Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I personally found it funny to watch CNN drool all over themselves as they declared 60 minutes the “gold standard” and then proceeded to cut it into small pieces and chew it up furiously.

It is real curious how Buckhead got to be such an expert so fast, and is now apparently in hiding….

I also found it funny when Novak reported the “cut and run” policy discussion. Wonder if that came from Scooter, too? Is Bush flip flopping again? I think that qualifies as a half gainer.

Bert,

High five on the Kerry speech and press conference Q&A session. That was the best thus far that I have personally seen Kerry this year. I’m glad I’m not te only one who noticed.

But here’s a reallity that is sure to piss anyone off, the reason many cable stations carried it was because of the memogate flap. It is a sad and sensationalistic America in which we are living in press-wise (although it’s obvious lack of wisdom).

If CBS moves more to the inane and insane right as a result, all mainstream media is gone and replaced with right wing dripping sleeze sensationalistic corporate journalism and CNN is already in that loop as well (actually has been for some time).

What’s really upsetting is that we know that Bush did really get preferencial treatment by the A.N.G. that’s already established fact. But failed to show for atleast one physical, took time off to work for segregationalist Winton “Red” Blount’s election campaign and didn’t report to his commanding officer in Boston. This is all known stuff.

Now it’s nullified by these right wing ninnies and their fact finding mission what about the real factfinding that is already established on Bush and his getting into the Air National Guard by being bumped up the line, as it were just like several NFL ballplayers who got in much the same way.

When brains leaves the arena it all goes to hell and such is the nature of so-called mainstream media today especially of the cable network variety. Hell in a handbasket is all I can say about this new pseudo journalistic style invading cable.

NOW it’s all up to Kerry/Edwards at the debates, let’s see how that goes.

Good article, Bert.

‘…[he’s] proposing exactly what we’re doing.’

Bush’s “me too” Iraq policy is pretty funny. But he’s got a long history of following the Democrats on defense and foreign policy.

The Dems wanted a Dept. of Homeland Security, Bush said no, then looked at the political barometer and decided he wanted one too.

The Dems wanted an investigation of 9/11 and recommendations to prevent it from happening again, Bush balked, then tapped the political barometer and decided he wanted one too.

The Dems want a National Intelligence Director and implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Bush said it was too dangerous, then checked the political barometer and decided he’d better do it.

Now Kerry presents a clear concise plan for Iraq, and although it contradicts Bush & Cheney’s “the UN is weak and irrelevent” stance, Bush says, “Me too!”

What a dud. I’d like a leader who actually leads, please.

American Pundit and all the other Kerry supporters

I want to add one more thing. Bush to took the Kerry game plan at the RNC of emphasising the benefits of Social Security, Health Care, Medicaid, Medicare, education, ect. Funny Bush you are a true comedian. Who is flip-flopping now? I also remember the Barack Obama speech at the DNC where he said “It is not about Conservative America or Liberal America but about the United States of America.” I don’t know if Mr. Obama stole that line from anyone else but one thing is for certain, John McCain yanked that at the RNC. WORD OF ADVICE: IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE STEALING THAT BAD FROM THE EVIL DEMOCRATS: BECOME A DEMOCRAT. For all the God fearing Christian men who are Republicans exclusively, THOU SHALL NOT STEAL.

Noel,
welcome and excellant post

AP, I’m with you on having a real leader

On memogate; Just watch the republicans try to hide from this one.

Bert-
How can you use the Marion Carr Knox statements without referencing the statements of General Staudt? Or Killian’s family for that matter.

Seems to me there is two sides to this story, and you are doing the same type of journalistic hatchet job that 60 Minutes performed by ignoring any contradicting statements.

You guys are a funny lot. Both sides make “excuses” just so their candidate will win. The heck with common sense and the truth. On this issue, I have a few questions:

Why is it ok to believe an elderly woman who says she knows what one of the officers she was working for was “thinking?” but when 200 plus war heroes say what they saw while serving with kerry, they are liars?

The truth is, Bush used his elitist ties to get the cushy guard duties and avoid Nam.
Kerry used his elitist ties to be placed in non hostile areas in Nam, for just 4 months. The standard Tour of Duty was 12-18 mths. unless seriously injured. Kerry was not injured, but still only spent 4 months there. All because of his elitist ties.

Neither one of these jokers care about this country and neither one are qualified to run it. The only difference is, while Bush is bad for this country, Kerry would be alot worse.

Back to ‘fake but accurate’ are we?

I just have to laugh. This is Al Sahaf, Iraqi information minister territory. The left apparently has no concept of what truth is.

The Kerry campaign has been caught trying to avoid the issues by putting forward false charges and forged documents. We all knew Democrats lie to win elections, now we know that they are desparate enough to forge documents in an effort to bring down a President.

It’s laughable to read your arguments to the effect that no one has refuted the charges made in these memos. I have some documents of my own about Kerry. Which he has yet to refute. That makes the charges true.

