Swift Boat veterans for truth gets debunked

[SteelTown Boy]

and then some...check out how their anti kerry spot was debunked.

http://mediamatters.org/

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Not very surprising. Lies, lies, lies.

[aqualou]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
Not very surprising. Lies, lies, lies. Now you got Thompson Twins in my head! :mad:

[DaysWithoutEnd]

I was going for Violent Femmes, but whatever.

[BigSugar]

actually, if you read it all, they say they were on swift boats not more than 50 feet from Kerry's, and that his accounts of enemy fire are false on some particular day which he got a purple heart.

if you read the military's records regarding the actual 1st purple heart, Kerry had a 1mm piece of an M-79 grenade which burned a tiny part of his arm....the fragment was from a grenade he had fired too close to his boat and it....well....fragmented. he got a bandaid for his "wound" and when he applied for a purple heart, he was turned down by his commander. 3 months later, with another commander at another base, he applied again and got it.

so, which part of that is a lie? seriously....maybe they are partisan, but noone is saying that these guys weren't there. most of them are just pissed that Kerry called them baby-killers and war criminals....he did do that, remember? then he refused to back it up with any "under oath" testimony or evidence. but he was probably chewing peyote then...it was the '70's.

[SteelTown Boy]

to sum it all up-nothing more than the usual partisan bullshit.

if they wanted to debunk Kerry,they could have done so in the primaries and not now.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by BigSugar
most of them are just pissed that Kerry called them baby-killers and war criminals....he did do that, remember?ok, i'd luv to see where Kerry called them "babykillers" & "war criminals".

or is this another one of those cases where there's only 2-sides to b on? either for the VNam war or one of those tree-huggin war-hating pacifistic girlie-pinko fags?

I mean, b/c a lot of ppl called the soldiers in vietnam "baby killers" & "war criminals" but just b/c u were against the war didn't mean u had to call them that.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Duemellon
ok, i'd luv to see where Kerry called them "babykillers" & "war criminals".

or is this another one of those cases where there's only 2-sides to b on? either for the VNam war or one of those tree-huggin war-hating pacifistic girlie-pinko fags?

I mean, b/c a lot of ppl called the soldiers in vietnam "baby killers" & "war criminals" but just b/c u were against the war didn't mean u had to call them that.

i guess you haven't bothered to watch his congressional testimony from post-vietnam anti-war hearings. specifically talked of mass killings of civilians, including women and children, free-fire zones where soldiers allegedly killed civilians in violation of military law.....you know, "babykillers" and "war criminals". he never produced anyone who'd swear under oath, and he never did himself, but really, it was 30 fucking years ago and i could give a rats ass, outside of the fact that he's brought the issue into play.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by BigSugar
i guess you haven't bothered to watch his congressional testimony from post-vietnam anti-war hearings. specifically talked of mass killings of civilians, including women and children, free-fire zones where soldiers allegedly killed civilians in violation of military law.....you know, "babykillers" and "war criminals".sayin that he saw soldiers killin women & children in fire-free zones is different than him usin the more emotional phrase "babykillers"..

maybe?
huh?

notice the diff?

Sayin: "Hey, I saw this happening!"
vs. "Hey, here's a polarizin term I'm tossin on top of u even tho I hav no proof!"

but I guess u'd rather sensationalize it.

[Marlowe]

Notice Sug didn't put quotes around the term "babykiller", Due? Probably not, because you're too busy trying to pick nits that you can't see the difference between paraphrase and quotation. He's not sensationalizing -- Kerry was very pointed and damning of his fellow soldiers in his remarks to congress, and a lot of the folks who were there took umbrage at what he said.

[yoshomon]

But the US did slaughter civilians in Vietnam...

[jps]

Originally posted by yoshomon
But the US did slaughter civilians in Vietnam...

Exactly! innocent women and children.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Notice Sug didn't put quotes around the term "babykiller", Due? Probably not, because you're too busy trying to pick nits that you can't see the difference between paraphrase and quotation. He's not sensationalizing -- Kerry was very pointed and damning of his fellow soldiers in his remarks to congress, and a lot of the folks who were there took umbrage at what he said. note: Kerry didn't say "babykillers" either.

but BS did.

Look, the point I was tryin to make, that u'r (BS & Marley-Marlowe) r distractin from is that Kerry didn't come back & start callin the soldiers who were in the war "evil" & "cruel" but he did come back sayin the war was bad & poorly done which lead to those things.

Callin someone a babykiller puts them in the category of bloodthirsty killer or actin w/o decency.

Sayin the war needs to end b/c it's a stupid war & being poorly managed that leads to war crimes & such is diff.

But it doesn't help the republican/conservativ adgendee to say there were more views than just "babykillers" or "tru patriots"

[Johnnylama]

Swift Boat veterans for truth is the biggest crock of crap I think I've seen to date. If anyone needed any more debunking, he's the latest Factcheck document (a totally nonpartisan site!):

F\L\Factcheck.org (!http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231 )

The war sucks, the economy sucks, but wait! Look over there!

