Transparent Aluminium Baby

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:58 pm

The Kedwards COUNTER-ATTACK MACHINE!!1 seems embarrassingly thin-skinned and ill-prepared to run America if their answer to the current charges is to send poor Max Cleland trundling around Texas in his wheelchair searching for Bush. One shudders to imagine how effective a similar response would have been to the 9/11 attacks. Crying *Unfair!* and playing the martyr doesn't inspire much confidence.

The Swiftvets have already said they're not going to stop whether Bush condemns their tactics or not. After a reported $80+ million in Dem surrogate negative ads from MoveOn, Americans Coming Together, George Soros, etc., suddenly an anti-Kerry 527 pops up with a few million dollar campaign and it's all whining and gnashing of teeth (not to mention the misdirection of falsely accusing Bush/Rove of coordinating it). Suck it up, boys, it was all fun and games when the venom was flowing in the other direction.

I predicted a long, long time ago that Kerry's wrapping himself in the flag would come back to bite him in the azz. John has only himself to blame and making a sympathy play is probably the single worst way to counter it. However you feel about the current mud-slinging, Kerry is sorely lacking in the damage-control department to have been blindsided by the controversy and to be reacting to it in such an indirect, transparent and lightweight manner. *Bring it on*, indeed. More like *Please make it go away*. Well, release your stinking war records, John, or file a libel suit against the Swiftvets if they are lying. Simple. But the failure to do either of those countermeasures just contributes to the Swiftvet's credibility.

Time for Kerry to stand up and be the man he's always pretended to be. A good start at quieting the cacophony would be to address head-on whether he 1) embellished his war record and 2) exaggerated when he slandered the American soldiers who were slogging it out in the jungles of Vietnam.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:43 pm

Why did you name this thread the way you did? I thought I was looking at a thread that for some reason had been moved from PTMC cafe, but instead I get this

At least give it a non-fake name dude.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:04 pm

Here's al-Reuters with a little creative rewriting by renaming the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth organization to the Swiftboat Veterans for Bush in its photo captions. Heh.

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/new ... 20Bush\%22

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:22 am

I don't understand what "credibility" this Swiftboat's thing has. Every Navy report on that incident, and subsequent reports that referenced it all detail what Kerry and his backers have said. I'll believe you bash, if you can explain to my why in the 30 years since Thurlow got that medal, he never read his citation and said it was a fraud 'till now. If you can explain that apparent oversight, I'll believe every word you write. Because you know, you GET the citation when you receive the medal. They don't just give you the medal and keep you in the dark as to why you got it. "Here's a bronze star, but we're not telling you when or how you got it"...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:27 am

I have no trouble with Kerry's service in Nam, all be it questionable on some of his purple hearts. what I do have a problem with was him giving aid and comfort to the enemy when her got back home. he gave freely in criticizing our government what MANY P.O.W.'s were in prison camps getting tortured to say and wouldnt. there must be some form of truth to what the Swift boat Vets are saying. or the Dems and Kerry would have just blown it off and ignored it. but they are making so big a deal out of it this could be the key issue of the election. come November most ppl will be remember not where Kerry stood on the issues but about this controversey. and Bash is right when he says the Dems can dish it out but they cant take it. where were they when Move-on.org was trashing bush. you did hear a peep. the Dems are as much behind Move-on as the GOP is behind the swift boats. they are just MUCH better funded. so Either Kerry and his few supporters are telling the truth and the 64 vets are lying or its the other way around. I tend to belive the 64

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07 am

Oh look, shiny object.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:23 am

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... ft_boats_3

maybe I should have put this link in this post. 64 vets that are Republican funded and don't like Kerry. And, the top people in that 64 are each having their stories contradicted time and time again. Why do you keep believing the vets that are having their stories contradicted by Navy reports. The Navy agrees with Kerry and the people that don't agree with Kerry are being proven wrong. What is it going to take to realize that?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:42 pm

I like the juxtaposition of how Kerry is responding to SBVT attacks with how Kerry might respond to a terrorist attack.

It's pretty asinine, unless ones contention is that SBVT are a bunch of evil people bent on America's destruction.

A good laugh, though.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:04 pm

John doesn't seem to do well in a tight corner and enlisting a surrogate cast for his ability to elicit sympathy is pathetic testimony to that shortcoming. Being this inept at defusing the SBVT *crisis* (especially when full disclosure would seem the most efficient means) provides an insight into John's true *leadership* abilities. So where is the error in scaling one's imagination to include threat scenarios much larger than the SBVT? John won't always have George Bush around to shift the blame on, or Max Cleland to run interference for him. I'd wager even Dems within Kerry's own circle believe launching a Cleland Cruise Missile at Crawford, Texas was an ineffective, impulsive and infantile stunt that will do little more than prolong their discomfort and keep the Kerry campaign stalled dissembling about events from 35 years ago. Setting aside for the moment the sort of man Kerry was or wasn't in Vietnam, Kerry now wants us to believe he's a *man with a plan* but he certainly arrived with empty pockets in this contemporary demonstration of how he reacts in a pinch.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:36 pm

Jeff, should I wait a little bit longer and see if your post keeps growing?