On a slight tangent:

One interesting thing to keep in mind is that the issue regarding Bush’s national guard service (regardless of the “value” of the information, or what the truth ends up being) does not have the same weight as Kerry’s vietnam service from a strategic standpoint. This is a mistake a lot of people starting out in political strategy make.

For instance, let’s say there are a former track runner and a former motorcycle racer competing for President of the Athletic Association position. The Track Runner talks about how he’s a great track runner, and that’s his main campaign point. The Motor Cycle Racer runs on the fact that he’s good with numbers (for example). They duke it out for months, and then one day the Track Runner finds evidence that, long ago, the Motor Cyclist was kicked out of a race for using a non-approved motor bike. The Track Runner pounces, and spends the rest of the campaign talking about how the Motor Cyclist isn’t such a good Motor Cyclist after all.

The mistake? The issue has a completely different value to the Track Runner supporters than it does to the Motor Cyclist supporters. If the Motor Cyclist had been running on his Motorcycle Race record, then the Track Runner would have some awesome amo. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and so the “evidence” doesn’t seem to move anyone.

Ok, so the story sucks and doesn’t fit well. But, the basic point is this: When you are getting attacked for a questionable vietnam record, it feels great to be able to produce a possible GOTCHA that shows your accuser may also have a questionable record. Damn, you think, I really got him. The only problem is that the Gotcha only matters if the other guy has been making -his- Vietnam record a big deal too. With Bush, that’s not the case. In fact, very very few people think that Bush didn’t benefit from connections when he got into the guard, and many would be surprised to hear if he did have a great record. They already know he came from “blue blood” and they already doubt he was a sparkling specimen in service.

So this particular gotcha isn’t potent. Its old news. It FEELS potent, the same way that throwing a waterballoon at a kid who squirts you with a water gun FEELS potent. You got him back, YES, awesome, feels great. Except, the kid with the water gun is expecting to get wet. He’s a kid. He’s got a watergun. When he gets hit with water, its -not- the same as a guy with a button suit and tie getting squirted with a water gun. And to anyone watching, its pretty obvious. It was much more of a Zing when the guy with suit got splashed than when the kid got splashed back.

Same with Kerry. All things being equal, Kerry whent to ‘Nam, Bush didn’t. Kerry faced enemy fire. Bush didn’t. And if the election were about “who served more honorably in vietnam” well then Kerry would be everyone’s rational choice. But the vietnam issue is a thorn for Kerry -precicesly- because Kerry made it a per issue. Bush never did. If the CBS documents had turned out to be completely true, it probably would not have caused much of a swing. 1-2 points at best. Why? Because the election isn’t between two guys who are percieved as equal with Vietnam being the deciding factor.

I’m not arguing the merrits of their respective service profiles. I’m just talking straight political strategy, which is often unrelated to how the decided camps already feel.

> 200 plus war heroes say what they saw
> while serving with kerry, they are liars?

It’s not 200. It’s more like five or six who actually said they saw anything. The rest are simply people who don’t like Senator Kerry. Most of them never even laid eyes on the man.

> The truth is, Bush used his elitist ties
> to get the cushy guard duties and avoid Nam.

Let’s look at the facts. He jumped to the front of a list of hundreds, possibly thousands of other candidates, many of whom were much more qualified than him. And he was permitted to spend a lot of time that he should have spent defending our country doing other, personal stuff. And he left early. All of this is well-known fact. It’s not clear exactly how he got his cushy situations, but your presumption that it was “elitist ties” is the most likely explanation.

> Kerry used his elitist ties to be placed
> in non hostile areas in Nam, …

Again, let’s look at the facts. Kerry’s non-hostile assignments were made entirely due to the Navy’s standard assignment practices. There is no evidence, not a shred, that he received any special treatment whatsoever. There is not even evidence that his experience in the Navy was especially better than anyone elses - most Navy personnel never ended up in Vietnam at all. Plus, there are no phone calls or letters from family or powerful friends of the family, no evidence that he jumped to the front of any waiting lists, or that his name was ever removed from any lists of people who were going to be sent into danger. There is no evidence whatsoever, not one jot, to support your suggestion that Kerry “used his elitist ties to be placed in non hostile areas in Nam.”

If you want to prove a murder, you at least need to produce a body. There is no body here.

> … for just 4 months. The standard Tour of Duty was 12-18 mths.

Kerry served *two* full tours of duty. Two years each. Four years total, every day of which was spent in uniform, under the control of the US Navy - not gallavanting around Texas, Alabama, Kennebunkport, and Harvard. He volunteered for his first tour of duty and after he completed his first tour (and was totally free to leave the Navy and go home safely) he volunteered again for a second tour of duty. The second tour put him in Vietnam, by his own request. He served four months in the combat zone.

> …unless seriously injured …

Um, or unless injured three times. Those are the rules.

> Kerry was not injured, but still only
> spent 4 months there.

He was injured, but not seriously. Injured three times. Injured three times in combat situations where people were shooting and killing each other.

> All because of his elitist ties.

Elitist ties put you in combat, under enemy fire?

Elitist ties put shrapnel in your thigh?

Elitist ties make you shoot and kill people?

