The Switf Boat Vets have proven Kerry a liar

[priccobe]

Three things that scrutinizing the Swift Boat Vets accounts have proved:

1. John Kerry was not in Cambodia although it was "seared" in his mind.

2. His first purple heart may have been self-inflicted according to his journal statements.

3. His statements admitting to war crimes on "Meet the Press" in 1971.

So, who's smearing who here? These things needed to be brought to the forefront and discussed. If he's lying about all of this and an admitted war criminal, no way should he be president.

[XASA]

Three things that scrutinizing the Swift Boat Vets accounts have proved:

1. John Kerry was not in Cambodia although it was "seared" in his mind.

2. His first purple heart may have been self-inflicted according to his journal statements.

3. His statements admitting to war crimes on "Meet the Press" in 1971.

So, who's smearing who here? These things needed to be brought to the forefront and discussed. If he's lying about all of this and an admitted war criminal, no way should he be president.

The pros and cons of your three points has been discussed and argued in great detail already in at least four recent threads. Perhaps you might take the time to read them ;)

[priccobe]

Already have, but the points bear repeating for all those who support Kerry.

[Huck Mucus]

Already have

Then you did not pay attention, because all the points were successfully rebutted and the Not So Swift Boat Liars were proven wrong. By no means comprehensive, but in summary:

1. It was never proven that Kerry was not in Cambodia. Early on in the patrol he was two hours away from Cambodia. He had another 7 hours to go. Also, remember present recollection recorded and past recollection refreshed.

2. You can't really "prove" a "may" and then hang your hat on it. Besides, Purple Hearts are often awarded for self-inflicted wounds. The question is, did he do it on purpose. Even the Not So Swift Liars admit he did not. Even Bob Dole was too close to his own grenade. Also, Purple Hearts were handed out like candy in Vietnam.

3. See Abu Graib. See Mi Lia. See Kerry's admition to exhuberance in his testimony. Besides, when did he ever deny having committed the awful acts that he said he committed in Vietnam?

Now, if you want to list all the times Kerry's side has indeed PROVEN the Swift Boat Liars to be liars, then you will prove that you actually read all the threads. Also, when your talking-head gods like Limbaugh, et al take things out of context and don't pay attention to timing, they can make anything look strange over a 35 year period (journal entries, patrol orders, testimony, etc.) If you seek the truth you must put all that crap back in order and context.

Oh, and I can't really say I support Kerry. I just support our men in uniform, especially those who actually fought. You know, the same ones who's service is now in question, like the enlisted guy who got the Bronze on the same day.

[XASA]

I see. The big lie, as Goebells use to call it. If you repeat it long enough, people will believe it.

I don't think that rationale will work with Kerry supporters but thanks anyway for thinking about them :D Most people realize by now that the SBVT has no credibility with the exception of hard core Republicans, so I'm sure it must feel cool to be part of an exclusive group of true believers ;)

Good luck in November ;)

[hist2004]

So, who's smearing who here? These things needed to be brought to the forefront and discussed. If he's lying about all of this and an admitted war criminal, no way should he be president.

John Kerry, although well known in Massachusetts (US Senator 19 yrs.) is a virtual unknown
to the rest of the country. Why is that? Because he hasn’t authored any legislation during
that time. The democratic machine knows this, and needed to present a “face” for John Kerry.
How to do that? run on his “Vietnam record”. Problem is Kerry served for 4 months in Vietnam
as opposed to 19yrs of undistinguished service in the Senate. By presenting Kerry as a war
veteran, the Democrats hope to show that he’s capable of being commander in chief, in other
words, President. Unfortunately for Kerry, by focusing on his war record, he opens up as a
lawyer would say, “cross examination”.

Kerry took a risk running on his war record because he was such a controversial figure after
the war, given his association with the anti-war movement, and his Senate testimony on the
“war crimes” committed by US military personnel. As far as the “smear campaign” against him,
his outrage about this is laughable. George Bush has been attacked and smeared for the past
12 months by Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Michael Moore, and moveon.org with the muti-millions
being poured in by George Soros, a socialist who is almost fanatical in his efforts to
defeat George Bush.

Here’s a little info on George Soros. On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), Soros became
instantly famous when, believing the Pound Sterling was overvalued, he speculated aggressively
against it. The Bank of England was forced to withdraw the currency out of the European Exchange
Rate Mechanism, and Soros earned an estimated US$ 1.1 billion in the process. He was dubbed "the
man who broke the Bank of England."

One more note on running on your military record. History shows us that it isn't what the American
people consider when choosing a President. Clinton defeated a war hero, the first President Bush.
Clinton defeated Bob Dole, another war hero. Bob Kerry, Ex-Navy Seal, Medal of honor winner lost
in the '92 election primary to Clinton.