IMO, it's premature to take much of anything away from how Kerry will have handled SBVT when all is said and done. I think your insights are based on what you believe to be true, that SBVT are as pure as the driven snow, and that Kerry embellished/lied about his service. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:08 pm

Dedman wrote:Oh look, shiny object.

rofl, spot on, Ded

Cuda bought it hook line, sinker.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:45 pm

did I now. and what EXACTLY did I swallow? your bullsh!t about kerry being the next coming? or your move-on.org trash that Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler. you little pussy dems whine about a few dollars being spent by the GOP against the Dems that you seem to forget the MILLIONS that Soros has funded into the Dem party or Michael Moores Joseph Goerbels propaganda movie. grow up!!! you guys have your own built in propaganda machine. its called HOLLYWOOD. and as I stated. IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ MY FUCKIN POST. was not that i had a problem with Kerrys service. it was that I had a problem with what he did after the fact. and by the way did you serve in the military?. well I did in the late 70's and I still remember what it was like to get trashed by the ppl of San Diego because I was in the miltary. so until you can walk 10 feet in my shoes that I personally dont give a flying ★■◆● about what you think of my opinions. Kerry was worse than the ppl of San Diego. he served and then came back and trashed the ppl that were still serving. being in the military and putting your life on the line was bad enough. but when you come back and find ppl spitting on you when you get back home you realise that most of you weren't worth the effort, so it seems to me ded and testi that the only one that swollowing anything is you 2 and zurich with the BS that the leftwing spews daily.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:45 pm

Jeff, when will it no longer be *premature* to examine how well Kerry navigates a rough stretch of water? November 3rd?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:48 pm

Yep.

*bash-style edit

Make that November 1. I'm not saying you're wrong for looking to see how presidential Kerry is acting right now. What I'm saying is that trying to judge Kerry's actions perhaps before he's made them is premature. Perhaps his actions are more calculated than you are giving credit for, and his plan is to use this time before the RNC convention as free advertising to getting his name out there in an 'any press is good press' way, only to go nuclear at a predetermined time. I don't really believe this is how it is, since I view it as a too good to be true scenario, but I think it adequately illustrates why it's a bit premature to pass judgement.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:49 pm

Thought so.

Vander-style edit:

I don't believe the saying that *there's no such thing as bad publicity* applies to presidential candidates. John looks very weak here (although I respect your need to cover for him for the sake of the children).

I believe Kerry is vanity-driven and not too swift in the strategy department. But if he can pull a rabbit out of his secret hat and turn this to his favor, well, he may even get my vote.

[spoiler]Yea, right.[/spoiler]

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:59 pm

Since it's registration-only, I'll post it in full here since it's short. From the Wall Street Journal.

* * *

We're Not GOP Shills
President Bush can't stop us from telling the truth about John Kerry.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Friday, August 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

We formed Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for one purpose: to present to the American public our conclusion that John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief. We are organized as a "527 group" with Adm. Roy Hoffmann at the helm, our leader today as he was some 35 years ago when we served under him in Coastal Squadron One in Vietnam. Our membership is transparent and shown on our Web site, www.swiftvets.com, currently including more than 250 Swiftees. We have 17 of the 23 officers who served with Mr. Kerry, most of his chain of command, and most sailors. We have more than 60 winners of real Purple Hearts. No one has a better right than we do to speak to the matters involving our unit.

Are we controlled by the Bush-Cheney campaign? Absolutely not. The Swift boat veterans who joined our group come in all political flavors: independents, Republicans, Democrats and other more subtle variations. Had another person been the presidential candidate of the Democrats, our group never would have formed. Had Mr. Kerry been the Republican candidate, each of us would still be here.

We do not take direction from the White House or the president's re-election committee, and our efforts would continue even if President Bush were to ask us directly to stop.

Why have we come forward? As explained in "Unfit For Command," Mr. Kerry grossly exaggerated and lied about his abbreviated four-month tour in Vietnam. He disgraced all legitimate Vietnam War heroes when he falsely testified to Congress that we were war criminals, daily engaged in atrocities that had the full approval of all levels in the chain of command. So, once Mr. Kerry decided to apply for the commander in chief's job with a war-hero rÃ©sumÃ©, we felt compelled to come forward to explain why he is "unfit for command."

We have faced assaults on our character, motives, personal backgrounds and honesty. We are told that Mr. Kerry's camp has prepared attack dossiers on the members of our organization. I have been charged with being a Republican shill. But for more than 30 years, I have been non-political, and have voted for as many Democrats as Republicans. In truth, I consider myself a political independent, regardless of how John Kerry and his supporters try to characterize me.

The Kerry-Edwards camp has threatened TV stations with libel suits should they choose to run our ads. Mr. Kerry has filed a complaint with the FEC, seeking to silence us.

How many different ways will John Kerry devise to ask President Bush to condemn our ads and squash our book? Why, Mr. Kerry, are our charges as a 527 group unacceptable to you, while the pronouncements from 527 groups favorable to you are considered acceptable, regardless of stridency and veracity? And we do not have a George Soros, willing to drop millions into our modest group. We control our message. To date, we have received $2 million from 30,000 Americans who have donated an average of around $64.

