NationStates Jolt Archive

Many so called sources are not trying to attack John Kerry's military record, by having several "witnessess" speak against him.

The truth about his record and what these people say, are two very different things.

"A new ad by an independent group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks John Kerry's service in Vietnam. Some of the evidence presented by the group, however, fails to back up allegations presented in the ad. And some reporters and pundits are already spinning the facts about members of the group.





The group's ad repeatedly accuses Kerry of lying - an inflammatory charge that the ad presents no evidence to support. On its website the group provides supporting materials, but the charges often boil down to disputed accounts to which there is no definitive resolution.

For example, the commercial features one veteran, Louis Letson, who states that "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." In backup documentation on the website, Letson, a former military doctor, describes the treatment he gave Kerry: removing a small piece of shrapnel from his arm and applying a bandage. (Letson, however, did not sign the medical treatment report of Kerry's injury.) While the group suggests that the injury was minor, the extent of the injury does not matter according to the Navy's criteria for Purple Heart eligibility, only that it was received by enemy fire.

Letson speculates that the wound could have been caused by shrapnel from a mortar fired by Kerry himself, which may have exploded close enough to the boat to cause such an injury. Letson, however, was not present during the firefight, and bases his accusation on the contested accounts of others. This is extremely thin evidence upon which to directly accuse Kerry of lying.

A second example is the dispute surrounding Kerry's Silver Star. In the ad, Kerry's former commanding officer George Elliott, who recommended Kerry for the medal, states that "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." In an affidavit, Elliott states, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."

However, as FactCheck.org pointed out, Elliott himself admits that his contention is not based on first-hand knowledge, but rather upon his own reading of other versions of events, including Kerry's own account in a biography by Douglas Brinkley. Moreover, Elliott's claim in his affidavit mischaracterizes the official citation, which awarded Kerry the medal for two ambushes - not just the specific killing of a member of the Viet Cong. (Last week Elliott appeared to retract his criticisms in a Boston Globe article, but later issued a statement reaffirming it.)

In short, the evidence upon which the group has based its claims of lying falls short, for the moment, of definitively proving these charges.

Unsurprisingly, however, the group's allegations are already being distorted. While none of the veterans filmed in the ad served in either of the swift boats Kerry commanded in the war, the group's technically true claim that the men "served with" John Kerry is already leading some pundits and journalists to exaggerate their relationship to the Massachusetts senator.

Fox News Channel has seen several instances of such distortion. As the liberal group Media Matters pointed out, Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity and Pat Halpin both claimed that the men were "some of his crewmates" on August 4, and Catherine Herridge introduced the ad as " featuring some of John Kerry's Vietnam crewmates" on August 6. Such exaggerations take the technically true claim that the veterans served with Kerry and spin it into a misleading talking point.

Perhaps the release of the book Unfit for Command will provide more definitive evidence. But the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad and website do not prove several of the group's charges.


The above was taken from www.spinsanity.org a bi-partisan site that debunks the media spin from BOTH parties.

Good post. Right on man.
You hear Savage today? He got so "pissed" about no one running this against Kerry in mainstream enough that he gave up his third hour for reruns on the gunnery sergeant's "testimony" (the first call he got about the whole thing) after basically "pthpbpt"-ing his listeners and saying good night.
He's amusing when his little "Norman" homonculum digs around at him and he starts speaking in third person. Just what the "right" needs to rep them, good thing Savage recently, more and more, is publicly distancing himself (in word) from the Repubs.

Good post. Right on man.
You hear Savage today? He got so "pissed" about no one running this against Kerry in mainstream enough that he gave up his third hour for reruns on the gunnery sergeant's "testimony" (the first call he got about the whole thing) after basically "pthpbpt"-ing his listeners and saying good night.
He's amusing when his little "Norman" homonculum digs around at him and he starts speaking in third person. Just what the "right" needs to rep them, good thing Savage recently, more and more, is publicly distancing himself (in word) from the Repubs.


Savage is a certifiable nutcase.

His real name is Weiner.

Appropriate.

SHUT UP BACKWOODS! The swiftboat men are trying to tell the honest truth and you go around and try to cover that up lies! SHAME ON YOU!

SHUT UP BACKWOODS! The swiftboat men are trying to tell the honest truth and you go around and try to cover that up lies! SHAME ON YOU!

Did you read the article, it pretty much destroys their ad.

stopjohn.com (http://www.stopjohn.com)


Learn the truth about John Kerry.

stopjohn.com (http://www.stopjohn.com)


Learn the truth about John Kerry.

You believe this, I've read through 3 articles, non of them are substantiated (the one about the vet against him doesn't even mention why he is against him, or why he keeps referring to the candidates as "The Kerry" or "the Bush"), and the one about the democratic creed does not only contain lies (sarin gas?), but a huge amount of generalizations.

In the Q&A part, it does not show the truth behind half the statements (he has revealed his plan against terror, to a point anyway). The part about him not increasing funding, makes the erroneous and outrageous claim that he did it becuase he wanted to soldiers to fail (not the truth), and that liberals only want more money for taxes. How will he afford better healthcare, by making working Americans pay for it (if you have health insurance, you already do anyway), but your right, fuck the elderly, who needs 'em they just take up space and drive like sh*t. I'm not old or lazy, I guess I'm an anomaly, and this idea is not against the principles of this country, which is to look after the less fortunate and protect the minority interests.

Yea, those damn teachers, they know nothing about what the schools need, I mean, it's not like they work there or anything. The last part about abortion is simply enraging.

Listen, the navy says he should get hismedals,he gets them, fair and sqare. Bt the book tries to convince you that kerry is, after all, Unfit for Command. They have several officers testifying and giving muchmore proof than the 9 swiftboat buddies. And after all, Kerry's campaign is running on only 2 things: peoples unrelenting and sometimes reasonless hate of bush, and his vietnam service. When that's hecase, a big open discussion about his service is in order, and you have to admit that, regardless of party standing.

Listen, the navy says he should get hismedals,he gets them, fair and sqare. Bt the book tries to convince you that kerry is, after all, Unfit for Command. They have several officers testifying and giving muchmore proof than the 9 swiftboat buddies. And after all, Kerry's campaign is running on only 2 things: peoples unrelenting and sometimes reasonless hate of bush, and his vietnam service. When that's hecase, a big open discussion about his service is in order, and you have to admit that, regardless of party standing.


Actually, thats not true.

The site I took that article from, www.Spinsanity.org is all about the media spin that both parties are doing.
None more so than the Bush camp.
The reason for this is that Bush's policies, and track record thus far is so terrible, that they are doing whatever they can to highlight anything negative about Kerry, even if that means that they have to attack his war record.

Problem is, that his record is pretty good.

Unlike Bush's.

Good work BackwoodsSquatches , I seen them pretty much debunked on a few shows on TV, but a lot of the neo-cons wouldn't take my word for it (go figure), nice to see you found some hard evidence to back it up. Way to go :)

Must See TV!