I'm sick to hell of them smearing Kerry. If you disagree with the guy's policy, okay. But he's a stand up guy who served his country, so stop making stuff up about his past.

I hope these attacks make the Repubs look petty, because THE ATTACKS ARE VERY PETTY!

[feret2]

I personally do not know if Kerry is a stand up guy or not.

I do not know him. I know he is human like rest of us and has made mistakes that he wishes never happened. But thats what we learn from.

The issue is what is he going to do today and if what ever he did in his past warrants dismissal of his character today.

Unfortuantely there are too many people taking sides in our politics and people like me need help in deciding who to vote for


I Have not made up my mind as to whom i will vote for.

I hope people on this board can respect that, and tell me why i should vote for Kerry or Bush


Both have made mistakes am sure and i cannot believe that Kerry is all that just as i don't believe Bush is all that. Both are politicians and they both have drives to win the presidency but neither has shown me why i should vote for him over the other.

That is the important issue for me. Why do you want to be president. What is the need for one over the other.

The two issues that scare me from voting Kerry are

1. Stem cell research which Kerry endorses(which i think is pandoras box)(not so much the abortion issue but the powerful effects that might occur by harvestig embyos) (people are against the unethical way we treat animals in research which is not yet resolved, i just cannot imagine what kind of regulation needs to be established before we can tackle human embryonic research)

2. Minimum wage: I am for minimum wage just not across the board minimum wage. I just think a flat out minimum wage across american is a voting ploy because it is not thought out completely and therefore used to make a campaing sound goog. i.e. minimum wage of 8 bucks is nothing in NY but is way too high in small town america where small shops cannot compete with the corporations that can shift funds over from the metroplexes units which inevitably shuts down the mom and pops. 90% of businesses in america are mom and pops and 50% of the GNP are from Mom and pops. that is a major issue when 10% of the corporate companies own 50% of the GNP and can control policy with their lobbiest. this minimum wage needs to be balanced out not implement an a across the board minimum wage: It is not practical, just sounds good.

I appreciate any feedback on this election hope you all can help fill me in

[Duemellon]

Stem cell research will not increase abortions.

Stem cells currently require a fertilized embryo to extract but thru the investigation of stem cells we may b able to find a way to clone them w/o needing naturally fertilized embryos.

The stem cells we will b gatherin will b from aborted embryos. It's like donatin ur body to science.
______________________________
Kerry, personally, is against abortion. He believes in a very liberal individual rights so even tho he is against it, he feels it is your choice to make, not his. He will protect the right to chose, altho he may create more initiatives to help those who r in the position to make different decisions.

Isn't that what u want? Freewill?
______________________________
Minimum wage? u'r concernd about minimum wage? I can't help u /w that one.

[postfeminist]

i don't think you can use aborted feti for stem cell research...

i think you can only use tissue that was put together for in vitro but wasn't used, right?

[angryj5]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Stem cell research will not increase abortions.

Stem cells currently require a fertilized embryo to extract but thru the investigation of stem cells we may b able to find a way to clone them w/o needing naturally fertilized embryos.

The stem cells we will b gatherin will b from aborted embryos. It's like donatin ur body to science.
______________________________
Kerry, personally, is against abortion. He believes in a very liberal individual rights so even tho he is against it, he feels it is your choice to make, not his. He will protect the right to chose, altho he may create more initiatives to help those who r in the position to make different decisions.

Isn't that what u want? Freewill?
______________________________
Minimum wage? u'r concernd about minimum wage? I can't help u /w that one.


freedom of choice is what you got
freedom from choice is what you want
- devo

[Wilcoman]

Originally posted by postfeminist
i don't think you can use aborted feti for stem cell research...

i think you can only use tissue that was put together for in vitro but wasn't used, right?

You are correct, postfem. Stem cells are not embryos. For an accessible overview of stem cell research, check out Ron Reagan's speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/politics/campaign/27TEXT-REAGAN.html?ex=1092283200&en=2ef9311d35a1c2b8&ei=5070) from the Dem convention for more info.

[leisole]

Screw both of the canidate a**wipes.

I'm voting for Rick James.... at least he won't do anything else to piss anyone off.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by leisole
I'm voting for Rick James.... at least he won't do anything else to piss anyone off.

Well, that's true, and he acknowledges his past sins--"Cocaine is a hell of a drug." Although I'm not sure how he feels about imprisoning women......

Seriously, though, I think this Swift Boat Vets thing is interesting.

So, a couple dozen Swift Boat Vets who served alongside Kerry are politically motivated smear-meisters, while Kerry, and the half a dozen Swifties that he can find, are true patriots, who are being smeared by the VRWC.

Kerry's a patriot. No, he's a war-crime committing anti-war activist. It's a floor wax. It's a dessert topping. Stop! You're both right. I have too much respect for those who served to try and figure out which group of veteran's is more right, but it should be an interesting campaign.

[onest2.0]

Originally posted by slow-dog


Well, that's true, and he acknowledges his past sins--"Cocaine is a hell of a drug." Although I'm not sure how he feels about imprisoning women......