Boy, those elitist ties sure are overrated, aren’t they?

-Cf

> The Motor Cycle Racer runs on the fact that
> he’s good with numbers (for example).

Damon, for the analogy to be accurate, his platform wouldn’t be that he’s good with numbers… it would be that he’s honest, hard-working, with strong convictions committment to doing his duty. And then we find out that he cheated in his races. That’s a big deal.

-Cf

Damon —

While I agree that Bush is wise to avoid running on his military record and Kerry is unwise to run on his, I have to take your admittedly bad analogy a step further: The motorcyclist is urging all the Athletic Association members to ride a particular motorcycle that has an unfortunate tendency to explode. Perhaps if he had actually raced motorcycles we wouldn’t be in this pickle….

Sorry Christopher, but you are wrong. What you point out is -what you think- is important about Bush’s position. But as previously noted, you are on the opposing side. Even if we accept that the proposed issues you mention are in fact “the issues” ther is still a huge problem for equanimity in the campaign, namely: Bush is a known factor.

What Bush did 10, 20, or even 30 years ago doesn’t change what people have experienced in the last 4 years (which is of course hugely variable based on ones political stances). Again, weight is shifted to present knowledge. With Kerry, its not the same. Most people don’t know Kerry from Adam. They have nothing to go on -but- the past (and they tend to be suspicious of campaign promises from both camps, assuming that campaigns by their nature distort, so they are not deciding based primarily on present rhetoric for either candidate). For Kerry, who -is- running on the past, this makes the proposition very difficult. With Bush, voters know what they are getting (be that good or bad) with Kerry they have to gather probabilities based on what they can scrap together from the past.

All this would be different if both candidates were running for the first time. But they are not.

Although I do not like Kerry, I think, honestly, that he should have taken Clinton’s advice and ditched the Vietnam issue, and even Iraq (yes, its not a good situation, but again, from a strategic point of view it is not currently an issue Kerry will win on unless Iraq gets much worse) and focused on the economy. He’s been doing more of that, but he’s still doing a juggle, and its fracturing his message (much to my delight).

Exploiting an opponent’s weakness is about more than finding cracks in their armor, its about choosing the cracks you can best exploit. Are vietnam and Iraq such cracks for Bush? You bet, but they aren’t easy to exploit. Kerry has to play defense on both. Bush holds the cards, controls the game, and no amount of shouting, complaining and lamenting about how stupid people are is going to change that. The economy (which in fact has very little to do with Bush, nor will it with Kerry if elected) is exploitable, but it requires Kerry’s focus, and he’s not focusing.

I don’t know Kerry’s campaign is so fractured, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the strife within his camp. Kerry, if he wants to win, needs to set a tack and keep to it. Right now he’s playing a damn fine defensive game, but that’s not the path to victory, and on offense, he’ll have to choose the right target.

Incumbents are tough to beat, and Bushs hould not be misunderestimated.

Cf: I’m not sure which branch of service you were in, but while I was in the service, my experiences went like this: I worked for or around many officers I did not know. Officers use their rank and status to inflate their medals, performance reports and other things in order to get what assignments you want. The majority of younger officers, are unfit to lead. When an individual makes a statement saying their “view” of the situation is as such, you cannot say he is wrong, unless you were there.

Out of 48 months, kerry spent 4 mths in Nam. He brought a personal cameraman also. Soldiers would normally spend 9 or 10 mths in Nam, in hostile environments. Only a few are granted permission to film. The man served in Nam, he is a war veteran, I admire him for that, but to say that he got no special favors because of who he is, is being blind to the obvious.

Your injury observations is what has alot of the SBVT mad. Purple hearts are given for injuries sustained during battle. Not for sprained ankles or scratches. You or I were not there, there are two sides to how he was wounded, we cannot know which side is honestly telling the truth. To believe one side purely for political reasons though, is wrong. From past experience, my guess is, they both are right in some ways.

Elitist ties put you in combat, under enemy fire?
No, they keep you in the rear, away from heavy enemy fire.
Elitist ties put shrapnel in your thigh?
No, they place you in areas where this has a lesser chance of happening.
Elitist ties make you shoot and kill people?
No, they place you where you can shoot and not be shot back at.

kerry should be commended for his service and time in Nam, he is a war veteran, not a hero. My point was, you cannot claim one side is wrong and then use the same type of info., you just condemned, to support your candidate. Both sides can come up with so called facts and names to support what they want it to, but trashing one or the other on this issue, is in no way relevant to who should be president.

KCtim:

1) I never said I was in any service.

2) Kerry may very well have gotten unfair treatment in the Navy. But this is only conjecture, because you have no evidence of him having received preferential treatment. Like I said, you need to show that a crime occurred in order to charge someone with a crime. Name one thing that suggests that Kerry benefitted from undue influence that was any different from the kind of influence a smart, well-educated young officer would have gotten while serving. Isn’t the whole point of officer training school to help the elite get into positions of command instead of using them as cannon fodder? Most of the other officers in the famous SBVT photo could be said to be beneficiaries of the same system of rewarding those with more education. You have to show that Kerry was treated more specially than any of those officers to prove your case. Bush was bumped to the front of a list, skipping over hundreds of other better-qualified men. That’s elitist cheating.