Regards,
Hist2004

[XASA]

Hist, thanks for your well thought out post. We disagree on many points, which I've already noted in other threads.

Thanks for the George Soros information. Did he commit a crime? Or are you condemning him for being a capitalist and making a buck? IMHO, that's the American way ;)

What I want to point out to you is that Americans do vote for war heroes and have done so repeatedly in the past. Although I don't have the time to do research as you do, I think a quick check will reveal the names of several presidents whose war exploits were central to their election. A few that immediately come to mind are Washington, Jackson, Tyler, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower.

Now just because you didn't get that right doesn't mean all your other historical posts should be doubted for their veracity. That would be nit-picking-- which is what the SBVT is doing: every time they are caught in a lie, they come up with some other lie to base their opposition on.

I look forward to your future posts ;)

[hist2004]

No worries, I should have mentioned "recent" elections.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Trigger]

Thanks for the George Soros information. Did he commit a crime? Or are you condemning him for being a capitalist and making a buck? IMHO, that's the American way ;)

This is not a flame, but does this mean Dick Cheney's time at Haliburton is forgiven? He was just a capitalist making a buck like everyone else. :D

[moughoun]

I'm just going to chuck this in here, hope it blows up p-)

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign, Benjamin Ginsberg, resigned on Wednesday after disclosing he provided legal advice to the group that has accused Democrat John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam record.
"I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote in a letter to President Bush.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[XASA]

Thanks for the George Soros information. Did he commit a crime? Or are you condemning him for being a capitalist and making a buck? IMHO, that's the American way ;)

This is not a flame, but does this mean Dick Cheney's time at Haliburton is forgiven? He was just a capitalist making a buck like everyone else. :D

I've never mentioned Cheney's connection to Haliburton or whether or how he earned his money, so you might want to direct your question at someone who has ;) I responded to Hist's reference to Soros, which I thought had nothing to do with whether or not the SBVT are liars. I do think Republicans are mad that someone they feel should be in the corner because he is a billionaire, Soros, has a different agenda than them.

[priccobe]

I'm just going to chuck this in here, hope it blows up Pirate

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign, Benjamin Ginsberg, resigned on Wednesday after disclosing he provided legal advice to the group that has accused Democrat John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam record.
"I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote in a letter to President Bush.

Look at these ties to Kerry:

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/images/infographicfull.jpg

[hist2004]

I responded to Hist's reference to Soros, which I thought had nothing to do with whether or not the SBVT are liars. I do think Republicans are mad that someone they feel should be in the corner because he is a billionaire, Soros, has a different agenda than them.

I mentioned Soros because he’s behind the smear campaign against George Bush, a campaign that
Kerry is angry about being waged against him.

Regards,
Hist2004

[XASA]

Bernstein is the first person to resign, and Cordoes, the POW, was dumped. If everything is on the level about the SBVT, why has the stench permeated the campaign to the point folks need to distance themselves from it? Let me answer that for you: The backlash is setting in ;)

[XASA]

I responded to Hist's reference to Soros, which I thought had nothing to do with whether or not the SBVT are liars. I do think Republicans are mad that someone they feel should be in the corner because he is a billionaire, Soros, has a different agenda than them.

I mentioned Soros because he’s behind the smear campaign against George Bush, a campaign that
Kerry is angry about being waged against him.

Regards,
Hist2004

Fair enough. But what does Soros have to do with the SBVT being liars? And using your research abilities, can you document any lies about Bush that Soros is responsible for? It's one thing to launch a personal attack, it's an entirely different matter to launch a personal attack fueled by lies.

[priccobe]

Fair enough. But what does Soros have to do with the SBVT being liars? And using your research abilities, can you document any lies about Bush that Soros is responsible for? It's one thing to launch a personal attack, it's an entirely different matter to launch a personal attack fueled by lies.

What about the lies from Kerry that only now, because of the SBV ads, have come to light? Say what you will about the the SBVs, since they've come forward several "true" statements from Kerry have been proven false.

Lie One: 1. John Kerry was not in Cambodia although it was "seared" in his mind.

Lie Two: His first purple heart may have been self-inflicted according to his journal statements.

Additionally, his statements admitting to war crimes on "Meet the Press" in 1971 need to be addressed.

[XASA]

Fair enough. But what does Soros have to do with the SBVT being liars? And using your research abilities, can you document any lies about Bush that Soros is responsible for? It's one thing to launch a personal attack, it's an entirely different matter to launch a personal attack fueled by lies.