Mr. Kerry, we ask you not to repeat the same mistake you made when you returned from war: Please stop maligning your fellow veterans. Dealing with us should be easy. Just answer our charges. Produce your Vietnam journal and notes, and execute Standard Form 180 so the American people can see your complete military record--not just the few forms you put on your website or show to campaign biographers.

Mr. O'Neill, author of "Unfit For Command" (Regnery, 2004), is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:07 pm

Another registration site, The Washington Post, has this online Q&A from today that throws O'Neill a few hardballs. Not so short but it addresses alot of the distortions floated by John's guardian angels in the mainstream media.

* * *

John E. O'Neill: A lot of good information can be found at swiftvets.com. The readers will have to go to that site exactly because if you vary or alter the name in other ways or use search engines you are liable to reach bogus Kerry sites to divert people from our site. So you would have to use exactly the words swiftvets.com.

Another good place to get information is Unfit for Command the book to which over 60 of us contributed. The members of Swift Boat Veterans for truth are listed on the Web site and include over 260 Swifties led by Adm. Roy Hoffmann, our commander in Vietnam. I am simply one of many people involved in our organization.

We are here for two reasons. First Kerry lied about our record in Vietnam, both in 1971 and most recently in his authorized biography. Second, and less important to us, he exaggerated wildly his own short record in Vietnam.

_______________________

Bethlehem, Pa.: Mr. O'Neill, you are questioning the validity of medals awarded to John Kerry by the U.S. government. Aren't you also by implication questioning the competency of the medal eligibility determinations made by U.S. military brass? If so, aren't you in reality calling into question the authenticity of every medal awarded to every U.S. serviceman? If so, how do we differentitate the "good" medals from the "bad" medals?

John E. O'Neill: A portion of the book deals with the incidents in which John Kerry obtained medals. With respect to John Kerry's first Purple Heart the book demonstrates that it was from a self inflicted wound in the absence of hostile fire. It was denied by the commanding officer at the time Grant Hibbard. It was granted only three months later when Kerry applied after all who had known the facts had left Vietnam. With respect to Kerry's third Purple Heart Kerry represented to the Navy that he had received shrapnel from an underwater mine. He know admits that he had wounded himself earlier in the morning playing around with a grenade. The would was minor and superficial. The Naval award system particularly with purple hearts depends on a self reporting system relying on integrity. Kerry gamed that system by submitting false information to the Navy. He used the three Purple Hearts to get out of Vietnam 243 days before his one year tour ended. No one else in the history of our unit ever reviewed a Purple Heart for a self inflicted wound. Neither did anyone else leave early because of three minor scratches. None of which resulted in an hour lost or involved more than bandaid and tweezers. The Naval System depends on the integrity of a Naval officer. Kerry didn't have it.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: You made a statement that you would have voted for John Edwards for President. What qualities do you think will make John Edwards a great VP choice for voters?

John E. O'Neill: I am a lawyer in Houston. I have heard only good things from other lawyers about John Edwards. He obviously has given up a successful career in order to pursue the public interest. I hope he has a long and successful career in public service. In the summer of 2003 I was contacted on this matter by the Boston Globe and indicated that I supported Sen. Edwards for President. Unfortunately that is not the hand we got dealt.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: How would you characterize your group's relationship with Benjamin Ginsberg?

John E. O'Neill: After we received threatening letters and complaints from at least two law firms representing the Kerry campaign it became apparent that we would need additional council in order to respond and represent us. We therefore retained the Patton-Boggs firm where we worked with several lawyers. We were happy for their assistance. We are proud that Mr. Ginsberg has decided to represent us as opposed to the much larger clients available. We were very surprised at the attacks on him and his firm given that many of the huge Kerry 527 organizations are represented by exactly the same law firm as his campaign. The attacks obviously hold us to a higher standard than the Kerry campaign and that is fine with us. We would want to adhere to a higher standard than the Kerry campaign.

_______________________

St Augustine, Fla.: Mr. O'Neil, are you saying that John Kerry lied when he reported the information he had received about atrocities in Vietnam to Congress? Are you saying there were not attrocities committed in Vietnam or that they should not have been reported?

John E. O'Neill: All atrocities in Vietnam should have been reported to investigative authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Neither John Kerry nor his associates in VVAW ever reported a single atrocity to the Naval investigative service or any other law enforcement authority. Instead Kerry made a general charge that rape, murder and mayhem was occurring on a day to day basis with the awareness of officers at all levels of command. On the Dick Cavett show in June 1971 I asked Kerry to itemize the specific atrocities that he had seen. He was unable to name any except generalizations. He lied to the United States Congress and to the world when he claimed that our policies in Vietnam were criminal policies and that our troops to the lowest levels were criminals carrying out murder and mayhem on a daily basis. It is one thing to be against the war in Vietnam, it is another to criminalize the kids that the country sent to fight it. Kerry did the second. That was wrong.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: If you have all these issues with John Kerry, why wait 35 years to bring them public after he has served in the US Senate all these years? It seems that much of what we are hearing is literal gotcha that can easily be turned on anyone including yourself.