Click (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_9016.html)

The only distortions or even lies about Kerry's war time escapades are probably those centering on Kerry say that he did some ops in Cambodia.

Thats it.

The only distortions or even lies about Kerry's war time escapades are probably those centering on Kerry say that he did some ops in Cambodia.

Thats it.

If he did do any special ops in Cambodia, given the position of the American government at the time on Cambodia, they will deny it.

If he did do any special ops in Cambodia, given the position of the American government at the time on Cambodia, they will deny it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/12/wus12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/12/ixportal.html

(another librul media outlet....)

Here's a thought!

If what the Swiftees are saying against Kerry is False, then Kerry should sue! Hell John O'Neil is asking Kerry to sue him. What does that say?

Here's a thought!

If what the Swiftees are saying against Kerry is False, then Kerry should sue! Hell John O'Neil is asking Kerry to sue him. What does that say?

That John O'Neill is a lawyer, and who realizes that it is almost impossible to sue for libel if you're a public figure.

Remember, as someone said last night, "Lawyers will say anything".

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

That John O'Neill is a lawyer, and who realizes that it is almost impossible to sue for libel if you're a public figure.

Remember, as someone said last night, "Lawyers will say anything".

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

Yea Laywers will say anything however, if someone is asking someone else to him, then normally that means they have nothing to hide.

Goes to read Unfit For Command for abit

Yea Laywers will say anything however, if someone is asking someone else to him, then normally that means they have nothing to hide.

To sue him, you mean?

You don't think that John O'Neill realizes that? This whole "Swift Boats Vet" thing is a republican dirty tricks operation, paid for by Texas Republicans. They threw a book's worth of crap at Kerry, and a little bit might stick.

It's ironic to me because Bush and Cheney are practically pathological liars, and Bush has provably lied about his war record. (Both in the TANG and starting wars.)

To sue him, you mean?

You don't think that John O'Neill realizes that? This whole "Swift Boats Vet" thing is a republican dirty tricks operation, paid for by Texas Republicans. They threw a book's worth of crap at Kerry, and a little bit might stick.

It's ironic to me because Bush and Cheney are practically pathological liars, and Bush has provably lied about his war record. (Both in the TANG and starting wars.)

They are an independent Group Upright! They have full right to say what they are saying and I find it awful that the Democratic Party is trying to silence them! The Republican Party isn't trying to stop Moveon.org from broadcasting the junk they are broadcasting so why is the Democratic Party trying to stop the Swiftees? What do they have to fear? That makes me think Kerry has something to hide. That is what I find Shameful. We have Freedom of Speech and the DNC is trying to silence this group!

Besides there are 60 people speaking out against him. SIXTY!!!! Kerry has yet to say a word in his defense! He's letting lawyers and pundits do the talking for him. That IS NOT being a LEADER! A leader confronts this with head held high and doesn't let people below him answer these types of allegations.

These type of things are almost near impossible to sue over, trust me these lying sack of sheet vets against Kerry know that, it's not like it was their first time up to bat, they are the exact same people who went after John McCain.

Click In Case You Missed It The First Time! (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_9016.html)

They are an independent Group Upright!

Just because you read something, doesn't mean it's true.

John O'Neill was hand-picked by then-President Nixon to attack the claims of Kerry, then a vietnam vet protesting against the war. O'Neill worked for "Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace", a purportedly independent organization set up by Nixon's chief counsel. Although O'Neill claims he voted for Perot in 1992, political records show that he gave $$ to Bush's father.

The "Swift Boat Veterans" web site was set up by Lewis Waterman, who works for Gannon Incorporated. He's admitted the CEO asked him to do it - a friend of Ashcroft's and a Republican activist and financier.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=William_Edward_Franke

It was announced by a public relations firm run by Merrrie Spaeth, the widow of one of George W Bush's Texas running mates.

What, did you think they were going to announce themselves as a dirty tricks operation?

Think about this - if they're lying about being independent, what else are they lying about?

The Republican Party isn't trying to stop Moveon.org from broadcasting the junk they are broadcasting

That is, again, false. Move On was not allowed to broadcast a (mild) anti-Bush ad during the superbowl, although Bush ads equating drugs and terrorism were allowed to run.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0405/S00166.htm

ya know, im always left wondering why this doesnt backfire big time on the conservatives

many thousands of medals have been given out during and after vietnam. there were more medals GIVEN for our little whatever it was in grenada than there were people who were sent there. grenada, nicaragua, somalia, the former yugoslavia, afghanistan, iraq 1&2, ive probably forgotten some

thousands of men and women have received purple hearts. now many of them were crippled, maimed, mutilated. but you KNOW that thousands received a purple heart for less serious wounds. wounds that were not life threatening, wounds like john kerry got.

why are THEY not incensed at the suggestion that kerrys medals were not deserved? if kerrys werent,THEIRS werent. shouldnt they be pissed that these <insert bad word of your choice> think that "their" purple hearts are worthless?

These type of things are almost near impossible to sue over, trust me these lying sack of sheet vets against Kerry know that, it's not like it was their first time up to bat, they are the exact same people who went after John McCain.

Click In Case You Missed It The First Time! (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_9016.html)

Comedy Central? HAHA give me a CREDIBLE news source! Steph, I advise you to read the book. I am reading it now!

And how do you know they are lying? Because the DNC says they are? Steph, here's a tip. Look into ALL ASPECTS of this and not just one side. Your a liberal and this I know but for once in you liberal mind, INVESTIGATE! You always tell me to investigate and so has my mom and frankly, I am investigating. I'm investigating all sides of this.

Just because they are speaking out DOES NOT mean they are lying. However, Kerry hasn't come out himself to refute this. Cable Stations have been threatened by DNC Lawyers if they run their ad! That is in violation of These peoples rights to be heard. Why? I haven't yet heard an answer to this question!

Why isn't Kerry coming out against this? Does he have something to hide? I know that Bush has no affiliation with this group but he respects their right to be heard.

Before you say they are lying Steph, In-Vest-Ig-Ate! I know I am. Put your social mind to the task.

Now if you excuse me, I got more reading todo before I have to post again.

Besides there are 60 people speaking out against him. SIXTY!!!!

Maybe Kerry - like Bush - doesn't base his actions on a "focus group"? http://www.iht.com/articles/87216.html

Most of these people didn't know John Kerry, and several - like O'Neill - weren't even in Vietnam at the same time he was. Why should we take O'Neill's word on Kerry's fitness to serve?

The reason they're coming out and attacking Kerry is because of the strong anti-war stance he took after he returned.

At the time, Kerry's commanding officer LCDR George Elliot had this to say about him:
December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott: In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Elliott is one of the Swift Boat vets - he's recanted, then de-recanted. He's said that he now wouldn't approve Kerry's Silver Star - but he misstated what Kerry actually got the Silver Star for! He's said that he felt he was under "time pressure" to sign the original affidavit.

