John Kerry: The closer we get, the more bullshit there is.

Pick a card, any card.

http://www.blogwise.com
from JoeUser Forums
I note in the South African press that Kerry is being keelhauled again. I mean there is an election in just over two months so there have to be accusations in the Great American Political Game! So pick a card from the following:
* He went into Cambodia and committed atrocities.
* He was too scared to go into Cambodia.
* He went into Cambodia to visit Angkor Wat.
* He bribed people for his medals.
* His medals are fake.
* He let George Bush down while defending Hill 17.
* He let LBJ down by joining the army.
* He was at My Lai.
* He was near My Lai.
* He ran a drug ring in Saigon.
* He pretended to be in Nam.

See what I mean? Pick one and send it to CBS.

Fact is, John Kerrey went to Nam along with John McCain and Bob Kerrey and thousands of others. And some did bad things. On the positive side, many more were just fighting for their country. Period. They deserved their medals because they went into one very sick war--and didn't flee to Canada.

Give us a break Bushites! The problem with American politics is that if a guy is going ahead the opposition invents some bullshit to slow the support.

I think Bush is going to win for all the wrong reasons but I think too that John Kerry could do without all the inventors who rush to make up a new story.

A lot of Americans (not all), need to grow up!
politics
18,053 views 53 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
People sure do get carried away don't they.

Part of the problem is that when you follow the trail of BS you get close to the bull. Senator Kerry has chosen to run on his Viet Nam record. Why?

I'm a conservative Christian so I wouldn't vote for the Senator any way, but I have a problem with his use of hero status after what he did upon return to the US. My brother and step brother were serving their third tours in Nam when Kerry went before the Senate and claimed that he and ALL US soldiers committed attrocities. My brother, Cpl. Charles E. Hendon, was a Marine recon. When I asked why a second and third term, he replied: "I'm making a difference. I've helped villagers improve the sanitation of the village, I've delivered babies and taught them methods of safely delivering babies, I've taught the people how to defend themselves." Yes, he saw a lot of action, and yes, he got his medals, but he never talked about it.
When he and his friend visited me a Penn State they were insluted and spat upon.

55,000 US soldiers died in Nam. 59,000 committed suicide after the war. John Kerry and his band of brothers contributed to that with their UNPROVEN and loudly proclaimed allegations. Of the 50 "vets" who spoke to the senate with Kerry many were never in Nam and ten were never in the military! When the Senate sent the FBI to investigate their stories not one would sign an affidavid. Why?