What about the lies from Kerry that only now, because of the SBV ads, have come to light? Say what you will about the the SBVs, since they've come forward several "true" statements from Kerry have been proven false.

Lie One: 1. John Kerry was not in Cambodia although it was "seared" in his mind.

Lie Two: His first purple heart may have been self-inflicted according to his journal statements.

Additionally, his statements admitting to war crimes on "Meet the Press" in 1971 need to be addressed.

Man, you are like deja vu all over again. :cantbeli: I know you are a FNG, but can't you at least try and come up with something original instead of regurgitating the same old tired bs?

[hist2004]

And using your research abilities, can you document any lies about Bush that Soros is responsible for? It's one thing to launch a personal attack, it's an entirely different matter to launch a personal attack fueled by lies.

Soros is a major contributor to moveon.org. The top three 527 donors so far in
the 2004 election cycle - Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Progressive Corp.
chairman Peter Lewis and financier George Soros - have combined to give nearly
$24 million to prominent liberal groups. They include Joint Victory Campaign 2004,
America Coming Together and MoveOn.org. If I have to go into the smear tactics
of these organizations, our conversation is over. By the way, I don’t want anything
brought out against Kerry that can’t be verified. So release all military records
(Bush & Kerry) and let’s have a look.


Regards,
Hist2004

[priccobe]

Man, you are like deja vu all over again. Can't Believe It I know you are a FNG, but can't you at least try and come up with something original instead of regurgitating the same old tired bs?

The facts remain. He has lied and continues to lie yet you are doing your best to paint the SBVs as the liars.

Don't let the facts get in your way of paint JK as hero #1

[XASA]

To be honest, the only smear jobs I've been exposed to is the SBVT's. Like I said, getting personal and lying are two different matters. I can understand why a Republican would find something offensive in these Dem 527 campaigns; however, if the Democrats have posted any proven lies about Bush, point them out to me? And I don't mean a cartoon or a button calling him names. Or whether Bush use his connections to jump the list to the NG and was he AWOL? Do they point out that Cheney had other things to do doing the Vietnam War? I'd be pissed off, too, at Soros if that was the case. Also, is there a link to Kerry like the links to Bush?

Obviously, no one will ever convinced partisan Republicans that the SBVT group are lying through there teeth even with the huge amount of evidence that they are. Fine. That's your cross to bear. Just don't expect others to be as gullible as you are ;)

[budanski]

To be honest, the only smear jobs I've been exposed to is the SBVT's. Like I said, getting personal and lying are two different matters. I can understand why a Republican would find something offensive in these Dem 527 campaigns; however, if the Democrats have posted any proven lies about Bush, point them out to me? And I don't mean a cartoon or a button calling him names. Or whether Bush use his connections to jump the list to the NG and was he AWOL? Do they point out that Cheney had other things to do doing the Vietnam War? I'd be pissed off, too, at Soros if that was the case. Also, is there a link to Kerry like the links to Bush?

Obviously, no one will ever convinced partisan Republicans that the SBVT group are lying through there teeth even with the huge amount of evidence that they are. Fine. That's your cross to bear. Just don't expect others to be as gullible as you are ;)
You've must've missed these SMEARS. ;)
" I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard."

-John Kerry May 2004

"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went,"

-John Kerry Nov 2000

“They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.”

-John Kerry Apr 1971

[XASA]

Budanski, have you spent so much time on the Internet that you think using a large and bold font makes your post more credible? ;)

And have those questions on Bush's service been answered? If so, can you provide a link, even if it is to one of your far right sources. You see where this goes now that Pandora's box has been opened, people will begin to dig even deeper into Bush's record and Cheney's non-record (BTW, wasn't he really sweet and oh so sensitive when he came out yesterday for gay marriages) :D

So far as the war atrocities are concerned, how are they smears? Are you so naive as to really believe that ears weren't taken as trophies? That rapes weren't committed? That prisoners weren't hooked up to field telephones (it was so well-knowned it was jokingly called the "Bell Telephone Hour" after popular television show of the time). That prisoners weren't tortured and shot? Believe me, young Republican, there were atrocities committed in Vietnam on a regular basis (including many by the RVN & VC). Just ask Hist. ;) He also explained why he thought free fire zones, H&I fire missions and search and destroy missions were contrary to the Geneva Convention.

Finally, his Senate testimony was taken out of context by the SBVT in that he was referring to the stories of others and not any of them. As a veteran, I can understand another veteran being angry at him for his statements, and I'm not mad at any veteran who thinks Kerry did them wrong by bringing up the subject of war crimes to the American public. My beef is with those Vietnam veterans who lie through their teeth because of that anger.