John E. O'Neill: First, when John Kerry made war crimes claims I debated him in June of 1971 after which he generally faded from public view. On many occasions his political opponents, democratic and Republican, contacted me and many other swifties for information to defeat him in political races. For more than 30 years we refused because we wanted the past to over and who Massachusetts picks does not affect the nation. It because apparent to all of us when John Kerry's name became to be considered with the office of Commander and Chief that we were now talking about a very serious matter that would affect our children, our grandchildren and the future of the entire nation. Under the circumstances more than 260 of us felt we had no alternative but to come forward. In addition as a matter of basic integrity and honor we could not allow Kerry's current misrepresentations in his biography Tour of Duty and at the Democratic Convention where he made his service the centerpiece of his campaign to continue without rebuttal. We owe that to our friends living and dead beyond politics.

_______________________

Dayton, Ohio: Mr. O'Neill, I recently heard a portion of the White House audio tape of your meeting with President Nixon. I heard you tell President Nixon that you had gone to Cambodia on your swift boat.

I also heard you tell a reporter recently(on tape) that you had never been in Cambodia.

Did you lie to President Nixon or did you lie to the reporter?

Have you ever been in Cambodia, and if so, when did you go and did you go more than once?

If you have never been in Cambodia, how close did you ever get to the Cambodian border (in feet or miles)?

John E. O'Neill: I lied to no one. You quote the first half of the statement but ignore the following sentence. I clearly said that I was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique's Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don't believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different. John Kerry on many different occasions said that the turning point of his life was being in Cambodia illegally for Christmas Eve and Christmas in 1968. This was in a different area than I was in and close approach to Cambodia was not possible for him in that area. In fact he was more than 50 miles away. How many people invent the turning point of their life and repeat it on the senate floor, in articles and more than 50 times in 35 years?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think George W. Bush honorably served his country during the Vietnam War?

John E. O'Neill: Our group has agreed we will take no position with respect to George Bush not because we don't have individual opinion on him but because we have no knowledge about him different than you have. In our letter of May 4, 2004 we called upon {President Bush to release all military records along with Kerry and called upon Bush's comrades to come forward with any information they have about his service. We are still in favor of that. We have no special information however about George Bush. We do have very first hand information about John Kerry which may be found at swiftvets.com and in Unfit for Command.

_______________________

Warren, Mich.: Mr. O'Neill, were you ever on the same boat as John Kerry? Were you on the boat at the same time and day as Mr. Rood, who has first hand eyewitness knowledge of the events of that day? Have you read Mr. Rood's response to the Swift Boat ads?

John E. O'Neill: I was never on the same boat at the same time with either John Kerry or Bill Rood. Bill Rood was present only one event discussed in the book relating to John Kerry. This was the silver star incident. The account in our book is very similar to Bill Roods article except that Bill Rood's article makes the Vietcong killed by John Kerry into an adult clothed in pajamas whereas our book describes him as a young Vietcong in a loincloth. This is exactly the same description that the Boston Globe biographers of John Kerry reached on page 101 of their recent biography by Michael Kranish. In addition Mr. Larry Lee on Bill Rood's boat confirmed our description. More than 60 different factual eyewitnesses to the Kerry events participated in the book as described. Read Unfit for Command.

_______________________

John E. O'Neill: Bill Rood is one of four officers at Anthoi who believe that John Kerry is fit to be president. 17 of 24 believe he is unfit to be president and have joined our group. We respect Mr. Rood's opinion but it is clearly a small minority opinion among those who served with John Kerry.

_______________________

Essex, Conn.: You are accepting money from Bush supporters. You have personally donated money to the Republicans. You voted in a Republican primary. How can you claim, with a straight face, to be any sort of apolitical organization?

John E. O'Neill: Addressing your questions one by one. We will accept money from anyone except a political campaign who gives it to us. The vast majority of our money - some 32,000 individual donations totaling $2.2 million - have come from the public generally in one of the largest genuine outbursts of public support in political history. We are happy to take money form George Sorros. Whoever donates money to us does not control our message. The message is ours.

Second, I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person.

Third, I did and have on occasion voted in Republican and Democratic primaries but most of the time I have not. Sadly Texas has become a one party state and often the only genuine choice is in the republican state. I would much rather prefer for Texas to have a two party system. Understand that my votes are for people and not for parties.

Finally I am one of 260 people. Most of them are retired sailors. They have little or no political affiliation with anyone. I have never run for any office nor managed anyone's campaign or played any serious role in politics for over 30 years. It took John Kerry running for Commander and Chief to bring us all out.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Since there is no written record, produced to date, backing any of your group's claims and ample written evidence to the contrary, why should the American people continue listening to you? Aside from the affidavits you hold, which as a lawyer you know are worth no more than the paper they are written on, can you produce any documentation to back your claims?

John E. O'Neill: To the contrary the problem for the Kerry campaign is that the written records back us and not him. Numerous written records show that he was not in Cambodia on Christmas or Christmas Eve in 1968 including his authorized his biography Tour of Duty. With respect to the Sampan incident on January 20, 1969, Kerry describes the incident in the book Tour of Duty notwithstanding the fact that Kerry in tour says that there was a family of four in the boat, his written report to the United States Navy describes a nonexistent Vietnam squad and omits the small child he said he killed. With respect to Kerry's first Purple Heart, the causality report and the hostile fire report required for a Purple Heart are both missing because there was no casualty and there was no hostile fire. With respect to Kerry's third Purple Heart, the records show he reported shrapnel wound in his hip to the Navy as coming from an underwater mine. However his own book at page 313 and 317 makes clear that he wounded himself with a grenade. The single most powerful witness against John Kerry is John Kerry's through contrasting his own written accounts with what he reported to the Navy. See the book for a more complete answer since space here makes it difficult to go on.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Earlier this week George W. Bush denounced your ad as well as the ads of all 527 groups. How do you react to the President's remarks? In light of his rebuke, will you pull these ads? Why or why not?