Kerry has yet to say a word in his defense! He's letting lawyers and pundits do the talking for him. That IS NOT being a LEADER! A leader confronts this with head held high and doesn't let people below him answer these types of allegations.

Please, if you will, point me towards the press conferences and interviews where Bush actually confronted the allegations that he was AWOL during his time in the TANG?

oh for gods sake formal
does it reallymake sense to you that you would remember something that happened on someone elses boat better than those who were on that boat

more that 30 years later??

its not like john kerry was famous then, they had no special reason to remember.

do you REALLY think that a doctor is going to remember ONE non life threatening wound more than 30 years afterwards? that he can be SURE that the one he remembers is john kerry?

its bullshit.

and yes i get all my fake news from the daily show. jon stewart has a bullshit meter that cant be beat.

And he was promptly marked down in Leadership attributes and military bearing. His fitreps aren't even that good! One highly Recommended (not bad but definitely not good), a Recommend (bad but not to bad) and a Recommended for promotion but not with his peers (Very Bad)! Why did he get a Highly recommended for Lt JG but yet when it came to LT, he was constently marked down and passed over?

Upright Monkey, do you know precisely how to read a fitrep?

An Introduction to Navy Fitness Reports

Navy officer fitness reports ("FITREPs") are of vital importance. Selection boards use them to promote the officer. Assignment officers use them to “sell” the officer into his or her next assignment. Only truly outstanding officers get the best jobs (or “billets”). Officers with adverse or spotty records are unsalable for anything but the most backwater assignments.

To read and understand FITREPs correctly, there are several crucial things to understand.

Dings and RAPs

First and foremost, a FITREP is a relative picture. You are not reading absolutes. If an officer is graded, say, as “outstanding,” it is meaningful only if he is ranked ahead of his contemporaries and the rest of the FITREP contains no glaring negatives.

Second, what matters most are marks or grades above and especially below the norm. Marks below the norm may fall under a very positive word (e.g., “excellent”) and appear positive to the casual reader, but no matter: any mark to the right of the norm is a strong, clear sign to both promotion boards and assignment officers (e.g., “detailers”) that there is a performance shortfall. A mark to the right is a “ding.” You don’t want a ding in your FITREP.

Third, what is not said in the narrative section is just as important as what is said. The truly superlative officer should be “RAPped,” meaning "Recommended for accelerated promotion." If Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the officer should be considered for promotion along with the rest of his year group (all those commissioned in a given fiscal year constitute a “year group”). In the context of other marks and remarks, a “Recommended for promotion” mark means that the officer may just be average, called a “pack player.”

NOTE: An officer “Not Recommended for Promotion” is an officer in deep trouble. In a combat zone, failure to recommend for promotion may be indicative of problems in conduct, not just performance.

Key: Would His Commander Want Him to Command?

Fourth, if the officer is an Unrestricted Line Officer, he or she is in line for operational command (of a ship, an aviation squadron, etc.). Thus, one the most important marks on a FITREP for a line officer is “desirability for command,” referred to in the shorthand of selection boards and detailers as “command.” Thus, for a seagoing officer, a “ding in command” is big trouble. Likewise with the skill of “seamanship and ship handling”: a ship-driver “dinged in ship handling” is in big trouble.

As a footnote, line officers must win qualification as a Officer of the Deck for formation steaming [“OOD(F)”] that officer who stands watch on the bridge and is responsible for ship movement (and, frankly, everything that happens on that ship) while “formation steaming” or steaming in company with other ships. Officers must first qualify as OOD while in port [OOD(P) and subsequently for independent steaming [OOD(I)]. The quicker the climb to OOD(F) the better.

Also, Unrestricted Line Officers aboard ships (now called “Surface Warfare Officers”) must strive to be recommended for Navy Destroyer School which prepares the junior officer for his pivotal tour as a Lieutenant or Lieutenant (j.g.) -- a department head tour aboard a destroyer. A recommendation in a FITREP for Destroyer School is meaningful, however, if and only if the officer has qualified as OOD(F). The CO must qualify the officer as OOD for in-formation steaming; otherwise a Destroyer School recommendation is empty.

Thus, for the junior officer aboard ship, the number one performance goal is: qualify as OOD(F) and get recommended for Destroyer School. The unwritten rule is, don’t leave your first ship without the OOD(F) qualification.

Language and Other Signals

Fifth, FITREP language tends to be positive for officers who perform at a reasonably satisfactory level. That way, the FITREP tends to be a motivational tool to keep the officer on the right performance track. Thus, when COs feel the need to convey a signal to selection boards and detailers about performance that is lackluster, they will use code words. “Potential” is one of the key negative code words. Genuinely excellent officers should be performing; if they merely demonstrate “potential,” even “great potential,” this is read as a clear signal from the Commanding Officer that they are not performing.

Another signal is “trend of performance.” Unless it’s a “first report,” all good officers should be marked as “improving,” never “consistent” and certainly not “declining.”

Still another signal, particularly for line officers, is the broad categories of content in the narrative. A line officer’s FITREP should be glowing in praise of his or her ship handling and leadership abilities. Selection boards want to know how this officer performs on the bridge, not in some significantly less important collateral duty (e.g., public affairs officer). A CO who emphasizes performance in collateral duties is signaling that there is something lacking on the bridge.

Sixth, there can be no gaps. There must be one continuous thread of fitness reports in an officer’s jacket.

Seventh, it’s the operational tours that count. As long as the officer passes the school and stays out trouble, FITREPs from school commands don’t matter much.

Eighth, selection boards and detailers will examine the way the Commanding Officer grades his or her officers. Some of their considerations:

o They are looking for “good break-outs,” reports that clearly identify top-performers (called “water-walkers”) and distinguish them from “pack-plus” officers (above average performers) or “pack” officers (average). When a CO writes a “gift” FITREP (ranks everyone as top performers), boards and detailers tend to discount such “easy graders” and will look to a subsequent report for a clearer performance picture from another CO.

o Glowing, end-of-tour FITREPs are often viewed as “swan song” FITREPs (the officer is usually ranked 1 of 1) and don’t matter nearly as much as in-tour FITREPs when the officer is ranked with his or her peers. (Of course, if an officer is smacked in an end-of-tour report, you can be assured that boards sit up and pay close attention.)

Now, I could go into Kerry's FitRep but alas, I bet half the people on here will counter it!

Goes back to reading her book

Comedy Central? HAHA give me a CREDIBLE news source! Steph, I advise you to read the book. I am reading it now!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2001983225_kay20.html

Only television critics, for instance, would have conferred this year's prize for outstanding news and information programming to Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" — vaulting it over rivals like PBS' "Frontline" and ABC's "Nightline."

It was a decision made on both merit and message. As my cross-town rival, Melanie McFarland of the Post-Intelligencer, said when presenting the award, at a time when the mainstream media seem cowed, Jon Stewart and company embody "a core of truth."

