Member Discussions

What's the 'F' stand for in John F. Kerry? F is for Fraud.

The Republican smear campaign continues. Don't you guys have anything more than the hearsay of disgruntled individuals?

request to be awarded 3 purple hearts

Kerry is egoistic. So what?

write up false after action reports to get bronze and silver medals

So say a bunch of people who weren't on Kerry's boat. Regardless of whether they were in nearby boats or something, I doubt any of them are eyewitnesses. So it comes down to the testimony just one person. Now if you're really looking for something official, the Pentagon apparently decided to investigate the issue in response to the controversy.

debate and vote on whether to assasinate five US Senators

He claims he wasn't there. A few people who claim to have been there also say he wasn't there. One person said he was there, but then said that it might have been a different meeting. Unless you have some kind of proof ...

go to Paris and have unauthorized talks with Madam Binh while Americans were fighting in NV while still a commissioned officer

So it's illegal to talk to foreign leaders on an unofficial basis? As I understand it, the law prevents U.S. citizens from formally negotiating unless they are an official. Do you have something saying that Kerry was trying to negotiate on behalf of the U.S.?

have his portrait as a hero in the war crimes museum in Saigon.

Hey, so it's a bad thing to be honored for speaking out against war crimes? Oh, right, it helps the Communists. Silly me.

Not all Bush supporters are rich; some are religious fanatics who think the Ten Commandments should be amended to the Constitution, some are homophobes who think that being gay should be a capital offense, some are related to the Saudi royal family, and some are just plain ignorant and/or stupid.


And with quotes like these even if you had a shred of credibility in your case, you lose it saying stuff like this. Partly because you are no longer just insulting Bush, but insulting the majority of people in this country right now. Not because they are the things you say they are, but simply because they are Republicans.

So you are in no position to be complaining about a smear campaign or hate mongering when it's clearly you and your democratic friends that are spreading these vicious things around.

Oh, and I'm guessing you've ignored the fact that the false allegations against Bush were dragged out in his two terms as governor, and in the 2000 election. Nobody paid any attention to it then, and they won't now, because like back then, we know these things to be lies.

"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed ..." - John Kerry, 1971

(Comment added by Samson on Thu Sep 9 6:48:58 2004)

"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committees in that I took part in shooting in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used .50-caliber machine guns, which were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

A more complete version of the quote. Kerry’s statement on the April 18th, 1971 episode of Meet the Press.

I think it's only in the eyes of the extemely pedantic that Bush could be seen as merely continueing a war that has been going on since 1990's - even if it is technically true.
I guess, then, that it would be a-ok with you, should Bush decide to launch attacks against North Korea - that war hasn't ended either you know...

I support the war in Iraq. Now that it's here I think we should get it overwith as cleanly and humanely as it's possible in a war. That doesn't make it a legal war - If we are to dvelve at details, then the US is in fact a member of the UN, and by the charters of the UN, what Bush did was illegal (and don't give me that crap about it being corrupt - as that Boston paper clearly states you have, in the very least, huge problems with nepotism... or media who are so skilled at fraud that it could cost a president his election. Either way it's no better than the UN).

As for you and kitkat being better of, good for you - but bringing wealth to the population for 4 or 8 years is EASY.
About 16 years ago we had a left side government who spend much more money than it had coming in, hence when the opposition came into power, they had to tighten the belt, so to say, making new prohibitive laws and additional taxes and such. People moaned and groaned, but now we have a nice plus on our balance of payments (a negative deficit??).
Anyway, my point is that lowering taxes is easy, and you will have a nice life as long as your creditors (the rest of the world), don't collect.
Your beloved president is making life sweet for you sure, but your children will pay, and probably dearly.

Keep arguing. One of you will change the other's mind and convince him to vote the same way as you. I assure you, years of conditioning through parental guidance, religion, and education can be reversed through an argument on the internet.

Not all Bush supporters are rich; some are religious fanatics who think the Ten Commandments should be amended to the Constitution, some are homophobes who think that being gay should be a capital offense, some are related to the Saudi royal family, and some are just plain ignorant and/or stupid.