Nice try, though ;)

[hist2004]

It’s interesting that Kerry & Bush’s military service has been the focus of the campaign as of late.
As November closes in, the issues of Iraq, the War on Terror, and the economy will decide the
vote, not war records of 35 years ago. I don’t expect a “bounce” from the Republican convention.
Lines have been drawn, if you don’t know who your going to vote for by now…it will be interesting
to see the new line of equipment the cops use to break the heads of the “Anarchists” set to protest
the GOP convention. ;)

Regards,
Hist2004

[budanski]

Budanski, have you spent so much time on the Internet that you think using a large and bold font makes your post more credible? ;)
Obviously it didnt work the first time around, seeing that you missed the post. ;)

And have those questions on Bush's service been answered? If so, can you provide a link, even if it is to one of your far right sources. You see where this goes now that Pandora's box has been opened, people will begin to dig even deeper into Bush's record and Cheney's non-record (BTW, wasn't he really sweet and oh so sensitive when he came out yesterday for gay marriages) :D
Would a George Magazine article (http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html) be suffice? Not right wing enough? Try the Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html). Last but not least, a secret squirrel-approved, FactCheck.org take: "The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave." (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131)

You ought to have known that you can't be honorably discharged with an AWOL charged or were you just following your democrat talking points? What about John Edward's non record?

So far as the war atrocities are concerned, how are they smears? Are you so naive as to really believe that ears weren't taken as trophies? That rapes weren't committed? That prisoners weren't hooked up to field telephones (it was so well-knowned it was jokingly called the "Bell Telephone Hour" after popular television show of the time). That prisoners weren't tortured and shot? Believe me, young Republican, there were atrocities committed in Vietnam on a regular basis (including much by the RVN & VC). Just ask Hist. ;) He also explained why he thought free fire zones, H&I fire missions and search and destroy missions were contrary to the Geneva Convention.
So you're saying along with what Kerry claims, that all who served were guilty of these charges? I'm not naive to fact that isolated incidents like these did happened but according to you and Kerry, this happened on a daily occurance and everyone there was guilty of them? So you Xasa, a vet from the army of Gengis Khan is guilty as charge? ;)

Finally, his Senate testimony was taken out of context by the SBVT in that he was referring to the stories of others and not any of them. Nice try, though ;)
John Kerry took the stand proclaiming to be speaking on behalf of all who served there. You may not have a problem with Kerry accusing you and other fellow vets under oath, of war attrocities. Don't expect those who disagree with those accusations to sit and be quiet, as a matter of fact these SBVs have just as much a right to protest those charges.

I've mentioned this before, the SBV have sworn affadavits to their claims. If these were untrue, lets see kerry have them put in jail for lying under oath. Kerry can't refute those claims but instead accuses Bush of being behind the attacks. Commentary rebuttals from leftist editors just won't do.

[XASA]

Budanski, have you spent so much time on the Internet that you think using a large and bold font makes your post more credible? ;)
Obviously it didnt work the first time around, seeing that you missed the post. ;)

And have those questions on Bush's service been answered? If so, can you provide a link, even if it is to one of your far right sources. You see where this goes now that Pandora's box has been opened, people will begin to dig even deeper into Bush's record and Cheney's non-record (BTW, wasn't he really sweet and oh so sensitive when he came out yesterday for gay marriages) :D
Would a George Magazine article (http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html) be suffice? Not right wing enough? Try the Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html). Last but not least, a secret squirrel-approved, FactCheck.org take: "The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave." (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131)

You ought to have known that you can't be honorably discharged with an AWOL charged or were you just following your democrat talking points? What about John Edward's non record?

So far as the war atrocities are concerned, how are they smears? Are you so naive as to really believe that ears weren't taken as trophies? That rapes weren't committed? That prisoners weren't hooked up to field telephones (it was so well-knowned it was jokingly called the "Bell Telephone Hour" after popular television show of the time). That prisoners weren't tortured and shot? Believe me, young Republican, there were atrocities committed in Vietnam on a regular basis (including much by the RVN & VC). Just ask Hist. ;) He also explained why he thought free fire zones, H&I fire missions and search and destroy missions were contrary to the Geneva Convention.
So you're saying along with what Kerry claims, that all who served were guilty of these charges? I'm not naive to fact that isolated incidents like these did happened but according to you and Kerry, this happened on a daily occurance and everyone there was guilty of them? So you Xasa, a vet from the army of Gengis Khan is guilty as charge?

Finally, his Senate testimony was taken out of context by the SBVT in that he was referring to the stories of others and not any of them. Nice try, though ;)
John Kerry took the stand proclaiming to be speaking on behalf of all who served there. You may not have a problem with Kerry accusing you and other fellow vets of war attrocities, but don't expect those who disagree with those accusations to sit and be quiet. As a matter of fact these SBVs have just as much a right to protest those charges.