One of the big spin points of "Unfit to Command" is that Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted, and he recommended himself for purple hearts based on them. They've offered no proof of that - and their "doctor" isn't even the person who signed the paperwork! One of the senior people who signed the document claimed to have "known Kerry well", but then later admitted he rarely saw him and barely knew him.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050007
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/003963.html

Joe Conason interviewed people quoted in the book, some of whom claim that the private detective hired to dig up dirt on Kerry put words in their mouths.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/07/16/swift_boat_veterans/index_np.html


I'd say you're either pretty bad at differentiating good sources from bad sources, or you're believing what you want to believe.

Please, if you will, point me towards the press conferences and interviews where Bush actually confronted the allegations that he was AWOL during his time in the TANG?

I'm tired of you bashing Kerry while ignoring that Bush lies almost reflexively.

oh for gods sake formal
does it reallymake sense to you that you would remember something that happened on someone elses boat better than those who were on that boat

more that 30 years later??

its not like john kerry was famous then, they had no special reason to remember.

Frankly, I wouldn't care HOWEVER he is basing his WHOLE CAMPAIGN on this issue. That is why it matters. People gotta know how to read a fitrep. You can bet your butt that most in the military are reading Kerry's fitrep and are shaking their heads over it.

Frankly, I wouldn't care HOWEVER he is basing his WHOLE CAMPAIGN on this issue.

Except that he isn't. Kerry mentioned Vietnam twice in his nomination speech, neither time in the context you're implying.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html

We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals – and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.

I ask you to judge me by my record: As a young prosecutor, I fought for victim's rights and made prosecuting violence against women a priority. When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.

And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW's and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam.

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.

My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high. We are a nation at war – a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before. And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends; they're working two jobs, three jobs, and they're still not getting ahead.

We're told that outsourcing jobs is good for America. We're told that new jobs that pay $9,000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best we can do. They say this is the best economy we've ever had. And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. Well, here is our answer: There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can't do better.

We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people. And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves – and we can do it again.

[...]
And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.


So, since he isn't basing his whole campaign on the issue, you're going to apologize and never mention the subject again, right? Since you don't care now, right?

But he keeps bringing it up in every speech. Yea he may be on the issues but Vietnam is formost. That is why his record is getting scrutinized. As I said I could post what Kerry's FITREPS are saying and just maybe you'll understand why he isn't fit to lead.

That IS NOT being a LEADER!

Are you suggesting even for a moment that your LEADER (Bush), is somehow a man of action and Kerry is not?

At least Kerry went to Viet Nam and faced the enemy, and took on enemy fire.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Bush was AWOL in his own country?

Are you suggesting even for a moment that your LEADER (Bush), is somehow a man of action and Kerry is not?

At least Kerry went to Viet Nam and faced the enemy, and took on enemy fire.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Bush was AWOL in his own country?

Then why in his fitreps was he marked down in judgement and other attributes while in theater?

What Do the Kerry FITREPs Really Say?

Knowing the above, what do the FITREPs selectively released by the Kerry campaign say about John Kerry as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy?

Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.

I think that the fact the John Kerry SERVED IN Viet Nam shows more character and courage than George Bush serving in the National Guard (dispite his records being mysteriously distroyed about a month ago.)

But he keeps bringing it up in every speech. Yea he may be on the issues but Vietnam is formost. That is why his record is getting scrutinized.

That's slightly more naive than I would have expected - his record is geting scrutinized because it's a political campaign. There are people poring over Kerry and Edwards' entire lives looking for 'dirt', real or imagined.

If Kerry hadn't mentioned Vietnam even once, he would still have been attacked. When do you think the research for this book started, or when the advance was signed? How much had Kerry talked about Vietnam then?

As I said I could post what Kerry's FITREPS are saying and just maybe you'll understand why he isn't fit to lead.

I guess that means that John McCain and Tommy Franks can't read a FITREP as well as you can, huh?

Then why in his fitreps was he marked down in judgement and other attributes while in theater?

Because he was about the same age as when our current President was experiementing with drunken driving and drugs?

Because he was about the same age as when our current President was experiementing with drunken driving and drugs?

That actually makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Again, why was he marked DOWN (bad for an officer) in his fitreps in judgement (Important in combat) and other attributes(Like Leadership) while in theater?

That actually makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Again, why was he marked DOWN (bad for an officer) in his fitreps in judgement (Important in combat) and other attributes(Like Leadership) while in theater?

The sense is in the fact that people change. Attributes change and mature over the years. Some people gain in areas like judgement and leadership while others stop drinking because they realize they have a problem. To judge the man's ability to be President of this country by something that happened thirty years ago is as bad as raising the terror level alert based on information that's four years old...

Oh, wait...

This doesn't really matter, everyone knows no one in his right mind would vote for such a person.

This doesn't really matter, everyone knows no one in his right mind would vote for such a person.

Hopefully Bush does get his 2nd term! Kerry would be a disaster in the War on Terror and in Iraq.

Hopefully Bush does get his 2nd term! Kerry would be a disaster in the War on Terror and in Iraq.

Hmm... duck and running... avoiding losing arguments... spouting out rote talking points...

You'll be a great Republican someday.

Hmm... duck and running... avoiding losing arguments... spouting out rote talking points...

And you're a great democrat because your spouting what the dems are shouting! At least I'm investigating. Are yoU?

You'll be a great Republican someday.

I'm an independent and will always be an independent.

I was leaning towards Lieberman for President. But alas, Kerry is the nominated person and from what I'm seeing of Kerry, Bush is better to lead us than he is.

.......just maybe you'll understand why he isn't fit to lead.

It makes more sense to insert the following words, just in front of your quote:

After being informed that the US was under attack, he just sat there, he didn't move or make any meaningful expression. He didn't say anything at all. He just sat there in that classroom, for several minutes, and if you saw that then maybe........

Ahh the sign of a true LEADER?

And you're a great democrat because your spouting what the dems are shouting! At least I'm investigating. Are yoU?



I'm an independent and will always be an independent.

I was leaning towards Lieberman for President. But alas, Kerry is the nominated person and from what I'm seeing of Kerry, Bush is better to lead us than he is.
As independant as any republican can be

Hopefully Bush does get his 2nd term! Kerry would be a disaster in the War on Terror and in Iraq.

Yeah, Kerry's efficient, broadbased, nuanced and inclusive plan would cut into corporate profits, and that's more important than winning the peace of improving America's stature in the word.

There is evidence that Bush's heavyhanded dealings with the rest of the world had broadened our trade deficit, a record last month. He's a bad salesman for the US.

And you're a great democrat because your spouting what the dems are shouting! At least I'm investigating. Are yoU?

You're cutting and pasting from one source. I've posted from quite a few - I'm waiting to see. I read news from a lot of different sources, including Free Republic. You dismiss out of hand any information if it comes from a site you don't like.

You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread, and other threads - you post about how you're making up your mind, and listening to both sides, but then you accept what the swift boats said - this time around - as gospel, and ignore anything else.

I'm an independent and will always be an independent.

You're about as independent as the Swift Boat Vets, just not as well paid.