Seriously, though, I think this Swift Boat Vets thing is interesting.

So, a couple dozen Swift Boat Vets who served alongside Kerry are politically motivated smear-meisters, while Kerry, and the half a dozen Swifties that he can find, are true patriots, who are being smeared by the VRWC.

Kerry's a patriot. No, he's a war-crime committing anti-war activist. It's a floor wax. It's a dessert topping. Stop! You're both right. I have too much respect for those who served to try and figure out which group of veteran's is more right, but it should be an interesting campaign.

serving alongside and serving with or under are two different things. who knows if they even witnessed him in action.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by onest2.0
who knows if they even witnessed him in action.

Exactly!! after all, he was only in country 4 months, and 1 month of that was training! There's no way that in that short time that anyone saw him do shit! ;) :D

[Shrike]

Originally posted by onest2.0


serving alongside and serving with or under are two different things. who knows if they even witnessed him in action.
There's now 160 solidiers in his unit that are signing off on the book. Either Kerry is lying or 160 soldiers are lying.

[Emperor Wog]

Or some of, or even most of the 160 of them are Bush supporters (pro-military, pro-war) and will sign the book regardless of what they saw.

[Johnnylama]

This whole issue is such a massive smoke screen that it makes me sick.

The facts:
1. Kerry volunteered to go to war, which he didn’t have to do.
2. John McCain went too, and he says this is an unfair attack on Kerry (paraphrased).
3. War is hell. I respect anyone who’s gone through it, including Kerry and McCain.
4. Bush avoided combat. So did Clinton. So did a lot of people. They’re not bad people for it.
5. There are more important issues, and this one is taking attention away from them.

Follow the money for these ads.
:mad:

[onest2.0]

ads were made by same people who attacked McCain during the primaries in 2000.

Evil, evil people.

Its a shame Kerry got shot at in Vietnam, lord knows there's more deserving people.

[onest2.0]

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush
By Jim Rassmann
The Wall Street Journal

Tuesday 10 August 2004

John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.
I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

[Marlowe]

The McCain thing in South Carolina '000 was definitely shameful. No question about it. But then, McCain was a PoW for years and didn't make a big issue of his service in his campaign.

Kerry has made a huge issue of his service, and in fact during his nomination acceptance speech he hardly discussed his entire 30 years AFTER he served 4 months.

So, given that Kerry made his service a campaign issue, and it's fair for people who were there to speak out about whether he is portraying it correctly. These guys were there, and they have nothing to be 'ashamed' about in telling their side of the story. Now whether it sways any votes is an entirely different matter. I happen to think not, but maybe they are speaking up because they have strong feelings.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Marlowe
So, given that Kerry made his service a campaign issue, and it's fair for people who were there to speak out about whether he is portraying it correctly. These guys were there, and they have nothing to be 'ashamed' about in telling their side of the story. Now whether it sways any votes is an entirely different matter. I happen to think not, but maybe they are speaking up because they have strong feelings.

I agree with this.

I think attacking the decorations is a dead end--worst case, he got injured in Vietnam 3 times, although perhaps in not quite so grand a fashion as represented--big deal. The most promising line of attack for the Republicans is the inconsistencies surrounding Kerry claiming to be in Cambodia repeatedly and emphatically over the years.

So far, the Kerry campaign has been backpedaling on this issue, but perhaps they're dragging this out waiting until the carping has reached a crescendo, and will unload all the proof--tearing their critics' credibility completely apart at an opportune moment, like during the RNC. Then they can claim that the proof was there all along, but Kerry didn't want to get into a direct confrontation with his fellow Vets, because he respected their service, even though they badmouthed his. At least that's what I'd do if that was the case......

[Stan Lee]

Originally posted by Marlowe
But then, McCain was a PoW for years and didn't make a big issue of his service in his campaign.

he didn't have to. the media did the job for him.

[weezer6]

i've been following this somewhat, and i have to say, unless you were a total badass in the military, you don't play the "war hero" card. a real "war hero", in my opinion does not get themselves out of a tour of duty in four months for what sounds like some questionable injuries. a 1mm piece of shrapnel, from your own grenade? doesn't sound like something i'd expect a war hero to go through a lot of effort to turn into a purple heart. he sounds like a dude that wanted to get out, and was looking for ways to make it happen.

not that there is anything wrong with that, but don't claim to be a war hero, and then get pissed when the real studs who stuck out their full tours start outing you for what you really were.

having been in the military, if you're a dirtbag, you'll get processed out, just so they won't have to deal with you. once his commanders realized that his officer was mainly concerned with getting back stateside, he probably said fuck it, give him his purple hearts and get him the fuck out of here.

[tobedawg]

These Veterans for Truth seem like they are getting paid off by somebody (can you say Karl Rove?)..

Regardless.. It doesn't change the fact that Kerry went to war, Bush didn't and neither did Dick Cheney, but they sent people to go die so that their buddies can make $$$$..

