[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by PacHead:
And Kerry has done neither. He has certainly not ignored the allegations, and he hasn't addressed them in a satisfactory way either. He can just release ALL of his military records.
The dude is running for president, what has he to hide ?

ok, so you come up with a third rationalization to make baseless accusations:

so, in sum:

1. if he addressess them, its because he must think its a valid attack
2. If he ignores them, its because he wants to avoid the issue, so its a valid attack
3. if he does a little of both, its because he has something to hide.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok, so you come up with a third rationalization to make baseless accusations:

so, in sum:

1. if he addressess them, its because he must think its a valid attack
2. If he ignores them, its because he wants to avoid the issue, so its a valid attack
3. if he does a little of both, its because he has something to hide.

Either way, these are valid allegations brought forth by the veterans, how Kerry chooses to deal with them are up to him.

If their allegations are false - KERRY SHOULD PROVE IT

If their allegations are true - KERRY = TOAST, and he might as well throw in the towel today, inorder to save himself from anymore embarresment.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
To echo BlackGriffin (and not just because he's referred to me as some kind of authority) I don't think there is much to read into here. The V identifier is used on medals that can be awarded both for service and for valor. The Bronze Star, for example, can be awarded as a Bronze Star or as the "Bronze Star with V Device." If it is the latter, it signifies that the award was for valor, not for service, as most Bronze Stars are awarded for service. It would be a serious forgery to claim a V device on a Bronze Star if it wasn't awarded with one.

However, the Silver Star can only be awarded for valor, so a V device is unnecessary. Therefore, whatever his DD-214 mistakenly said about his Silver Star, it is clear he got it for valor.

Now, it may be that people unfamiliar with military awards and who wish to falsify having a Silver Star when they in fact don't have one might mistakenly say they have a Silver Star with V Device. That might lead an investigator to look closely at that claim. But that doesn't apply here because it is clear that the Navy really did award him the medal. It's just that it is misnamed on his DD-214. That's not a big deal and was more than likely a clerk's error.

Repeated for PacHead's benefit.

Maybe he'll read it the second time around.


(and I still don't get how the Navy is involved in all of this)

[typoon]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
And? So what? There are extreme leftists who are comparing Bush to Hitler. Should those charges be treated with as much seriousness as these discredited swift boats guys? I don't think so. They're nutjobs. Are you just learning there are extremists on both side of the political spectrum?

For 98% of the people in America these are irrelevant to today's issues.

Nut jobs? really? they have stayed consistant with there story Kerry has Changed his story of what happened a couple of times already. first he was in cambodia then he wasn't sure then he was close to it. WHICH IS IT? The Swift Vets have stayed consistant on their version.

How are they Extremists? They are MUCH less extreme than say Michael Moore or say George Soros.

When a retired Admiral who SERVED on Kerry's boat says he got a nick and then requested a Purple heart that is really extremist .

[Millennium]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Either way, these are valid allegations brought forth by the veterans, how Kerry chooses to deal with them are up to him.

If their allegations are false - KERRY SHOULD PROVE IT

Actually, he shouldn't have t, presumption of innocence being what it is. This said, public opinion being what it is, he's probably going to have to prove it anyway. This is a sad thing, but that's the sociopolitical reality of the situation.

Of course, Bush hasn't exactly been given the benefit of the doubt either. But the premature convictions do have to stop somewhere, and that it stops is more important than who it stops with.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
And? So what? There are extreme leftists who are comparing Bush to Hitler. Should those charges be treated with as much seriousness as these discredited swift boats guys? I don't think so. They're nutjobs. Are you just learning there are extremists on both side of the political spectrum?

For 98% of the people in America these are irrelevant to today's issues.

We'll let the voters decide what is or is not relevant. That's how free speech works. You make your point, but the person hearing gets to decide if it is relevant or not.

Now, on the swiftvet book, without having read it I understand that it has three main complaints. One is the medals controversy. That could be a smear, if they really made it all up. I'm not sure how we can know for certain what happened on that river. Because I can't know, I give the benefit of the doubt presumptively to Kerry. So maybe a smear, maybe not. They could all be simply honestly mistaken, or venal, or correct. Hard to know without knowing what is in their hearts. Some of these other issues though could be a smear. But they aren't all in the book. As far as I know, for example, this v device issue isn't in the book. People without the expertise of these veterans have piled on as happens in a free country. The same has certainly happened in the attacks on Bush.

But back to the allegations of the swiftvet group themselves, there are other complaints in the book that cannot be smears no matter whether you like the implications or not. One is the Christmas in Cambodia charge, which even critics of the swiftvets seem to be admitting is a valid point. I hope we agree that a valid point can't also be a "smear."

