Need to correct misinformation on the Kerry and Bush supporters thread...

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
So.... when is Kerry going to take responsiblity for his actions? I mean he did admit to committing attrocities (which some are considered war crimes)? Still waiting.

Kerry's accounts of his time spent in VN and what he said when he returned are the not the complete truth either. So here we have a "he said he said" situation and we will each believe who we want to.

Looks like a draw to me.

Yeah, in your position, I'd hope for a draw too See, there's only one problem....30 years of historical documents...ALL OF WHICH support John Kerry's story, including several statements from the so-called "Swift Boat Vets" themselves. So in calling him a liar, you are also calling the United States Navy incompetant. But hey, whatever gets you kicks

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Well, you certainly implied that it did. My mistake for making that assumption. This also assumes that "overseas"= VN. But at that time, it probably did.

But here we are right back to "Kerry went" and "Bush didn't". Personally, I don't care why one went and the other didn't. If there was a checkbox on the form, why do you feel that checking it was wrong? Even Bush admitted that Kerry's service was honorable. What do you want from Bush? Do you want him to get into his "wayback" machine and go back to uncheck that box?

Nope...and you'll notice that earlier in this thread (in fact, it was my very first response) I said we should drop this issue and focus on the issues of today, rather than 30 years ago. YOUR SIDE, however, refuses to allow that to happen, because they KNOW that they don't have a record that can win them an election. The only chance Bush has is to smear Kerry enough and hope that the American people are all too gullible to actually examine the facts.

I would LOVE to drop this issue...believe me. And as soon as I stop seeing unfounded rantings about Kerry's military service, I will. But I'm not going to sit quietly and watch people LIE about him.

 

[bsnyder]

Wvvrey, I don't blame you for defending Kerry's service. But I've pointed out several times that from a political standpoint, it's not going to be effective to defend the swiftvets charges by attacking President Bush's national guard service. There's just been far too much media scrutiny of that issue (the guard service) going all the way back to the 2000 election for that to be an effective strategy.

I've been looking at the details of the individual state polling information from some of the swing states that has come out since the swiftvet accusations first started getting air time. They include some questions about the service records of both candidates. Voters are less concerned about Bush's service record than Kerry's and it's clearly because one is old news and the voters are just now getting informed about Kerry's.

The Kerry campaign's response on this has been mind-boggling poor.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
The Kerry campaign's response on this has been mind-boggling poor.

On that much, at least, we can agree. The problem is, it takes time to defend against this kind of slander. Records have to be dug out, and most of them were against the will of the Swift Liars, which made it take longer for FOIA requests to go through. Meanwhile, these liars just get to keep putting out more and more lies about Kerry, while he can only point out the fact that everyone on his boat (save one guy) is right there with him on the campaign trail.

Actually, I like the recent tactic they've taken in turning it back on the actual originators in the Bush camp. It won't be long before you'll start hearing accurate comparisons to Nixon and his dirty tricks campaigns, I can promise you that.

As to Bush's guard service....the problem is that the issue got taken over by the extreme left flank, and that made it look like a flaky issue, when it wasn't. Do you know Bush STILL hasn't proven that he legitimately fulfilled his duty ? But do you hear about that on Hannity and Colmes every night ?

There's actually a new story breaking now about Bush in his ANG days. Seems he had a picture taken while wearing a ribbon that he wasn't authorized to wear....But again, it will be grabbed by the extreme left flank, and ignored by the mainstream media.

In short, comparing the military records of these two candidates is really an insult to Kerry, who, after all, actually did fight for his country, no matter what you may think about everything else the swift liars are spewing.

 

[bsnyder]

The timing issue doesn't square with some of what I've been reading in the blogosphere....that is, that Kerry has known about the existence of the Swiftvets and their hatred of him and his candidacy since right after the Brinkley biography was published and that had personal conversations with some of them in an attempt to difuse the situation before it got to this point.

If that's true, I have to wonder why the Kerry campaign pushed the War Hero image as far as they did, at the convention. Seems like a huge tactical error, in hindsight.

I do know President Bush hasn't proven it to your satisfaction. But then again, he doesn't need to. He'll never get your vote. He's playing to a different audience entirely.

Neither campaign has released all of the their service records. You do realize that, don't you?

I can only surmise that both candidates have details they don't want made public.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
On that much, at least, we can agree. The problem is, it takes time to defend against this kind of slander. Records have to be dug out, and most of them were against the will of the Swift Liars, which made it take longer for FOIA requests to go through. Meanwhile, these liars just get to keep putting out more and more lies about Kerry, while he can only point out the fact that everyone on his boat (save one guy) is right there with him on the campaign trail.