3) Your allegations regarding Kerry’s combat experience all fly in the face of mountains and mountains of the US Navy’s official documentation. The Navy itself stands by the documentation. The number of people who actually dispute the facts adds up to maybe four or five people, not 200.

4) Your “personal cameraman” allegation is a complete lie.

> they keep you in the rear, away from heavy
> enemy fire … they place you in areas where
> this has a lesser chance of happening.

Was Kerry ever kept “in the rear”? Away from enemy fire? Was Kerry ever deliberately placed somewhere where there was a smaller chance of being shot at? You are suggesting all of this is true, but the only evidence that exists says the exact opposite. Kerry even admits that when he volunteered he didn’t know that Swiftboat duty would be as dangerous as it turned out to be.

> they place you where you can shoot and not be shot back at.

What are you talking about here? Was he stationed in a bunker or a missle silo? No, he was on the same boats as the other SBVT men, and sailing up the same rivers as them. The “not be shot back at” scenario you describe never happened to Kerry. Strangely, this particular allegation isn’t even made by the SBVT group. It seems that much of your impression of Kerry seems to be based on your own imagination.

-Cf

Damon, the way I see it Bush got a free ride in 2000. These issues were not adequately explored, as the press was more interested in talking about Gore inventing the internet than about whether or not a failed businessman with no respect for duty is qualified to be President.

You seem to think that 4 years of office erases 50+ years of his life. To me it does not.

If he’s the kind of man who thinks that responsibility to his job and to his country should take a back seat to his desire to have fun and goof off, even if he thought this in his twenties, then he’s simply not qualified to be President. Period.

-Cf

Damon does make a good point in reminding us of Bush’s incumbency. Despite all of the misjudgments, misrepresentations, mistakes, and miscalculations Bush is still maintaining a lead , or at least breaking even, in the polls. That says a lot about the value of being a known quantity in an election. (And also about what Americans think they want, but that’s another story for another thread….)

cf-

But this is only conjecture, because you have no evidence of him having received preferential treatment.

Likewise.

Eric, Bush himself said that he got out early to go to Harvard because he “made an arrangement” with the Guard. He was permitted to go to Alabama for months in the middle of his committment. He moved up to the top of a long list. Even the facts that Bush himself admits support the premise that he received preferential treatment.

-Cf

Cf:
1- I meant to “ask” if you were in the military. The way I worded that part was wrong, and I apologize for that.
2- I do not support SBVT or the current witchhunt on Bush, both are a waste of time. I am merely stating what is being said on each side. You say to prove that kerry got special favors? Can you show the official form that says, due to Bush’s family status, we are pushing him in front of all others? No, but common sense tells you that is what happened to both.
3- Navy documentation that was mainly written by kerry. Do I believe him? Yes. But the SBVT’s have their view of what happened also. You cannot believe one view over the other based on what your politics are.
4- Again, this is not my interpretation, it is just what is flying around. From past experience, grunts and junior officers are rarely allowed to bring personal stuff like a camera. Do I think kerry was allowed to and be filmed just because of who he is? You betcha! Was this wrong? No, just unfair to others.
Your last assumption that my imagination played a part in my thoughts of kerry are wrong. My past experience while serving with soldiers like kerry have given me my views on soldiers like him. Do soldiers with his status usually clean latrines? No. Do they live in the foxholes on the frontlines? No. Do they use their status for safer and more favorable assignments? Oh yes.

None of my views about kerry come from this issue. He served his country in the Navy, he is a war veteran, not a hero, big difference there. Both sides find faults, quote the sources that best support their candidate and discount things that support the opponent.

Here’s an irony:

Everyone thinks Bush used his political connections to get a cushy job in the guard. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD.

Bush and Saddam both seemed guilty and dragged their feet on proving the allegations false. Everyone claimed that there were simple ways for them to prove that they were innocent: merely provide the documented proof that showed they weren’t up to any wrong-doing.

Both claimed that the documents didn’t exist to prove that they were innocent.

Today, the evidence we believed proved the guilt of Saddam and the guilt of Bush has now been proven inaccurate and flawed…

but we all believe the allegations were essentially true.

Of course, the level of the fallout is obviously greater for one of these scenarios: Memogate.

Wow.

A war, you know, isn’t something we should quibble about. People make mistakes, lets forgive and forget. But let’s hang Dan Rather out to dry.

Honestly, I think anyone involved in the mistakes at CBS should be held responsible. But in that regard, everyone who made mistakes in respect to the Iraq war should be held responsible (including Kerry).

If you read the proof set forward to Congress about the reasons to go to war, the evidence was thin. Bush can blame the CIA, but it is his responsibility to do his homework. Kerry can blame Bush and the CIA, but it was his responsibility to do his homework. Neither of them should have authorized a war based on flawed data.