Dude, again, like the SBVT, you really have a knack for taking someone's statement out of context ;) No, he did not say everyone was guilty of war crimes nor did I; in fact, he placed the burden of those crimes on the policy makers and generals and made that point quite clear in his testimony. I'm sure you are aware of that so why try and twist his and my words to benefit a your own agrument :roll:

I have never questioned Bush's NG service in any thread nor did I question it here. IMHO, if he served and got an honorable discharge, that is enough for me. The only reason I referred to it in this thread was because you and others brought it up as a "smear". I, therefore, compared that "smear" to the lies being made against Kerry and how now Bush's military record will be compared to his. It's easy to do; for example, the George article you referred me too, even if it is more than three years old, leaves his record open to queries if you use the same nit-picking tactics Republicans are using:



Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by Georegemag.com show that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.

[budanski]

Dude, again, like the SBVT, you really have a knack for taking someone's statement out of context ;) No, he did not say everyone was guilty of war crimes nor did I; in fact, he placed the burden of those crimes on the policy makers and generals and made that point quite clear in his testimony. I'm sure you are aware of that so why try and twist his and my words to benefit a your own agrument :roll:

Heres Kerry's comment, the SBV take issue with. By his own admission, he placed other SBVs of being guilty of the same war attrocities.

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam." (http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=WarCrimes)

I have never questioned Bush's NG service in any thread nor did I question it here. IMHO, if he served and got an honorable discharge, that is enough for me. The only reason I referred to it in this thread was because you and others brought it up as a "smear". I, therefore, compared that "smear" to the lies being made against Kerry and how now Bush's military record will be compared to his. It's easy to do; for example, the George article you referred me too, even if it is more than three years old, leaves his record open to queries if you use the same nit-picking tactics Republicans are using:



Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by Georegemag.com show that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.
You're beginning to take on Kerry's tactics. At one part you say youre "not questioning" Bush's NG service, yet you were gracious enough to point out something you found questionable.

Should I bold these as well? ;)


Take a look here, Bush, honorably discharged from the Tex ANG. I don't recall them giving those out to anyone with an "AWOL" status.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif

You're own liberal tabloid has even debunked this in 2000 before it "rebunked"(?) it.

New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70817FD3D5D0C708CDDA80994D8404482)
...Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.

[California Joe]

Budanski IS Charlie.

OK, lets forget the military service issue. How about we argue about who was the better male cheerleader.......Oh yeah...... p-)

[budanski]

Budanski IS Charlie.

OK, lets forget the military service issue. How about we argue about who was the better male cheerleader.......Oh yeah...... p-)

Its a toss between Ronald Reagan and Dwight D. Eisenhower. ;)

[XASA]

LOL California Joe.

I think I've posted more in the past week than I have in the past six months because I was so angry at the SBVT's lies. It has now denigrated to the level of a elementary school playground fight ("My Daddy can beat your daddy!") :P At times, I'm sure, I've been arguing with kids not long out of elementary school. ;)

I must admit, my disgust with the SBVT and their supporters really got me revved up to counter every lie and smear, which wasn't difficult considering the wealth of material available on the subject in the news-- which is partially due to the fact that August is always a slow news month. Hell, Google News has more than 1,000 articles on the subject today! But how can you argue with those who refuse to accept facts?

All this reminds me of the time when one of my ex-wives caught me with another woman. "Who are you going to believe," I asked, "me or your lying eyes." Like Bush supporters intent on smearing Kerry when confronted with the truth, she decided to believe me :P Sometimes, you just have to laugh at the inconsistencies; at the same time, you almost want to cry because of the ignorance.

Up until this month, I was pretty much on the fence, but now that all this has hit the fan, I think I'll go sign up with the Kerry campaign as a veteran willing to work with them to get out the vote because I don't think I can stomach four more years of this crap. ;) In fact, I can't wait until November 2nd when the electorate will make the decision as to who is best to lead the nation and not divide it with lies and innuendo.

God, it use to be such a great country...what happened? :| I guess that should be another thread ;)

[California Joe]

Ahhhhh the old Jimmy Fox defense.....

[Hot Lips]

I think you need to post that at least 78 more times. Thanks.

