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

Pick a card, any card.

Published on August 16, 2004 By adnauseam In Politics

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of Americans (not all), need to grow up!

Comments (Page 2)

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

Reply #13 By: jdjefferson - 8/17/2004 11:33:15 AM
Swift Boat Veterans have attacked Kerry for his actions, others that have served with him have commended him, and still others are debating the legitimacy of his medals and awards. Hundreds of people have come forward to characterize Kerry's service positively or negatively. Where are all the vets who saw G.W. Bush during the Vietnam War? Can't he come up with a few dozen people who can definitively attest to him being where he was supposed to be? A few medical records and some pay stubs simply aren't enough proof for me. The Bush machine is deflecting attention away from real issues and trying to knock Kerry down in the only place Bush can claim to go toe-to-toe with him.
Maybe the two of them should have a medals throwing contest?
Thanks for listening

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

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

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

The Bush campaign has said all along that they'd be happy if groups like MoveOn.org and individuals like Michael Moore were silenced, but until that happens, they have also said that they believe that groups like the Swiftboat veterans are entitled to their free speech just as much as Moore and the rest are. (And btw, why is it that the Kerry campaign has refused to condemn Moore, MoveOn, etc.??!?)

jdjefferson

on Aug 17, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

Reply #17 By: jdjefferson - 8/17/2004 1:11:58 PM
When did Bush release his entire military records? Furthermore, much of the records that were released had portions of them blacked out Link

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

Does logic not apply?

As to this statement:

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

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

Isn't this the same old argument about the bear that craps in the woods with no one there to see it? If no one saw it, does that mean that it didn't happen?

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

(And btw, why is it that the Kerry campaign has refused to condemn Moore, MoveOn, etc.??!?)

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

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

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

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

A few confirmations here....

The word on the released records is at this:
Link

There were also these notes in the news:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Another witness emerges. From the Montgomery Advisor:

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

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

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

Unfortunately their side wasn't able to come up with as compelling a case as the Swiftvets group has in their book on the subject of Kerry's military history.

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

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

jdjefferson

on Aug 17, 2004

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

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

On a side note, I have found www.factcheck.org to be an excellent site that is a "nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics."

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, Pot calling Kettle black.

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

Obviously ( I hope it's obvious ) I don't want it both ways. If Moore or MoveOn were lying, I'd think it totally appropriate for Kerry to denounce their message as he would be the one to gain from it's slung mud. That isn't the case, however, the problem has been with Bush and the GOP, God rest their lying souls. I encourage you to research the SwiftVet program and fact check.

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

Reply #23 By: Deference - 8/17/2004 2:44:12 PM

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

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

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

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

Turnabout is fairplay, even if you hate the message and can't dispute the facts.

Lee1776

on Aug 17, 2004

Deference

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

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

Yes, the swiftvets are lying, that is the reason as to why many have asked for Bush to denounce them and why even Republicans are a bit miffed that such folk are making them look bad ( see, once again, Mcain ). As for Moore, he has been on his anti-Republican march since the early 90's. His first independant film was Roger and Me, wherein he attacked big business. He has also written numerous books, Dude Where's My Country and Stupid White Men, to name a few. These are developed by this one individual with a team that works under him. Of course he supports the Democrats, of course he is biased, but he has not resorted to out and out slander and libel or reported falsehoods as truths. The Democrats are not HIRING HIM, though, that is the difference. It is only when LIES are given that I have trouble with them or when our political parties put someone up to something. Also, just for your information, MoveOn is financed by George Soros and Warren Buffet ( just wanted to let you know for sure, believe me, I'm still working out the murky depths of SwiftVet ). The fact that those behind SwiftVet haven't been open and honest about their financing the operation kind'a tells you something.

So sure, turnabout is fair play, but fortunately for me, the boomerang isn't headed in my direction.

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

error

Deference

on Aug 17, 2004

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

I didn't waste my time watching F. 9 / 11. It's a film that has some substance, but nothing I didn't know of already, Moore barely scratched the surface. In regards to the "enlisted" statement above, being enlisted means that one signed a contract with the service to be an NCO, or non - commissioned officer, as opposed to being an officer, so, yes, officers don't count in this case.
(officer: lieutenent, Captain, etc., nco; private, corporal, sergeant, etc.)

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

His point in saying so is that many of those hawkish on going to war have little to lose, whereas many who are in the trenches (such as NCO's) do. I was in the service, people forget that out of all Americans, soldiers are one group most wishing for peace.

terpfan1980

on Aug 17, 2004

Reply #26 By: Deference - 8/17/2004 4:16:01 PM
Yes, the swiftvets are lying, that is the reason as to why many have asked for Bush to denounce them and why even Republicans are a bit miffed that such folk are making them look bad ( see, once again, Mcain ).

Before you leave yourself open to charges of slander and libel, perhaps you could document where and how the Swiftvets are lying?

What specific evidence do you have that makes your comment a statement of fact rather than opinion and true rather than false?

Remember, these folks have done meticulous research, and provided fact after fact to prove their claims - even if some of their facts are only "eye-witness" accounts from third parties that were serving in the same areas as John Kerry.

You'd have to be sure that any evidence of your claims is backed up by facts that are not of the same level as those you are arguing, lest you wind up with a he said-he said argument, but that will not be easy, as much of Kerry's record, at least as we currently know it, is backed up only by the word of John Kerry and a few select individuals that are friends, some of whom served with and/or under Kerry's command. Certainly none of those individuals stands to gain anything by supporting Kerry in any way.

Nice try, but you lose your argument before even starting it by calling these vets liars without even fleshing out their evidence.

I'd have much more respect for you if you had the guts to at least encourage the mainstream media to check the facts and hear the case before deciding it.

Lee1776

on Aug 17, 2004

Deference from one military service member to a prior member you should go see this movie. The way he asked the questions would make you sick.

One NCO, that is in my unit, decided to go see the movie after I did. Believe me he is a Democrat through and through and I repect his oppion. But he siad "On the way out of the movie he wanted to smash Moore's teeth in." This is a man who had the whole office looking at him after that statement, becuase he never talked that way before. He is still going to vote for Kerry, but he is just sad at how low poeple will go to try and make the truth look diffrent.

Please do not make me think that your not wanting people to have their children not to become officers or NCOs so they my truely feel what it is like.

But again may I ask you why did Moore not go up to those that have other then enlisted children in the military and interve them? I don't think that it would have shown his view in the movie. There was four other Congress men stopped on the steps that day by Moore and gave a good interviews to Moore, but he refused to add thier interviews on to his film. This made the viewer think that all Congressmen where jerks and didn't care.

Again please see the movie.

Thanks
My Two Cents

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!