I was leaning towards Lieberman for President. But alas, Kerry is the nominated person and from what I'm seeing of Kerry, Bush is better to lead us than he is.

I honestly don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Every single thing that you've suggested is a hit against Kerry is at least doubly true for Bush.

It makes more sense to insert the following words, just in front of your quote:

After being informed that the US was under attack, he just sat there, he didn't move or make any meaningful expression. He didn't say anything at all. He just sat there in that classroom, for several minutes, and if you saw that then maybe........

Ahh the sign of a true LEADER?

I believe it was 6 minutes whereas Kerry stayed in a meeting with Boxer and Daschel and other for more than that, about 40 minutes until the plane hit the Pentagon!

Bush stayed because if he left, the kids will know something is wrong (and yes they will too! Kids are not stupid)! After a Few minutes, he went to a podium and gave a quick address then left for Barksdale. From there to Offut and from there back to DC!

Kerry stayed for 40 Minutes in a meeting with Daschel and Boxer watching the events and only left when they heard the explosion from the plane hitting the pentagon.

I believe it was 6 minutes whereas Kerry stayed in a meeting with Boxer and Daschel and other for more than that, about 40 minutes until the plane hit the Pentagon!

Bush stayed because if he left, the kids will know something is wrong (and yes they will too! Kids are not stupid)! After a Few minutes, he went to a podium and gave a quick address then left for Barksdale. From there to Offut and from there back to DC!

Kerry stayed for 40 Minutes in a meeting with Daschel and Boxer watching the events and only left when they heard the explosion from the plane hitting the pentagon.
The difference being that Bush is the President and did NOTHING while his country was under attack. Trying to say he didn't want to upset the kids is totally laughable!!

SHUT UP BACKWOODS! The swiftboat men are trying to tell the honest truth and you go around and try to cover that up lies! SHAME ON YOU!

Seems we have an impartial and unblinkered poster who's willing to consider all the facts and then state his arguement in clear and unemotional terms!

I believe it was 6 minutes whereas Kerry stayed in a meeting with Boxer and Daschel and other for more than that, about 40 minutes until the plane hit the Pentagon!

I don't know how to tell you this, but Bush was commander in chief and Kerry wasn't. Or are you blaming Kerry for not getting in a telecon with the FAA and ANG and scrambling planes? It wouldn't surprise me if you were.

Bush stayed because if he left, the kids will know something is wrong (and yes they will too! Kids are not stupid)!

Who cares? I mean, really, who cares? I bet you those kids realized something was wrong when they got home and saw the news.

This is a total straw man - the issue is that, when confronted with a crisis, Bush sat there and waited for someone to tell him what to do. The people that he chose focused entirely on what to say and not about what to do.

You can see John Kerry's reaction in a crisis here:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/08/11/senator_says_kerry_saved_his_life.html

After a Few minutes, he went to a podium and gave a quick address then left for Barksdale. From there to Offut and from there back to DC!

And, um, when did he actually lead? Guiliani, as much as I dislike him in other aspects, really shone as a leader then.

If you check the 9/11 commission report - assuming that you don't dismiss it because lawyers were involved - you'll notice that there is "no contemperanous evidence" for a phone call between Bush and Cheney from AF1. i.e., it appears that Bush was out of the loop for several hours after the attack, then lied about it later.

Fact is neither Bush nor Kerry showed an astounding amount of leadership during the 9/11 attacks, but they can both be forgiven for it because of the unexpectedness of the situation.

He failed the kids did know somnething is wrong: or they did now so what good would it do hiding a few moments from them?

You're cutting and pasting from one source. I've posted from quite a few - I'm waiting to see. I read news from a lot of different sources, including Free Republic. You dismiss out of hand any information if it comes from a site you don't like.

Does it give an ACCURATE interpretation of Kerry's FitRep? When my dad gets home, I'm going to have him look over Kerry's fitrep and see what he says about it.

You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this thread, and other threads - you post about how you're making up your mind, and listening to both sides, but then you accept what the swift boats said - this time around - as gospel, and ignore anything else.

No I have not accepted what they are saying as 100% accurate. I have never stated that they were 100% accurate. I'm giving them more weight because these are people that served with Kerry. I am doing ivestigation into this but I know I probably will never get to the whole truth.

You're about as independent as the Swift Boat Vets, just not as well paid.

No, I am a FULL independent. I judge other by what I see and here. In all his 19 years in the senate, not once did Kerry hold a leadership position in the US Senate. Kerry's Record is all over the chart for this than against the same thing. Tried to cut funding for the B-2 Bomber (defeated), voted for tax increases. Tried to cut the Intelligence Budget.

I honestly don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Every single thing that you've suggested is a hit against Kerry is at least doubly true for Bush.

Maybe so but Bush IS NOT running on his record. Kerry is running on his record and reminds us constently of what he's done. Not once outside of a few, yea few, words of his work in the US Senate. Bush has the leadership experience. He was governor for 6 years and president for 4 years. Ten Years executive experience. Kerry only has 19 years in the Senate with no leadership position in the said Senate. How can Kerry convince me that he'll be a better president than Kerry?

He failed the kids did know somnething is wrong: or they did now so what good would it do hiding a few moments from them?

Body language is actually everything. Kids can Sense what was wrong but running from the room would've been just as bad and I bet if Bush did run from the room, Kerry would hammer him on that!

Seems we have an impartial and unblinkered poster who's willing to consider all the facts and then state his arguement in clear and unemotional terms!
Tooooo funny!!!! :)

Body language is actually everything. Kids can Sense what was wrong but running from the room would've been just as bad and I bet if Bush did run from the room, Kerry would hammer him on that!
I think Americans should hammer him for doing nothing.

Newsflash....

America under attack....

Bush states that he sat there motionless for several minutes, because he didn't want to upset some kiddies.....

Okay, have it your way LOL

No I have not accepted what they are saying as 100% accurate. I have never stated that they were 100% accurate. I'm giving them more weight because these are people that served with Kerry. I am doing ivestigation into this but I know I probably will never get to the whole truth.

You won't get to the whole truth because you're moving in the wrong direction.

Again, most of these men did not actually serve with John Kerry - O'Neill was never on the swift boats at the same time Kerry was. Of the men who actually served with Kerry on his boat, all but two support him. One is dead, the other is a swift boat vet (and probably one who got paid a lot for his role).

No, I am a FULL independent. I judge other by what I see and here. In all his 19 years in the senate, not once did Kerry hold a leadership position in the US Senate. Kerry's Record is all over the chart for this than against the same thing. Tried to cut funding for the B-2 Bomber (defeated), voted for tax increases. Tried to cut the Intelligence Budget.

You're so independent you're continually repeating right-wing talking points.

Kerry voted to cut the intelligence budget by the amount that it had been revealed the NRO kept in a slush fund! He voted to cut the intelligence budget less than it was actually cut - by the republicans - that year!

Why don't you spend just as long reading left-wing sites as you are reading "Unfit for Command"? You might learn something.

Maybe so but Bush IS NOT running on his record.