[hist2004]

XASA-

Quite a lively debate eh? It's interesting that your voting for Kerry based on the Swift boat
controversy. It is clear to you that Kerry's version is above reproach. I on the other hand
believe the true version of events is somewhere in the middle. Did Kerry save Rassman? I
believe he did. Were the wounds he received severe? (3 purple hearts) I say no. My reasoning
is based on his physical well-being. He shows no signs of any injury. Bob Dole who I dislike, was
maimed for life, as are many returning servicemen with "one" Purple Heart. As far as Kerry's
post Vietnam record- it has to be looked at in the context of the times, the war was divisive
and controversial to say the least. He fought; I'll give him his due as to how he felt about it.

As far as voting, my concerns are National Security and my money. Kerry has said he wants to
go to the UN for "approval" of military action. Given the UN's handling of Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda,
Iraq and the current situation in Sudan, I'll pass. I believe he'll raise taxes, and not just for the "rich".
I know Kerry, he represents my state. He admitted to the Boston Globe in June of 2003 that based
on the wounds he received, he didn't miss any duty, but was in pain. If I received 3 purple hearts, I
probably would have left too.

Do I believe Bush completed his National Guard obligation, yes but I also believe he went missing for
the time that's alleged. The Air War was over by 1972 (other than the US response to the Easter
Offensive by the NVA). The likelihood of his being called for active duty was slim, given his connections.
And so, vote as you may and thanks for a debate that stayed pretty much on topic and all arrows were
kept in their quiver.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Trigger]

I think you need to post that at least 78 more times. Thanks.
Hey, it works for the squirrel ;)

[Hot Lips]

Were the wounds he received severe? (3 purple hearts) I say no. My reasoning
is based on his physical well-being. He shows no signs of any injury. Bob Dole who I dislike, was
maimed for life, as are many returning servicemen with "one" Purple Heart.

I read the requirements for a Purple Heart. A physical lesion is not required and self inflicted wounds are eligible in some instances, etc.

Next time I see a Vet that looks healthy should I assume that his awards are based on lies/exaggerations? Honestly - this whole thing really has my respect for such awards declining day by day and I'm sure that is true for many folks.

[XASA]

XASA-

Quite a lively debate eh? It's interesting that your voting for Kerry based on the Swift boat
controversy. It is clear to you that Kerry's version is above reproach. I on the other hand
believe the true version of events is somewhere in the middle. Did Kerry save Rassman? I
believe he did. Were the wounds he received severe? (3 purple hearts) I say no. My reasoning
is based on his physical well-being. He shows no signs of any injury. Bob Dole who I dislike, was
maimed for life, as are many returning servicemen with "one" Purple Heart. As far as Kerry's
post Vietnam record- it has to be looked at in the context of the times, the war was divisive
and controversial to say the least. He fought; I'll give him his due as to how he felt about it.

As far as voting, my concerns are National Security and my money. Kerry has said he wants to
go to the UN for "approval" of military action. Given the UN's handling of Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda,
Iraq and the current situation in Sudan, I'll pass. I believe he'll raise taxes, and not just for the "rich".
I know Kerry, he represents my state. He admitted to the Boston Globe in June of 2003 that based
on the wounds he received, he didn't miss any duty, but was in pain. If I received 3 purple hearts, I
probably would have left too.

Do I believe Bush completed his National Guard obligation, yes but I also believe he went missing for
the time that's alleged. The Air War was over by 1972 (other than the US response to the Easter
Offensive by the NVA). The likelihood of his being called for active duty was slim, given his connections.
And so, vote as you may and thanks for a debate that stayed pretty much on topic and all arrows were
kept in their quiver.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

Hist, again, we agree to disagree. The SBVT controversy was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me. I initially began having doubts about the administration almost a year ago when Iraq starting going down the crapper and the WMD issue--I personally don't like being lied to. It's beginning to be an unpopular war, so I know how difficult it's going to be for the guys and gals now fighting when they return home, and I blame Bush for putting them in harm's way before making sure we had our sh** together.

So far as Purple Hearts are concerned; Dole first PH was for a self-inflicted wound when a grenade he or a buddy threw bounced off of a tree and gave him a superficial wound. Like Hot Lips said--and the gal does her research like you--the criteria is very clear as to who can be awarded one and who can't. By 1968 and 1969 when Kerry was in Vietnam, PHs were being handed out to anyone who got wounded in combat be it a scratch or a death-- if you want to argue whether or not that's fair or not, complain to DOD. Perhaps they can come up with one medal for minor wounds, another for major wounds and a third for a death. But it doesn't work that way.

I have nothing but respect for a person who votes for someone based on their record, beliefs and views. I have nothing but disgust for a person who based their votes on slander, smears and lies.

[Hot Lips]

Regarding Cambodia (from CNN.com today)

Kerry critic told Nixon he was in Cambodia
'71 tape at odds with veteran's recent denial of being in country
Thursday, August 26, 2004 Posted: 11:20 AM EDT (1520 GMT)


John Kerry, here with crew mates in the Vietnam War, has been under attack from John O'Neill and a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of the men who helped put Democrat John Kerry on the defensive over his military record during the Vietnam War is answering questions about his own service during that conflict.