The other is Kerry's own words in his Senate testimony. How can Kerry's own words be a smear about Kerry? It's his public record. That's a legitimate issue.

So there are three issues and two of which simply cannot be dismissed as a smear. You nevertheless dismiss everything they say as a smear, That is itself a smear and calling everyting they say a smear is your way of not dealing with criticism of your precious candidate.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by typoon:
Nut jobs? really? they have stayed consistant with there story Kerry has Changed his story of what happened a couple of times already. first he was in cambodia then he wasn't sure then he was close to it. WHICH IS IT? The Swift Vets have stayed consistant on their version.

How are they Extremists? They are MUCH less extreme than say Michael Moore or say George Soros.

When a retired Admiral who SERVED on Kerry's boat says he got a nick and then requested a Purple heart that is really extremist .

First, I was referring to the people who compared Bush to Hitler as nutjobs. Either I wasn't clear or you misread me.

As for this SBV group they're running an extremely partisan smear campaign. They've been discredited far too often to be taken seriously anymore.

Pick which contradiction you want: either by official Navy records, people who were actually on the same boat with Kerry, by their own records and past public comments, or that some in their own group who are retracting statements or didn't want to be included in the first place. I've seen videos of a couple of them directly contradicting what they claimed in the SBVT commercial. Pick your poison. There's so many holes in their story you could drive a swift boat through it.

Do we really need to go over this again? There are numerous threads to choose from. And I really don't care about any of it because I don't think it's relevant in the first place.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
(and I still don't get how the Navy is involved in all of this)

I can only assume that Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has been made spokesman for the entire US Navy

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We'll let the voters decide what is or is not relevant. That's how free speech works. You make your point, but the person hearing gets to decide if it is relevant or not.

Now, on the swiftvet book, without having read it I understand that it has three main complaints. One is the medals controversy. That could be a smear, if they really made it all up. I'm not sure how we can know for certain what happened on that river. Because I can't know, I give the benefit of the doubt presumptively to Kerry. So maybe a smear, maybe not. They could all be simply honestly mistaken, or venal, or correct. Hard to know without knowing what is in their hearts. Some of these other issues though could be a smear. But they aren't all in the book. As far as I know, for example, this v device issue isn't in the book. People without the expertise of these veterans have piled on as happens in a free country. The same has certainly happened in the attacks on Bush.

But back to the allegations of the swiftvet group themselves, there are other complaints in the book that cannot be smears no matter whether you like the implications or not. One is the Christmas in Cambodia charge, which even critics of the swiftvets seem to be admitting is a valid point. I hope we agree that a valid point can't also be a "smear."

The other is Kerry's own words in his Senate testimony. How can Kerry's own words be a smear about Kerry? It's his public record. That's a legitimate issue.

So there are three issues and two of which simply cannot be dismissed as a smear. You nevertheless dismiss everything they say as a smear, That is itself a smear and calling everyting they say a smear is your way of not dealing with criticism of your precious candidate.

LOL. So your position is neither you nor I can determine what's relevant for the voters so let's continue to smear Kerry anyways? Right.

Again, I don't care if the remembrance of a 60 year old man is off by days (or weeks for that matter). Especially concerning an incident 35 years ago in the middle of a war where he was in almost constant danger of attack.

I continue to maintain it is irrelevant to today's issues. We've had more than enough threads discussing the details. Do you need me to rehash it all again? Here's the latest rebuttal to the Cambodia story. Knock yourself out.

But I've been following the threads and I don't remember seeing your reason why you think it's so all important. All I see is a continual game of gotcha. Opponents looking for any scrap of controversy so they can discredit John Kerry's entire life as phony. So, he isn't a saint. So what? Maybe we'll find a grade school teacher who'll admit he stole some chalk in the 3rd grade. That'll surely disqualify him from the Presidency, wouldn't it?

So, why don't you explain why Kerry's possible misstatement (note the word possible) of a minor incident in the middle of a war 35 years ago is more important to this country than Osama Bin Laden in the hills of Afghanistan planning more attacks, or why the majority of our troops AREN'T pursuing him, or why we have soldiers dying by the day for the Iraqi people instead of looking for those who attacked ours, or why it was worth $200 billion to make a mess of the ME and create more hatred aimed at America, or why global terrorism is up, or why we've had the largest expansion of Government in decades, or how we now have a huge deficit after running in the black previous to this Administration, or how this is the first President since Hoover to have a net LOSS of jobs during his term, or how we've had a growth in the poverty class, or the failure of our Intelligence agencies, or why we have group of soldiers torturing those we reportedly came to save? Should I go on?