John E. O'Neill: The answer of Adm. Hoffman our leader was "full speed ahead." George Bush was not a part of our unit nor is he a part of our story. This is a matter deeply between Kerry and ourselves. It goes beyond politics and deeply involved the honor of our unit, the damage done by his false charges and his wild exaggeration of his service with our unit. We will continue through though the election with the last dollar we raise and the last energy we raise to bring the truth to the American public about the falsehood about Kerry's charges and the exaggeration of his service to the attention of the American people. We will do that not as a matter of politics but because we know he is unfit to command our children, our relatives and other American soldiers or sailors in a dangerous time in our nation.

Fortunately, the First Amendment and the commitment of the American public to fairness will assist us in doing so. We will let the chips fall where they may.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: "I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person."

Where can we find this information? A local publication couldn't. This is what they had to say:

'"I've given more to Democrats than Republicans," John O'Neill claimed on Fox but FEC records do not show a single contribution from John E. O'Neill to any Democratic candidates. When pressed, he said he gave to Democrats "at the local level" and Republicans "at the national level."

However, a search of records with the Texas Ethics Commission, keeper of contribution records, finds no contributions listed for John E. O'Neill.'

Well?

John E. O'Neill: Yes, you have looked at the wrong place. Check the City of Houston contribution records for 2003. In addition you are ignoring Democratic contributions that I have made in other elections to Democratic offices such as Ilene O'Neill and Kathy Stone.

_______________________

John E. O'Neill: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this chat. I urge people to visit our Web site at swiftvets.com or to read the book Unfit for Command. I am satisfied that when the truth comes out the American People will reach a wise decision as they always have. Thank you.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:13 pm

"John looks very weak here"

Well, that's the goal of a political smear. You're side is pretty good at it, if you haven't noticed.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:19 pm

This is Kerry's tar baby that he created all by himself. It's merely the Dem spin that this is being run by Republican puppetmasters. But that is simply a shallow attempt to misdirect the discussion away from its own merits. As concluded in the WSJ piece, Kerry can put it to rest immediately by releasing his records. Why hasn't he? Seems like an easy call, assuming he's been telling the truth.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:47 am

Time for Bash to stand up and be the man he's always pretended to be. A good start at quieting the cacophony would be to address head-on claims he has made:
1) Specific disruptions by the left at Bush rallies
2) Specific media bias (more than one or two newspapers, preferably TV or radio) toward Bush re-election

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:35 am

You missed the point there, Cuda. Entirely!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:43 am

Media bias:
Look at the mainstream media's thousands of stories on "Bush AWOL from guard duty" and contrast with the relatively minor coverage SwiftBoat Vet's story. Last I heard the ratio was over 200 to 1.

Then consider the lack of witnesses and documents that support the AWOL story, in fact the documents contradict it but that contradiction goes completely unreported by CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. And the one witness they had has recanted his assertions...

Now, contrast that to the number of witnesses and documents that support the Swift Boat Vet's.

Any neutral observer would have to conclude the Swift Boat Vet's story has much, much, more corroboration than the Bush/AWOL story yet the coverage by the mainstream media reflects the opposite.

Try to objectively look at it and answer for yourself this question: If Bush were accused of doing what the Swift Boat Vet's accused Kerry of would the mainstream media coverage be the same as it is today?
Or would we see 60 Minutes doing a whole show on 'Bush: The Baby Killing, Purple Heart Stealing Liar'

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:02 am

face it Will, you guys have a bum on your hands. The only war thing that you can pick on Kerry is that he didnt deserve THAT many medals, must suck to be you this time around huh?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:17 am

Zuruck, for one thing, if as you say he "didn't deserve that many medals" then he is the one who went AWOL by submitting fraudulent reports to get out of vietnam early...some hero huh?

Next, whether or not he deserved the early release he asked for, he was obligated to serve stateside in the ready reserves when they let him go home. There is NO RECORD of his showing up for duty, no record of his performing mandatory training. He has balls to play along with the Bush/AWOL story when apparantly he never showed up for duty himself.

But that's OK for Kerry because there is also no record of that thorny detail in the press...
In fact when asked about it by the rightwing fringe media he responds by saying "It my business, not yours" and of course candidate Kerry is allowed to do that because, once again, the mainstream media looks away.

Suck's to be me? No.
But I bet it suck's to have to swallow Kerry's crap.

By the way, his war record isn't the only thing I have against him. His whole 19 years in the senate (when he bothered to show up that is) is plenty of ammo to fuel my disgust for him. I just enjoy using his own best defense against him...total ownage as the kiddies say

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:24 am

He isn't a member of the Swift Boat Vet's for Truth.
He isn't working for Bush.
He was in Kerry's boat when it happened.
He's now a retired Rear Admiral in the Navy.
He was going to let it go until the Kerry goon squad decided to kick a sleeping dog.

