terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Uh, oh! John Kerry's own AFTER ACTION report supports SBVT version of events

▼

Uh, oh! John Kerry's own AFTER ACTION report supports SBVT version of events

from PolMach Forums
http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040913.shtml

which pairs up (for anyone that still doesn't believe it) a nice FACSIMILE copy of the original John Kerry provided report.

http://www.newscentral.tv/thepoint/attachments/attachments.htm



So, keeping score:

Kerry was in Cambodia according to Kerry. Ooops, according to SBVT, nope. Clarified later - NOPE.

Kerry's version of events behind his rescue of Rasman (sp?). Correct to note that Kerry's boat was the ONLY one that left the area.

And now, the version of the events that Kerry reported matches the reports that were documented in the SBVT's book: Unfit for Command.


Oh yeah, these folks are just a bunch of discredited liars.
politics
7,890 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
for 42 of the past 54 years, being a vet was damn near a requirement for election to any office worth running for. the real irony is this: the party that made that happen is also the one that trashed 2 vets in the past 4 years.


You forgot to count Truman.
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top


first point this is 2004 election and NOT 2000! And as such ads that were run for the 2000 campaign should have absolutely NO bearing on THIS campaign!
second point landing a jet on a carrier is NOT saying look at me I'm a hero (like Kerry is trying to do!)! The mission accomplished banner has ALREADY been proven NOT to be his idea! It was the SHIP's idea! And it was pure chance that it ended up in the photo! Get a grip!


Please think your positions through longer than one second before posting, you may find that you can respond with a well formed idea.

Bush's campaign in 2000 is still relevant because he has been president since that time and is running for re-election. There is a very distinct reason he isn't running on an overt "I'm a military man" campaign this time. Becuase he has no legs to stand on against his competitor. Any objective political analyst can tell you that. He backed off the fight because he can't win it. Which is an obviously smart strategy for him.

As an occasional TXNG member Bush trained to fly fighter jets. When he put on a flight suit and landed as CO-PILOT on that aircraft carrier, do you seriously think it had nothing to do with bolstering his past into a present military image?

And do you seriously think for a second that he would arrange for his big TV special appearance without knowing everything beforehand? Seriously, do you think that the president's handlers would not have the forethought to check everything out in advance to the last detail when it comes to a huge PR stunt? If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news) that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration that hung that banner, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong on that fact.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
As an occasional TXNG member Bush trained to fly fighter jets. When he put on a flight suit and landed as CO-PILOT on that aircraft carrier, do you seriously think it had nothing to do with bolstering his past into a present military image?


You said it, he flew fighter jets, so what would stop him from trying to fly another jet, after all now nobody is going to say no, and flying jets is fun, after all most jet pilots love to fly their entire life.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #27 By: 1tomot1 - 9/16/2004 6:35:41 PM



first point this is 2004 election and NOT 2000! And as such ads that were run for the 2000 campaign should have absolutely NO bearing on THIS campaign!
second point landing a jet on a carrier is NOT saying look at me I'm a hero (like Kerry is trying to do!)! The mission accomplished banner has ALREADY been proven NOT to be his idea! It was the SHIP's idea! And it was pure chance that it ended up in the photo! Get a grip!


Please think your positions through longer than one second before posting, you may find that you can respond with a well formed idea.

Bush's campaign in 2000 is still relevant because he has been president since that time and is running for re-election. There is a very distinct reason he isn't running on an overt "I'm a military man" campaign this time. Becuase he has no legs to stand on against his competitor. Any objective political analyst can tell you that. He backed off the fight because he can't win it. Which is an obviously smart strategy for him.

As an occasional TXNG member Bush trained to fly fighter jets. When he put on a flight suit and landed as CO-PILOT on that aircraft carrier, do you seriously think it had nothing to do with bolstering his past into a present military image?

And do you seriously think for a second that he would arrange for his big TV special appearance without knowing everything beforehand? Seriously, do you think that the president's handlers would not have the forethought to check everything out in advance to the last detail when it comes to a huge PR stunt? If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news) that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration that hung that banner, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong on that fact.


I'm looking. And I do think longer than 1 second before posting, wise-guy! And I STILL say that the 2000 campaign should have NOTHING to do with 2004! It's a different time and a LOT has happened between then and now! And he's NOT running on the same issues.
BTW I NEVER claimed he was the aircrafts pilot! And I still say it took alot of guts to do it! I've done it just "once" and believe me I would NOT care to do it again!
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
for 42 of the past 54 years, being a vet was damn near a requirement for election to any office worth running for. the real irony is this: the party that made that happen is also the one that trashed 2 vets in the past 4 years.


Yeah I know the DNC is evil, but than again Truman was in the service, JFK was in, Eisenhower, don't think FDR was(?), before FDR I am fuzzy except for Teddy Roosevelt, US Grant, Andrew Jackson, George Washington, pretty much looks like to be considered a good american president you HAD to have served in the US Military.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #7 By: 1tomot1 - 9/15/2004 8:40:47 PM
It seems pretty safe to assume most of these posts are coming from people that don't support Kerry?