Senator Kerry is free to run any way he chooses, but I would have some respect for him if he would run as the liberal icon that he is. To run as an American Hero is to spit on my brother's grave.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
So let me get this straight; atrocities weren't committed in Vietnam, Kerry wasn't a war hero because he earned a Purple Heart and other medals, and Bush, whose record of service was recently "found" after there was a question of where he was for over a year during his tour of duty is a better candidate? Just making sure I'm following you. Respect for your brother's and step-brother's service, however.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I'll tie up one more loose end, here. I am also a Christian and a conservative. I don't care for Kerry's pro-abortion stance ( though he personally doesn't believe in the actual act ) or his toeing the party line of gun control, but let's look at Bush's stance. He has pushed for the Laci Peterson law ( he gains a point there ) and he has come out against abortion, but I can't vote for a candidate strictly on one issue. His gun control stance seems firm, but he has yet to rollback any gun control legislation. He has also made a half-hearted dig to keep our traditional marriage stance with his Federal Marriage Amendment, but it is an unrealistic proposal ( sure, try getting a favorable vote on that ) and poorly planned as it is very much a "dead on arrival" plan, more engineered to solidify the base than actually accomplish solid policy. Now let us look at how unconservative he has actually acted. I recently had a birthday, and my father, a minister, sent me a handsome journal and a spiritual book on knowing God more personally. On the outside of the box, there were the usual postmarkings and addresses, but also a big red stamp reading, "media inside, subject to check by postal employee", one of the effects of the invasive Patriot Act the current administration has shoved down our throats. I tell you, friend, big or bigger government is not an earmark of a true conservative. G. Dub is a fraud. He and Ashcroft have betrayed us with their policy. Big brother is bigger than ever now and it was no liberal that has placed this yoke upon us. Bush's tax cuts have become a small bribe ridding poor conservative families of aid they sometimes need ( head start, s.s., overtime pay, etc. ) because the large corporations have outsourced our jobs while this administration turns a blind eye. I do not want Kerry in, I want a lesser evil in the hopes that the NOW will be improved to some degree.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just think Kerry is too double minded to be president. His policies state that outsourcing should end yet he and his wife profit from several dozen factories of the Heinz corporation that are conveniently located outside of the US because of cheaper labor. I believe that Kerry went to Vietnam like many others and faced the demons that they faced but you can tell a lot about a person's character based on their response. His devisive, derisive, and hateful tirades after his return were tied into his hope for political gain. I know a lot of war heroes, including in my own families. Real heroes rarely talk or want to talk about how great they were in war.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee, it's hard enough for us to keep up with the blather in our own press, let alone South Africa's. But I appreciate that you've let us know it can be just as bizarre elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called "news" organizations with the work ethic of the National Enquirer ("Clinton fathered alien! Being raised at exclusive private school!") both here in the States and around the world. Does make it tough to get things straight when every outfit is working an angle. But it's out of that chaos that more or less the truth eventually emerges.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee, it's hard enough for us to keep up with the blather in our own press, let alone South Africa's. But I appreciate that you've let us know it can be just as bizarre elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called "news" organizations with the work ethic of the National Enquirer ("Clinton fathered alien! Being raised at exclusive private school!") both here in the States and around the world. Does make it tough to get things straight when every outfit is working an angle. But it's out of that chaos that more or less the truth eventually emerges.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry about that double post - not sure how that happened.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I am by no means a blind follower of the Democratic Party, but I have a few things to say about the lack of respect going on in this thread--not just for Kerry, but for all Vietnam veterans who chose to publicize their hatred for war.

John Kerry had the right to protest a war he fought in. None of you fought in the Vietnam War, so what privilege did you earn to criticize him for standing up against something that he believed, like many of his fellow soldiers, was a fundamentally wrong war?

Kerry is a hero because not only did he fight courageously in Vietnam, as his bronze and silver stars prove, but because he had the bravery to return to his own nation and cry out against that same fallacious war.

John Kerry knew what he saw, and said something about it. None of you know what he saw, so before you cry out against his lack of respect for his fellow soldiers, perhaps you should consider something. Preventing the pointless deaths of thousands of American young men and millions of Vietnamese civilians was obviously, in his eyes, a more important goal than being nice to the American people. Show some respect for that.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm having a difficult time figuring out a few things as I try to respond to this post.

First, You say:

Reply #8 By: Covin3 - 8/16/2004 6:30:26 PM
I am by no means a blind follower of the Democratic Party, but I have a few things to say about the lack of respect going on in this thread--not just for Kerry, but for all Vietnam veterans who chose to publicize their hatred for war.

John Kerry had the right to protest a war he fought in. None of you fought in the Vietnam War, so what privilege did you earn to criticize him for standing up against something that he believed, like many of his fellow soldiers, was a fundamentally wrong war?


I read that to imply that unless one is a veteran of Vietnam, one doesn't have a right to speak about it (Vietnam and/or Vietnam service) at all? If that is the case, you are discussing your opinion about Kerry's service why?

For the record, I have served in the military. Does that mean I'm more entitled to criticize the military than anyone else is?

Now, ignoring those comments, which don't really relate to your points (at least I don't think they do), you seem to be disappointed in a possible lack of respect for Kerry (and, you mention all Vietnam vets that spoke out against the war).
On those issues, a few things can be said.
First, I don't think anyone has said that Kerry, nor anyone else, have no rights, nor any more rights, to speak out against what they feel or felt was an unjust war.
Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen lose some rights to comment (actually, you lose a lot of rights) while you are contracted to Uncle Sam, but that's a point for discussion later. Kerry came home after serving in the military, and he voiced his comments and opinions. That's fine, even if his comments were completely opposite anything that really happened in Vietnam, he was welcome, and is welcome to voice his opinions. It's a right of all U.S. citizens (except for those that are contracted to the government, who lose some of those rights while serving out that contract) to be able to speak freely, with a few caveats about not being able to slander or libel others.
The problem for Kerry is that his comments were made in front of congress, while under oath, and his comments described his own actions as being potentially criminal, and worse, described the actions of those that had served with and around him as also being potentially criminal. Kerry told the world that he had commited atrocities and had seen others commit them as well. That broad brush statement left many people who may have done absolutely nothing wrong colored as criminals. Many of those people are represented today in a group called Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. http://www.swiftvets.com It is that group that has stirred up a lot of the discussion (such as above) about Kerry and his record.