Why is where John Kerry ate dinner on Christmas Eve 1968 more important to discuss in this election campaign, going on 4 weeks now, than all the above?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
(and I still don't get how the Navy is involved in all of this)

^^^

[Logic]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I can only assume that Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has been made spokesman for the entire US Navy

^^^

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
So, why don't you explain why Kerry's possible misstatement (note the word possible) of a minor incident in the middle of a war 35 years ago is more important to this country than Osama Bin Laden in the hills of Afghanistan planning more attacks, or why the majority of our troops AREN'T pursuing him, or why we have soldiers dying by the day for the Iraqi people instead of looking for those who attacked ours, or why it was worth $200 billion to make a mess of the ME and create more hatred aimed at America, or why global terrorism is up, or why we've had the largest expansion of Government in decades, or how we now have a huge deficit after running in the black previous to this Administration, or how this is the first President since Hoover to have a net LOSS of jobs during his term, or how we've had a growth in the poverty class, or the failure of our Intelligence agencies, or why we have group of soldiers torturing those we reportedly came to save? Should I go on?

That the "anybody but Bush" argument framed in a way most negative about the incument. The problem is that negative campaigning only gets you so far. At some point you have to show that your own candidate is a credible president on his own merits. The problem is that Kerry is failing to make the sale. He looks to many to be an empty suit.

His defensiveness about his record isn't the fault of his critics. If he is to be president, he needs to learn to handle criticism. His defensiveness is because he's running a terrible campaign that failed to anticipate criticism. Don't blame his critics. Ask yourself why your party nominated such a weak candidate.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
So, why don't you explain why Kerry's possible misstatement (note the word possible) of a minor incident in the middle of a war 35 years ago is more important to this country than Osama Bin Laden in the hills of Afghanistan planning more attacks, or why the majority of our troops AREN'T pursuing him...

I just wanted to comment on this last point here: sometimes, throwing more people at a problem is counterproductive. Are the majority of our troops needed to pursue him? Probably not. Search missions don't require as many personnel as outright occupations.

...or why we've had the largest expansion of Government in decades...

The creation of a single new cabinet-level department, mostly made up of existing agencies? I loathe the DHS as much as the next guy, but to call it "the largest expansion of Government in decades" is a misleading statement when any significant expansion would count.

...or how we've had a growth in the poverty class...

Proportional to overall population growth; frankly, it's tough to ask for much better than this.

...or the failure of our Intelligence agencies...

Here, you make a valid point, but the failures seem to have in the most part occurred before Bush's time, by people put into place before Bush's time. I can't fault Bush for stuff he didn't have control over.

...or why we have group of soldiers torturing those we reportedly came to save?

Now proven to be nothing more than a few bad apples. Exacerbated by a leadership which was too lenient on them -and their direct commanding officers should share in their punishment- but not a conspiracy.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That the "anybody but Bush" argument framed in a way most negative about the incument. The problem is that negative campaigning only gets you so far. At some point you have to show that your own candidate is a credible president on his own merits. The problem is that Kerry is failing to make the sale. He looks to many to be an empty suit.

His defensiveness about his record isn't the fault of his critics. If he is to be president, he needs to learn to handle criticism. His defensiveness is because he's running a terrible campaign that failed to anticipate criticism. Don't blame his critics. Ask yourself why your party nominated such a weak candidate.

Your 1st paragraph is something many would say about the Bush campaign. All we've heard from Bush is how bad Kerry is. It's been nothing but negative for months now. We've heard nothing about plans for the upcoming 4 years. Maybe now that will change with the RNC in full swing, we'll see.

My argument wasn't meant to entirely disparage Bush. Though, in my opinion, he's been a lousy President. But to highlight the the priorities that we should be discussing over this swift boat nonsense.

Hey, I'm not arguing Kerry is the perfect candidate either. I think the whole process is ineffective and undemocratic. Maybe you remember my rants during the primary process?

How this whole swift boat issue played out highlights, I think, many of the concerns democrats had with Kerry. As Maureen Dowd (I know one of your favorites ) said, "How lame is it that John Kerry, the war hero, is playing defense on his military record to a guy who defended Texas from Oklahoma during the Vietnam War?" Now, I didn't bring that up to start another argument comparing the Bush-Kerry war records. I don't care about either of them. I think it illustrates why Howard Dean (not my favorite either) captured the passion of the party before Kerry came back to win the nomination. If Dean was in Kerry's shoes, I don't think this issue would have the legs it did.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I just wanted to comment on this last point here: sometimes,

<snipped for space>

I think you missed the spirit of my post. I'm not saying that Bush is solely responsible for all these problems (except where I specifically mention him). Although he IS the President and he needs to prove he has a handle on and is correcting the mistakes made.