Think about that - the man has been president for four years, and he isn't running on his record. What incumbent doesn't run on his record? Oh, right - one who screwed up everything he touches.

Letson speculates that the wound could have been caused by shrapnel from a mortar fired by Kerry himself, which may have exploded close enough to the boat to cause such an injury. Letson, however, was not present during the firefight, and bases his accusation on the contested accounts of others. This is extremely thin evidence upon which to directly accuse Kerry of lying.
i know im replying to somethnig early in the thread but i have to ponit this out, even if the wound was received from shrapnel from his own round, he still gets the purple heart because it was received in a combat situation with the enemy, if you dont believe me go look up requirements for the purple heart

I think Americans should hammer him for doing nothing.

Newsflash....

America under attack....

Bush states that he sat there motionless for several minutes, because he didn't want to upset some kiddies.....

Okay, have it your way LOL

News Flash: not much we could've done CH! What did you want us to do? Attack a nation ASAP? Believe me, I wanted that to happen but alas, politics is a tricky thing.

Kerry isn't even attacking him on this issue and Bush isn't attacking Kerry for his lack of action so this is really a dead issue.

Body language is actually everything. Kids can Sense what was wrong but running from the room would've been just as bad and I bet if Bush did run from the room, Kerry would hammer him on that!

Don't you realize what you're saying? You're saying that not freaking out a bunch of kids was more important than protecting the rest of the country!

No I have not accepted what they are saying as 100% accurate. I have never stated that they were 100% accurate. I'm giving them more weight because these are people that served with Kerry. I am doing ivestigation into this but I know I probably will never get to the whole truth.
Served in same War, not served with him.
John McCain Served with Kerry by your standards. According to him, Kerry is a great man.
Bush didn't serve with Kerry by your standards becasuse he never left America.
These guys are angry that he spoke against war, so they ad hok they angrer on a physical target him and his record with lies and half-truths.(I'm hoping at least something is half truth and its not full of lies for their sake)
False Persecution is bad, it blesses Kerry (Bush should scold those guys God is on Kerry's side as long as they do this)

News Flash: not much we could've done CH! What did you want us to do? Attack a nation ASAP? Believe me, I wanted that to happen but alas, politics is a tricky thing.

Well, he could have authorized:
1. Scrambling of ANG planes - many of which were deployed minutes too late to help
2. Authorizing planes to break peacetime speed limits - The planes that took off from Otis ignored peacetime speed regulations (on their own initiative!); the planes from Andrews did not.
3. Authorizing shootdown (since Rumsfeld was MIA)
4. Having an unsecure defense call - the FAA and DoD didn't get together until too late because of incompatible crypto systems. Because of that, the FAA knew about hijacked planes that DoD didn't. If Bush had been a leader, he would have been able to get them together.

It's also worth pointing out that what's on tape is the second plane - after a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center, a month after Bush received a top secret briefing 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US', he decided that "My pet goat" was more important than his role as CINC.

Kerry isn't even attacking him on this issue and Bush isn't attacking Kerry for his lack of action so this is really a dead issue.

But Bush isn't attacking Kerry for his service in Vietnam - so isn't that a dead issue? You are an amazing hypocrite!

I simply cannot believe that you can conflate the actions of the commander in chief and a senator and seriously expect us to consider you "independent".

Edit - Kerry has mentioned this!

http://www.blackcollegewire.org/news/040805_unity-kerry/
Being careful not to call his opponent by name, Kerry criticized Bush’s response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush continued reading to schoolchildren as he was told of the attacks by an aide.

“I would have told the kids very nicely that the president has something important to attend to,” Kerry said.

So, by your standards, the Swift Boat vets are a dead issue and Bush's conduct on 9/11 is fair game, right? Or did your standards just change again?

But Bush isn't attacking Kerry for his service in Vietnam - so isn't that a dead issue? You are an amazing hypocrite!

I simply cannot believe that you can conflate the actions of the commander in chief and a senator and seriously expect us to consider you "independent".
bush and co. HAS attacked kerry's record, and not denouncing this swift boat vets against kerry thing implies he agrees with them

bush and co. HAS attacked kerry's record, and not denouncing this swift boat vets against kerry thing implies he agrees with them
When has Bush attacked Kerry on his Military Record? So what ever happened to the saying, "if you don't have anything nice to day, don't say anything at all"
Maybe Kerry doesn't want to attack others because he is a nice guy.

bush and co. HAS attacked kerry's record, and not denouncing this swift boat vets against kerry thing implies he agrees with them
I think that by not denouncing the attack ad on Kerry's performance in Viet Nam will backfire on the Bush campaign. A similar attack type ad was used in the recent campaign here in Canada by the Conservatives and the backlash was swift and sure.

It sure will be an interesting debate between the two?

Comedy Central? HAHA give me a CREDIBLE news source! Steph, I advise you to read the book. I am reading it now!

Your debating tactics, or therefore lack of them are too well known to us by now. The words right out of Clinton's mouth.. makes it not comedy. I suggest to you to disprove the assertions of Clinton, is what he saying not true? Are these not the same group of partisan Republicans who went after McCain? Yes or No? It's a fairly easy question to answer. Yes or No?

The book you're reading I could easily argue is as factual in it's facts as any Michael Moore book or film.

When has Bush attacked Kerry on his Military Record? So what ever happened to the saying, "if you don't have anything nice to day, don't say anything at all"
Maybe Kerry doesn't want to attack others because he is a nice guy.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_kerry_042704,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

My answers to some questions/statements in this thread so far:

1.) Why isn't Kerry responding?
Perhaps because the media (besides Fox) has done a pretty good job showing that SwiftVets is a partisan group that is not who they claim to be that has a history of baseless atttacks against Bush opponents. Specifically, this is led by exactly the same people that smeared McCain. Hell, that was one of their OWN party and they had no quams about calling him a traitor, and apealing to bigottry. Perhaps because he realizes that responding only keeps this pile of manure in the public eye. Perhaps because he has more class than these liars.

I think that it is a tactical error, but allowing liars to sideline your presentation of your platform with such tripe would only give it credence. IT would substantiate the bogus claim that he is running only on his record.


2.) On the stupidity of using a 30-year old fitrep to base your decisions on today.

Do you REALLy want to match up FK's Fitrep to GW's? Well, that would be nice if we could see them wouldn't it? Instead, if you want to look at people's judgement at the time as indicitive of today you can compare a guy who volunteered to serve in combat, when he didn't see combat in his forst tour re-upped and asked for it. And a guy who left there to dedicate a career in the public serice.

Now match that against a political escape into a prime noncombat slot that he failed to complete because drinking and drug use were more entertaining at the time. Who went on to riding Daddy's business connections to fortune at the hands of taxpayers.

If your decision is to be based on the actions of these two men in the late 60s, you only have ONE choice, and George is NOT his name.