You see, even though you say:

Reply #8 By: Covin3 - 8/16/2004 6:30:26 PM
Kerry is a hero because not only did he fight courageously in Vietnam, as his bronze and silver stars prove, but because he had the bravery to return to his own nation and cry out against that same fallacious war.

John Kerry knew what he saw, and said something about it. None of you know what he saw, so before you cry out against his lack of respect for his fellow soldiers, perhaps you should consider something. Preventing the pointless deaths of thousands of American young men and millions of Vietnamese civilians was obviously, in his eyes, a more important goal than being nice to the American people. Show some respect for that.


... your last paragraph has been disputed very strongly by many of the members of the Swift Boat Veterans group, who were there, and are able to confirm what Kerry saw and what Kerry did, and were inflamed when Kerry came home as a decorated veteran, with some of the decorations being questionable, and stated to Congress that criminal actions had taken place and were taking place in Vietnam.

The Swiftboat group has done an excellent job of researching the issues, and documenting in a very legalistic manner, their issues with Kerry and his statements.

Using your own argument alluded to in my first line above, these folks certainly have a right to comment and criticize Kerry.


Now, with that said, I have a load of respect for anyone that has served in the military for this country, or any other for that matter.
I also have a lot of respect for those that speak out about atrocities (such as the Abu Graib prison scandal) and help prevent them. And a load of respect for those that do question what is gong on with our military and how it will be used.
I temper that respect though with questions about what are the motives for speaking out, and what will be accomplished in doing so.
In the case of John Kerry, it seems that perhaps his outspokeness may have been an effort to garner publicity and notoriety, and that is something that leaves me scrathing my head. More so as I read at least the Swiftvet's version of the truth as they see it.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
First thing. I have been in the U.S. Army for 17 years and have served through both Iraq wars. I have worked with all type and consider myself a good judge of all the different types of citizen soldier characters. I respect all men who volunteered themselves for military service and have HONORABLY completed their contracts.

John Kerry in my opinion never honorably completed his service. He is what many in service call a medal hunter and cut & runner.

Medal hunter: Of the four months of service in Vietnam about two months are spent just impressing or outprossing. So in just two (many by three at the most) John Kerry was able to receive three purple hearts, one Silver Star and one Bronze Star. John Kerry is right by saying that know one really submits paperwork for a Purple Heart. You receive them by just going to the aid station and receive medic treatment. That means that even if you get aspirin for a bad headache from wearing your helmet to long, you could technically receive a Purple Heart. I know of three soldiers (not very well liked or respected in my units) that did just that type of thing so they could have one more ribbon on their chest (officers are the worse offenders of this practice). He received two stars for actions taken during combat. When John Kerry pulled a man from the water and received his star, the poor guy on the other side (the side actually under fire) of the boat pulled two men from the water received a lesser Meritory Service Medal (MSM). One guess who submitted the awards recommendation? If you say that boat commander you are right (that would be John himself). Many men of infantry and special ops spent two or three years in Vietnam in the thick of action and never received so many awards and this guy received them in two or three months. I smell a medal hunter here.

Cut and Runner: I have seen units mobilize for war and usually there is one chicken that claims a medical problem at the last minute or suddenly becomes gay. For females the pregnancy rate jumps for some reason. You usually can guess who they are in the unit before the alert is called. John Kerry fits that bill to the T. I have to give him credit for getting into country. While all the other members of his boat were in the same firefights and stayed to complete they’re contracted one year, he split as soon as he could. He knew that if you received three purple hearts you had the OPTION of returning home. See the medal hunting section above. Just because a person served does not mean he did HONORABLY. I have to say that I have not jumped up and down and yelled take me, take me when a war started. But I was the first one on the plane when the orders came down and never even thought about leaving my duties and fellow soldiers behind.