I guess we could go tit-for-tat on every issue you cite. We've had a dozen threads on each one. I have no problem discussing those issues if you insist but I'm not really interested.

My main point, in response to Simey, is that ALL of these issues are more important than where John Kerry ate his rations on Xmas Eve 1968. Whether he was in Cambodia, on the border or 5 miles from it on one particular night makes no difference to addressing the issues we face going forward.

All it does is feed the 'gotcha' politics mentality on this board and in the conservative media who are looking for any inconsistency to disparage their political opponent. Look how many people here immediately accepted these SBV stories as fact before Kerry and others even responded. It was a feeding frenzy. In my opinion, and I've been only following it peripherally, they've all been discredited many times over.

I've said it before, think about what's NOT being discussed while everyone is focusing on minor events that happened 35 years ago. Do you think that's an accident? Do you think Bush isn't relieved not having to discuss his record? Do you think the average voter doesn't see through this tactic anymore?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
My main point, in response to Simey, is that ALL of these issues are more important than where John Kerry ate his rations on Xmas Eve 1968. Whether he was in Cambodia, on the border or 5 miles from it on one particular night makes no difference to addressing the issues we face going forward.

I don't think anybody is arguing that where Kerry was in 1968 is relevant in and of itself. But it is relevant that a candidate for president has a track record of making up fanciful tales about his past and using them in policy debates as a senator. Or that he built his reputation by making wildly hyperbolic and grotesque accusations about his fellow veterans. Both of those tendencies show poor judgment, and that is always relevant in a potential president. His tendency to overreact to criticism is also interesting.

Basically, your complaint is that the spotlight turned to Kerry's record rather than to what you see as Bush's. Well, there are two candidates for president, both their public records are fair game.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[...] His tendency to overreact to criticism is also interesting.

Would you care to demonstrate this? My memory of this is that Kerry tried to ignore it, but that he was basically forced to address it by an overreacting media. Hell, even at the peak of the thing most of his speeches were the same as they'd always been. He would address the SBVT briefly, because the media forced his hand, and the media would just quote that as a sound bite, as if that's all he spoke of.

BlackGriffen

[Spliffdaddy]

This is all starting to sound like a repeat of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.

The libs were screaming "so what if he got a blowjob?!" - when that wasn't the issue at hand. The real issue was the fact that he lied.

Today, we have the Kerry apologists screaming "So what if he wasn't in Cambodia?!" - when that isn't the issue at hand. The real issue is that he lied.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Would you care to demonstrate this? My memory of this is that Kerry tried to ignore it, but that he was basically forced to address it by an overreacting media. Hell, even at the peak of the thing most of his speeches were the same as they'd always been. He would address the SBVT briefly, because the media forced his hand, and the media would just quote that as a sound bite, as if that's all he spoke of.

BlackGriffen

The whole "web of connections" line is an overreaction. Rather than answer the questions, or better yet, rather than just release the documents so that journalists can answer the questions, he went on the attack. For example, there are ethics charges being filed against the swiftboat veterans lawyer for the terrible crime of advising more than one client. Talk about smears!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think anybody is arguing that where Kerry was in 1968 is relevant in and of itself. But it is relevant that a candidate for president has a track record of making up fanciful tales about his past and using them in policy debates as a senator. Or that he built his reputation by making wildly hyperbolic and grotesque accusations about his fellow veterans. Both of those tendencies show poor judgment, and that is always relevant in a potential president. His tendency to overreact to criticism is also interesting.

Basically, your complaint is that the spotlight turned to Kerry's record rather than to what you see as Bush's. Well, there are two candidates for president, both their public records are fair game.

They're not? You've been harping on it for weeks. If it's not relevant then challenge Kerry on his policy positions.

No, I'm saying arguing the minutia of Kerry's actions 35 years ago during combat is insignificant to today's issues. Discussing Bush's record in regards to policy is completely relevant to evaluating his job performance. That IS what the election is about you know.

You continue to give them equal relevance. They're not equal. Not unless you have nothing positive to say about your candidate. In that case, all you have left is to criticize the opponent. It's empty, bankrupt rhetoric and a transparent campaign ploy.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The whole "web of connections" line is an overreaction. Rather than answer the questions, or better yet, rather than just release the documents so that journalists can answer the questions, he went on the attack. For example, there are ethics charges being filed against the swiftboat veterans lawyer for the terrible crime of advising more than one client. Talk about smears!