If you’re going to risk men’s lives, you should read the factual information that explains why it is necesarry. It seems only George Tenet had enough information to authorize this war, and I think we would all be angry at George Tenet if he had done so with the information at his disposal. But for some reason, it’s okay that Bush authorized the war, because he was “ignorant” of all the facts.

Julia

A.P.

You say that Bush has “a long history of following the Democrats on defense and foreign policy.” But in other threads you condemn Bush for his defense and foreign policy. If Bush is following the Dems, then why have you complained about his strategies? Either you dont like the Dem strategies that Bush is following, or you are just condemning Bush for partisan reasons. Which is it?

Chris:

you have no evidence of him having received preferential treatment. Like I said, you need to show that a crime occurred in order to charge someone with a crime.

I agree with this completely, and have said as much in other threads. But Chris, this has to apply to both sides. I would expect you to now take issue with Terry McAuliffe for calling Bush “AWOL” when he has no proof, only speculation.

On a different issue, you use Bush going to Harvard as an example of his special treatment. Yet Kerry also got out of his committment early as well, in order to run for Congress.

On Jan. 3, 1970, Kerry requested that his superior, Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr., grant him an early discharge so that he could run for Congress…Kerry was honorably discharged, which he said shaved six months from his commitment. Boston Globe

To suggest that Bush leaving his committment early without referencing that Kerry did the exact same thing is telling an incomplete story. To suggest that this is an example of Bush’s “preferential treatment”, while not treating Kerry the same for an identical behavior, would be simple partisanship.

kctim,

I think you are both wrong and right. If you are against John Kerry, you should be against him for factual reasons:

Fact:

John Kerry did try to get out of going to Vietnam, but he was refused.

He then tried to choose jobs that would be far away from danger.

He ended up in combat anyway.

He could have chosen to stay after recieving his 3rd purple heart, but he chose to leave.

What you got wrong:

John Kerry did not have a personal cameraman, he brought an 8mm camera with him.

Many soldiers carried cameras with them, in fact, the Nixon administration started thinking of telling soldiers they couldn’t carry them b/c of embarassments like the photographs at My Lai.

Kerry’s purple hearts were legal, even if what the Swiftvets claimed were true. You cannot “request” purple hearts, they happen automatically when the doctors turn in their paperwork. Thousands of men got purple hearts because of superficial wounds. You can get a purple heart from friendly fire, you can get a purpe heart from your own grenade harming you. The only rule is “recieved a wound during combat”. The only time you can’t recieve it is if you purposefully wounded yourself. No one claims that’s the case.

Kerry’s Silver Star was given to him because he created a new manuever for swiftboat fighting. If you read the entire explanation of why he recieved the Silver Star, you’ll see it was because he convinced the other two liutenants to try this new manuever, convinced them to do it, executed the manuever several times, and did so at risk to himself. Leadership, inegenuity, bravery. He excelled, and he deserved that medal.

Kerry did not use connections to get out of Vietnam, he got out using the legal recourse of the day. Three purple hearts, period.

——-
The Swiftvets have produced out-and-out lies, which fall apart based on fact checking. The other negatives they’ve posted on Kerry are not backed up by verifiable data, or aren’t pertinent. (There was fire, there wasn’t fire, it was his grenade, it was two drops of blood, it was a quart of blood.. blah blah blah). Again, their facts are wrong on the rules for a purple heart (which they should know, being the military experts), so the rest of the argument doesn’t matter.

Try and look at source documentation for each allegation. The worst that they have is a reference to a navy investagion into the veterans at detriot, but NO ONE has the actual documenation from the Navy Investigation. None of us (including the Swiftvets) know the truth without reading that documenatation. Where is it?

I continued trying to track it down, and what I came up with instead was a rather shocking trail of aggressive pursuit of the veterans that testified in detriot, including the story of one guy whose girlfriend and best friend ended up being secret Nixon cronies who literally SHOT him. And the administration then tried to tamper with his trial, to the degree that even the judge was appalled and shocked.

He’s completely crazy now.

Anyway, I understand why people dislike Kerry, but it should be for the truth, like the fact that he participated in the anti-war movement, and not for things like having a personal cameraman (which isn’t true).

Julia

… Bush himself said that he got out early to go to Harvard because he “made an arrangement” with the Guard….”

-Cf
Posted by Christopher Fahey at September 22, 2004 03:19 PM

Kerry left Vietnam early because Navy regulations allowed him to apply for it under certain circumstances, which he met. He later applied for a six-month early discharge so that he could run for congress. That was allowed under regulations and it also was approved. He satisfactorily completed all the requirements of his service commitment.

Bush got his transfers because Air Force regulations allowed him to apply for them under certain circumstances which he met, and they were approved. He later applied for an early discharge to attend grad school at Harvard, and that too was approved. He completed all requirements of his service commitment, including the accumulation of enough “points” to satisfy all requirements.

I really don’t why the Kerry campaign insisted up front that we all go back 40 years and look for reasons to support him and condemn Bush. With the Clintonistas now taking over his campaign, it appears that someone has already told him to just “moveon” and talk about twenty-first century stuff.