The above character types fit John Kerry perfectly (You could also add glory hound too).

But the true reason for him not getting my vote is not for what he did during the war but what he had done sense.

1. For the first Gulf war he would have preferred that a sovereign Nation of eight million be conquered and raped by Iraq, then to send one American to help them. (He voted against military action).

2. During the Florida national election confusion four years ago, he stated that he was there to make sure the military men and women’s vote got counted. In reality his staffers went to each county and handed out flyers on how to discount any absentee vote with an APO address. Over 75% of all military votes are sent in through absentee vote and a large portion from overseas APO addresses.

That is my two cents.

PS: I myself also have received Medals and have had a bullet removed from my leg during service, but a true soldier doesn’t need medals to know he is honorable.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Aren't true soldiers supposed to throw fake medals into fires as a protest but pretend they're the real medals as John Kerry did, which is why people like him so much? Because while those posers out there were throwing their real medals into the fire, John Kerry was throwing his fake ones showing that he's insincere about it?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for the comments guys but the point is: Is the muckraking necessary? Is that just American politics? Do we have to hang a guy before the scaffold's readY? This whole propaganda issue is aimed at moving attention away from Dubya so that Kerry's weaknesses are highlighted. What about Dubya's weaknesses? I guess that's politics but from my South African point of view it seems pretty dirty.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Swift Boat Veterans have attacked Kerry for his actions, others that have served with him have commended him, and still others are debating the legitimacy of his medals and awards. Hundreds of people have come forward to characterize Kerry's service positively or negatively. Where are all the vets who saw G.W. Bush during the Vietnam War? Can't he come up with a few dozen people who can definitively attest to him being where he was supposed to be? A few medical records and some pay stubs simply aren't enough proof for me. The Bush machine is deflecting attention away from real issues and trying to knock Kerry down in the only place Bush can claim to go toe-to-toe with him.
Maybe the two of them should have a medals throwing contest?
Thanks for listening
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Swiftboat group has done an excellent job of researching the issues, and documenting in a very legalistic manner, their issues with Kerry and his statements.


if that were the case, there wouldnt be so many inconsistencies or contradictions with previous statements about kerry.  john o'neill--who is one of the three prime movers behind the group--once claimed to have been on the same boat with kerry even though he arrived well after kerry's departure.  admiral hoffman--another of the group's organizers--has admitted he didnt know kerry well enough to comment on him firsthand.  the one swiftboat vet who now asserts kerry's boat wasnt taking fire when kerry rescued the special forces gunner didnt dispute the after action report that states clearly the boat was under attack...and in fact both kerry and his accuser were awarded medals on the basis of that report.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Bush machine is deflecting attention away from real issues and trying to knock Kerry down in the only place Bush can claim to go toe-to-toe with him.

Thanks for that. Mc Carthy proved that dirty tricks (many unproven), could upset the apple cart. Eisenhower sat quietly and let that asshole hold sway. No election was in contention but times have not changed much. Muckraking and accusations seem to be a part of American politics. Let's see what happens in November.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #13 By: jdjefferson - 8/17/2004 11:33:15 AM
Swift Boat Veterans have attacked Kerry for his actions, others that have served with him have commended him, and still others are debating the legitimacy of his medals and awards. Hundreds of people have come forward to characterize Kerry's service positively or negatively. Where are all the vets who saw G.W. Bush during the Vietnam War? Can't he come up with a few dozen people who can definitively attest to him being where he was supposed to be? A few medical records and some pay stubs simply aren't enough proof for me. The Bush machine is deflecting attention away from real issues and trying to knock Kerry down in the only place Bush can claim to go toe-to-toe with him.
Maybe the two of them should have a medals throwing contest?
Thanks for listening


As noted elsewhere this day, a big part of the problem is that much of Kerry's accomplishments and record in Vietnam can only be substantiated if you believe Kerry's own words, as he was the only witness to some of the actions (Christmas, oh wait, now it's New Years, though the incident was previously seared--seared!!!--into his brain, in Cambodia for example).