I'm just re-reading your take on the timing thing, and I find it interesting that your entire focus of defending against the Swiftvets is to dig up dirt on them.

Why didn't the Kerry campaign spend any time cleaning up some of the (many) inconsistencies in Kerry's biography. Do you realize how many different "official" versions there have been about the Cambodia story? Not good campaign strategy, at all.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, and that article doesn't say that Bush requested not to go...his own paperwork (what he's released, anyway) does...He marked the box requesting not to be sent overseas on his Guard "application".

That comes directly from the Kerry campaign. I'm doing my best here but I can't even find the application, nor any reason why checking a box would make a huge difference to anyone.

Originally posted by jjskribs
That was the MISINFORMATION that I was attempting to clarify. Bush did not fly an F-102 in order to intercept a Soviet bomber.

I don't pretend to know much about them. This is from an air museum site: "F-102's operated in Southeast Asia from March 1962 to December 1969 as air defense and escort for B-52 bombers, with fifteen being lost (a proportionally low loss rate)."

If you're just saying that Bush never intercepted a Soviet bomber over Houston or something, that makes sense.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
...Meanwhile, these liars just get to keep putting out more and more lies about Kerry...

First off, it's not a proven fact that the Swft Vets are liars. If you're at all objective, you'll note that there are as many contradcitions in Kerry's account(s) as in the Swift Vets'. That's not to say that Kerry won't eventually win out in his fight with them, he might, but you address them as proven liars; if they are, then so is he at this point. He's had at least a half-dozen different versions of the Cambodia claim that is supposed to be "seared...seared" into him.

Second, you have to admit that this is a fight between Kerry and the Swift Vets. Bush is receiveing the benefits in the polls, but these vets are mad at Kerry over his actions during the Vietnam War, and that's not going away anytime soon. And please don't trot out that nonsense about the Bush campaign lawyer whose firms represents the Swift Vets; Kerry's former campaign manager heads a pro-Kerry 527, and at least two Kerry Campaign attorneys also represent 527s.

Kerry's handeling of this has direct bearing on his potential as President. He knew these folks were hopping mad at him, tried to calm it down using diplomacy, and then went ahead with Convention that focused almost exclusively on his Vietnam experience. Sounds like some pretty poor strategy confounded by failed diplomacy--just what we need.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Fizban257
Sounds like some pretty poor strategy confounded by failed diplomacy--just what we need.

Don't you mean "Just what we've got"

EVERY piece of documentation proves the Swifties to be nothing but liars. EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. They have NOTHING to go on. Again, what more do you want ?

As to the Cambodia thing....I have no idea. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. One place I'm CERTAIN he wasn't was Alabama, so what's the difference really ? You mean a vet might have exagerrated a bit when telling war stories What's next ? Fishermen lying about the size of the one that got away ?

And Bet, I was talking about digging up the evidence surrounding Kerry's time in Vietnam, not "dirt" on the Swifties (though it's not been hard to find). THEIR records all support HIS record, so how can you not consider them germane to the argument ?

 

[peachgirl]

I would LOVE to drop this issue...believe me. And as soon as I stop seeing unfounded rantings about Kerry's military service, I will. But I'm not going to sit quietly and watch people LIE about him.

The only time I hear the outcry to drop the Vietnam issue is when the tables get turned on Bush and people start talking about his record too.

I've said many times that Bush's record is of no interest to me. I've seen and heard enough to be satisfied in my own mind what he did and didn't do. But, if Kerry's record is fair game, so is his.

The questions about Bush's record may be years old, but they have never been answered. There's no statute of limitations on asking, and until he either answers or the right stops harping on Kerry's record, the questions are going to be raised again and again.

 

[Laz]

Originally posted by wvrevy


Great...So the 1.4 million new poverty-stricken people...and the 1,700 in my state that lost jobs in July...will now have to pay a little less in taxes....Whoppee

But yeah...we've "turned the corner"

It does sound like a problem in your state. What, exactly, can Kerry do to improve the situation?

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by wvrevy
EVERY piece of documentation proves the Swifties to be nothing but liars. EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. They have NOTHING to go on. Again, what more do you want ?