Are Kerry's fitreps pristine? Would he have beent he next MacArthur? Probably not. HE WAS also what? 22 at the time? And it also became pretty clear that he became very disolussioned by what he saw over there - as a lot of vets did. That might have just led to some disagreements with military policy and his CO that might have dinged him. If this is the basis of your argument against him then you are complaining about a guy having the courage to fight, and also the courage to stand by his convictions. And despite all that came afterwards, the backing of the men that he DID lead. This is far more important to me than a pat on the head from his superior. Why? because that pat on the head is not related to him as a leader but rather as a follower.

Gosh.... now that I think of it ....those would be horrible qualities in a leader eh? Courage, conviction, and an ability to instil confidence in the men who serve under him....yeah - we wouldn't want THAT!

3.) Bush's vs Kerry's response to 9-11.

If you are honestly stating that the LEADER of the country should react the same as a Senator - then I think that you have no idea what it takes to lead.

4.) Formal doing research.

If history has any basis, this involves watching Fox. Probably the same pundits that she claimed told her that certain things were in the Senate Report on Intelligence that I proved her wrong on. Question is - did she learn enough from that to realize that these pundits she follows are full of shit?

Aparently not.

Don't you realize what you're saying? You're saying that not freaking out a bunch of kids was more important than protecting the rest of the country!

There wasn't much he could do in all reality. He had as much info as we did at the time. Besides the 9/11 Commission report stated on this!

Page 38-39

The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the childre; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should prject strenth and calm until he could better understand what was happening.

The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the chirldre continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.

Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. Staff was in contact with the White House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine, no one with the President was in contact with the Pentagon. The fous was on the President's statement to the nation. The only decision made during this time was to return to Washington.

Well documented on what occured with the President during 9/11!

My answers to some questions/statements in this thread so far:
4.) Formal doing research.

If history has any basis, this involves watching Fox. Probably the same pundits that she claimed told her that certain things were in the Senate Report on Intelligence that I proved her wrong on. Question is - did she learn enough from that to realize that these pundits she follows are full of shit?

Aparently not.

I am doing research Zepp. Its called Reading the book. Listening to both sides and digging into records that are public and for anyone to see. I'm listening to the Kerry camp and what they have to say but they are dodging questions. I hope that Kerry answers these soon because I'm dying to hear what he has to say. I do know that this book isn't 100% accurate but from what I'm reading, though damning to Kerry, is backed up with facts. At least on some of the issues that I've read. Not all but some.

I'm waiting for word from Kerry himself on these events and not from his advisors or pundits. Kerry and Kerry alone, can answer these questions.

I am doing research Zepp. Its called Reading the book. Listening to both sides and digging into records that are public and for anyone to see. I'm listening to the Kerry camp and what they have to say but they are dodging questions. I hope that Kerry answers these soon because I'm dying to hear what he has to say. I do know that this book isn't 100% accurate but from what I'm reading, though damning to Kerry, is backed up with facts. At least on some of the issues that I've read. Not all but some.

I'm waiting for word from Kerry himself on these events and not from his advisors or pundits. Kerry and Kerry alone, can answer these questions.

Is it not odd though that you completely fail to ask for the same sort of disclosure from GW?

You never ask about the full disclosure of all of his Fitreps.
You never ask about the specifics of his admitted substance problems from that period in his life.
You never have delved into the screwing of the taxpayers for the benefits of the owners of the Rangers

It seems that YOU want to make his vietnam record the central issue in his campaign, despite the fact that there is a whole other platform to discuss.

This is a smear campaign. That is obvious to everybody who views things in any sort of non-partisan manner. Obvious from the backers, the main author, the timing, and the type of rhetoric being used.

But some people WILL buy it.

Still, when you are done your research - if you are using this as part of your decision making - please remember to answer the following question on point:

Do you think that Kerry's record - even if not perfect - is substandard compared to GW's complete avoidence of taking responsibility in the same time frame? And if so - please point to the specific things that GW did at the time to elevate his record above Kerry's.

If you can do that, then you have a valid argument. Given the limited access provided by the Bush camp and his known personal failings at the time, however, I think that you will have a hard time doing this.

-Z-

@Formal

You know, I actually read that book last night. Then I went to verify its sources.

Guess what, it's sources were all too often opinion papers, not factual reports.

So, that book you're using for evidence is nothing more than an opinion paper with no factual basis.

Is it not odd though that you completely fail to ask for the same sort of disclosure from GW?

GWB is not running on his military record nor should anyone for that matter. I did actually look into the AWOL claim but so far haven't seen a thing on it outside of anti-bush websites! Even CNN isn't broadcasting it anymore so I consider it a dead issue. Kerry on the other hand, as made it at the forefront of his campaign. If Bush was also running on his record, I would also call for full disclosure of his records too. Though some of our presidents were in the military, I don't consider it a prerequiset to be sent to the White House. However, when a candidate runs on nothing but his record, though Kerry has mentioned plans for what he'll do as president, he should fully disclose his records.

You never ask about the full disclosure of all of his Fitreps.
You never ask about the specifics of his admitted substance problems from that period in his life.
You never have delved into the screwing of the taxpayers for the benefits of the owners of the Rangers

If it didn't hit the main page or make big waves in the media, I don't follow it. Frankly, I've basically tuned the news out and have turned my attention to something better than politics, its called the Olympics (GO USA)! What Bush did as the Owner of the Rangers, never made it into the press so I guess it wasn't as big as some here try to make it out to be. As for substance abuse like alcholal, he daddy didn't bail him out of his drunk driving charge, he forced W to face up to it and he did. I look for that sort of thing in a leader, To fess up to his mistakes and move on. Kerry hasn't done that yet.

It seems that YOU want to make his vietnam record the central issue in his campaign, despite the fact that there is a whole other platform to discuss.

Kerry has made it the central issue in his campaign. Every where I turn, Kerry is talking about his Vietnam Service. I'm not the one that made it such. It was Kerry so don't try to place the Blame on me.

This is a smear campaign. That is obvious to everybody who views things in any sort of non-partisan manner. Obvious from the backers, the main author, the timing, and the type of rhetoric being used.

Right, someone comes out against a liberal about his record and its called a smear campaign. You know what, I could call what the DNC is doing to these people as a smear campaign too. I could call what Moveon.org is doing to Bush a smear campaign. Anything that doesn't match up with a certain philosophy can be considered a smear campaign. Frankly, these guys have FULL RIGHT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION to SPEAK OUT! Something that the DNC is trying to silence. I guess you don't hear about that in Canada.

But some people WILL buy it.

True but the question is, how badly will this hurt Kerry? He'll take a hit but I don't know if it'll cost Kerry the election. I hope people do research into this and come to this conclusion and not what someone IN EITHER PARTY, tells them to believe.

Still, when you are done your research - if you are using this as part of your decision making - please remember to answer the following question on point:

Do you think that Kerry's record - even if not perfect - is substandard compared to GW's complete avoidence of taking responsibility in the same time frame? And if so - please point to the specific things that GW did at the time to elevate his record above Kerry's.