*The sound of my head slipping off my hand and hitting the desk*

Uh..oh..huh? *blush*

I think I fell asleep in the middle of the above rant...Oh gawwwwd...My face is damp...I think I drooled a little while sleeping.

*dies of embarrassment*

Nobody saw that..right? You guys were all looking the other way?

*continues to die of embarrassment and wonders what is taking so long*

Immortally embarrassed...this so sucks.

In the future I will stick to safe topics...like the correct way to write a room desc or interpreting copyright law....

Kitkat - cause, like...somebody had to do it -

Let's see:

Samson:

"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committees in that I took part in shooting in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used .50-caliber machine guns, which were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

A more complete version of the quote. Kerry’s statement on the April 18th, 1971 episode of Meet the Press.

I don't think the word 'perjury' means what you think it means, look it up. The term you may be looking for is 'self-incrimination'. Kerry didn't make any excuses for his behaviour there (though his actions based on this were not as bad as some others'), but one thing is noteworthy -and you should know it since you claim to have been affiliated with the military: in combat, refusing to follow orders from superiors is a capital offence and punishable without court-martial.

And yes, Samson, it is your responsibility to show proof when making a claim that you expect someone to believe.

And Kerry did indeed misspeak about the $86B allotment, it happens. Let's see about some of the things Bush has said:
http://www.bushisms.com/NewQuotes.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2002/bushisms.htm
And more here (74000 hits):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bushisms&btnG=Google+Search

Incidentally that $86B is one of GWB's favourite topics: Kerry didn't support the troops! Whose bright idea was it again to send the troops in without the equipment in the first place? (If someone feels like arguing about the Senate's support for GWB to go to war I'll be happy to point them to resources about the content of that bill; the most prominent reservation, of course, was that 'all other means had been exhausted' before engaging.) You may also want to read the text of the proposed bill. It may be you wouldn't agree either.

Tyche [On Swift boats]

1. Medals aren't requested, they're awarded by superiors.


2. A Purple Heart is not a reward, it's an acknowledgement of sustained injury during enemy activity.


3. All the Navy documents support the Kerry side.


4. All the people who were present during the actions give the same description of events as Kerry does.


5. None of the people in SVT were present during these actions. Bob Dole wasn't even in the damn country.


6. The original claims of the SVT didn't dispute the chain of events, actually: they had more to do with the motivation for those events. They disagree on whether the medals were earned by skill and courage or stupidity and luck.

Kitkat:
Poor, deluded Kitkat. Your own statement regarding a capitalist economy reveals it for what it's worth: you say that because we have to buy those products it makes sense for those companies to ensure we can do so by giving jobs etc. It doesn't. Because we have to buy them.

.

If you read the entire interview, he was referring to the Pentagon's designation of "free fire" zones, and the fact that soldiers were ORDERED to burn villages that were suspected VC strongholds.

He followed orders, and was ashamed because of it. Instead of hiding it, he had the courage to come forward and expose the disgusting practices the U.S. government was employing in Vietnam even though it would also make him look bad. That's leadership.

Poor, deluded Kitkat.

Rude, much?

Your own statement regarding a capitalist economy reveals it for what it's worth: you say that because we have to buy those products it makes sense for those companies to ensure we can do so by giving jobs etc. It doesn't.

I never said we -had- to buy the products. People generally will buy and buy more if they have more disposable income.

Because we have to buy them

Untrue...and pretty much irrelavent.

Funny...I never been held at gunpoint and forced to shop. No one ever -has- to buy anything. I don't get the whole 'poor pitiful us...held hostage and forced to buy things' deal. If you don't like the prices or the practices of any given company, buy somewhere else...make it yourself..or do without for a while.

Medals aren't requested, they're awarded by superiors. A Purple Heart is not a reward, it's an acknowledgement of sustained injury during enemy activity.


Yeah I know. That's why two of Kerry's commanders told him to take a hike on the purple heart. He got his purple heart medal after they were rotated back to the states.