During an Oval Office conversation in 1971, John O'Neill tells President Nixon he was in Cambodia in a swift boat during the war -- a claim that is at odds with O'Neill's recent statements that he wasn't in the country.

"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.


At the time O'Neill said he was. Now he says he wasn't. He said that if Kerry had been in Cambodia that he would have been court martialled. Wouldn't the same have been true for himself?

At worst - Kerry is accussed of having a bad memory about being in Cambodia 33 years after the fact. O'Neill either lied to then President Nixon on tape or is lying now to the media on record. Either way it would appear O'Neill lied.

Wonder how sales of his book have been boosted by all the scandal he's stirring up. No motive there.

[budanski]

Kerry and O'Neill weren't in Vietnam at the same time. O'Neil had stated this himself. He took over Kerry's command after Kerry was relieved of his duty.

O'Neill specifically corrected the location as being on the border. Kerry made additional claims (specific date, being shot at by Khmer Rouge, operating under orders of Nixon admin.) which have been discredited as being impossible. O'Neill was NEAR the Cambodian border but not *in* Cambodia and claims just this. Meanwhile Kerry claims he was 5 miles within in Cambodia at Christmas while he was elsewhere in Dec:
"On more than one occasion, I like Martin Sheen in "Apocalypse Now," took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South-Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Nixon wasn't inaugurated until Jan 20, 1969. Also, he did not authorize any operations in Cambodia or Laos until late 1969 or early 1970. Kerry made references of his "cambodia" story some 50 times on the senate floor. Is it any surprise the Kerry campaign has commissioned presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley to adjust his claims?

Whether or not John O'Neill was in Cambodia is totally irrelevant and immaterial. Kerry is the one running for President. Kerry is the one who claimed the memory of him being in Cambodia at Christmas is "seared, seared" in his memory.

[Hot Lips]

It's not irrelivant if you are going to lend any credibility to his accussations. He's bascially done the same thing he accussed Kerry of. Making one statement to the CIC on tape and then correcting it later when it was pointed out to him. He said specifically "I was IN Cambodia". The next sentence "I worked along the border" is not a correction of the first because he doesn't say on which side of the border. It is only now - years later he is saying otherwise. Now he says he doesn't doubt that he said that to Nixon, but that it was not accurrate. Is he confessing to a lie? The logic some folks has been using lately would seem to point in this direction.

I'd expect a man to be most accurate closest to the time of the incident as opposed to years later. No one has perfect recollection - sometime people mesh two memories together without realizing it. Kerry said he was in Cambodia for Christmas and I read somewhere that he did correct himself to say he was in Cambodia at some point. "Seared" was definately a poor choice of words based on a 33 year old memory, but not neccessarily a lie - he probably believed his memory was correct - just as O'Neill believes his is correct despite a recording of him stating otherwise. We can't hang our hats on O'Neill's word and not question him the way he questions others.

I can't fault either of them for having a poor memory 33 years after the fact.

[Secret Squirrel]

Whether or not John O'Neill was in Cambodia is totally irrelevant and immaterial.

So no one is allowed to question the reasons or character of someone who's attacking Kerry? Heaven forbid that someone has put another hole in the sinking swift boat of "truth".

[XASA]

Bush said in an interview yesterday that Kerry told the truth about his Vietnam experience. If Republicans consider him their leader and every word he utters is the truth, will they now agree that the SBVT are liars...I doubt it :| He also said he made a "miscalculation" on what would happen in post-war Iraq. No kidding ;)

Bush: Kerry tells truth

'Should be proud' of Nam role

BY RICHARD SISK
NY DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - President Bush conceded yesterday that he does not believe John Kerry lied about his war record, but still refused to condemn a TV ad run by a group of veterans that say the senator did.
"I think Sen. Kerry should be proud of his record," Bush said in an interview posted on the New York Times Web site last night. "No, I don't think he lied."

The President said he would only condemn the type of groups behind the ad - called 527s for a section in the campaign laws.

"I understand how Sen. Kerry feels - I've been attacked by 527s too," he said.

Earlier Bush tried to placate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has called on the group to end the spots ripping Kerry's record and urged Bush to come out against them. He called the Republican maverick from Air Force One, pledging legal action against ads by all outside groups.

Kerry also scrambled to avoid the wrath of McCain, whom he had courted as a possible running mate, and moved quickly to halt his own ads using footage of McCain angrily confronting Bush in 2000 over attacks sponsored by Texas Republicans on McCain's commitment to veterans.