Now if they can just convince all of his enablers like CBS News to do the same, perhaps we can all join them.

> No, but common sense tells you that
> is what happened to both.

You know, I’m not even asking you to show that Kerry received any preferentially good treatment from his superior officers. I’m asking you to show me that anything particularly good happened to Kerry at all. What about Kerry’s experience shows that he had any advantages? He got sent to Vietnam. He got shot at. Things exploded next to him, and peices of shrapnel got lodged in his body. He killed people. Those are hardly the kinds of things that happen to people who are the recipients of good luck, much less people who are beneficiaries of special treatment.

Let’s look at it with this criminal justice metaphor: In Bush’s case, there are allegations, there’s a crime scene (in the sense that there are actual abnormal, unofficial things that happened to Bush), but there’s not much evidence about who committed the crime. In Kerry’s case, sure, there are allegations, but there is no crime scene whatsoever to examine. Nothing abnormal or unofficial happened to Kerry. It’s like accusing someone of being a murderer but not having any dead people to prove that a murder even occurred.

Everything in Kerry’s record is strictly and exactly “by the book”, including his three Purple Hearts. A good deal of Bush’s record is “under the table.” Do you see the difference?

> Again, this is not my interpretation,
> it is just what is flying around.

I felt a little bad about calling your allegation a “lie”, but that’s what it is, even if you’re not the one who made it up. If you are merely quoting what is “flying around”, you would do well to frame it that way. If it is what you actually beleive, however, then you should be prepared to prove it instead of simply chalking it up to “it’s floating around”.

Both of my grandfathers were enlisted men in WWII (Army and Marines), and both took tons of pictures in the South Pacific. One even shot some film.

And in case you don’t remember, lots of soldiers in Vietnam had illegal drugs - were they getting special treatment, or is carrying contraband (assuming cameras are contraband, which I doubt) not as hard as you might think? It’s not like he was shooting an IMAX film, either: Kerry’s films were taken with a Super8 camera, which is about the size of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

And haven’t you seen the thousands of photos and videos taken by American soldiers that have been streaming out of Iraq? Not Abu Ghraib, but the thousands of regular-GI videos and photos?

> Do soldiers with his status usually
> clean latrines? No. Do they live in
> the foxholes on the frontlines? No.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does anyone who graduates from officer candidate school end up cleaning latrines or sitting in foxholes like regular enlisted men?

Does Swift Boat duty count as a “cushy job”? Is it analogous to spending a summer drinking beer in Kennebunkport? Is serving all day every day on a Navy warship off the coast of Vietnam analogous to spending a few months off duty in Alabama? Is shrapnel in the leg analogous to an early trip to Harvard?

I have no doubt that both men receieve some preferential treatment of some kind, but let’s face reality here: Bush’s treatment was light years away from Kerry’s in its flagrant disregard for any sense of duty or fairness. Kerry’s benefit s based on his status, if they exist at all, are barely perceptible. Bush’s stand out like a sore thumb. We’re talking a total of more than a year of avoiding his duty. Where’s Kerry’s gaping hole? Where’s Kerry’s vacation? Kerry’s “special arrangement”? Kerry’s early dismissal?

Additionally, when there’s a crime alleged, we don’t only look for a crime scene, we also look for a weapon, the means by which the crime was committed. During Bush’s TANG tenure, his dad was a Texas Congressman, head of the RNC, Ambassador to the UN, and head of the CIA. What was Kerry’s dad? A retired diplomat. Important, sure, but not even comparable to GHWB’s power and status. GHWB had direct inroads into the Pentagon and into the Nixon Administration. A TANG officer would do very well to treat yound W with kid gloves.

-Cf

Julia, the basis of my post was to ask how one party can use the same “type” of info. to applaud their candidate and to vilify their opponent?

Both, Memogate and SBVT probably have some truth to them, but the negative distortions on both sides make it a waste of time.

Again, this issue has no bearing on why I dislike kerry, it is his un-American liberal views.

> Either you dont like the Dem strategies that
> Bush is following, or you are just condemning
> Bush for partisan reasons. Which is it?

Joe, that’s a disingenuous question. AP was very clear about the specific policies that Bush adopted from the Democrats. Bush’s adopts Democratic policies when his own polcies are so incredibly stupid that even his own party won’t support him. Otherwise, he follows his own polies and we don’t like them. Does that explain AP’s argument?

> Yet Kerry also got out of his committment
> early as well, in order to run for Congress.

That’s true, I totally forgot that. It probably slipped my mind because there didn’t seem to me to be anything remotely unusual about Kerry’s early discharge in light of the circumstances: Kerry had completed his first agreed tour of duty in its entirety and was most of the way through his second, and he had served in combat in Vietnam, and was decorated for bravery and wounded in combat. His commanding officers probably give guys like that a little extra credit. Again, this seems a lot different than Bush’s being excused from duty while still being miles and miles away from fulfilling his committments. It is not at all “identical behavior”. There is still quite a huge difference.