All the Navy documents support the Kerry side.

False. The only documents that are publicly available are the citations, 6 pages. Three versions of the same medal. A FOIA request returns those 6 pages and over 100 pages that cannot be released until Kerry files a 180 release form like Bush did. Kerry refuses to release his military records and has posted about 25 selected pages on his site. Actually 8 pages were removed from the Kerry site when an irate skipper named Peck loudly complained that they were action reports from his boat.

All the people who were present during the actions give the same description of events as Kerry does.

False. Do the research. 3 of the 5 commanders (1 is dead) give the same version of the 4-13-69 incident. Kerry and Rassman have given 4 diferent versions. Each version gets closer to the SBVs version, and further from that given in Kerry's book.

None of the people in SVT were present during these actions. Bob Dole wasn't even in the damn country.

False. Gardner and Schactde were on Kerry's boat. A half dozen of the SBVs were present at the actions. Read the book. Bob Dole isn't an SBV. I could tell you why Dole got involved but you'll figure it out on the 12th. ;-)

The original claims of the SVT didn't dispute the chain of events, actually: they had more to do with the motivation for those events.

Oh but they did. They had to do with Kerry's book Tour of Duty. Kerry's stories today don't even match what is in his book. The biographer Brinkley is having fits. In fact a Kerry defender, Rood (Chicago tribune writer) released a version that contradicts Kerry's version.



(Comment added by Tyche on Fri Sep 10 7:18:14 2004)

Correction:
Actually 8 pages were removed from the Kerry site when an irate skipper named Peck loudly complained that they were action reports from his boat.

Sorry it was 20 pages that were removed.
Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/23/discrepancies_noted_in_kerrys_record/

He claims he wasn't there. A few people who claim to have been there also say he wasn't there. One person said he was there, but then said that it might have been a different meeting. Unless you have some kind of proof ...

No he retracted that months ago. It was buried.

3/19/2004 'Kerry hedges on 1971 KC meeting' - Scott Cannon - Knight Ridder Newspapers
KANSAS CITY - (KRT) - Confronted with 32-year-old FBI records, Sen. John Kerry's campaign all but conceded he attended a 1971 Kansas City meeting where a fellow anti-war veteran called for political assassinations.

He was there, before he wasn't there.

*The sound of my head slipping off my hand and hitting the desk*

Uh..oh..huh? *blush*

Don't try and wiggle out of it. I think he nailed you. You're obviously a member of the Saudi royal family aren't you? And to think you had us fooled... princess KitKat bin Saud.

Don't try and wiggle out of it. I think he nailed you. You're obviously a member of the Saudi royal family aren't you? And to think you had us fooled... princess KitKat bin Saud.

Oh perfect. Thanks Tyche. *kicks Tyche in the shin*

Like, just blab it all over the net why don't you?

*pushes Tyche over into the corner and hopefully out of sight, then stuffs his mouth with a potato pancake*

Okay...heh heh..that Tyche...such a kidder...darn..it is too hot to make challah...oh..here, have a plate of stuffed cabbage...it's good for you...that's right...eat up...just ignore that funny man, Tyche...

Well, the Boston Globe has been pouring over those records, and it's quite clear that the claims Bush has made about his military service have been false.

Just breaking on the AP, Fox, and all over the blogosphere... The documents used by CBS and the Globe are forgeries. 60 minutes producer refuses to disclose the source.

Just breaking on the AP, Fox, and all over the blogosphere... The documents used by CBS and the Globe are forgeries. 60 minutes producer refuses to disclose the source.


Time for the Truth Squad to tear this one apart. That story didn't break on the AP, Tyche. Or if it did, then they must've quickly buried it, because the ONLY place I was able to find any mention of that "forgery" accusation was on Fox News. Surprise, surprise.