Kerry pulled his finger from the dike to arrogantly point it at his enemies one time too many and now the flood is a comin'

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:44 am

Another thing

Either way, I think Bush is handling the situation properly.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:22 am

The second shoe is only now dropping. Forget about the medals for a moment and consider Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971. If his testimony was honest, then that makes him an admitted war criminal. If it was grandstanding, then he sold out his friends and hundreds of thousands of other comrades in arms for an ambitious political attention grab. Either way, he's boxed himself in. And there's still too much time left until election day to mumble, equivocate and *nuance* himself out of this bind. The Swiftvets are not going to let him off the hook and the issues must be confronted by Kerry in a forthright and presidential manner or he's going to be hemorrhaging swing votes from now until November.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:01 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835000/

Now the other witness to Thurlow's medal citation speaks...hmmm...how many more is it going to take? bash do you know approximately how many vets spoke out against the war after they got back? kerry wasn't the only one, but he was the man with the loud voice in front. was it to better his political future? maybe...i don't know why. he was included with the atrocious war crimes he said people committed so he didnt get out of that one.

it's too bad kerry didnt get to go to europe like he thought he would right Will? Then you guys would really have some crap on him!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:04 pm

Silence here is deafening bash. You've made some unsubstaniated claims which you can't back, and now you've chosen to say nothing because you can't back them. All I'm asking for is some explanation of your wild speculation.

"Look at the mainstream media's thousands of stories on "Bush AWOL from guard duty" and contrast with the relatively minor coverage SwiftBoat Vet's story. Last I heard the ratio was over 200 to 1."

Were you listening to republican talk radio or what? Please back that with proof. AFAIK the SBV story has been one of the most widely publicized issues in campaign history. It's done nothing but dominate the networks and papers constantly for about 2 weeks. You also have to account for the total length of time the SBV story has been in the news vs. total time the bush story has been the news. To be statisitcally fair, take the total time the SBV ads have ran, then take the initial date the bush national guard contreversy began and count the news stories in terms of the # of days the SBV coverage has run. Since the national guard story has been going for 5 years now, I'd say just counting total stories is pretty silly statistically.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:34 pm

In the interest of balance, here is also the transcript from The Washington Post of an online Q&A featuring John Hurley, head of Veterans For Kerry. It makes an interesting contrast to John O'Neill's Q&A (posted earlier) in that O'Neill is much more direct and specific in his responses.

* * *

John Hurley: Hi everyone. Thank you for joining me today. This is John Hurley, National Director of Veterans for Kerry. I appreciate this opportunity to talk with you about John Kerry and his service in Vietnam. You are probably aware that Veterans across the country have been pouring out in support of John Kerry throughout the primaries and the general election. We have veterans coordinators in all 50 states and we're building an organization that will be one million veterans strong by election day.

During the Iowa Caucuses, when John Kerry's campaign was behind Howard Dean's campaign, it was veterans who came forward and made the difference. When we were in Iowa, veterans from 16 different states paid their own way to come to Iowa to campaign for John Kerry. By the time we got to New Hampshire, veterans from 27 states paid their own way to come to New Hampshire and campaign for John Kerry. And that surge of support for John Kerry has continued into the general election.

Veterans are supporting John Kerry in an unprecedented manner. They are responding to his lifetime of service and strength. In him, they see a combat veteran like themselves.

By way of introduction, I would tell you that I have known John Kerry for 34 years. He is one of the most principled and honorable individuals that I have ever known. I do not regularly get involved in political campaigns, but John Kerry's campaigns are an exception, because he is an exceptional human being and will make a great Commander-in-Chief.

_______________________

Troy, Ala.: Mr. Hurley, is it true that a total of ten men served as crewmen on the two swiftboats that Senator Kerry commanded? And that nine of these ten fully support him and endorse him?

What credibility can reasonably be given to those who were never on his boats?

John Hurley: Actually, a total of 12 men served on the swift boats that John Kerry commanded, and eleven of those twelve support him whole heartedly. He is honored by the support and encouragement that they provide him as he seeks the presidency.

John O'Neill and Swift Boat Veterans for Bush claim to know about John Kerry's service in Vietnam. John O'Neill never met John Kerry for one moment in Vietnam. Nor did he even try to interview any of the men who served on those boats with John Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an organization that has been discredited by the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and countless other newspapers across the country. As John McCain has said, their efforts to smear John Kerry are "dishonest and dishonorable".

_______________________

Dulles, Va.: Mr. Hurley,

How is your group effectively countering the allegations put forth about Kerry's service? And do you feel it is possible to do so without appearing partisan or tied in any way to the Kerry campaign in the same way the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" has alleged ties with the Bush/Cheney campaign?

John Hurley: We are countering the lies by SBVT by getting the truth out. All of their charges have been proven false. Every single document created by the US Navy in 1969 supports John Kerry and the award of his medals to him. Keep in mind, John Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam. He volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam at a time when others were avoiding the call to duty. John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.

The SBVT has been proven to be liars by their own words. For instance, Larry Thurlow has claimed that there was no hostile fire the day that John Kerry won his Bronze Star. The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request obtained a copy of Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation in which the United States Navy made clear that they were under hostile fire on March 13, 1969.

This attack by SBVT is financed by Republican contributors in Texas and elsewhere. The web of connections between SBVT and George Bush's White House is extensive. The New York Times has reported on this web and two officials of the Bush/Cheney campaign have been forced to resign in the last three days because of their connections to SBVT.

Make no mistake about it. This attack is not about John Kerry's service and medals in Vietnam. This attack is a smear campaign that is designed to benefit President Bush's campaign.

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: Why should Swift Boat Veterans for Truth not be able to exercise without restriction their First Amendment rights?

John Hurley: They have every right to exercise their First Amendment rights.

They do not have a right to lie.

_______________________

Walnut Creek, Calif.: Please answer O'Neill's description of the Silver Star Sampan Incident....

It sounds like Kerry was negligent by allowing that vessel to approach his PCF. The implication is that Kerry was asleep at the radar.

And the subsequent death of a young child and his father was turned into a massive Viet Cong attack thwarted by Kerry's heroism....according to Kerry's after action report.

How does Kerry respond to this ?

John Hurley: There was no Sampan Incident involved with John Kerry's Silver Star.

John O'Neill is going around the country ridiculing John Kerry's Silver Star. In doing so, he is dishonoring all those men who fought bravely and courageously with John Kerry that day, February 28, 1969.

Here are the facts. Three swift boats and 19 men fought with great courage and honor that day. The United States Navy awarded John Kerry a Silver Star and awarded those men who fought with him at least four Bronze Stars and 14 Navy Commendation Medals with Combat "V" for valor.

When the SBVT attack John Kerry's Silver Star, they are dishonoring the courage and bravery and service of 18 other men. That is why Bill Rood, Chicago Tribune editor, broke 35 years of silence to write a front page story honoring those men who fought with John Kerry because he was troubled by the dishonest attacks by men like John O'Neill who were not there.

It is for the same reason that John McCain has said the SBVT are "dishonest and dishonorable".

This is why these attacks are so offensive. They do not just attack John Kerry. They attack every man who fought bravely and courageously in Vietnam, and who were awarded medals for their service.

To come back now, after 35 years, and degrade the medals of all those who served in Vietnam, is a disgrace and SBVT should hang their heads in shame.

_______________________

Sterling, Va.: Why won't Senator Kerry join President Bush in condemning 527 category advertisements? Is it a first ammendment issue? Then how can he find the Swift Boat ads as anything but a citizens' group exercising their right to free speech? Former Democrats such as myself believe Democrats tend to support free speech until it is used against them. Convince me that Kerry is different.

John Hurley: We are happy to have a discussion about campaign finance reform. In fact, Senator Kerry has an outstanding record in the United States Senate on campaign finance reform.

But that is not what this is about. This is about a front group for the Bush campaign that is trying to smear John Kerry's military service. The web of connections between the Bush campaign and SBVT grows wider every day.

John McCain has called on President Bush to specifically attack this terrible smear campaign. President Bush and his campaign - for over three weeks now - have ignored Senator McCain's call to condemn this specific smear.

The longer President Bush waits to specifically condemn this smear, the clearer it gets what's going on here.

The President is trying to gain political mileage out of a smear, and it is wrong.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: With respect to the SwiftVet ads, what kind of voter is supposed to be most affected by them and why?

Is Kerry's campaign concerned with "meeting the charges head on," changing the political dialogue to focus on Kerry's vision, or what?

John Hurley: It is unfortunate that some would rather spread lies about the past rather than tell the truth about the future. John Kerry is focused on the issues affecting the American people like sky rocketing health care costs, the loss of over one million jobs, and cleaning up the mess that George Bush has made in Iraq.

John Kerry has made a firm commitment not to let the lies distract him from these issues. In fact, today, he is out on the campaign trail talking about his plans to make American stronger at home and more respected in the world.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think this attack on Kerry is fair given that he continually uses his military service as a testament to why he'd be a good leader?

John Hurley: There is nothing fair about lies and distortions 35 years after the fact by people who were not there.

As a father, I want someone as Commander-in-Chief who understands the sacrifices of those who have served. When a decision has to be made whether to send our sons and daughters into harm's way, I want someone who has been there. Someone who showed up when his country called. John Kerry understands what it's like to be on the battlefield. John Kerry will never go to war as a first resort - as he says, it will not be because we want to but because we have to.

_______________________

John Hurley: I'd like to take a minute before our chat ends and just say that I have the best job on John Kerry's campaign. I am a Vietnam veteran, and there is nothing that I like better than working with other veterans.

I get calls from veterans across the country asking how they can help in John's campaign. There is a surge of support for John because these attacks on his service are backfiring. Two West Point graduates, both Republicans, have contacted me within the last few days to say that they are switching their vote to John Kerry because of these attacks by Swift Boat Veterans. Their story is repeated thousands of times across the country. Americans, particularly veterans, are appalled by these attacks against John Kerry, as this smear attacks all of us who served.

Americans want an honest discussion of the real issues facing our country such as the mess in Iraq. For instance, George Bush's "go-it-alone" foreign policy has forced the United States to bear the overwhelming share of casualties and cost associated with the war in Iraq. Right now, US taxpayers are on the hook for over 200 billion dollars with no end in sight. George Bush sent our troops to Iraq without proper equipment and body armor. He sought to cut combat and separation pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We need someone in the White House who understands what our men and women overseas and their families are going through. That man is John Kerry.

_______________________

West Palm Beach, Fla.: I am so disgusted with the lies of the this group. Can Senator Kerry sue for slander and defamation of character?
Did you see the segment where O'Neill spoke about his non visit to Cambodia interview with then President Nixon?

John Hurley: We are disgusted too.

I'm sorry - I'm out of time. Thanks for joining me today and for those veterans among you, thank you for your service to our country.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:40 pm

Zuruck, you've been doubting my comments about Kerry not wanting to go to Vietnam and wanting to go to europe instead.
Here, from a February, 1970 Harvard Crimson article says, "When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

You will find some quotes of his in there that are more than a little scary because he's still the same idiot today who suggested then to give up much of our sovereignty just to appear 'worldly'.

*******************************************

Birdseye, it was I who mentioned the ratio of media coverage re: bush/awol versus kerry/swift boats not Bash.
I pulled the number 200 to 1 out of my ass as hyperbole...the real numbers are more like 9 to 1, and I'm not talking all the way back to pre 2000 election.
I'm talking about 2003/2004. Do some research, it's there.
Do a search for the White House press briefing *FEB 10, 2004* and show me that kind of aggresive press on the Kerry fiasco and I'll back off.....not holding my breath.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:40 pm

That's a pretty silly way to run an argument will--make an assertion, then tell everyone else to prove your assertion.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:25 pm

Not silly. I gave you the example of the press briefing and the ratio of stories in the last year and a half. The awol story is over five years old and has almost no real substance to it yet it still out plays 9 to 1 in the press against a story that is new and has many more living participants who are on the record with evidence.

And you tell me I'm not making my case?!? Why, because I'm not showing you every example of the bias?

I think it's silly to doubt what is painfully obvious.
Add to that the stories that *do* contain swift boat vet info in the mainstream usually are short mentions that only point out the counterpoint to there argument without mention of the supporting data where the Bush/awol stories usually go on ad nasuem with speculation of what-when-why-where with nary a mention of the evidence that refutes the allegations and without any live person but the DNC chairman himself to offer the accusations in the first place!

If you don't see the contrast on this one I'd say your objectivity has been jaded by your own anti-Bush sentiment.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:43 am

"If you don't see the contrast on this one I'd say your objectivity has been jaded by your own anti-Bush sentiment."

Excuse me? Let's review. You made an assertion. I asked you to back it up. Instead of backing it up, you told me to back it up. That makes no sense.

Look, I'm willing to believe your assertion, but you haven't given me any reason to believe it beyond your own word. Since you know the numbers so well, it shouldn't be hard for you to enlighten me with a link, article, book, something beyond Will Robinson's personal memory.

Are you going to take every figure I throw you at face value? What if I said your fridge company had a defect rate of 1 out 4? Would you ask for some numbers? You'd consider that a wild claim, as I am considering your claim about the SBV which has been airing on fox news practically 8 hours a day. What if I then told you nah, I don't have to show you proof, YOU find the proof that your fridge has that defect rate?

This could all be made very easy if you'd ante up with some substance!

What if I look, and can't find your figure? Does that then somehow prove you right or wrong?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:53 am

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... the_press/

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:57 am

I wouldn't worry too much about it Birds.. that argument is coming from the same person who more than was happy to label me anti-american because I disagreed with a few methods.

It's bordering on fundamentalism.

EDIT: I should have seen that link coming.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:29 am

here's one

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:28 am

heheheh. nice link Will.

I find it very interesting that they have a 'fair and balanced' while stating what and what not to say.

seems pretty unfair and inbalanced to me. It also leads me to believe the story you linked to is very biased Will.

BTW, don't try and pull the 'leftie' card. because we both know that'll be nothin but bullcrap.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:39 am

I'm not sure what can be "unbalanced" about it. The numbers are either true or they are not, they certainly coincide with my own observations so I would believe it even if it was Hillary Clinton who reported it.

You don't expect the left to complain about their own bias do you? Obviously a complaint about left-leaning bias in the press will come from the right. Does that mean it's not true?

Do you dispute the accuracy based on contradictory data or do you just want to dismiss them without evidence simply because they are a conservative source?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:19 pm

If McCain or any conservative who fought in Vietnam ran for office, and a group of democratic Veterans started airing aids criticizing his service, I wouldn't want them aired on main stream either.

Criticizing someoneâ??s lack of service can be fair game. Irrelevant, but fair. Clinton took it for dodging the draft. Bush took it for not seeing combat. If it makes any of you conservatives feel better I respect Bush's "service" more then Clintons.

I don't mind the parts of the ads where they criticize what he did when he got back. That's fair.

But criticizing someone's actual service is just flat out sleazy. He recieved the medals, back then was the time to critcize them. Back then was the time to raise any objections. Not now.

Criticizing them now should not be a story. I think its media bias that it has become one. He was there, conservatives should just tip their hat and move on to the present issues.