Unlike the Bush campaign, which was hounded repeatedly by the media and by the likes of Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and many others, the Kerry campaign has *not* released the records of Kerry's military service.

Again, none of this would be issue had Kerry not been campaigning around during the primaries with pictures that tout his war hero status while giving the implication that others in the pictures supported his actions and candidacy. He repeated that mistake -- in a major way -- when he did it again during the Democratic convention by showing his "home movies", complete with touch-ups at the hand of some of Hollywood's finest.

The Bush campaign has said all along that they'd be happy if groups like MoveOn.org and individuals like Michael Moore were silenced, but until that happens, they have also said that they believe that groups like the Swiftboat veterans are entitled to their free speech just as much as Moore and the rest are. (And btw, why is it that the Kerry campaign has refused to condemn Moore, MoveOn, etc.??!?)
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Unlike the Bush campaign, which was hounded repeatedly by the media and by the likes of Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and many others, the Kerry campaign has *not* released the records of Kerry's military service.


When did Bush release his entire military records? Furthermore, much of the records that were released had portions of them blacked out Link

I'm an advocate of privacy, but when you claim you were somewhere when you weren't--or can't prove it--then you need to disclose as much information as possible.

Are you also suggesting that Kerry didn't serve in Vietnam? Maybe he and his Hollywood friends made the whole thing up? Maybe we didn't land on the moon either? Kerry said he went to Vietnam, his crew confirmed he was there, and even his critics say he was there. Nobody has come forth and said they saw Bush during the time Bush claimed to be in the National Guard.

The Swiftvets have every right--perhaps an obligation--to speak out against the credentials and qualifications of Kerry. MoveOn.org and Moore have similar rights and responsibilties toward Bush.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #17 By: jdjefferson - 8/17/2004 1:11:58 PM
When did Bush release his entire military records? Furthermore, much of the records that were released had portions of them blacked out Link


So let me get it straight - you question when did Bush release his records, and then go on to question how the records that were released had portions of them blacked out?!?!

Does logic not apply?

As to this statement:
Are you also suggesting that Kerry didn't serve in Vietnam? Maybe he and his Hollywood friends made the whole thing up? Maybe we didn't land on the moon either? Kerry said he went to Vietnam, his crew confirmed he was there, and even his critics say he was there. Nobody has come forth and said they saw Bush during the time Bush claimed to be in the National Guard.

I guess Bush wasn't on the planet at all and/or didn't exist during his commitment to the National Guard?

Isn't this the same old argument about the bear that craps in the woods with no one there to see it? If no one saw it, does that mean that it didn't happen?
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
(And btw, why is it that the Kerry campaign has refused to condemn Moore, MoveOn, etc.??!?)

The Swiftvets have every right--perhaps an obligation--to speak out against the credentials and qualifications of Kerry. MoveOn.org and Moore have similar rights and responsibilties toward Bush.

I very much hope these two statements are in error and not a sincere gambit to altercate the prominent truth. The fact is, indirectly, the GOP financed the SwiftVet group. The fact that they are out and out lying and / or misleading the public is the reason as to why people have called for condemnation from the Bush group. No more honourable a vet / POW than John Mcain has come forward to say that this act is "dishonourable". Also, when the majority of these vets say they have "served" with Kerry, they mean that they have served in Vietnam, not side by side with Kerry, so what do they know but heresay?

Moore and MoveOn, on the other hand, are not financed by the DNC, are fully independent and have come forward to shed light on the shadowy b.s. of this administration. There is no reason for Kerry to condemn what they have had to say as there has been no falsehoods uttered by these honest and sincere groups.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
A few confirmations here....

The word on the released records is at this:
Link

There were also these notes in the news:
A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers George W. Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.