As for blogs, I only saw mention of that same story, all pointing to that same article link on foxnews.com. I read the short article, and it's nothing but a bunch of "oh, I don't think he would've kept military memos for that long" and "that font resembles one on my computer!" Believe it or not, many retired military officers keep old documents (including memos) with them as keepsakes, and there were many typewriters back then that used superscript characters. What do you thing the MS Word font was based on in the first place? Hell, even in the article the person was only able to generate a "nearly identical" document. I could probably create a nearly identical copy of the U.S. Constitution using MS Word if I was getting paid hourly by Fox News. That doesn't mean the U.S. Constitution is a forgery.


Everyone with half a brain knows that Fox News is the blowhorn for the Republican party. This is just yet another example of their blatant political agenda seeping into their already biased reporting. It only shows how worried they are about these revelations of Bush's service-- or, more accurately, lack thereof.

It's definitely not just Fox News. The story is slowly making its way through the larger newspapers if you look at Google News.

Most likely, that particular document *is* a hoax, and CBS -- well, it's a televised news program, go figure -- decided to run it despite concerns.

Time for the Truth Squad to tear this one apart. That story didn't break on the AP, Tyche. Or if it did, then they must've quickly buried it, because the ONLY place I was able to find any mention of that 'forgery' accusation was on Fox News. Surprise, surprise.

Son of Late Officer Questions Bush Memos 9 Sep. 15:35:38 EST
Fox News broke it at about 10 minutes past the hour 6pm EST - Jim Angle reporting on Fox News.
But the real story was uncovered and first broke at Powerline blog by amateur newshounds.
You can find the post by searching down to Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (473)

The truth squad!? ROTFLMAO.

Here's some more news on the topic from the
premier

rightwing
press to balance the leftwing press(CBS,ABC,NBC,NYTimes,LATimes,Globe,WaPost). ;-)


(Comment added by Tyche on Fri Sep 10 5:20:35 2004)

Here's a nice editorial in the middlewing press (NY Post) on how bloggers exposed seeBS
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28276.htm

Unfortunately Texas democrat activist and Kerry fundraiser Dan Rather was blinded by his liberal bias and ran the story anyways.

(Comment added by Tyche on Fri Sep 10 5:35:01 2004)

Whoops strike Kerry fundraiser above it was Bush's opponent in 1988, Richards.

and you should know it since you claim to have been affiliated with the military

I think you have me confused with someone else. Unless you count the day I had an appointment with the Air Force recruiter and was told my eyesight would disqualify me from enlisting in either the Air Force or the Navy and as a result I was not fit for duty. Unless I wanted to join the Army, which wasn't something I cared to do.

Or perhaps you refer to my father's career in the Air Force. Maybe that was it. Yeah, it must be, because I've blathered about it for.... wait a minute. No, I haven't mentioned this at all, to anyone, until just now.

So do you mind telling me when I claimed to be affiliated with the military?

And yes, Samson, it is your responsibility to show proof when making a claim that you expect someone to believe.

That may be, but here's the kicker: I don't expect you to beleive it. Tyche has already done an excellent job of refuting you and Kris both, but neither of you have made any indication you will accept his proof, so I don't expect you to beleive anything I say. So I guess I don't need to waste any more of my time with trying now do I?

Just look at the absolute BS Kris keeps posting as proof of his claims, only to be shot down later by evidence which completely destroys his claims and offers proof to back it up. Does Kris concede? No, he subtly labels it all as part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary is so famous for pointing out.

BEsides, I'm reasonably sure you know what I've said is true and you just won't admit it, so you hide behind the smokescreen of "Samson didn't prove it, so he must be wrong" when it's pretty much common knowledge and you're indirectly admitting your ignorance to claim otherwise.

Personal attack? Distraction from the issue? Complete BS? You decide. I don't care, and never claimed to care. I know what's true because I can actually listen to more than the liberally biased network news to get my information. I have a brain, I use it. If something seems wrong, it probably is. Most of what the democrats tell me seems wrong. It's called a concience.

So do you mind telling me when I claimed to be affiliated with the military?

I'd imagine it's from where you said "I worked in a non-essential civilian sector of the Navy." I guess some people would interpret that as military.