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by tobedawg
Regardless.. It doesn't change the fact that... they sent people to go die so that their buddies can make $$$$..
That's not a 'fact', it's an opinion.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A01

Halliburton Co. and other U.S. contractors are being paid at least $1.9 billion from Iraqi funds under an arrangement set by the U.S.-led occupation authority, according to a review of documents and interviews with government agencies, companies and auditors.

Most of the money is for two controversial deals that originally had been financed with money approved by the U.S. Congress, but later shifted to Iraqi funds that were governed by fewer restrictions and less rigorous oversight.

For the first 14 months of the occupation, officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority provided little detailed information about the Iraqi money, from oil sales and other sources, that it spent on reconstruction contracts. They have said that it was used for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that most of the contracts paid from Iraqi money went to Iraqi companies. But the CPA never released information about specific contracts and the identities of companies that won them, citing security concerns, so it has been impossible to know whether these promises were kept.

The CPA has said it has awarded about 2,000 contracts with Iraqi money. Its inspector general compiled records for the major contracts, which it defined as those worth $5 million or more each. Analysis of those and other records shows that 19 of 37 major contracts funded by Iraqi money went to U.S. companies and at least 85 percent of the total $2.26 billion was obligated to U.S. companies. The contracts that went to U.S. firms may be worth several hundred million more once the work is completed.

[Duemellon]

hey Marlowe, u mean: not a fact, but it's documented.

[yoshomon]

My question with this whole thing is what's up with folks denying that the U.S. committed all sorts of horrific acts against civilians in Vietnam?

[weezer6]

some of the radio reports i heard yesterday made it sound like kerry was not recieved by the vfw conventioin as warmly as the pres. was a little earlier. kindof interesting. doesn't sound like his war time peers have quite the ferver that i've typically been seeing from his supporters.

[Smoker29]

I saw a bunch of VFW guys yesterday at the airport with "Vietnam Vets Against Kerry" buttons. They as well told me that Kerry was received coldly.

[weezer6]

so your book store actually tried to get a big quantity of this book, and it isn't available? i did not know that.

i basically don't like sean hannity, but he's always bitching about liberal books being readily available, but not conservative books. so while traveling, i figured i'd just look around in the airport book stores to see if i could find the unfit to command book. nowhere to be seen. i don't know what its official release date was, though, so it may not have been out.

[weezer6]

thanks for the info.

[Johnnylama]

Update: Navy Records Contradict Kerry Accuser; Citation Says Accuser Also Was Under Enemy Fire

08.19.2004




We have again updated our Aug. 6 article on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad to reflect new documents brought to light by a Freedom of Information Act request by the Washington Post.

The new information conflicts with the affidavit of Larry Thurlow, who said "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

Our article now states:

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."



Note: We have also updated the article with information from an Aug. 17 Los Angeles Times story quoting the doctor who says he treated the wound for which Kerry was awarded his first purple heart. The Times quotes Louis Letson as saying that what he heard about Kerry's wound being self-inflicted came third-hand.

Our article now reads as follows:

On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."

Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit http://wwwfactcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=243 to view this announcement in full.

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by weezer6
so your book store actually tried to get a big quantity of this book, and it isn't available? i did not know that.

i basically don't like sean hannity, but he's always bitching about liberal books being readily available, but not conservative books. so while traveling, i figured i'd just look around in the airport book stores to see if i could find the unfit to command book. nowhere to be seen. i don't know what its official release date was, though, so it may not have been out.

Where were you traveling? I've noticed that this varies by geography. When I visited Wash D. C. "liberal" books were very available. When I visited Mississippi "Conservative" books were more available. It's all about who's buying. Go to Amazon if you can't find a book.

I'm stick to death of this "liberal media" conspiracy garbage. Sean Hannity is a tool.

[weezer6]

i think i was on a layover in dallas-fort worth. i'd have to agree on the hannity being a tool thing, also.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by weezer6
some of the radio reports i heard yesterday made it sound like kerry was not recieved by the vfw conventioin as warmly as the pres. was a little earlier. kindof interesting. doesn't sound like his war time peers have quite the ferver that i've typically been seeing from his supporters. strange, i heard the opposite.

subjectiv terms eh? I guess if they had an applause-o-meter that'd b somethin provable?

after all, the Enquirer decided to point out that Kerry was usin his war record to fight Bush's advantage. Of course, they never xplain what advantage, but he's got one... b/c... the ... media... said... so.

[Marlowe]

It's interesting -- Kerry's war record and the Swift Boat for truth guys were all over the Sunday shows this morning. This story isn't going away.

I've seen enough back and forth on this to believe that there is 'something' to this story. War is inherently messy and accounts of a single event may differ, so we'll probably never know the truth. Kerry clearly wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve despite having claimed to be, but some of the other stuff being described seems pretty murky. Now that doesn't mean Kerry's a bad guy or even that he 'lied'. But, he was a guy who knew from an early age he wanted to run for high office and also wanted to emulate (former war hero and his personal hero) JFK. Kerry probably was a little bit aggressive in seeking out medals for his actions, and that clearly chafed some people.