-Cf

> Bush got his transfers because Air Force
> regulations allowed him to apply for them
> under certain circumstances which he met,
> and they were approved.

What regulation is that? Could it be Air Force Regulation ANG43.244-7 which states “If the father of the requestee is the head of the Republican National Committee, Director of the CIA, the Ambassador to the UN, or a Congressman, then any request shall be granted”? That one?

The rule which allowed Kerry to be reassigned out of the Vietnam combat zone after three wounds actually exists, going back to the Civil War.

-Cf

Chris:

Of COURSE my question to AP was disingenuous. Not only that it was more than a bit sarcastic. But it also pointed out the silliness of complaining about someone from an opposing party doing what you want them to do. I thought it silly when Republicans complained that Clinton had “co-opted” Republican policy as his own. I was thrilled that a Democrat would actually implement Republican strategies.

As far as Kerry and Bush, both left service early to focus on other committments. You point out that Kerry was in combat and decorated etc, but regardless, at the time of his leaving the service early, he was in Brooklyn (which I suppose could be considered as hellish as Viet Nam by some..ha ha).

The point was that both left service early, and I believe in the middle of their 6th years of service (dont hold me to that, but I think it is correct).

What regulation is that? Could it be Air Force Regulation ANG43.244-7 which states “If the father of the requestee is the head of the Republican National Committee, Director of the CIA, the Ambassador to the UN, or a Congressman, then any request shall be granted”? That one? Posted by Christopher Fahey at September 22, 2004 06:02 PM

Forgive me for trying to explain how military regulations actually work in these matters. I had a lengthy military career and spent a good part of it responsible for reassignments and separations of all kinds. All of the services operate generally the same way and nothing that Bush or Kerry did is particularly unusual.

I thought that perhaps a few facts might be useful in this discussion, but that was back when it was actually a discussion. Now that it’s no longer so, I defer to your expertise.

Thanks for the kudos AP, and high five! whacko leftie…

George, thanks for bringing the Gen. Staudt statement to my attention, however it changes nothing!

Killian says he felt pressure from Staudt to give the young George Bush preferential treatment. Am I to expect Staudt would confess to such a thing? No. Is there any significance to his denial? No.

As to Killian’s family, I’ve heard they disagree with Mrs. Knox, however I have not seen interviews or read their statements to gage their truthfulness. However, Knox relates to her boss, Killian, the way Andrew Card relates to George Bush. And, Killian’s family relate to him, the way Laura Bush and the twins relate to George Bush.

Something to for you hypocrites to keep in mind when you are beating up Kerry about his “unearned” Purple Hearts.

Although he was grievously wounded in a later battle, Dole wrote in a 1988 biography that the first of his two Purple Hearts was the kind of wound the Army treated “with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.” - CNN.com

Bert: “Killian says he felt pressure from Staudt to give the young George Bush preferential treatment. Am I to expect Staudt would confess to such a thing? No. Is there any significance to his denial? No.”

Bert, have you been watching the news? Killian “says” this in what is now universally recognized as a forged memo. You’re still arguing a position based on a forgery!

But your argument gets even more fantasic and amazing. This forged memo refers to Staudt. Who (again, have you been watching the news?) RETIRED from the NG more than a year before this memo was supposed to have been written.

And you say his denial has no, none, absolutely no significance? Let this one go, buddy.

Staudt is denying what Killian only “said” in a forged document about a time period long after Staudt was retired. No significance indeed!

Martin,

Let me be clear, that I will maintain respect for opinion, in spite of the fact that I am once again confronted with your practice of spouting half-truths, your fixation with semantics as credible arguing points, and your preference that I not bring up any solid evidence.

For example, you Bush apologists still need to absolutely destroy the credibility of Mrs. Knox and her rock solid corroboration that the memos contents were fact, and Killian’s sentiments.

That makes the mention of Staudt’s pressure in the letters equally credible, while also answering the question, ‘Is it possible Bush Sr. could get his son into the Nat’l Guard, with just one phone call?’

Now, let me go back to something I said at the end of my post. I am astounded (but, not surprised) that you guys on the Right are so singularly focused and obsessed with this pettiness, when American soldiers are dying and Iraq is becoming unraveled.

But, abandoning what you believe is fatally harming Kerry, means defending Bush’s handling of the war - and, that is not about to happen.

No worries, Bush still has a sizable lead in the polls!

I thought it silly when Republicans complained that Clinton had “co-opted” Republican policy as his own.

joe, the difference is Clinton had already decided that fiscal responsibility was good idea before he took office. It’s the main reason I voted for him (I was going to vote for Perot until he wacked out).

The presidency is no place for a person who has no idea where he wants to take this country. Other than cutting taxes for the rich, Bush never had a clue. He still doesn’t.

Take away the “war on terror” and Iraq, and Bush is still flailing like he did pre-9/11.

And he’s not doing so well on Iraq and fighting terrorists, either. Any idiot can be “decisive”. The trick is making good decisions.