I'll agree that the lawyer one may be overboard (might there be a conflict of interest involved in advising an anti-Kerry group and the Bush campaign? Perhaps. It would certainly be tempting to advise one to do what's best for the other, but not necessarily in the best interests of the first). His stance is that he has released everything of relevance. IIRC, he's released everything but his medical records, much like Bush. Re: his personal diaries, he may be under an exclusivity contract with a man who wrote his biography.

At any rate, why don't we engage in a little tu quoque logical fallacy? Do you remember how Bush reacted to John DiIulio, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson, etc? Do you remember how you reacted? I recall quite clearly, you joined the administration in smearing them and their credibility.

It sounds to me like Kerry is no worse a man than Bush in such instances, and certainly no worse than you.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, I'm saying arguing the minutia of Kerry's actions 35 years ago during combat is insignificant to today's issues. Discussing Bush's record in regards to policy is completely relevant to evaluating his job performance. That IS what the election is about you know.

No. The election is not just a referendum on the incumbant. It is about selecting who should be the next president of the United States. Kerry is not just "Not Bush," he is a candidate for president.

Like it or not, the public record of a candidate is how people judge the suitablility of that candidate for the office.. Kerry's public record is a legitimate issue - and that includes the parts of his public record that he and his supporters would rather we not know about, or talk about.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Either way, these are valid allegations brought forth by the veterans, how Kerry chooses to deal with them are up to him.

If their allegations are false - KERRY SHOULD PROVE IT

If their allegations are true - KERRY = TOAST, and he might as well throw in the towel today, inorder to save himself from anymore embarresment.

right. this is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".
its not an attempt to find the truth, its an attack to smear, regardless of what the truth is.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Like it or not, the public record of a candidate is how people judge the suitablility of that candidate for the office.. Kerry's public record is a legitimate issue - and that includes the parts of his public record that he and his supporters would rather we not know about, or talk about.

Then talk about it. His Senate record has barely been discussed except in the broadest manner.

I don't think people mind talking about his military record either (except me, i don't think it's relevant). Except when the conversation starts out with lies and character defamation as the framework. But unfortunately that's the only aspect the Bush campaign wants to dwell on. There's more bang for the buck there. It's not about honesty or truthfully comparing the candidates military records, it's about character assassination and you know it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Then talk about it. His Senate record has barely been discussed except in the broadest manner.

I don't think people mind talking about his military record either (except me, i don't think it's relevant). Except when the conversation starts out with lies and character defamation as the framework. But unfortunately that's the only aspect the Bush campaign wants to dwell on. There's more bang for the buck there. It's not about honesty or truthfully comparing the candidates military records, it's about character assassination and you know it.

The Christmas in Cambodia story is part of his Senate record! The "seared -- seared in my memory" line is from the Congressional Record. Those are his words in a Senate debate where he explained his position on Nicaragua. The issue is that his justification for his vote was based on something that didn't happen.

His 1971 incendiary testimony was testimony before the senate. He wasn't himself a senator, but that is still part of his public record.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Christmas in Cambodia story is part of his Senate record! The "seared -- seared in my memory" line is from the Congressional Record. Those are his words in a Senate debate where he explained his position on Nicaragua. The issue is that his justification for his vote was based on something that didn't happen.

His 1971 incendiary testimony was testimony before the senate. He wasn't himself a senator, but that is still part of his public record.

yeah, yeah, yeah.

Rumor has it that he ate a bagel in Cape Cod on Columbus Day in '81. Maybe this calls for a Special Prosecutor?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Christmas in Cambodia story is part of his Senate record! The "seared -- seared in my memory" line is from the Congressional Record. Those are his words in a Senate debate where he explained his position on Nicaragua. The issue is that his justification for his vote was based on something that didn't happen.

His 1971 incendiary testimony was testimony before the senate. He wasn't himself a senator, but that is still part of his public record.

how was his testimony "incendiary"? I've read it in full, and it seems to me the only people who would have found it "incendiary" at the time were those who wished to keep throwing away the lives of young men in vietnam for no purpose, or who wished the govt. to keep hiding the real numbers of deaths and casualties to shield the american people from the truth.

I wonder...why do YOU find it incendiary? can you be specific?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?".
its not an attempt to find the truth, its an attack to smear, regardless of what the truth is.

Except that if the person was known to be a wife beater then it becomes a relevant question.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Except that if the person was known to be a wife beater then it becomes a relevant question.

[daimoni]

.