In a way it seems really strange to be arguing these things 35 years later. But to no small degree, Kerry brought this on because he chose to make his service a centerpiece of his campaign rather than his record as a Senator. Right now this story seems to have enough legs or create enough doubt that it is going to have some effect upon his polling. How much, it's hard to say since the election is over two months away and a lot can happen between now and then.

[Sovrana]

I've become so fascinated by this debate. Instead of repeating what has been said:

I was most excited when I watched Chris Matthews nail Michelle Malkin on Hardball. I was at first surprised to see her on the show...I've never liked her. While watching Matthews lay into her, I was practically jumping up and down on the sofa as if I was watching the Olympics.

I've even enjoyed watching the tape of it run over and over again.

Anyone catch what Limbaugh said on his show about it?

I know Hannity had her on his show just to soften the bruising she sustained on MSNBC.

Can't wait for Monday's Hardball! :)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
he chose to make his service a centerpiece of his campaign no, the media decided to, then Bush's followers made accusations, now it is.

plz read his early speeches, make note of them. He mentions his service 1-2x in the speeches, but not the entire thing. If u were readin his speeches, instead of readin the paper's accounts of his speeches, u'd see he talkd about the budget, employment, medical care, & shit like that until the media startd only printin his words about service.

make that note.

[Burger Queen]

I don't see what any of this has to do with being President of the United States. Do we really want to talk about lies? I mean seriously mind blowing lies? You're looking at the wrong guy. And they have found ties to Bush and the swift boat liars. So who's lying?

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by Duemellon
no, the media decided to, then Bush's followers made accusations, now it is.

Go back and read his nomination acceptance speech, starting from the moment he got to the podium, saluted and said, "Reporting for duty."

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Go back and read his nomination acceptance speech, starting from the moment he got to the podium, saluted and said, "Reporting for duty." go back before that too... see...

look...

& then read the latest speeches instead of just reading the news...

then come back & tell me what % of his speech is about being a war vet.

[Johnnylama]

This entire issue is a complete waste of America's time. What's Bush doing to overtime hours? What's he going to do about drug costs? What's Bush going to do about Socail Security? No. Instead everyone wants to talk about what Kerry may or may not have done 35 years ago. Sicking. This issues is the perfect example of what's wrong with political discourse today.

The Repubs got really pissed when everyone kept talking about Bush's service record (or lack of), yet They're playing the other side of it now. This needs to go away so everyone can talk about this issues.

Yes, Kerry made it a big part of his convention speech, but it's not the center of his campaign. Focusing on it was his way of "introducing" himself to Americans who haven'y been paying attention until now. Being a war vet is easy to understand while policy often isn't, so they're focusing on the biography.

New Factcheck.org info:

Update: Two New Witnesses Contradict Kerry's Swift Boat Critics

08.22.2004

We have updated our Aug. 6 article on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad to include two new accounts that surfaced Aug. 22. One supported Kerry's account of the actions for which he was awarded the Silver Star, and the other supported Kerry's account of receiving enemy fire during the rescue for which Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star.

The Silver Star section has been updated to include the following:

On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."

Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.

Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."



Also, the Bronze Star section has been updated to include the following:



On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit http://wwwfactcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=245 to view this announcement in full.

[matt]

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush says veterans’ group should stop television ads criticizing John Kerry’s war record.


When asked specifically whether the ads by the group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" should be halted, Bush said: "All of them. That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely."

"I can't be more plain about it," Bush said. "I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s (politica groups that sponsor to ads). I think they're bad for the system."

This is a breaking news story and will be updated frequently.

Earlier Monday, Kerry accused Bush of standing silent just as he did four years ago when supporters waged a campaign of “lies” to destroy the White House hopes of fellow Vietnam veteran and senator John McCain.

Kerry's charges of a "smear" by the Bush campaign followed a number of charges and countercharges about the matter on television talk shows and elsewhere Sunday.

Kerry running mate John Edwards said that Bush needs to tell a veterans group to pull its anti-Kerry ads, a step the White House and the Bush campaign refuse to take. McCain, R-Ariz., has said the tactics are the same kind used on him and asked the president to denounce them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5797164/

[vanler]

see the spin both sides are trying to put on this: http://www.spinsanity.org (spinsanity)

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Duemellon
no, the media decided to, then Bush's followers made accusations, now it is.

plz read his early speeches, make note of them. He mentions his service 1-2x in the speeches, but not the entire thing. If u were readin his speeches, instead of readin the paper's accounts of his speeches, u'd see he talkd about the budget, employment, medical care, & shit like that until the media startd only printin his words about service.

make that note.
what about his 20 minute speech in which he mentioned his Senate service for 15 seconds? Spending the rest of the time talking about his mysterious and wild 3 months in vietnam, gaining three purple hearts in RECORD TIME!

[Shrike]

Originally posted by onest2.0
ads were made by same people who attacked McCain during the primaries in 2000.

Evil, evil people.

Its a shame Kerry got shot at in Vietnam, lord knows there's more deserving people.
Proof?

its easy to say Hitler lives on the moon without any facts behind it.

[Shrike]

Also has anyone else heard about the Kerry campaign suing the vets and the publisher to keep the book from being published?