Bet:

Man you are SILLY. Your side (yes I mean CBS) brings up an issue, and then you blame the Republicans for discussing it. You are the only one I see complaining about Knox’s credibility. I’ve said over and over that she HAS credibility, but that she has NO PROOF. All she has is an opinion, which is what other people have as well.

Once she supplies any measure of proof, I;ll consider her statements in a different light. It aint enough to go into court and tell the judge, “Well, I THINK this person is guilty, but I have no proof of it. I just KNOW it” and expect the judge or jury to find the person guilty.

Perhaps that happens in the OTHER America.

joe,

Please go back to my last Comment posting, and replace Martin’s name with yours!

If those memos were to become a part of some legal proceeding (bogus or not), Mrs. Knox’s testimony of the veracity of their content, becomes quite important.

Regardless, of the fact that your Swift Boat Veterans smears (opinions?) have been proven wrong, your side will always contend there is somehow proof in their evidence.

> the silliness of complaining about someone from
> an opposing party doing what you want them to do.

We’re not complaining about it, Joe. We’re using it as evidence that the policies that he really wants suck, and that the only policies that he has that are any good weren’t even his to begin with, and that quite probably represent instances of him flip-flopping and compromising his real beliefs. We think he’s a hypocrite for taking credit for policies that, in reality, represent political defeats of his own intentions. We still like these policies, and we don’t resent him for adopting them. There’s nothing silly about this.

> he was in Brooklyn (which I suppose could be
> considered as hellish as Viet Nam by some..ha ha).

Haha, very funny. I live in Brooklyn, and it’s a hell of a lot nicer than wherever you live! :-) Seriously, though, I’m so sick of people comparing American urban areas to war zones like Vietnam (or, these days, Baghdad). It unneccessarily disparages American cities and it makes light of the truly dangerous battle situations our troops fight in. Let’s give it a break, okay?

-Cf

Chris:

Cant take a joke eh? For the record, I lived for three years in Detroit, and not having been in Baghdad, I’ll put Detroit up there with any combat zone. Its the only place I’ve ever been where I’ve had a gun thrust against my skull, been frisked and relieved of all my possessions, and had the life of my loved ones threatened, while ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. So spare me your pithy little complaints, friend.

Bert:

Guess you cant show me how anyone is trying to “destroy Ms. Knox’s credibility”. The point to be noticed is that she has no proof, only opinion. If you really want to reduce the truth to being based on various opinions, then YOU would have to accept the opinions of the Swift Vets. Its the same concept. That you cannot understand that, or are unwilling to do so, leads me to wonder how you see them as different.

By the way, I;m not sure what you mean by “MY Swift Boat Veteran’s smears. I can tell you one of their allegations that has turned out to be absolutely TRUE. Lets ask Mr Kerry where he was on Christmas Eve of 1968….you’ll hear a different answer to that question than what he has given in the past.

> I can tell you one of their allegations
> that has turned out to be absolutely TRUE.

LOL, yeah, the most trivial one of their 800 ludicrous allegations. That’s a heck of a track record.

-Cf

CF:

Yknow, i was just waiting for you, or someone of your ilk (remember, ilk is not a slur) to make such a comment. First you guys say that the SBVT allegations are totally repudiated. When faced with the FACT that not all their allegations were repudiated, you then are forced to say “well, yeah, but that fact isnt important.” Flip…..

There is no question in many military minds that Kerry turned his back on his fellow soldiers. That’s a matter of opinion, and it strikes at the heart of Kerry’s character. So too does his claim—-yeah, the one “seared-seared” into his memory—that turns out to be make believe.

Remember, Kerry himself said that Christmas Eve was a pivotal moment in his life, having a huge impact on his view of the war, and leading to his future stance. yet it never happened.

Perhaps you can explain how such a powerful event in someone’s life could have been a figment of thier imagination.

The bottom line, however, is that the SBVT found inconsistencies in Kerry’s story. I showed you one of them. You wont see it as important since it doesnt fit your argument. But at least it does the job of shutting you up from the ability to say that none of their statements was true.

joe,

What you just displayed is the type of mentality and thought process needed and preferred by the Bush administration, to fully accept their version of what is occuring in Iraq.

When faced with the FACT that not all their allegations were repudiated, you then are forced to say “well, yeah, but that fact isnt important.”

joe, they also alledge Kerry was in Vietnam, that he was an officer, that he was in the Navy… Wow! Those guys are on a roll. I wonder why I still think they’re a bunch of partisan liars?

Bert and AP:

Very nice NON responses to the facts that I used. A nice job of trying to smoke screen, but a failed one nonetheless.

joe, I responded to your facts with all the consideration and seriousness I felt they deserved. Mission accomplished.

AP:

I’m sure you answered with all the intelligence and candor you could muster. I truly appreciate your gallant effort.

AP, Joe, and Bert, the interaction appears to be getting very close to our critique the message, not the messenger, limits.

Please gentlemen, take a breath, and remember there is no one pressuring a response other than yourselves. You all have the ability and consent to disengage at anytime, or agree to disagree.

If my assessment is not applicable, please forgive the interjection. There was a great dialogue going until the last few messages.