.
Deborah Orin
August 20, 2004 --
THERE'S now some real angst in Dem ocratic circles be cause of the growing evidence that Democrat John Kerry's claim to have a memory "seared in me" of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was false and just didn't happen.
But what worries some pro-Kerry Democrats is the fear that Kerry has, as one put it, "an Al Gore problem" that he's a serial exaggerator. (Remember how Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and inspired the novel "Love Story"?)
Remember Kerry's claim that "I've met foreign leaders" who told him he had to beat Bush? Turned out he hadn't met any foreign leaders in years.
Kerry's campaign Web site claimed credit for Vietnam missions when another man, Tedd Peck, was the skipper (that was removed when he protested) and last week was claiming credit for former Sen. Bob Kerrey's service as Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman.
"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey similar names," blithely explained Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, as if Kerry didn't know his own bio.
Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy, recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam.
Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.
Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared seared in me."
Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas yes or no.
For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.
The story has unraveled so badly that Kerry's court biographer, Douglas Brinkley, is said to be preparing a new account in which Cambodia is said to come post-Christmas. So why did Brinkley leave it out of his campaign bio?
The other fascinating part of this story is the key role that bloggers on the Internet have played in pointing out the holes in Kerry's story even as much of the press tries to ignore them.
For instance, when Team Kerry held a press conference featuring his crewmates this week, one was conspicuously missing David Alston after the Internet-fueled revelation that he may have only served on Kerry's boat for one week.
A Web blogger, captainsquartersblog, began questioning whether Alston (who has spoken emotionally about how they "bled together") ever served with Kerry. National Review examined the records and concluded maybe for just one week.
This whole story could be a test of the Internet's impact in this campaign. While most papers have been ignoring the story until Kerry went ballistic at the Swift vets yesterday bloggers have been examining it in detail.
On Web sites like Instapundit.com, captainsquartersblog.com, hugh- hewitt.com and rogerlsimon.com, skeptical veterans are trading details on Kerry's service and raising intricate questions about his veracity based on their own experience.
Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.
Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility and its liberal anti-Bush bias.
Looks like the Republicans have their people trained quite well in the art of dirty politics...
"Ohio controversy worries some in GOP
Party's reputation scuffed by two fast-lane operatives"
Some highlights...
"Young, tough and brazenly ambitious, Brett Buerck and Kyle Sisk made quite a name for themselves behind the scenes at the state capitol. They made money, lots of it, and then -- to their regret -- they became famous."
"So what do a couple of formerly fast-lane Republican operatives such as Buerck and Sisk have to do with this year's presidential election?"
"Ordinarily, this state's GOP, which has held a virtual lock on power since 1990, would be a clear asset for the president. He could take advantage of the party's grass-roots organization, official surrogates and goodwill with the electorate But the Republican brand name in Ohio has been scuffed by a host of local controversies. The most malodorous of these involves allegations of improper fundraising and self-dealing by the two consultants to Republican state House Speaker Larry Householder. "
"The most malodorous of these involves allegations of improper fundraising and self-dealing by the two consultants to Republican state House Speaker Larry Householder."
"The accusations erupted onto Ohio front pages in the spring, and federal and state criminal investigations are underway. Ohioans have been treated to regular servings of leaked strategy memos and e-mails written by Buerck, Sisk and others in Householder's camp. With a swaggering tone, the documents suggest an approach to politics that borrows equally from H.R. Haldeman and Barney Fife."
Full story...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5790976/
"Ohio controversy worries some in GOP
Party's reputation scuffed by two fast-lane operatives"
Some highlights...
"Young, tough and brazenly ambitious, Brett Buerck and Kyle Sisk made quite a name for themselves behind the scenes at the state capitol. They made money, lots of it, and then -- to their regret -- they became famous."
"So what do a couple of formerly fast-lane Republican operatives such as Buerck and Sisk have to do with this year's presidential election?"
"Ordinarily, this state's GOP, which has held a virtual lock on power since 1990, would be a clear asset for the president. He could take advantage of the party's grass-roots organization, official surrogates and goodwill with the electorate But the Republican brand name in Ohio has been scuffed by a host of local controversies. The most malodorous of these involves allegations of improper fundraising and self-dealing by the two consultants to Republican state House Speaker Larry Householder. "
"The most malodorous of these involves allegations of improper fundraising and self-dealing by the two consultants to Republican state House Speaker Larry Householder."
"The accusations erupted onto Ohio front pages in the spring, and federal and state criminal investigations are underway. Ohioans have been treated to regular servings of leaked strategy memos and e-mails written by Buerck, Sisk and others in Householder's camp. With a swaggering tone, the documents suggest an approach to politics that borrows equally from H.R. Haldeman and Barney Fife."
Full story...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5790976/
BedKnobbery2
<font color=blue>Saucy Pants!<br><font color=red>W
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
Actually, MJames, not sure how much you know about the intelligence budget cuts, but here's a nutshell summary: It was discovered by Congress that the intelligence agencies had a slush fund with nearly a billion dollars in it, which they (Congress) wanted to see used for the purposes that money was given to them, not squirreled away to be used at some future date. Senator Kerry proposed a budget cut that would gradually pick away at the apparent surplus the intelligence agencies had....but the REPUBLICANS proposed a deeper cut equal to the total amount of the surplus (or thereabouts...point is, they proposed cutting far more than Kerry did), which is the proposal that passed. So if we are throwing stones for intelligence cuts.....might want to consider who was behind those very cuts.
Yet another example of the attack ads that don't tell the whole story.
Yet another example of the attack ads that don't tell the whole story.
-
Add These New Walt Disney World Treats to Your Must-Try List
-
Check Out Jack Skellington's NEW LOOK & Where to Find Him at MNSSHP!
-
Disney Treasure Itinerary Changes Due to Tropical Storm Erin
-
The New Disney Merch You Missed This Week
-
The Best Times to Book a DVC Stay at Walt Disney World
-
Can You Bring Alcoholic Beverages on a Disney Cruise Line Ship?
-
5 Panels at Destination D23 Likely to Reveal Park News
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
New Posts
- Poll