Well, let me get this straight:
Kerry actaully went to Vietnam and risked his life. Bush didn't.
Kerry actually engaged in miltary combat. Bush didn't.
Kerry's served his full tour without any doubt. Bush? Well, that one's still up in the air.
Bush did use wealthy elite establishment ties to avoid risking his neck. Kerry didn't. Even privileged Al Gore actually went to Vietnam.
Cheney never served either in the about eight wars he's been around long enough to fight in. Kerry did.

And there's an argument going on about what medals Kerry really deserves? As opposed to his opponents who both used privilege to avoid actual combat and never put themselves into a position where they could earn a medal?

Please.


BTW and just for the record. It's been proven before that GW volunteered to go to Vietnam as a pilot and was turned down. Not once but twice.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news)


And just "where" do you get off calling Fox pseudo news? Fox is about the ONLY one who will show BOTH sides, irregardless of who is made to look bad.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news) that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration that hung that banner, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong on that fact.


Okay the only offense I have with that statement is that Drudge is bundled up in that, DRUDGE BOWS DOWN TO NO CORPORATION LIKE MSNBC, CBS,etc. do
Drudge is the most unbiased (albeit sometimes he is wacky) source of news and I think you should realize that if you bundled Drudge up with that than you are only looking at Biased half-truthful or false news, all News Networks loathe Drudge, but they respect him because he does go after all the news, and I think you should rethink that statement and not bundle Drudge in it.

Drudge spends his whole day dealing with the news, there is no pseudo to it, I think you are just pissed at Drudge because he pissed in your Wheaties by showing the whole side of the issue instead of the side that only you want shown.

Everything is a debate, there are two sides to everything, but no for some people only their side is true
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news)


Wait a minute. So all of those are not respectable media sources? What about CBS? They ran a story slamming Bush and his time in the guard, based on a memo that has been all but proven to be a forgery? Then, when confronted by this, the copy editors state that although the document may be false, they are sure that the content is true, but just because? How does that work? IMHO, that is not respectable reporting. Maybe you just forgot to include CBS in your statement? Or do you not care that they did this? I don't find CBS unrespectable because of this, but I am not impressed by their obviously slanted stance or the unrespectable editors that allowed the story to be run on such skim "evidence."

Please don't say that Drudge and Fox are not respectable simply because they run stories that you don't like.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top


Please don't say that Drudge and Fox are not respectable simply because they run stories that you don't like.


First I'll go ahead and out my cards on the table to eliminate some of the misguided reponses to my posts.

1. I am not a Democrat.
2. I am not and never have been a Clinton supporter (though with the current folly-laden administration he's looking better all the time).
3. Nor am I a disgruntled Gore supporter (didn't vote for him and his platform was more moderate Republican than anything else).

Now, on to Fox "news" etc. Any truly objective person should be disgusted by Fox. The past year has seen the release of two long term studies of their reporting and how "informed" their primary audience is. Both studies have shown that on major issues affecting America right now, over 50% of people that rely primarily on Fox for news had extreme misconceptions about what's happening in our world.

One study found that over 60% of Fox viewers actually believed there were connections between Saddam, 9/11, and Al-Qaeda. Even after Colin Powell himself said plain and clear that there is NO evidence of such a connection.

Another study found that about the same amount of Fox viewers actually believed that WMD had been found in Iraq. Once again, despite multiple Bush administration figures stating that most likely none will ever be found. Once again this is a case where Powell set the record straight yet somehow Fox and its viewers keep getting it wrong.

If those two examples aren't enough...um....geez go back to watching that special on the hunt for Bigfoot.

O'Reilly & Limbaugh? Well for one, an open ended editorial isn't NEWS, it's OPINION. It doesn't help O'Reilly that he has been proven completely wrong too many times to count. And Limbaugh? Well, can you really trust a drug addict that spent half his time talking about what scum drug users are for years? Please.

Drudge? I'll hand it to him that he does have tenacity, and he surely puts a lot into what he does. But when you run stories that are as credible as that CBS memo every five minutes where does that leave you? Anywhere near journalistic integrity? I think a fair and balanced person would have to say no.

And that's the problem with all of the aforementioned sources. They all play loose with the facts, stretch the truth, or are outright biased to the point it ceases to amaze.

That's the whole point, when I watch or read NEWS I want NEWS not stories, fairytales, and propaganda.
Reply #36 from PolMach Forums Top
Drudge? I'll hand it to him that he does have tenacity, and he surely puts a lot into what he does. But when you run stories that are as credible as that CBS memo every five minutes where does that leave you? Anywhere near journalistic integrity? I think a fair and balanced person would have to say no.


