 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Sparks Fly at Tax Study Commission | Main | Hah! » August 20, 2004PaybackJohn Kerry is learning that payback is what Sherman said war was. Hugh Hewitt: "This is devastating. The day after John Kerry complains about having his war service questioned, the new ad underscores how Kerry did far worse to thousands of vets. Kerry built himself up over the years into a brave captain traveling deep into Cambodian waters to run guns, drop off SEALs and CIA men (hatless) etc. He did so after condemning a generation of soldiers and Marines as war criminals."And now they're condemning him with an ad whose facts are not in dispute. UPDATE: Kerry is showing his commitment to freedom of speech, while his campaign shows its disdain for censorship of dissent. UPDATE 2: Instapundit documents how Kerry joined the anti-war movement while still serving as a U.S. Naval officer. If that's not treason, it's certainly betrayal. Posted in Campaign Season
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
"...an ad whose facts are not in dispute." "He did so after condemning a generation of soldiers and Marines as war criminals." In point of fact, Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was a relation to the committee of what Kerry had heard combat vets testify to at the Winter Soldier conference he had attended. Kerry never accused anyone of anything. My questions is: If what Kerry testified to is so devastating to him and his campaign, why do the SwiftVets find it necessary to misrepresent what Kerry's testimony actually was? Posted by: adaplant at August 21, 2004 02:29 AMMy God man. That is his testimony. Kerry was speaking for a group that draped itself in VietCong flags and it's OK that he treated American soldiers as barbarians because he was only repeating hearsay? The DNC "war hero" campaign strategy is arrogant and stupid. The Swifties are hitting a nerve because we resent a repackaged John Fraud Kerry being shoved our throats. Posted by: Peter Boston at August 21, 2004 06:40 AMNot to put too fine a point on it, but the Swift Vets politicking is a lot more justified than (say) Michael Moore's. If Moore can make his point (with little media criticism) then the Swift Vets can too... Posted by: Warren Smith at August 21, 2004 08:07 AMIt's getting so a person can't embellish his military career to get elected...sheesh! Between GW's outstanding service in the Air Guard and JK's Vietnam novel materials, I'd say neither one of them have much to be proud of. If we conclude anything, both of these men made mistakes in their younger years... and so... that means that someone with mistakes in their past will be president. Next issue PLEASE! Posted by: wes at August 21, 2004 09:19 AMwes This looks more like Bill Clinton running for chairman of PromiseKeepers on a morality platform. Posted by: Peter Boston at August 21, 2004 10:07 AMadaplant, Fine. Maybe we can start talking about his Senate record. Maybe we can start talking about his record while Dukakis's LtGov. You don't want to talk about his military record? Cool. IT'S ABOUT TIME! Now let's look at what a turd Kerry's been ever since. Ya wanna compare those two records to President Bush's record as Governor and President? Don't try to sway the conversation in another direction. Answer the question as out to you. Posted by: clayusmcret at August 21, 2004 12:57 PMWe would love to stop talking about Kerry's Vietnam service. Yes, please, let's drop it. First things first, though: if Kerry wants us to "go back to the real issues," he has to stop building his campaign on his attempt to make himself into a war hero. If that's what he's going to talk about, it's what we're going to talk about, to. Posted by: Big Dog at August 21, 2004 03:15 PMtalking about facts... have any of you checked out factcheck.org's review of the swiftboat vets' ad? http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231 This is a website that checks the facts of ads from BOTH sides. Factcheck did digging and presents the documents it cites. It finds the facts in this ad muddy at best. But the same goes for Kerry's claims as well. I am bummed about that, because I would like it more if we could say, "Kerry lied," or "the Swiftboat vets lied." But we can't. So this issue is one of these things that you just can't resolve in any reasonable way. Arguing it is as much of a waste of time as trying to argue whether God exists or not. Reasonable people should just walk away from this one -- and by that I mean Kerry, the swift boat vets, and us. People that press on to argue about it only lose credit in my eyes -- and that includes Kerry, the swift boat vets, and us. Posted by: bruce at August 21, 2004 03:15 PMThe second Swiftboat ad clinches the fact that they have traded their honor for expediency. Emblazoned across the screen is the corruption of the quote of his 1971 testimony. It has been taken apart and reassembled to promote their ends. It is shameful, and we have seen one spokesman after another (i.e., Hannity) repeatedly use this same manipulation of the quote. It is dishonest at best. Mr. Hobbs, I challenge you to display the entire quote here. Posted by: SemiPundit at August 22, 2004 02:27 AMAnd another thing: In an editorial in the January 30, 2004 Washington Times, Wesley Pruden did a little surgery on the same quote from Mr. Kerry in his 1971 testimony. He snipped out a piece of the quote and replaced it with an ellipsis (...) so that the meaning was changed from Mr. Kerry reporting what he had been told by Vietnam veterans to him directly enumerating the atrocities. Pruden, the editor-in-chief, who is charged with insuring accuracy and integrity, committed journalistic fraud. I rest my case. Posted by: SemiPundit at August 22, 2004 02:38 AMUnless what has been omitted from the quote was a disclaimer that he had heard these horrible accusations and he knew they weren't true I don't see how editing could change the meaning. He did enumerate them; if he didn't know first hand that they were true it makes it worse not better. Triticale, Why would Mr. Pruden go out of his way to avoid printing the exact quote? The missing words only amounted to five or six in number. Later in the article, he made remarks about Mr. Kerry's presumed botox treatments. Eliminating or shortening those comments would surely have provided enough room if they were hurting for column space that day. Mr. Pruden appeared later that morning on Washington Journal (CSPAN) with Brian Lamb. At least one caller pointed out the purposeful manipulation to him. He was aloof, arrogant, and unrepentant. Sean Hannity and many others do this repeatedly. Accurately relating the quote substantially reduces its sensational value. You can't defend this cheapness. All you can do is sit there and sputter. Posted by: SemiPundit at August 22, 2004 09:19 AMHmmm. 1. FactCheck.org isn't all that trustworthy. In case it hasn't been noticed all of the sources for FactCheck are liberal news sources. How neutral is it to use references from the Boston Globe, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and etc. It would be like me saying Bush is ok because the National Review likes him. 2. That Kerry was only repeating other people's allegations is at best a dodge and at worst a lie. He made no effort whatsoever in factually checking these allegations. In point of fact, according to the book Stolen Valor, most of the people who "testified" at Winter Soldier weren't ever in the military. Those that had been in the military hadn't been in Vietnam. Other than Kerry I doubt more than a handful had been in Vietnam at all, let alone fight. That he then misrepresented this as a global "truth" is just simply disgusting. A modern example of this sort of lie is the recent attempt to "prove" that Abu-Ghraib was ordered by the White House and the Pentagon. For Democrats soldiers are always useful as either scapegoats or villains and that has been their portrayal for 30 years. Now that Democrats are calling soldiers heroes, while still calling them murderers, butchers and torturers, is nothing less than contempuous. Hi ed - Thanks for checking out the factcheck.org site. I hadn't counted sources like you did, so I went back and checked again. First of all. there are a whole slew of original government and court documents on the right side of the page that are not from any third party. These PRIMARY SOURCES are the MAIN SOURCES for the review of the ad, and I don't believe you could call the primary sources "liberal." Second, as for the sources cited at the bottom of the page... these are SECONDARY SOURCES, and they are cited mostly to track what the various parties have said at various times; and they provide evidence for BOTH sides of the debate. So I don't quite get why you want to discount them. I am a Kerry supporter, which I didn't say before, but as I did say before, I am not pleased that this issue cannot be resolved based on what the PRIMARY SOURCES say. Because of that, all this arguing back and forth is a bunch of hot air, revealing more about the speakers than about historical truth. Historical truth cannot be definitely determined here. Posted by: bruce at August 22, 2004 02:53 PMheyL Responding to Bill's Update #2. It was a matter of public record that Kerry met with the vietcong in side meetings at the negotiations in Paris in 1971: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts That website makes it clear that Kerry made it plain in his congressional testimony that he did it. There was and has never been anything secret about his doing that. So what is the big deal? It is not treason (in the sense that treason is the name of a crime). I see how someone could call it a "betrayal," if by that you mean that anyone who is a soldier should follow orders and not question the big picture or work to change it. But of course "I was just following orders" went out the window as a defense at Nuremburg. So help me out here... what makes this worthy of notice as an "update"? Is Bill saying that Kerry broke some kind of rule governing reservists and was never punished for it, even though it was a matter of public record? thanks bruce Posted by: bruce at August 22, 2004 03:20 PMHmmm. 1. Frankly I forgot the link for the relevant statute, perhaps someone could post it, but it is against the law what Kerry did. It doesn't matter if Kerry is considered a naval officer or a private citizen, technically he violated the law when he tried to negotiate with the enemy. The Vietnam War was still being waged, no peace treaty had been signed and Kerry was not authorized by anyone to either meet with or negotiate with the North Vietnamese. From posts made by other people, who actually did provide links (sorry), this is defined as treason. 2. Primary sources: The simple fact is that the FactCheck.org site started with the premise that the SwiftVets were lying and proceeded from there. There's no neutrality involved at any point. All of the positive references come from liberal newspapers and the associated PDF files are used selectively to discredit the SwiftVets without any real analysis. As an example FactCheck.org uses the fact of Thurlow's bronze star to justify Kerry's. However Thurlow has stated that he didn't receive this star until 10 days after he had returned home. Why the delay? Because Kerry used the fact that officers, including his Commanding Officers, were rotated out of the command. By delaying the paperwork for a medal he could guarantee that the people signing the order wouldn't have firsthand experience with the circumstances nor would they have available individuals who could refute those fabricated documents. Look at the circumstances of the first Purple Heart. The set tone of the writing is that Letson is a liar with no effort made to verify that he was in fact the medical officer or that J.C. Carreon was his orderly. Instead FactCheck.org relies entirely on either the Kerry campaign or liberal newspapers, which in turn relied entirely on the Kerry campaign. It is, at best, an incestuous relationship and at worst a complete debunking of the FactCheck.org. Hell look at the title itself. "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record". Does it matter that the GOP hasn't funded this group? That this group is, required by law, not affiliated with the GOP? And yet a website purported to delve into the truth can't even be bothered to have a factually correct title? The simple fact is that FactCheck.org is a useful resource for Democrats to use as a club in debates. But that's because it's is heavily slanted in their favor. When people realize this, FactCheck.org becomes useless. You go ahead and trust FackCheck.org, but I'm not that foolish. hey ed: first of all, if factcheck is so biased, why does it critique ads that attack Bush as much as those that attack Kerry? So I don't get why you claim it is a resource for democrats to use a club. If it were, don't you think it would come up with a more slanted viewpoint? If it were in Kerry's pocket, don't you think it would end with a full-barrel denunciation of the ads? But going to your specific points... 1) bronze star: factcheck relies most strongly on testimony by two men who were on Kerry's boat, as opposed to others who weren't. i say "most strongly" because you tend to lead and end with the evidence you think is the most important. it does also cite Thurlow's bronze star documentation (not the giving of the bronze start itself.) So your characterization of factcheck's presentation is not accurate. With respect to your statement about Kerry controlling the timing of the award -- I have don't know how logistics of how these awards work -- are you saying that the process itself is so easy to manipulate? i would think the military is careful about how it gives these honors. 2) Purple heart: I don't agree at all with you when you say that factcheck treat Letson as a liar. It seems to me just to describe what he says. With respect to any PRIMARY SOURCES about who the medical officer was, it seems like there are none to back up Letson's claim - only his statements after the fact. Factcheck's conclusion, that "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." seems fair and balanced to me. 3) funding: it is clear that the ad is funded by folks who are strong supporters of the republican party. Factcheck does not say that republican party itself has funded the ads. In terms of judging the facts presented by an ad, it is common sense to look at who is presenting the ad. that is a no-brainer. And do I trust factcheck? I do see them as trying to sort out the facts from all the partisan bull flying around from BOTH SIDES. I see almost NO ONE ELSE who is doing that. I don't trust any source of information -- I judge for myself, like any sane person. bruce Posted by: bruce at August 22, 2004 11:21 PMJust a followup to posting here. Don't put a real email address down for your contact info. This morning I found out that someone on this board, who was too cowardly to attack me directly, signed me up for buttloads of treehugger, animal "rights" (by the way PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals in my house), and communist mailing lists. These are the type people backing Hanoi John. Keep it up. You just reinforce our need to keep traitors out of office. By the by, just so everyone knows what I'm talking about I'll post the exact verbiage immediately after this note so they both don't get wiped by the profanity filter. I love cowards. They make my foundation all the stronger. Posted by: clayusmcret at August 23, 2004 10:42 AMThis is the email I received yesterday and it was one of about 26 the coward set me up for. Quote: Subject: In Kerry's Defense From: fackoffanddiejackhole@biteme.com fackoffanddiejackhole@biteme.com has sent you a link! Eat shit because you're a moron. Title: In Kerry's Defense -- Unquote: God, I love cowards! Posted by: clayusmcret at August 23, 2004 10:46 AMFactcheck can site all the sources it wants to keep the issues muddy. I, on the other hand, stand with the 220+ general officers who have endorsed President Bush. Let's see, that makes 220+ former generals and admirals for Bush, under 10 of the same for Hanoi John (and one of them ran against HJ saying HJ was unworthy to be president before he said HJ was worthy to be president. Flip flopping for the flip flopper! That's rich!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA This is a partial list of retired flag officers who have endorsed the President; TitleLast NameFirst NameMIService Gosh - American politics is in a sad state when the focus of such a decisive election is garbage like this. WHO CARES ABOUT VIET NAM ANYWAY? what a waste of time... Posted by: a. at August 23, 2004 01:26 PM"PAYBACK" - Bill that is pretty pathetic... What is this third grade? Or do you think this is one of the DEATHWISH movies with Charles Bronson... How juvenile... Posted by: a. at August 23, 2004 01:31 PM--------------------------------------------------------- SemiPundit I think the technique of snipping quotes to alter the meaning was employed with startling effect by Michael Moore in his F 9/11 "documentary". A film seen by millions of people around the world conveying totally false conclusions simply by "editing" the quotes. Wow!! And now Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times is doing the same thing. What's the world coming to? As for the funding, let's see some Republicans gave the Swifties a couple $100K and they spend $60K. Now how much is that Soros gave MoveON? As Carl Sagan would say "meeyellions and meeyellions", right? Where's the outrage? Posted by: jane m at August 23, 2004 02:08 PMclayusmcret - I TOTALLY agree with you about the abuse you suffered. That is terrible. I am a liberal and strongly disagree with your views about the election, but I think that we should all act like intelligent adults and not be abusive. I'm sorry someone abused you personally. respectfully,
Jane M., I don't care who it is, or which side the individual is on, the practice is deceptive and unprofessional. It only fools the uninformed and unwary, while others of greater sophistication see it for what it is. Clayusmcret, Such behavior is inexcusable. There is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym, and there is ample opportunity to register one's thoughts and opinions in forums such as this. The person is clearly lacking in the ability to express himself in a mature way and, as I write this, is scheming to have a pizza delivered to his neighbor's door. Posted by: SemiPundit at August 23, 2004 06:42 PMthe back and forth over whether medals were earned/not is largely unresolvable and hence, pointless - what is not pointless is Kerry's repeated insistence (verifiably false on all accounts) that he was in Cambodia and made trips to Cambodia delivering arms, CIA agents, SEALS, etc. - he then chose to repeat these fabrications/lies numerous times in numerous settings in order to advance a postion or simply puff his ego (the CIA man's hat story fits the bill here) - that is concerning to say the least - I believe he's done the same thing with his comments that "he's talked to foreign leaders" (funny that not a one will commit troops to Iraq) - what is most sad is that this is the best the Dems could offer the American people at a time like this - Posted by: trappedinmn at August 24, 2004 10:44 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