I will do the best I can with the information at hand (nice rhyme if I don't say so myself)! Sketchy info on both sides makes this tougher to do than any research I've ever done on ANY subject.

If you can do that, then you have a valid argument. Given the limited access provided by the Bush camp and his known personal failings at the time, however, I think that you will have a hard time doing this.

-Z-

As stated in the above, your about right there Zepp. I will do what I can on this issue but first, I need to finish this book then dig more into Kerry's records that are public.

@Formal

You know, I actually read that book last night. Then I went to verify its sources.

Guess what, it's sources were all too often opinion papers, not factual reports.

So, that book you're using for evidence is nothing more than an opinion paper with no factual basis.

Did I say that I was using the book as evidence? I DON'T THINK I DID DUDE!!!!

Right, someone comes out against a liberal about his record and its called a smear campaign. You know what, I could call what the DNC is doing to these people as a smear campaign too. I could call what Moveon.org is doing to Bush a smear campaign. Anything that doesn't match up with a certain philosophy can be considered a smear campaign. Frankly, these guys have FULL RIGHT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION to SPEAK OUT! Something that the DNC is trying to silence. I guess you don't hear about that in Canada.
THERE IS NO PARTY PARTISANSHIP IN THE REALITY OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN, it would be a smear campaign agianst george bush if the same shit was happening to him, this IS a smear campaign against kerry pure and simple: bush has been using blatant lies and has resorted to immature insults and bashing while republica attack dog third parties sit around accusing kerry of this and that and ignoring bush's faults,

THE DNC IS TRYING TO SILENCE? you sicken me with your partisan ignorance

True but the question is, how badly will this hurt Kerry? He'll take a hit but I don't know if it'll cost Kerry the election. I hope people do research into this and come to this conclusion and not what someone IN EITHER PARTY, tells them to believe
take your own advice if you dont mind

THE DNC IS TRYING TO SILENCE? you sicken me with your partisan ignorance

Ok I guess you didn't read the letter that the DNC wrote to television stations about what would happen if they ran the ad. Thanks for playing because I DID!!!!

They are trying to shut these people up and there is a letter to television stations telling them threatening them.

Ok I guess you didn't read the letter that the DNC wrote to television stations about what would happen if they ran the ad. Thanks for playing because I DID!!!!

They are trying to shut these people up and there is a letter to television stations telling them threatening them.
libel is not protected under the first amendment, and that is blatant libel

libel is not protected under the first amendment, and that is blatant libel

If its libel then Kerry should sue. O'Neil is calling for it as are others. Why are they calling for it if it's libel? I know that Libel isn't protected under the 1st amendment but what could be considered libel by one may not be for another. Fine line between the 2 that is why it should be settled.

If its libel then Kerry should sue. O'Neil is calling for it as are others. Why are they calling for it if it's libel? I know that Libel isn't protected under the 1st amendment but what could be considered libel by one may not be for another. Fine line between the 2 that is why it should be settled.
its blatant libel, the purpose is obviously to injure kerry's reputation and several parts have already been countered and recanted by the very people who made the statements

its blatant libel, the purpose is obviously to injure kerry's reputation and several parts have already been countered and recanted by the very people who made the statements

If its blantant then Kerry should sue.

If its blantant then Kerry should sue.
sue if its not taken off the air

sue if its not taken off the air

I want to see that trial because some television stations told the Kerry Campaign to shut up and ran the ad anyway.

Kerry hasn't released his records has he?

Kerry hasn't released his records has he?

Not all of them. He has released some of his records but not all of his records.

Not all of them. He has released some of his records but not all of his records.


Well the prudent and simple thing to do and to shut everyone up would be to have all of his records released. End of story.

Not all of them. He has released some of his records but not all of his records.
which is he missing

Well the prudent and simple thing to do and to shut everyone up would be to have all of his records released. End of story.

This I totally agree with.

which is he missing

apparently a couple of fitreps, paperwork for his purple hearts, silver star and his bronze star. There is no info on how he got his 1st heart when Kerry's CO wouldn't put him up for it. Who did? no one knows and Kerry isn't talking.

apparently a couple of fitreps, paperwork for his purple hearts, silver star and his bronze star. There is no info on how he got his 1st heart when Kerry's CO wouldn't put him up for it. Who did? no one knows and Kerry isn't talking.


That is very interesting to say the least. I watched something on CNN the other night that had some members of the other swift boat. They said that Kerry's boat just took off and kept going. I guess Kerry claimed that there was fire coming from both shores for 5,000 meters.. that is 3 miles people. Yet his boat didn't have a single bullet hole in it. Umm I'm sorry.. I guess even the Armed forces have no clue as to how that miracle was pulled off. Odds say that you should have taken at least one round.

That is very interesting to say the least. I watched something on CNN the other night that had some members of the other swift boat. They said that Kerry's boat just took off and kept going. I guess Kerry claimed that there was fire coming from both shores for 5,000 meters.. that is 3 miles people. Yet his boat didn't have a single bullet hole in it. Umm I'm sorry.. I guess even the Armed forces have no clue as to how that miracle was pulled off. Odds say that you should have taken at least one round.

You are indeed correct and if there was enemy fire, an after-action report must be filed and the ones that I've found indicate a mine blew up under a PCF! No reports of fire from shore otherwise, the other boats would've heard it and it would've gotten called in to HQ!

That is very interesting to say the least. I watched something on CNN the other night that had some members of the other swift boat. They said that Kerry's boat just took off and kept going. I guess Kerry claimed that there was fire coming from both shores for 5,000 meters.. that is 3 miles people. Yet his boat didn't have a single bullet hole in it. Umm I'm sorry.. I guess even the Armed forces have no clue as to how that miracle was pulled off. Odds say that you should have taken at least one round.
So Kerry's version, and that of his crewmembers is automatically in doubt? Why is that? This guy volunteers for the Navy, injects himself into a hell hole of a place called Viet Nam, risks his life for his country, and fellow crewmen and lives to tell about it. I wonder how many armchair quarterbacks here would have done the same thing?

How many here (who freely criticize) would have VOLUNTEERED to go to Viet Nam, and put their lives at risk?

Bush stayed because if he left, the kids will know something is wrong (and yes they will too! Kids are not stupid)!

Yeah, but adults aren't stupid either, usually. Couldn't Bush have made some excuse about having to go to the bathroom or something?

If its blantant then Kerry should sue.

Maybe Kerry thinks that filing a suit would just drag out an issue that ultimately is just a small detail of the larger picture.

You know, kind of like filing a suit over whether someone said they had an affair in office. (Wait, did I say that out loud?...)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/12/wus12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/12/ixportal.html

(another librul media outlet....)

the Tory, erm Telegraph, liberal?

*dies laughing*

You know, I really have to ask

Do you elect your leaders for a period based on how many years served in the military ?

It might be me, but it seems quite ridicolous.

the Tory, erm Telegraph, liberal?

*dies laughing*
don't you know that if every single article they put up isnt praising the GOP its liberal?