Name one, come on and name one. If it's a linked article that Drudge linked to another one than that does not count, but if it was a Drudge written article it does, understand?

Proof needed to back up your statement needed here.
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top


If it's a linked article that Drudge linked to another one


That's the point. All too often his content is of the caliber that you describe. And who makes the decision to post these to his site? Somebody other than Drudge?

Exactly.

A clear and consistent example of bad judgement. For example I researched a particularly questionable piece on his site and you know what I found? The alleged news source didn't even publish the article or have it in the archive. I did track down the source and you know where it came from? A conspiracy theory website.

By the way. Nice dodge on everything else.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top
WHAT ARTICLE, come on just one.
Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
And do you seriously think for a second that he would arrange for his big TV special appearance without knowing everything beforehand? Seriously, do you think that the president's handlers would not have the forethought to check everything out in advance to the last detail when it comes to a huge PR stunt? If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news) that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration that hung that banner, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong on that fact.


Just so you know here we go on that since you have a thing against Drugde I have a thing against you (i.e. Bush and Kerry fanatics do the same damn thing) All Material non-Drudge, non Fox, non Limbaugh, non O'Reilly as per your instructions.

CNN: White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign [LINK]
MSNBC: Rove regrets using banner declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’as backdrop [LINK]
Common Dreams Newscenter: Bush Remarks on "Mission Accomplished" Banner Embarrass White House [LINK]
SFGATE: Bush disavows 'Mission Accomplished' banner on aircraft carrier; White House clarifies [LINK]

and finally if you have not figured out that it was the aircraft carrier's banner than here is the nail.
Department of Defense 2003 Report on Speech (cannot be altered by law): President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq

How about this while I was finding all this information I found out more info than I cared to want to know about the whole situation including that right in the speech he said:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

Well damn difficult part was ahead and well lookey here we are in the difficult part that was ahead...Saddam was easy, bringing order is not.

Here is the common misconception or to put it bluntly lie:
"Mission Accomplished": Anatomy of a Deadly Lie seems to me they did not know the NAVY put it up not Bush, so using a half-truth (i.e. Bush was there and so was the sign) the tell the lie that Bush put up the sign, which the only truth to it was Bush was there and so was the sign, but Bush did not have anything to do with the sign. Come on do some research on it before you just go off and insult the Drudge.

So all in all despite somethings I did not know and know now well well well Bush despite the fact that I still don't like him did not lie about the Mission Accomplished Banner, he did say the difficult part was still ahead after we toppled Saddam and here's the key, he never said it was
going to be easy after major conflict was over. So, in conclusion dig deeper next time Sherlock.

Also for those who are going to nitpick his speech, since everybody does it to me when I picked on Kerry's supposed controversial speech READ THE DAMN FULL TRANSCRIPT!!!

And here's the link:
White House: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended Speech [LINK]
Once again cannot be altered by law and if you complain it is than so was Clinton's because if one did so did the other.

Also it includes AUDIO and VIDEO, next time don't pick on the Drudge, after all, all non-Drudge written articles can be checked and if you don't agree than you don't agree, still would like to SEE that article you are accusing him off.

If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news) that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration that hung that banner, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong on that fact.


Better get that apology ready I am sure drmiler would like to hear it.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
And here's the link:
White House: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended Speech [LINK]
Once again cannot be altered by law and if you complain it is than so was Clinton's because if one did so did the other.

Also it includes AUDIO and VIDEO, next time don't pick on the Drudge, after all, all non-Drudge written articles can be checked and if you don't agree than you don't agree, still would like to SEE that article you are accusing him off.

If you can find one respectable media source (no O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Drudge/Fox pseudo news) that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration that hung that banner, I will apologize and admit that I was wrong on that fact.


Better get that apology ready I am sure drmiler would like to hear it.


I sure would! And thank you ShoZan. You just saved me a lot of work!
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
The challenge was "If you can find one respectable media source that confirms that it was the ship without any knowledge from the administration."

If you had read your own links you would have come across this: "ship’s crew asked for the sign and that THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF HAD IT MADE."

No apologies in order, however I will thank you for strengthening my point.

If you read not only the article "Bush proclaims end to major combat ops in Iraq," but the full text of his comments at the bottom as well, my case is made even stronger. Everything he talks about in the speech is in the past tense. He declared major combat over in Iraq!

Please thoroughly read what you suggested that I read. It is very clear that he and his advisers actually thought the war was over (mission accomplished?) and that all they had left to do was track down the last of the fleeing Baathists and establish a new government. Of course he regretted it later, what politician wouldn't regret that large of a mistake.

Drudge again: I would love to provide you with the Drudge article, unfortunately that was almost a year and a half ago. I no longer remember what the article was, only the circumstance. Why can I remember the circumstance and not the article? I rember because I used to check Drudge every once in a while and it was after coming across that article that I quit reading Drudge altogether.