"We respect John McCain's wishes, and will stop running the ads of him challenging Bush to denounce the attacks on his service," said Kerry campaign aide David Wade.

But the Navy vets group at the center of the current controversy, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, ignored McCain's call to cease and desist and came out with a third ad alleging that Kerry fabricated parts of his decorated Vietnam service record.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush told McCain that he would file suit in federal court demanding that the Federal Election Commission block ads by the "shadowy" 527 groups, but it was unlikely that the courts would move before November.

Kerry's campaign dismissed Bush's move as a ploy to divert attention from their charges that the Swift Boat group was funded and advised by Bush political operatives.

"This White House is desperately trying to avoid coming clean about its role in smearing John Kerry's heroic war record," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

Bush also admitted yesterday in separate interviews to unease over the war in Iraq. In one, he said even many of his friends have doubts about America's role in Iraq.

"There's a lot of my friends who come and bass fish with me. They don't say it out loud, I know they're thinking it: 'Why?'" Bush said in an interview with USA Today posted on its Internet site.

But he remains unshaken in the belief he made the right decision to invade and thinks voters will give him a second term despite the ever-rising casualty toll and cost of occupation.

"And the answer is because the stakes are high. Because there is more work to be done to make the world a freer and more peaceful place."

He also admitted to the Times that he made a "miscalculation" of what would happen after the invasion, but insisted the plan was flexible enough to deal with the insurgency.

Originally published on August 27, 2004

[Trigger]

I was under the impression that Bush was considered a buffoon. A monkey. A half-wit. A fumbling idiot. Now that he says he 'thinks' Kerry didn't lie, he's to be taken seriously?
As you all know, President Bush was nowhere near Vietnam. How could he possibly know whether Kerry was being truthful or not? He wasn't on the boat with Kerry. You can't have it both ways.

[XASA]

I was under the impression that Bush was considered a buffoon. A monkey. A half-wit. A fumbling idiot. Now that he says he 'thinks' Kerry didn't lie, he's to be taken seriously?
As you all know, President Bush was nowhere near Vietnam. How could he possibly know whether Kerry was being truthful or not? He wasn't on the boat with Kerry. You can't have it both ways.

I find it interesting that you do not consider Bush as being a good judge of character. ;)

[Trigger]

I didn't specify my opinion of him. ;)
From the start he has said that Kerry's service was honorable, but if he doesn't purposely shoot himself in the foot, it's not good enough for the Dems. :|

[pinkeye]

so i take it from the media coverage and the endless debates on this messageboard that every other issue and the many problems that concern and/or afflict the u.s. ar either totally unimportant or have been resolved to the satisfaction of all involved?
so child poverty is no longer an issue or has been taken care of?
unemployment?
the economy?
environmental degradation?
health care?
"war on terrorism"?

[Secret Squirrel]

so i take it from the media coverage and the endless debates on this messageboard that every other issue and the many problems that concern and/or afflict the u.s. ar either totally unimportant or have been resolved to the satisfaction of all involved?
so child poverty is no longer an issue or has been taken care of?
unemployment?
the economy?
environmental degradation?
health care?
"war on terrorism"?

Those topics have been posted before, but 2sheds, Trigger and budanski et al like to have their circle jerks regarding swiftvets.com. Some people are a little paniced that Bush's approval rating is below 50%. He's managed to dwindle away the misplaced patriotism that he garnered from 9/11.

[Trigger]

so i take it from the media coverage and the endless debates on this messageboard that every other issue and the many problems that concern and/or afflict the u.s. ar either totally unimportant or have been resolved to the satisfaction of all involved?
so child poverty is no longer an issue or has been taken care of?
unemployment?
the economy?
environmental degradation?
health care?
"war on terrorism"?

Those topics have been posted before, but 2sheds, Trigger and budanski et al like to have their circle jerks regarding swiftvets.com. Some people are a little paniced that Bush's approval rating is below 50%. He's managed to dwindle away the misplaced patriotism that he garnered from 9/11.
Political circle jerks?
Why don't you check your post history pal. :roll:

[Tane Angle]

2sheds, Trigger and budanski et al like to have their circle jerks AHHHH!!!! MY EYES HAVE BEEN SOILED!!!! AHHH!!!!!

On the other hand, that explains why the bathroom door was locked for so long. I really had to go too :oops: .

p-)

[Trigger]

WE WERE JUST READING THE ARTICLES!!...HONEST! rofl

[Tane Angle]

rofl

[Hot Lips]

WE WERE JUST READING THE ARTICLES!!...HONEST! rofl

*snicker* :oops: