Kerry Is A Berk - And Will Be A Loser Too!

bertiebowl

I so badly wanted some one other than George Bush to win the US Election.

When John Kerry was selected by the Democrats, I thought, well okay he could be good.

BUT the guy turns out to be the most wooden anti-charismatic shop floor dummy campaigner I've seen so far.

Not only that, he seems totally out of his depth in terms of dealing with Republican dirty tricks - e.g the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Kerry was badly damaged by these lies - mud sticks - but he should've deal with the fairy tale a lot better.

Still I suppose if you insist on campaigning on how good you were for four months thirty years ago, you gotta expect someone will question what the hell you've been doing since.

Thirdly - a point that's been raised elsewhere. The Republicans are stuck in their convention in NYC. A hurricane hits Florida, thousands are evacuated, floods, disaster etc. etc.

So what does Kerry the Berk do? Go down, hand out food aid, consol victims, tell the people "things will be better"?

hell no - Berk was photographed windsurfing off richkid playground Nantucket Island in Masachusets!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BERK!!!

bobbyjoe

Agree, he does seem to have the personality of something from Madam Tussauds.

Pity they couldn't find anyone better, though I do hear he's supposed to be a good finisher in his campaigns.
The Republicans seem to be handing him bats to beat them with and he dosen't take them.
I'd say we are due some serious mudslinging and scandals soon (hopefully should be entertaining).

PH01

I was reading on Saturday's Irish Times that James Carville is taking over the management of Kerry's campaign.
Carville was the man who successfilly ran Clinton's 1992 campaign. He took over when Clinton looked too like a lost cause and he turned it around. Do you remember that slogan "...it's the ECONOMY stupid!"? That was him. That re-focused the '92 campaign in Bill's favour.

He might be able to do his magic again.

xm15e3

bertiebowl wrote:

BERK!!!

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Berk?

As for Kerry, the general opinion on the right is that the DNC has shifted so far to the left that a candidate can not win their primary and still be electable in the general election. I tend to agree.

I think Lieberman could have won, but he had no chance to win the primary. He's a good, principled liberal. I disagree with him, but I have to respect him.

And for the Swiftboat Vets. Why do you assume they are lying? There are 250 of them, and we know Kerry lies. ie. Cambodia Christmas.

Besides, they aren't all republican. IIRC the guy that wrote their book voted for Gore and Clinton. They just have it in for Kerry for the crap he pulled with VVAW.

Has the CBS forgery (national gaurd memo) gotten any air time in Ireland?

Hobbes

And for the Swiftboat Vets. Why do you assume they are lying? There are 250 of them, and we know Kerry lies. ie. Cambodia Christmas.

Because not one of them served with Kerry on his boat, and they have given no real evidence to date beyond hearsay. While Kerry has actual witnesses to his war record, as well the documentation to back it up. Not to mention he went to Vietnam.

Has the CBS forgery (national gaurd memo) gotten any air time in Ireland?

No, but don't assume we don't know about it. As of today the general concensus is that the documents are fake.

Even if they are false it stills begs the question that no one has been able to prove that Bush actually did turn up for his NAG (if you think otherwise, there is a $10,000 reward to prove it).

But the big point is... WHO GIVES A TOSS. Seriously. If you are voting based on who has the better war record then you deserve who you get.

If you bother to ignore all the mud slinging, which should have been ignored to begin with. You would have to compare them on track records. Kerry wins hands down, while Bush has managed to flush the US down the toilet.

Go read up on Social Security. Its pretty much breaking. Some of the suggestions to fix it are scary.

Also check this out..
http://www.rowboatvets.com/intro.htm

All in all if people bothered to check the actual standings on issues you would see that Kerry and Bush share similar feelings on issues (despite them whining at each other). It's like that Simpsons episode where the two aliens turned into Gore/Clinton and try to take over the US by being voted in.

arcadegame2004

People on this thread seem to forget that Kerry could lose the popular vote and still win by getting a majority in the Electoral-College.

Gizzard

bertiebowl wrote:

I so badly wanted some one other than George Bush to win the US Election.

When John Kerry was selected by the Democrats, I thought, well okay he could be good.

BUT the guy turns out to be the most wooden anti-charismatic shop floor dummy campaigner I've seen so far.

Not only that, he seems totally out of his depth in terms of dealing with Republican dirty tricks - e.g the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Kerry was badly damaged by these lies - mud sticks - but he should've deal with the fairy tale a lot better.

Still I suppose if you insist on campaigning on how good you were for four months thirty years ago, you gotta expect someone will question what the hell you've been doing since.

Thirdly - a point that's been raised elsewhere. The Republicans are stuck in their convention in NYC. A hurricane hits Florida, thousands are evacuated, floods, disaster etc. etc.

So what does Kerry the Berk do? Go down, hand out food aid, consol victims, tell the people "things will be better"?

hell no - Berk was photographed windsurfing off richkid playground Nantucket Island in Masachusets!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BERK!!!

Yeah Im sad to say he really is very wooden, Gore is looking good compared to him <Shudder>, but personality should not be the major issue, the fact that Bush has any chance at all really show American voters are morons who really dont know any better, they deserve all they get if Bush is re-elected, shame on them

mike65

Gizzard wrote:

the fact that Bush has any chance at all really show American voters are morons who really dont know any better, they deserve all they get if Bush is re-elected, shame on them

I REALLY hate that sort of cheap comment, its like saying the same of any nation and who they might elect to lead them.

Mike.

shotamoose

Hobbes wrote:

Go read up on Social Security. Its pretty much breaking. Some of the suggestions to fix it are scary.

As far as I can see, it's not breaking, which is one reason why some of the suggestions to 'fix' it really are scary.

Sand

the fact that Bush has any chance at all really show American voters are morons who really dont know any better, they deserve all they get if Bush is re-elected, shame on them

I REALLY hate that sort of cheap comment, its like saying the same of any nation and who they might elect to lead them.

Yep - I mean we re-elected Bertie. What sort of morons are we eh?

xm15e3

Hobbes wrote:

Because not one of them served with Kerry on his boat, and they have given no real evidence to date beyond hearsay. While Kerry has actual witnesses to his war record, as well the documentation to back it up. Not to mention he went to Vietnam.

Actually most of them served with Kerry, true not on his boat, but that is irrelevent. These boats operated less then 50 yards from each other. They were eye witness to his actions, were his COs, and are the medics that treated his wounds. That is why I question writing them all off as liars.

Do you not agree that Kerry has lied about his service. The easiest one to prove false is his Christmas in Cambodia BS.

BTW, the documentation to "back it up" is being investigated by the Navy. Apparently type setting is questionable..agian…and were signed by the Sec. Of Navy 13 years after the fact. Also, the Navy doesn't issue Silver Stars with combat V (Silver Star is second only to a Congressional Medal of Honor, combat could be assumed). They also don't issue silver stars for shooting enemy wounded.

........

Hobbes wrote:

Even if they are false it stills begs the question that no one has been able to prove that Bush actually did turn up for his NAG (if you think otherwise, there is a $10,000 reward to prove it).

So, an accusation based on a forgery still has merit?

As for the AWOL argument, the only written record has been released and showed he was there (Alabama). It's something vague like a pay stub, but proving he was there at that point becomes proving a negative. You have to prove the stub was not in error..

But quite frankly, talk to any US military pilot who's processed out. A short timer rotated to a non-flying billet is simply biding their time. The ANG brass could give a rat's butt if that pilot showed up. Plus NG service is militia, they are given quite a bit of lee way in when or if they show up. He could have gotten a letter from his mom and skipped out on his final drills. Better than having him taking up desk space.

Hobbes wrote:

But the big point is... WHO GIVES A TOSS. Seriously. If you are voting based on who has the better war record then you deserve who you get.

Actually, we all should give a toss. The accusations against Bush and Kerry deal with professional integrity and personnel ethics. It's the difference between Cincinnatus and Nero.

In my opinion, it isn't mud slinging unless it is a blatant fabrication, or irrelevant.

Hobbes

xm15e3 wrote:

Actually most of them served with Kerry, true not on his boat, but that is irrelevent.

No it isn't. There is a big difference.

Do you not agree that Kerry has lied about his service.

No I don't agree. From what I have read so far, the vets complaining have absolutly nothing of proof. In fact even Bush knows this and has said so on public television. Or that fact that Kerry is sueing them for defamation of character would seem to suggest that he isn't lying.

BTW, the documentation to "back it up" is being investigated by the Navy.

Post your source.

So, an accusation based on a forgery still has merit?

Did you read the documents? I did. They brought into question his conduct. If anything had they been proved true it would of been proof that Bush actually serverd.

You see there is no proof that Bush served. Bush won't even prove it. That is what the $10,000 reward is about.

As for the AWOL argument, the only written record has been released and showed he was there (Alabama). It's something vague like a pay stub, but proving he was there at that point becomes proving a negative. You have to prove the stub was not in error..

No. There is no proof. He was paid for two days in October and four days in November, but none in December. The pay slips do not show what duty Bush performed or where he was for all that time.

There has been no one who can prove he actually showed up for work.

But quite frankly, talk to any US military pilot who's processed out. A short timer rotated to a non-flying billet is simply biding their time.

Kerry went to Vietnam. Bush didn't.

He could have gotten a letter from his mom and skipped out on his final drills. Better than having him taking up desk space.

Speaks volumes. He didn't go to Vietnam. Funny how people gave out about Clintons draft dodging but Bushes is ok.

Actually, we all should give a toss. The accusations against Bush and Kerry deal with professional integrity and personnel ethics. It's the difference between Cincinnatus and Nero.

Ok lets ignore how Bush has lost over 400,000 jobs on his watch that are never coming back. That holds the record decifit, made the world a more unstable place, cause more hatred in the world against the US based on his actions.

Lets forget all the skimming and downright criminal acts by his cronies, or prehaps the rights abuses against foriegn and US citizens, or the curtailing of rights while introducing laws to protect his ass.

Granted Kerry might not be much better (they both belong to the same secret boys club), but Bushes record of the last 4 years speak more of how crap a president he is then any war record ever could.

xm15e3

Hobbes wrote:

No it isn't. There is a big difference.


....
No I don't agree.
...
From what I have read so far, the vets complaining have absolutly nothing of proof. In fact even Bush knows this and has said so on public television. Or that fact that Kerry is sueing them for defamation of character would seem to suggest that he isn't lying.

....

You want physical proof of eyewitness accounts? How does one crew get the benifit of doubt over 5 other boat crews witnessing the same event?

Hobbes wrote:

Post your source.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?

Christmas in Cambodia, for a laugh

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm

Hobbes wrote:

Did you read the documents? I did. They brought into question his conduct.

A forged document questions his conduct.

Hobbes wrote:

Kerry went to Vietnam. Bush didn't.
.......
Speaks volumes. He didn't go to Vietnam. Funny how people gave out about Clintons draft dodging but Bushes is ok.

Clinton dodged the Draft. Bush chose service as a National Guard pilot during Vietnam. ANG pilots flew 55K combat hours during vietnam, including pilots from his unit. ANG duty is not a safe place to hide from the draft.

Going to Vietnam is not a litmis test, after all, Al Gore went to Vietnam.

Hobbes wrote:

Ok lets ignore how Bush has lost over 400,000 jobs on his watch that are never coming back. That holds the record decifit, made the world a more unstable place, cause more hatred in the world against the US based on his actions.

Lets forget all the skimming and downright criminal acts by his cronies, or prehaps the rights abuses against foriegn and US citizens, or the curtailing of rights while introducing laws to protect his ass.

Granted Kerry might not be much better (they both belong to the same secret boys club), but Bushes record of the last 4 years speak more of how crap a president he is then any war record ever could.

You kinda got off the topic, but do you have a source for all this. Other than Commondreams and Moveon?

Really, the point, and the point of this thread is. Kerry is a duffous. A dork. And a very weak candidate. Regardless of your feelings for GW, the left really should distance themselves from Kerry. They are wasting political capital on him, and credibility.

Look at CBS, viacom's, stock prices.

Redleslie2

xm15e3 wrote:

Going to Vietnam is not a litmis test, after all, Al Gore went to Vietnam.

If you fancy yourself as commander in chief of the armed forces then it probably is important to do your duty and serve when you have the chance. Otherwise people might have good grounds to believe that you're a coward, unfit for positions of leadership.

Hobbes

xm15e3 wrote:

You want physical proof of eyewitness accounts? How does one crew get the benifit of doubt over 5 other boat crews witnessing the same event?

Sorry but some of things in question (for example saving the lives of one of the witnesses) 5 other boats were not sitting on watching.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?

You gave me a link to a news site? Do you have anything at all on that site which is a bit more relevent?

Christmas in Cambodia, for a laugh

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm

First up. That link is not a news story. It is an editorial piece. Secondly bother to research facts on a piece don't bother to accept a news story at face value.

To give you a very good example a quote from the very page you gave me, "Richard Nixon was not president in December 1968". But I checked up and in fact Richard Nixon became the 37th President in 1968 (reference).

So the claim that he lied in his speech is kind of wrong. Secondly, it says. "no history of the Vietnam era suggests that Lyndon Johnson ever ordered troops into Cambodia". But I checked again and "During the War in Indochina (1946-1975), the Richard Nixon administration of the United States conducted massive bombing campaigns against Cambodia." (Reference)

So it may be true that Johnson didn't. However it is true that the US Army was in Cambodia at that time.

Now I could continue on, but I leave it up to you to research the rest.

A forged document questions his conduct.

Correct, and absolutly no proof that he even served properly.

ANG pilots flew 55K combat hours during vietnam, including pilots from his unit. ANG duty is not a safe place to hide from the draft.

Yet there is no proof that Bush did any of this.

Going to Vietnam is not a litmis test, after all, Al Gore went to Vietnam.

Your point being? but your kind of agreeing with me, or your either claiming that Al Gore is was incapable (at that age) to defend his country.

You kinda got off the topic, but do you have a source for all this. Other than Commondreams and Moveon?

Thats the spirit. Question everything. Sure lets try.

Bush has lost over 400,000 jobs on his watch. (slashdot)

holds the record deficit. (CBS News)

Made the world a more unstable place and cause more hatred in the world against the US based on his actions. (BBC News)

Skimming (by his cronies). (Bellaciao, it might be a French paper but its not moveon/commondreams )

criminal acts by his cronies. (Alternet).

rights abuses against foreigners. (Guardian, Guardian2)

rights abuses against US citizens. (Taiwan News, MAS Net)

The curtailing of rights. (US Government)

Introducing laws to protect his ass. (SFgate, Fas)

they both belong to the same secret boys club. (CBSNews)


Happy? You can use those stories as jumping points to more research. There is certainly a lot more I could post, but that should keep you busy for a while.

Kerry is a duffous. A dork. And a very weak candidate.

He has better schooling and qualifications then Bush. He is a clearer speaker then Bush. Other then that his policies are not that much different then Bush.

Look at CBS, viacom's, stock prices.

What about them? CBS is not indictive of how well the US is. Look at the currency value.

xm15e3

Redleslie2 wrote:

If you fancy yourself as commander in chief of the armed forces then it probably is important to do your duty and serve when you have the chance. Otherwise people might have good grounds to believe that you're a coward, unfit for positions of leadership.

This illustrates the problem the dem's keep running into with this attack. There are a whole lot of ANG pilots that resent being called cowards. Especially the one's that flew century series interceptors. Bush's F-102 in particular: of 875 built, 259 were lost in accidents, 15 were shot down in Vietnam 70 dead pilots. Going to Vietnam, especially in the surface Navy was safer.

The more they hit this angle, the worse it gets.

The question about when bush skipped drill, if he did, was when he transfered to a desk job in Alabama for his last couple of months(?). Bottom line, nobody cares if he did.

xm15e3

Hobbes wrote:

Sorry but some of things in question (for example saving the lives of one of the witnesses) 5 other boats were not sitting on watching.

Actually, they were in dirrect support, and watched on as Kerry fled the scene. (through what he clamed was an ambush the length of Cemetery Ridge)

Hobbes wrote:

You gave me a link to a news site? Do you have anything at all on that site which is a bit more relevent?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wus05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/05/ixworld.html

Hobbes wrote:

To give you a very good example a quote from the very page you gave me, "Richard Nixon was not president in December 1968". But I checked up and in fact Richard Nixon became the 37th President in 1968 (reference).

So the claim that he lied in his speech is kind of wrong. Secondly, it says. "no history of the Vietnam era suggests that Lyndon Johnson ever ordered troops into Cambodia". But I checked again and "During the War in Indochina (1946-1975), the Richard Nixon administration of the United States conducted massive bombing campaigns against Cambodia." (Reference)

So it may be true that Johnson didn't. However it is true that the US Army was in Cambodia at that time.

Now I could continue on, but I leave it up to you to research the rest.

Nixon was elected in Nov. of 1968. He did not become president until Jan. 69. If Kerry was orderd to Cambodia in 1968, it would have been by LBJ not Nixon, and that would have been "Seered" into his memory.

Kerry wasn't Army. The only Navy that would have been in Cambodia at any time during the war would have been SEAL or UDT. B52 raids do not include swift boats.

You can go around and around on this. The bottom line is if Kerry had been in Cambodia in 1968 he would either be under UCMJ for going there, or UCMJ for talking about it.

The guy is a world class premodana.

Hobbes

xm15e3 wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wus05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/05/ixworld.html

Sorry but that is editorial piece again. I also looked around and couldn't find that news story on any other site except pro-right sites. You asked me to stay off pro-left sites, prehaps you can do the same.

I also might add that the stories I could find were just copies.

Also I can find no mention of where the pentagon have said his medals were not justified. At best, only an investigation. Can you link me where it has said that the pentagon have found his medals to be incorrect?

Nixon was elected in Nov. of 1968. He did not become president until Jan. 69. If Kerry was orderd to Cambodia in 1968, it would have been by LBJ not Nixon, and that would have been "Seered" into his memory.

Why would it be seered into this memory? He wasn't in the US, so it is certainly possible he could be confused about that. But the editorial piece you linked suggested that he wasn't even in Cambodia to begin with? Prehaps you can link me some proof that wasn't the case (beyond that post).

Because you seem to be suggesting he wasn't even there? Yet when I read up on him (reference) he was clearly in the military during that time. If he wasn't in Cambodia the Pentagon could easily confirm this. You will also see a document which shows he volunteered for Vietnam (please don't say its fake unless you have proof).

It also mentions his patrol was on the Cua Long river, which is in Cambodia.

The guy is a world class premodana.

Fight the wars you can eh? Whats a premodana?

I noticed you have haven't told me how Bush is better then Kerry after I have pointed out all the stuff Bush has done? So your telling me that Bush is a better president based on his 4 year record?

Here is another post that you can use as a jumping point to learn more about the Swift Boat Vets.

Boggle

Personally I find it shocking that anybody can defend a man who came into office with a stated vendetta against Iraq and then abused the worst atrocity on American soil as an excuse to act on that vendetta.

People really have to ask themselves - what has bush achieved in 4 years?
- Employment? No, its down. Healthcare reform? Nah. Security? AQ may not have struck american soil but they are busy making hay in the midde east gathering sympathisers. Defecit? Now at record levels.... If the american people cannot understand this then they deserve what they get. (although I dont think Kerry is any good either!)

sand wrote:

Yep - I mean we re-elected Bertie. What sort of morons are we eh?

Complete morons obviously! Anyone who had any idea what was going on at the time (and wasn't blinded by political affiliation - pro or con) knew he was lying about 90% of what was going on. It was obvious the economy was dead, that it was impossible to train that amount of Gardai in that amount of time, etc.... Before the election everything was rosy but funnily that all changed immediately afterwards!

SkepticOne

xm15e3 wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Berk?

Cockney rhyming slang for ****.

e.g. Loaf : Loaf of Bread : Head

so: Berk : Berkshire Hunt : ****.

xm15e3

Hobbes wrote:

Sorry but that is editorial piece again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131319,00.html

The investigation just started a couple weeks ago. There isn't a conclusion yet.

Hobbes wrote:

Why would it be seered into this memory? He wasn't in the US, so it is certainly possible he could be confused about that.

Seared came from his quote :""telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

Kerry was a US Navel Officer and US Citizen. He knows who is Commander in Chief is, and he knows when they take office. It's the same time for every election.

If Kerry was there, it would have been accidental (on his part).

Hobbes wrote:

Because you seem to be suggesting he wasn't even there?

I'm saying he lied about being in Cambodia. I'm not saying he wasn't in Vietnam.

Hobbes wrote:

It also mentions his patrol was on the Cua Long river, which is in Cambodia.

The Cou Lon is part of the Mekong Delta. Cambodia is upstream, and considered the Hau River or Bassac River. We had spec ops in Cambodia, but not regular forces at the time. Offensive operations in Cambodia started in March of 1969, a little late for Christmas '68. And a month before he was stateside.

Hobbes wrote:

Fight the wars you can eh? Whats a premodana?

Permadona=prima donna. My mistake.

Vain, false person.

Berk, however, seems to fit as well

Hobbes wrote:

I noticed you have haven't told me how Bush is better then Kerry after I have pointed out all the stuff Bush has done? So your telling me that Bush is a better president based on his 4 year record?

It's off topic for this thread for one, and I'm not going to run around disproving a shotgun of accusations. Especially crap about Bush being responsible for layoffs (the cycle started during Clinton's administration by the way).

Hobbes

xm15e3 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131319,00.html

The investigation just started a couple weeks ago. There isn't a conclusion yet.

Like I said, try quoting off sites which aren't pro-right. FoxNews is the proright version of commondreams. I had in fact read that.

As I said I have seen no proof that Kerrys medals were not deserved. I did see a comment where one of the guys claiming he didn't deserve his medals was in fact awarded the very same medal for the same actions.

Your original editorial piece didn't quote any proof either. It quoted the Swift boat veterns book.

Seared came from his quote :""telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

You did you bother to check up on the transcript? It took some digging (as the Swift boat crap seems to have flooded google). But here is what I found.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/

I could quote it off, but it is better you read it totally. It will cover all the swift boat crap including relating to where he was Christmas and the river he was on.

Also you were using his "Seared" quote to claim that Nixon being president was seared in his memory when clearly his quote refers to him being in Cambodia (basically mixing quotes). In his quote referrring to Nixon at no time did he mentioned it was seared into his memory who the current president was.

Also the seared quote refers to the president (Nixon) claiming the troops were not there. You can see the actual quote from the law library here.

http://instapundit.com/images/kerrycambfull.jpg

You should also read the full quote.

"...seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go to the last step to avoid that kind of conflict."

What you think? A war vetern who sees the point of diplomacy, while you have "Champagne Squadron" Bush who can only talk about war.

It's off topic for this thread for one, and I'm not going to run around disproving a shotgun of accusations.

You asked me to back up my words with facts. I did so.

If you can find any of those facts to be wrong, please feel free to post it otherwise STFU and stop saying they are wrong.

Especially crap about Bush being responsible for layoffs (the cycle started during Clinton's administration by the way).

Had you bothered to even read the link I posted you, the jobs figures were based on Bushes term. Nothing to do with Clinton. The dates of the figures is (March 2001 to April 2004). Bush became president Jan 20th 2001. (reference).

Even if we were to somehow assume that Clinton was responisble for the job losses over half of that 400,000 lost were after Bush declared the recession over. You did actually read the links I gave you right?

At what point do we assume that it is no longer Clintons fault? 1 year? 2 years? 3? Tell me.

To quote someone else (sic).
"It may have started on clintons watch, but there are smart things you can do, as president, to minimize the impact of such a crash, and then there are dumb things you can do that will only exacerbate the situation."

Btw It is hardly off topic. You claim that Kerry is a worse choice for president then Bush. I am telling you a crippled Jellyfish would be a better president then Bush.

xm15e3

Hobbes wrote:

Like I said, try quoting off sites which aren't pro-right. FoxNews is the proright version of commondreams. I had in fact read that.
..
As I said I have seen no proof that Kerrys medals were not deserved.

Sorry if you don't like Fox News, but this was a hard news article, not an editorial (unlike the MSNBC Slate). Regardless are you now saying that the investigation is not underway?

It's also a bit of a strawman to phrase the question as whether or not he deserved the medals. At a certain point, that is inconsequential. The question is whether or not his recommendations are embellished, and by whom. Someone is basically trying to pas a $20 bill with Washington's face on it. If the type of the documents match his typewriter, he could possibly end up in Leavenworth and lose his Senate seat.

Hobbes wrote:

You did you bother to check up on the transcript? It took some digging (as the Swift boat crap seems to have flooded google). But here is what I found.

The problem is that he's made the statement several times and in different media. I've heard audio of him making a similar speech, and he did in indicate Nixon.

From Fox News:

In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote: "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."

And really, including Nixon is just one point. Good luck finding Pol Pots's little nasties anywhere near the Mekong Delta in 1969.

Hobbes wrote:

Don't get so hostile. None of this is personal. It's a disagreement, mainly based on who's information we trust and why. We are also from two very different cultures with very different history.

Besides, I nicely asked you for sources on a completely subjected rant. I was being a wise@$$. I don't really care if you can find a link to someone that agrees with you or not, it's stilll subjective. (other than employment numbers, but that get's filed under stuff happens).

Hobbes wrote:

Had you bothered to even read the link I posted you, the jobs figures were based on Bushes term. Nothing to do with Clinton. The dates of the figures is (March 2001 to April 2004). Bush became president Jan 20th 2001. (reference).

Nope

Hobbes wrote:

At what point do we assume that it is no longer Clintons fault? 1 year? 2 years? 3? Tell me.

Well, double digit inflation peaked about 20 years after the Vietnam war. You can go from there. Bottom line is, this is off topic. Not to mention that trying to blame a president for a normal business cycle is like sacrificing a virgin to the harvest god..it just makes the natives happy. Keynes was wrong, Hayek wasn't as much.

Hobbes wrote:

Btw It is hardly off topic. You claim that Kerry is a worse choice for president then Bush.

Actually, I don't believe I have. It has nothing to do with the "Berkness" of Kerry.

That's a great term. I'm using it.

pete

xm15e3 wrote:

If the type of the documents match his typewriter, he could possibly end up in Leavenworth and lose his Senate seat.

And if Bush's prints are found in the Texas School Book Repository he'll be in trouble too....had you got a point?

pete

xm15e3 wrote:

Sorry if you don't like Fox News, but this was a hard news article, not an editorial (unlike the MSNBC Slate).

That's funny.

The "threshold issue," the court wrote-and all it ruled upon--was whether the technical qualifications for a whistleblower claim were ever met by Akre. In Florida, to file such a claim, the employer's misconduct must be a violation of an adopted law, rule or regulation. Fox argued from the first-and failed on three separate occasions in front of three different judges-to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
In essence, the news organization owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to even lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/022703_fox.html

pete

xm15e3 wrote:

The problem is that he's made the statement several times and in different media. I've heard audio of him making a similar speech, and he did in indicate Nixon.

From Fox News:

In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote: "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."

Ok can you point out the part where he says that Nixon was President in December 1968? I would suggest a thorough read of the following: http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003299.php - you'll like it. Probably up until the part about 1970 Congressional Records, and definitely until the part about Pope John Paul V.

And really, including Nixon is just one point.

How convenient.

xm15e3

pete wrote:

Ok can you point out the part where he says that Nixon was President in December 1968? I would suggest a thorough read of the following: http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003299.php - you'll like it. Probably up until the part about 1970 Congressional Records, and definitely until the part about Pope John Paul V.



How convenient.

Second paragraph. The editorial to the Boston Herald, as posted above.

As for your first post, if Bush's fingerprints were found on Oswalds rifle, sure, he'd be toast. The point was, as you probably understand, that if Kerry is the person who "edited" his records, he is toast.

And sure, Fox's lawyers can argue whatever they want. That is what lawyers do.

At least they didn't pass forged documents...and then stand by them. Do a google on media bias and UCLA. They did a nifty little study you'll like. It's available on .pdf.

Regardless, The investigation is in motion, regardless of what you think of Fox.

I'm amazed at the mental contortions going on here, just to support a screw up Senator from Mass.

Really, let the "Berk" roast, perserve your creditbility.

pete

xm15e3 wrote:

Second paragraph. The editorial to the Boston Herald, as posted above.

the error in your reasoning has been pointed out and yet you stand by it? fine so, but this is really just basic english reading comprehension we're talking about at this point. Seriously - try to read the whole page.

As for your first post, if Bush's fingerprints were found on Oswalds rifle, sure, he'd be toast. The point was, as you probably understand, that if Kerry is the person who "edited" his records, he is toast.

Oh and he has actually been accused of this? Or are you just trying to infer something?

As for Fox's lawyers, I think you'll find that "what lawyers do" is represent their clients.

Hobbes

xm15e3 wrote:

Sorry if you don't like Fox News, but this was a hard news article, not an editorial (unlike the MSNBC Slate). Regardless are you now saying that the investigation is not underway?

Very good. However I read the whole slate article. Did you? It also allowed me to find more information. Did you use it to do that too? Or did you dismiss it.

As I said, I had read the fox news report. I do read fox, however I do know they are far from impartial. I don't post them as proof if I want to make a point, but I would for example use their references to determine if it is true or not.

The Slate article points out that the US were in fact doing special ops with the CIA in Cambodia at that time, as well his location could certainly put him in Cambodia

It's also a bit of a strawman to phrase the question as whether or not he deserved the medals.

So you are claiming the swift boat vets as strawman attacks? After all they are claiming he didn't deserve them. You are also going on about an investigation which is determining if he earned them or not.

That investigation is still ongoing, and until that time I don't see any proof that he didn't deserve them.

The question is whether or not his recommendations are embellished,

I will take embellished over downright lying, like say Bush and the Iraq war.

If the type of the documents match his typewriter, he could possibly end up in Leavenworth and lose his Senate seat.

So you are now accusing Kerry of forging the Bush documents or his own documents? Do you have proof to back that up?

Interesting twist on the Bush documents btw, you have been following it? Turns out the secretary that would of typed those letters said they were forgeries, however she has also sworn on record to say that the actual content is the same as the originals. She also goes into what Bush was like with her personally. She reckons that someone in the Government (who would have access to the records) copied them. You can read it at CBS news.

The problem is that he's made the statement several times and in different media. I've heard audio of him making a similar speech, and he did in indicate Nixon.

You did read the link to the page I posted?

From Fox News:
In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote: "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."

And really, including Nixon is just one point. Good luck finding Pol Pots's little nasties anywhere near the Mekong Delta in 1969.

Again with your fox news. It is obvious that you didn't read the link at all. Its worth reading.

First up in the Senate hearing he doesn't claim that Nixon was president in 1968 at all. Secondly I bothered to go check the letter he sent to the Boston Herald, not your fox news link. Again he isn't saying Nixon was president in 1968 (despite winning the election).

What he was referring to at the Senate hearing and in his letter was that Nixon publically declaring to Congress that the US were not in Cambodia, when in fact he knows he was there in 1968, and the bombing of Cambodia is also public knowledge now.

Seriously, read the frickin originals. You would be hard pressed to claim he was declaring Nixon was president in 1968 unless you like twisting words.

Well, double digit inflation peaked about 20 years after the Vietnam war. You can go from there. Bottom line is, this is off topic. Not to mention that trying to blame a president for a normal business cycle is like sacrificing a virgin to the harvest god..it just makes the natives happy. Keynes was wrong, Hayek wasn't as much.

I am blaming Bush because after he declared the recession officially over, the US Still managed to lose over 200,000 IT jobs. Just in the same way that over 1000 US troops have died and 17,000 injured since Bush declared the Iraq war over.

But just as a matter of interest can you link me your proof of the double digit inflation 20 years after Vietnam? I would be interested to read.

Btw, I find it humorus that you find the Swift Boat Vets as true, when so far they have been debunked and even Bush has gone on record of saying they don't have a case.

Lastly here is some more reading for you.
John Kerrys...
Command History
Combat Reports
Military Record

They are a good read. Hows about finding me Bushes? After all you seem to claim that having a good war record makes a good president.

You can also read factcheck, who actually bothered to gets Kerrys medical record for the Purple Heart one of the swift boat vets claimed he didn't earn. Also that link debunks pretty much everything the Swift Boat vets have thrown at him, as well as point who is funding them.

Hobbes

You know the more you are forcing me to read up on Kerry, the more respect I have for the guy. Certainly a lot more respect then for Bush.

For people who think he is wooden, check out his interview on the "Daily Show". (its online), or Jay Leno show.

Compare that to a Bush interview on the David Letterman show. Where he cleans his glasses on the woman producers dress without her knowledge. (again its online).

Cork

Bush is a disaster on forign policy and on the US economy.

It is up to Kerry to expose these failings.

Kerry has got to convince the electorate - that he is a safe fair of hands.

He has yet to do this. We have still not hit Labour Day. He has time but he needs to get his act together.