I know what's true because I can actually listen to more than the liberally biased network news to get my information. I have a brain, I use it. If something seems wrong, it probably is. Most of what the democrats tell me seems wrong. It's called a concience.

Isn't that contradictory? If you're following your conscience, then you're not really viewing things objectively. Which isn't a huge deal, IMO, as long as you hold a healthy amount of skepticism for both sides. And for yourself, because nobody knows everything.

Yes, Truth Squad.

You know, that's even more sad, that Fox News is blindly reporting on stuff taken from a right-wing blog (I read through the topics; most of them were political, and every single political one was pro-Bush). Very sad.

But, of course, once a major cable news organization (even Fox News) reported it, then everyone else in the media had to report it.


Simple fact is that there were typewriters dating back to 1968 that used the superscript "th" font. Also, and this pretty much debunks the entire font argument, the font on the documents obtained by CBS is IDENTICAL to the font used in several documents in Bush's military record released by the Bush administration and the Pentagon. So, either they're all fakes, which would implicate Bush equally as much as Dan Rather (guess which one is running for president), or, more likely, none of them are fakes. Fox News. Surprise, surprise.

>I see, so any news organization that reports something that contradicts Republican talking points is all of a sudden liberal?

I knew as soon as I saw that line that I when I click 'next page' then it would have FOX mentioned with the exact same context that you complained about :P

Simple fact is that there were typewriters dating back to 1968 that used the superscript 'th' font. Also, and this pretty much debunks the entire font argument, the font on the documents obtained by CBS is IDENTICAL to the font used in several documents in Bush's military record released by the Bush administration and the Pentagon.

Err no. All other released NG documents are in monospaced font (with the exception of summaries prepared by the ANG in 2000). The typewriter superscripted ^th does not appear above the line and is underlined, it's a single character on a ball. The superscripted ^th is completely different in the forged docs.

Check this out
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf

That only contains a few of the problems.
It's a very very sloppy forgery.
Wake up to reality.

Ah, yes, I can see how that would have been interpreted as an affiliation with the military. It wasn't quite that way though. It was a Navy run warehouse to be sure, but it was nothing overly important in the grand scheme of things. Basically the retail distribution arm of the Navy Exchange stores you'd find on their bases.

So being objective requires me to suspend my morals? That's a very interesting point of view and I'd like to hear more about how this is supposed to make me a better person for doing so.

Tyche:
Factcheck
IOL
Chicago Tribune
US Newswire
CSPAN
MMfA
MMfA
KR
Billings
Prestopundit

The truth is that I can pull a quote or document for each you supply -and vice versa. Personally I tend to believe the documents filled at that time rather than current recollections (see the IOL article) of either party in this long (decades, this is not a new charge) battle between embittered parties. I don't know what happened and neither do you -the difference is that you think you do.

The only indisputable fact is that Kerry volunteered for combat duty. In my opinion, I will add that volunteering once might pass for youthful fervor but doing so twice would speak a different story.

--The Coastal Special Operations and UN Peacekeeper Veterans for Noncommittance

I misread your line, Kitkat, sorry.

However, if you think that a company cares where its funds come from, you are deluded.

.

So being objective requires me to suspend my morals? That's a very interesting point of view and I'd like to hear more about how this is supposed to make me a better person for doing so.

Essentially, yes, although it usually falls somewhere in between. If you think that serial killers should receive the death penalty, it's going to affect your perception of news related to such. Practically, it's not really important to be completely objective, so feel free to let your morals guide you.

So, be wary of claiming that you're objective, because viewing yourself as objective is a subjective measurement. Just because you're skeptical of the mass media doesn't necessarily make you any more objective or accurate than anyone else. It's a good start though. I hope you're also skeptical of the 'right-wing' media as well. You might inherently trust right-wing sources more because it fits your ideology, and that's fine to a point.

Overall point: it's annoying how many people claim to be objective/independent thinkers when they're actually quite biased -- in my subjective opinion. For all I know, you could have a relatively unbiased point of view, but I'm skeptical. I hope you do honestly believe that if you're going to claim as such.