You didn't see the current administration suing Michael Moore for a docudrama of opinion masquerading as facts....

[jps]

Originally posted by Shrike

Proof?

its easy to say Hitler lives on the moon without any facts behind it.

Here are a few excerpts from a nytimes article at the link below. The Swift Boat ads were created by the same team that questioned McCains loyalty to the troops during the 2000 campaign, as well has McCains environmental record. Yeah you read that right, Bush campaign questioning someone else's environmental record. How that was done with a straight face I don't know. The article details (at great length thats why i didn't post the whole thing here) the connections.

From the NY times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/p...print&position=


August 20, 2004
Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG

"...His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

...In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's in crucial states during their fierce primary battle. The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly."

[paranoidandroid]

some people are so fucking blind it kills me.

unbelievable that this is an issue.

[Docta]

wow, chris matthews had dick cavet on his show last night and they talked about the infamous interview with kerry after the war. but till last night i had no clue that the other guest on that show debating kerry was none other than john onneil! he is one of the authors of the book that these guys put out and is making the talk show rounds. it was so wild seeing them arguing.

so this resentment for kerry's post-war actions/comments has been going back quite a ways with these swift boat vets. interestingly there was no mention of kerry's lack of service that the vets point to now. they hated what he said then and are finding any way to discredit him.

cavet made the point that oneill back then impressed nixon who used him to discredit kerry's words at the time. he even told a story of nixon wanting to get a pic of he and oneill together but advisors telling him that would not be a good idea because it would look too much like nixon had sent oneill out to do this. cavet made parralells between that relationship and the one that now exists between the same group of vets and the bush administration. cavet also pointed out the erie similarities in language kerry used back then to what's being used today; geneva conventions, enemy combatants, etc.

[matt]

C-Span played the entire Dick Cavett show last week, unedited. I only caught about the last half of it. there was one part, maybe the same or a different episode, that had O'Neil on a panel with John Lennon. I've only seen bits and peices of that over the years and not the whole thing. I'd like to see all of it.

[matt]

United States Navy backs Kerry's version of events (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/)

[weezer6]

Originally posted by matt
United States Navy backs Kerry's version of events (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/)

makes it sound like the navy actually made a statement that they support kerry's version. when you read the article, that isn't the message, or at least not the message i got. what i got from it, is that there appears to be reports, possibly submitted by kerry, that claim they took enemy fire.

here's what i'm getting from this whole thing. kerry most likely had an agenda back when he volunteered. nothing really wrong with that, i'm sure many others did. advancing his career seems like it was important. the speed, and his involvement in getting his own medals are the tip off. it wouldn't suprise me if their wasn't a little embelishment going on back in the day.

i'm not condemning this, just saying that given the situation, when your life is at risk, and you know what can get you out of the dangerous situation, you do what you feel you have to do. if it involves a little stretching of the truth, so be it. and if you know how to get a few medals, go for it. my vietnam vet cooworker knew dudes that got purple hearts for blowing out their knee playing volleyball, and shit like that. depends on who you knew and who liked you.

if you got drafted, and didn't want to be there in the first place, and you could play the system to get out lickety-split, no problem, very understandable.

if i'm not mistaken, kerry claims to have volunteered. to volunteer, and then go over to vietnam and have this be the chain of events, taking into account the severity of wounds, who filled out what, and all that shit, sounds like someone with an agenda for personal benefit. those are the type dudes i didn't really like while in the military. you can tell they're playing the system, so you don't know for sure if you can count on them, because you know they don't really give a shit unless it benefits them. if you're a vet, you know the type dude i'm talking about. spotlight ranger.

his spotlight seeking actions after vietnam further my opinion on the agenda.

he's appears to be relatively smart, though, in these regards, because if he had grand political aspirations at the age of 20 or so, and is where he's at today with what he's done, it appears he's been successful. it's just not the type smarts i like.

[Johnnylama]

I don't agree with your arguement b/c a dead man has no political future. Kerry loved JFK and JFK appealed to people to sign up, so Kerry did. No sinister motives. When he protested the war at the time he figured it would kill any future career in politics (I've seen an interview from the time where young Kerry actually says this). It was only years later when his war protests actually became a political advantage (in a way) that he got seriously into politics.

The guy isn't evil. You can disagree w/ his policies, but don't paint fictional horns on him. He couldn't have been that smart at 20something to scheme that someday he could use his navy experience to run for pres. That's laughable.

True, now he's using it to his political advantage b/c it's effective...

... but ya know what? Bush has been using 9/11 and terrorism in the same way for the same reasons.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by Johnnylama
He couldn't have been that smart at 20something to scheme that someday he could use his navy experience to run for pres. That's laughable.


I keep hearing this too.. Who would volunteer to be shot at and possibly killed as a strategy (war hero) for becoming president, THEN come home and criticize the gov't and the war?

I don't understand how both sides of this argument can be debated simultaneously.

Any ideas?

[Johnnylama]

The country’s opinion of the war changed a lot b/w when Kerry enlisted and left the war. When the war started, everyone in America honestly felt like they were helping the Vietnamese people fight off Communism. During the course of the war it became apparent that many of the Vietnamese people equated the American forces w/ the previous French Colonial forces; therefore the Americans were seen as foreign invaders instead of liberators. As the Americans turned up the heat militarily, more Vietnamese began hating the Americans.

The situation just got really bad, and popular opinion in America turned south.

Kerry’s war positions reflect the changing attitudes in America about the war. At first, he thought it was the right thing, but over time it became apparent that it was not.

Many of the people attacking Kerry now disagreed w/ his decision to oppose the war. They saw him as a traitor, not b/c of what he did DURING the war, but b/c of what he did after it. The crazy part is that they’re attacking him for what he did during the war.

[weezer6]

Originally posted by Sovrana


I keep hearing this too.. Who would volunteer to be shot at and possibly killed as a strategy (war hero) for becoming president, THEN come home and criticize the gov't and the war?

I don't understand how both sides of this argument can be debated simultaneously.

Any ideas?

kerry grew up in a military or governmentally employed household. his dad was in the military and served some function in the eisenhower administration. kerry went to yale. i'm sure his aspirations weren't just to work at the local chevy plant. and i'm sure he was able to figure out the benefits of decorated military service. someone, most likely his dad, probably flat out told him that service and medals will help you get ahead.

now i'm not saying that he had a definite, mapped out plan to become president at age 22, but when your dad works in a presidents admin, and those are the type of people and families that you associate with, it isn't far fetched to have that as a foreseeable goal, even at a young age.

i even saw an interview clip, i don't know how old he was, but he was pretty young, and the interviewer asked if he wanted to be president one day. spur of the moment question, i don't know.

kerry obviously had a desire to be in the spotlight. to have some kind of power. nothing really wrong with that, i just generally don't like those type people, unless they really are billy bad-ass.

for those that don't think someone would volunteer for combat, just to get ahead in their career, join the military and check it out for yourself. it happens.

[PH Fancyboy]

Originally posted by weezer6
kerry obviously had a desire to be in the spotlight. to have some kind of power. nothing really wrong with that, i just generally don't like those type people, unless they really are billy bad-ass.

So, unless (you're basically saying) they're a thug, you have isssues with someone that just wants to have "some kind of power"?

Please explain, otherwise it makes it sound like you have a hard-on for someone like Saddam Hussein. Now that guy was "bad-ass".

Methinks you're just jealous that someone who doesn't happen to be like you just might get the top job.

Neener Neener. :p

[weezer6]

Originally posted by PH Fancyboy


So, unless (you're basically saying) they're a thug, you have isssues with someone that just wants to have "some kind of power"?

Please explain, otherwise it makes it sound like you have a hard-on for someone like Saddam Hussein. Now that guy was "bad-ass".

Methinks you're just jealous that someone who doesn't happen to be like you just might get the top job.

Neener Neener. :p

wrong. not what i'm saying. there are people who do things because they are the right thing to do, and because they do them well and are successful, they gain power as a result, or actually, as a by-product. then you have those that want the power, and do things, not necessarily because it is the right thing to do, but because they lead to power. i prefer people that take the first route, and kerry seems to me to favor using the second route. that's just my interpretation. so when i say bad-ass, i mean it in this context: "did you see that photo duemellon posted? he's a photoshop bad-ass."

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by weezer6


there are people who do things because they are the right thing to do, and because they do them well and are successful, they gain power as a result, or actually, as a by-product. then you have those that want the power, and do things, not necessarily because it is the right thing to do, but because they lead to power. i prefer people that take the first route, and kerry seems to me to favor using the second route.

I'm just not seeing any support for this. You're assuming Kerry put his life in line not out of a sense of service but for his own personal gain, but I see no logic in this. Dead men don't get elected anything (except the guy who beat Ashcroft, but that's another story).

Like I said before, at the time Kerry protested the war it WAS NOT the mainstream or accepted position- it was politcal suicide. It was only years later when the perception of Vietnam changed.

There is this mythology out there that Kerry is this sinister opportunist, but I see little or no real support for this position whatsoever. So he might have played up a few of his metals. Big deal. He was 20something. When I was 20something I dreamed of my band of the time getting big. Kerry might have thought about being pres. Big deal. He still put himself in harm's way. How in any way is this a bad thing? The obvious comparison is to Bush's non-service. Another obvious comparison is to what Bush was doing in his 20s, namely hits off a beer bong.

[weezer6]

Originally posted by Johnnylama


Dead men don't get elected anything (except the guy who beat Ashcroft, but that's another story).



that's why you push for your purple hearts and get the hell out of there.

according to his site, he spent time in the western pacific before going to the swift boat gig. he had an assignment, but volunteered for a different one. it didn't say he was reassigned for any other reason than volunteering. now, once in his new position, one he desired, one where it is a lot easier to get medals than on a non-combat mission assignment, he gets a silver star, bronze star and three purple hearts in about 4 months. he didn't have shit, it appears, in the 2 or so years prior to. and it sounds like the awards are given, in large part, to reports he wrote himself.

i'd be more inclined to believe his side of things, if he wasn't trying to get out of his assignment, and leaving his crew, for what appears to be minor, no worse than hitting your thumb with a hammer, injuries. i haven't read all the info on the injuries, but i don't hear either side really claiming they were much more than minor, small bandage, type things.

[RealNeal]

This argument is sort of ludicrous. Kerry "only" spent four months in Vietnam? His volunteering for duty "wasn't really brave"? His wounds were "not so serious"? His multiple medals for courage under fire were "not so valorous"? Facing enemy fire AND protesting the war were motiviated by some master plan to become president?

And this argument is pushed by people who support a president (and are supported by the same president) who pulled strings to avoid combat duty, has a spotty record at best of even showing up for that duty, is supported by a vice president who "had other priorities at the time". And let's not forget how he showed courage under fire by continuing all the way to the end of "My Pet Goat" when learning that his country was under attack!

Besides being stupid, it's also repeatedly been shown to be false. Let's not forget that.

[classicgrrl]

just dont come to my store to buy the book.

m'kay?

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by RealNeal
This argument is sort of ludicrous. Kerry "only" spent four months in Vietnam? His volunteering for duty "wasn't really brave"? His wounds were "not so serious"? His multiple medals for courage under fire were "not so valorous"? Facing enemy fire AND protesting the war were motiviated by some master plan to become president?

And this argument is pushed by people who support a president (and are supported by the same president) who pulled strings to avoid combat duty, has a spotty record at best of even showing up for that duty, is supported by a vice president who "had other priorities at the time". And let's not forget how he showed courage under fire by continuing all the way to the end of "My Pet Goat" when learning that his country was under attack!

Besides being stupid, it's also repeatedly been shown to be false. Let's not forget that.

Agree!

[cjd]

Originally posted by teeeroy
i like mustard

me, too. and ONIONS! mmm.

[Duemellon]

nastiest thing evah...

cubemate had a sammich/w:
pickles, mustard, and mayonnaise.

quite vommitable.

[RedRage]

Originally posted by SteelTown Boy
to sum it all up-nothing more than the usual partisan bullshit.

if they wanted to debunk Kerry,they could have done so in the primaries and not now.

Kerry didn't attempt to make the Vietnam War apart of the primaries like he has now. Poor decision on his part. Wonder if he'll go back to visit Cambodia for Christmas this year?

[RedRage]

Originally posted by RealNeal
This argument is sort of ludicrous. Kerry "only" spent four months in Vietnam? His volunteering for duty "wasn't really brave"? His wounds were "not so serious"? His multiple medals for courage under fire were "not so valorous"? Facing enemy fire AND protesting the war were motiviated by some master plan to become president?

And this argument is pushed by people who support a president (and are supported by the same president) who pulled strings to avoid combat duty, has a spotty record at best of even showing up for that duty, is supported by a vice president who "had other priorities at the time". And let's not forget how he showed courage under fire by continuing all the way to the end of "My Pet Goat" when learning that his country was under attack!

Besides being stupid, it's also repeatedly been shown to be false. Let's not forget that.

Bush is not apart of this argument.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by RedRage
Bush is not apart of this argument.

is this intentional or a typo? Because I also do not separate (i.e. "not apart" ) Bush from this argument. :D

[RealNeal]

Originally posted by RedRage


Bush is not apart of this argument.

You mean, other than how by refusing to dissociate himself from it, he's tacitly endorsing it?

And I suppose those Swift Veterans for Karl Rove are supporting the libertarian candidate...

[RedRage]

Originally posted by RealNeal


You mean, other than how by refusing to dissociate himself from it, he's tacitly endorsing it?

And I suppose those Swift Veterans for Karl Rove are supporting the libertarian candidate...

Has not President Bush asked for the ads to stop? Has not President Bush asked for all 527's to be stopped?

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Yes, because he's losing at his own game.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by RedRage
Has not President Bush asked for the ads to stop? Has not President Bush asked for all 527's to be stopped? yes, he asked for all 527s to b stoppd but still hasn't said the commercials attackin Kerry were just plain ol' wrong.

note the diff...

he's using a distraction tactic.

And furthermore, how is Bush not involvd in this discussion? Is this suddenly not a 2-party race where bringin one up tears the other down in an inverse relationship? By sayin Bush is protestant & u like it attacks Kerry?

it's a fuckd up situation where one person can't b good w/o the other person becoming bad.

[markalot]

Originally posted by Frost
distraction? republicans don't use distraction!!! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040827/ap_on_el_pr/republican_jitters_3)

Niether do democrats.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by Frost
true, but not nearly as witty as mine.

bully for me! : P http://outerspace.terra.com.br/retrospace/materias/karatechamp/karatechamp2.gif

Half point, Frost.

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by Frost
distraction? republicans don't use distraction!!! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040827/ap_on_el_pr/republican_jitters_3)

"...said Joe Gaylord, a Republican strategist from Washington."

I didn't think they were allowed to be Republican strategists.

:D