Not true. "EVERY" piece of documentation does not support Kerry. Documents show that one of his purple hearts was deined, and that he re-applied after all those who denied it left Vietnam. IN the argument over whether enemy fire was present the only evidence is from Kerry himself. You only file an after action report if you receive enemy fire. Other commanders present didn't file reports because there was no enemy fire. Kerry filed reports that supported his own search for medals. You can't claim a paper trail as evidence when the majority fo the paper was generated by the very man who may be lying. I'm sure you'd hold Mr. Bush to a higher standard were the places reversed.

Originally posted by wvrevy
As to the Cambodia thing....I have no idea. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. One place I'm CERTAIN he wasn't was Alabama, so what's the difference really ? You mean a vet might have exagerrated a bit when telling war stories What's next ? Fishermen lying about the size of the one that got away ?

An exageration in a bar room is one thing, standing in the well of the Senate, claiming the event as a turning point in your life and that it was "seared...seared" into you is another. He claims that sitting in Camobia on Christmas Day while Nixon is telling the world we're not there taught him to view the government with suspicion. Well, claiming you in Cambodia over 50 times, including on the record in the Seante, to score politcal points, when it's a bald-faced lie, teaches me to view John Kerry with suspicion.

 

[Nancy]

In response to a post a few threads back.

that's exactly what I want to know too...what is Kerry going to do about the loss of jobs, the unemployment etc. What he did or didn't do in Nam has no bearing on the realities of today and it's really time to stop on both sides and focus on other things. All this focus on their service records only detracts from the real issues that need to be addressed.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Fizban257
Not true. "EVERY" piece of documentation does not support Kerry. Documents show that one of his purple hearts was deined, and that he re-applied after all those who denied it left Vietnam. IN the argument over whether enemy fire was present the only evidence is from Kerry himself. You only file an after action report if you receive enemy fire. Other commanders present didn't file reports because there was no enemy fire. Kerry filed reports that supported his own search for medals. You can't claim a paper trail as evidence when the majority fo the paper was generated by the very man who may be lying. I'm sure you'd hold Mr. Bush to a higher standard were the places reversed.

Again, this is blatant falsehood. The witness on one of the medal citations for that day was NOT John Kerry, it was one of the other swift boat skippers that was present. And again, if you accuse Kerry of lying, then ALL of the documentation is false, in which case you are also accusing the US Navy of lying. Hell, the Siwft Liars even tried to paint a document that was initialed by the person receiving it as having been authored by Kerry, since it had his initials on it They can't even get their own stories straight, yet you're willing to believe them ?

Originally posted by Fizban257
An exageration in a bar room is one thing, standing in the well of the Senate, claiming the event as a turning point in your life and that it was "seared...seared" into you is another. He claims that sitting in Camobia on Christmas Day while Nixon is telling the world we're not there taught him to view the government with suspicion. Well, claiming you in Cambodia over 50 times, including on the record in the Seante, to score politcal points, when it's a bald-faced lie, teaches me to view John Kerry with suspicion.

Again, SO WHAT ?!? Was he in Southeast Asia at the time, or a bar in Birmingham ? That's really all you need to ask. Did he exagerrate ? I don't know, since I wasn't there. However, his chief critic HAS ALSO said that he spent time in Cambodia...in fact, he told Richard Nixon exactly that. Oh, NOW, of course, he spins it and says "that's not what I meant"....but NOW he's trying to slime Kerry, whereas then he had no reason to lie.

But believe whatever you want to believe. Some people still believe OJ was innocent, despite all evidence to the contrary, so I guess there's no limit to what some people can get in their heads and refuse to let go of, no matter how ridiculous.

 

[Teejay32]

Especially damning was the ad with the ex-POWs in it. As far as I know they were just voicing their opinions - how they felt being captives while Kerry made speeches for the VVAW. There's nothing factual to disagree about there - it's all perception. (Kinda like in a famous documentary about GWB.) So yes I believe them.

I also think there are things to like about the Kerry campaign (being a moderate and all), but like someone said to me once about the war in Iraq, "I'm not going to be BS'ed into supporting it." Fair enough, that works for a lot of things - let all the angles come to light and then we'll decide.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by jjskribs
Rita.......... I actually did think of posting on the original thread but as Dan has reminded us I didn't think anyone would actually read through almost 800 posts.

I do agree we do need to "move on" but since this is what my husband does for a living this misinformation ruffled my feathers. Just wanted to clarify lest someone believe it was actually true.

Ah, so instead of just posting on the original thread to only those that were following it and interested in reading it, you decided to post a new thread so as to be sure nobody could miss it?

Why?

Was public humiliation your goal? Does it make you feel better that you outed that big, bad, liar?

I'm sure you showed her.

Neener, neener, neener.

Richard