"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.

which were found here:
Link
and
Link
and
Link
which mentions at least the following information:

tacitus | 07:37 AM GMT | 16 February 2004 | Comments (210)
AWOL Requiem
With Friday's document dump, there's really nowhere else to go with Bush and his National Guard service thirty years ago, although the Bitter Angry Left will insist on banging it around. The Atlanta Journal Constitution writes about John Calhoun, who saw Bush in Alabama, and the opening sentence encapsulates the weird status of this spun-beyond-reason story:

The search for proof that young Lt. George W. Bush worked weekends at an Air Force base in Montgomery, 32 years ago has taken on a strange, forensic quality.
Emphasis on strange. And we have another witness, Joe LeFevers, who also places Bush at Dannelly Air Force Base:

"I was going in the orderly room over there one day, and they said, `This is Lt. Bush,'" LeFevers said Tuesday. "They pointed him out to me ... the reason I remember it is because I associate him with Red Blount."
So, we have two witness who place Bush in Alabama, an ex-girlfriend's recollections, dental records and payroll records. Is it good evidence? Not really. But then, the National Guard has a history of spotty recordkeeping.

Contrary to the military's general image of orderliness and discipline, the process of documenting the service of Guard members and reservists has long suffered from disorder and incompleteness, according to people both inside and outside the Pentagon familiar with the records system.
So, have the anti-Bushites proved that Bush shirked his duties? No. Have McAuliffe and his Unmerry Band proven that Bush did not fulfill his commitments? No. Thus, their allegations hold no water and should be summarily dismissed. For more, a reading of Hobbs should suffice.

The worst that can be said is that he failed to show up for five or so months. But then he made up his time during the periods in question and he was honorably discharged. The story of Burkett, which Kevin Drum has bit into like a pit bull, keeps unraveling. The Boston Globe also found that Burkett's story held little water.

On a side note, there were not 500 on a waiting list to get into the Texas Air National Guard. As QandO observes:

However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.
At the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, there was a waiting list of 150, but there were also 156 openings.

SLOVER AND KUEMPEL: (13) Records provided to The News by Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, show that the unit Mr. Bush signed up for was not filled. In mid-1968, the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, based in Houston, had 156 openings among its authorized staff of 925 military personnel.
(14) Of those, 26 openings were for officer slots, such as that filled by Mr. Bush, and 130 were for enlisted men and women. Also, several former Air Force pilots who served in the unit said they were recruited from elsewhere to fly for the Texas Guard.
...
(33) The Texas Air Guard had about 900 slots for pilots, air and ground crew members, supervisors, technicians and support staff. Sgt. Donald Dean Barnhart, who still serves in the Guard, said that he kept a waiting list of about 150 applicants' names.


End of story? Yes, for most. No, for those who refuse to accept the facts and prefer to continue with unfounded speculation. No, for the BDS afflicted. No, for those who still think Bush stole the election. No, for those who think Bush's grandfather aided Hitler. In short, no for those out on the fringes, the extremists.

UPDATE: Another witness emerges. From the Montgomery Advisor:

James Anderson was a physician for the Montgomery-based 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group. His son, Montgomery physician Noble Anderson, said his father performed a routine examination on Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard base in 1972.


Are we seeing the bottom of the Bush was AWOL, Bush was not in the National Guard, Bush ran from the military, Bush-bash, bash, bash dance yet?!

Even bulldogs like Carville, McAuliffe and others have backed off the bashing and realized it did them no good.

Unfortunately their side wasn't able to come up with as compelling a case as the Swiftvets group has in their book on the subject of Kerry's military history.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
I very much hope these two statements are in error and not a sincere gambit to altercate the prominent truth. The fact is, indirectly, the GOP financed the SwiftVet group. The fact that they are out and out lying and / or misleading the public is the reason as to why people have called for condemnation from the Bush group. No more honourable a vet / POW than John Mcain has come forward to say that this act is "dishonourable". Also, when the majority of these vets say they have "served" with Kerry, they mean that they have served in Vietnam, not side by side with Kerry, so what do they know but heresay?


The GOP has as much indirect financial stake as the DNC does in MoveOn.org

You can't possibly say otherwise, even though you have tried above.

A "prominent" GOP donor helped to fund the Swiftvets group. That is confirmed and acknowledged.

But it is just as obvious that Michael Moore and others that have contributed to the DNC (oh, wait, does he not admit to giving money to them?!?! Was it just lip service, and can't be confirmed?!) have contributed vast amounts of funds to MoveOn.

Again, Pot calling Kettle black.

You want it both ways. You want MoveOn to be free to spread their filth and utter garbage while taking away the attacks from the Swiftvets group.

Personally, the crap that I have seen come out of MoveOn is far more more objectionable and without any where near the basis in fact that I've seen come through in the Swiftvets group.

But in neither case has either candidate been shown to have contributed to the organizations, though both certainly stand to benefit from either respective side.


I stand behind the notion that the Bush campaign is under absolutely no obligation to even comment about the Swiftvets ads until or unless Kerry and his campaign denounce the ads and garbage that comes out of the likes of MoveOn, Michael Moore and friends.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
But in neither case has either candidate been shown to have contributed to the organizations, though both certainly stand to benefit from either respective side.


Do you believe that the candidates are trying to maintain an air of running a "clean" campaign while letting others do their dirty work for them? Before you get too riled up, I want to make clear that this question is not an attack of Dems or Repubs but a general political question.

On a side note, I have found www.factcheck.org to be an excellent site that is a "nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
The GOP has as much indirect financial stake as the DNC does in MoveOn.org

You can't possibly say otherwise, even though you have tried above.

A "prominent" GOP donor helped to fund the Swiftvets group. That is confirmed and acknowledged.

But it is just as obvious that Michael Moore and others that have contributed to the DNC (oh, wait, does he not admit to giving money to them?!?! Was it just lip service, and can't be confirmed?!) have contributed vast amounts of funds to MoveOn.

Now, don't go confusing yourself or others. It is just fine for independant people to contribute to groups that they believe in. There is a pungeant smell of backhanded dealing that goes along with DNC or RNC financing groups indirectly to smash candidates under the guise of them being independant, however. Do you follow? So, yes, it's just fine for Moore to come out with his factually true message by himself, but it would not be a moral act for the DNC to financially prop him or put him up to something like the RNC has. The check hasn't been cut from RNC hq, but don't think the plan of how to sink pretty boy Kerry has. I think you know this. Our laws do allow such things, but I find it repugnant.

One last example, to be clear. I can contribute to the DNC (not that I would), and they might speak a message my money has helped pay for, but it would be morally incorrect for me to be paid by them, then spread their message. Got me?

On the MoveOn message, perhaps you don't care for what they have to say, but they aren't lying about anything. Same with Moore. With the swiftvets, sorry, when John Mcain says you're wrong, you're wrong, and Mcain is voting for Bush, doesn't that say something to you?

Again, Pot calling Kettle black.

You want it both ways. You want MoveOn to be free to spread their filth and utter garbage while taking away the attacks from the Swiftvets group.

Obviously ( I hope it's obvious ) I don't want it both ways. If Moore or MoveOn were lying, I'd think it totally appropriate for Kerry to denounce their message as he would be the one to gain from it's slung mud. That isn't the case, however, the problem has been with Bush and the GOP, God rest their lying souls. I encourage you to research the SwiftVet program and fact check.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #23 By: Deference - 8/17/2004 2:44:12 PM


Deference - you are very well implying that the Swiftvets are lying. Have you researched their materials? Do you know for a fact that they are lying?

If you don't, then again, you are doing the same thing you accuse them of and deny that MoveOn/Moore, etc., have done.

And again, it's blatantly obvious that Moore is involved with the democratic party -- to the point of him sitting in the "presidential" box at the Democratic Convention.

Does that not mean that he is biased and shouldn't be allowed to put his "facts" out?


Turnabout is fairplay, even if you hate the message and can't dispute the facts.
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
Deference

If Moore or MoveOn were lying, I'd think it totally appropriate for Kerry to denounce their message as he would be the one to gain from it's slung mud. That isn't the case, however, the problem has been with Bush and the GOP, God rest their lying souls.


Micheal Moore may not be lying but he is not telling the full truth either. The next time you watch that movie of half truths and incomplete interviews you will hear him say "that only one member of congress has an enlisted son or daughter presently in the military". Over 15 others have had children serve as enlisted in the past and another 36 presently have children that are officers presently in service. I guess that having your children serving, as officers don't count to Mister Moore.

The last time I checked its the individuals choice to join the military, not the parents. It was nice of him to badger only congress men who had no children over the age of eighteen either.