[Spliffdaddy]

scroll to the bottom of that page.

"Group affiliation listed for identification purposes only and does not imply any endorsement."

[Y3a]

You CAN be a Bush Supporter, and NOT affiliated with the campaign, AND be a SwiftBoat guy. I wonder if Bush committee will counter sue the Soros folks for what they've been up to?? It's all a bunch of crap anyway. Kerry's camp doesn't want his records looked at TOO CLOSELY, because it would raise too many questions about HIS stories. Kerry's swiftboat guys are on kerrys payroll, so its BS anyway. This is all gonna backfire on Kerry anyway. Examining Kerry's senate votes will clearly illustrate that he's NOT THE GUY to protect us or our country.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by tie:
Kerry did the right thing in normalizing relations with Vietnam.

Kerry only wanted normal relations with Vietnam because it created a huge windfall to the tune of billions of dollars for the Forbes family.

You know, John....Forbes....Kerry.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bush's intent was not to serve.

And Bush actually did it.

He did serve, just not in Vietnam.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Not a single reputable source repeats the 'more than one mine' story. Yet you�re still clinging desperately to it. How could Kerry's boat have fled (which all accounts say he did, and now Kerry himself admits) if it were hit by a mine?

Haha, this is great. I'm desperately clinging to the second mine theory!!! This is the best conspiracy theory I've heard in a while. The contemporaneous report uses the term 'mines.' Everything else comes from these attacks against Kerry from 35 years later.

I even bolded it the first time I posted it. Pay attention.
"I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day."

Show me where any other officer disputes this.

That's the statement of this guy on a vendetta against Kerry 35 years after the fact, right? This is the guy who conveniently left out of the book that he also got an award in the same incident for which he now says Kerry didn't deserve one? The guy who says he lost his award, and that his ex-wife had it, and who said that it didn't say anything about getting fire, and then when it turned out that it did say exactly that, he said Kerry wrote it, and used as his evidence that it was signed by John F. Kerry's initials, KJW? So when he was caught, he now claims he had nothing to do with the report, when, according to normal procedure, he would have been very involved, and in fact would have written it himself.

Says who? You? All of a sudden you know more about report filings for Swift boat commanders in Vietnam than they do themselves? You were there huh?
Sheesh. Give it up already.

That's what the reporters who have investigated this have said. And it certainly makes sense that the senior officer at the incident would have at least participated in writing the report. Anything else is a conspiracy theory.

It wasn't an issue 35 years ago. As has been pointed out, none of them even realized the events Kerry lied about were the same incidents that they took part in, because Kerry had twisted the details beyond all recognition.

"Thurlow and Chenoweth are certain Kerry played no role in saving PCF 3 or its crew. When they, as well as several other Swiftees who were there, first saw the Kerry campaign ads they believed the events portrayed in the ads (as well as in Kerry's campaign biography and the medal citations) had to be different and involve different people. They were horrified when they realized Kerry had received medals for the incident they remembered."

Apparently none of them really knew about nor cared all that much about Kerry's lies, nor his medals, until he made them issues by creating campaign ads with the blatant lies in them. That's exactly how all this started.

And why wasn't it an issue 35 years ago, if it was such a big lie? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, because what's written in the reports and the citations is exactly what happened? The campaign ads simply state what is in the Navy documents. They're not "Kerry's lies." Rassman, a stranger, submitted Kerry for the award, not Kerry himself.

This is hilarious, you just keep trying to insist Thurlow wrote something he didn't write. Suddenly YOU pretend to be an expert on what Thurlow did and said 35 years ago, and he can't possibly know what he did himself! You and Kerry have something in common- lying about Thurlow's actions when you both: "...were not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat..."

Talk about pretzel-logic. I think you take the Gold, leaving zigzag with the Silver!

OK, as long as 35 years from now you don't want to take this honor away from me. It's common sense that he would have at least been involved in writing the report, or at the least corroborating the events. Only a conspiracy theory would suggest that Kerry scammed everyone to get an award he didn't deserve.

Hopefully the world won't have to be subjected to a Kerry presidency! I can only imagine the waffles, the blatant lies, and the endless bullcrap, certainly if his 'Nam shenanigans are any indication.

Yup, it's going to be quite a hate fest, I'm sure.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Not a single reputable source repeats the 'more than one mine' story.

I suspect the Washington Post doesn't qualify...?

"In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion."

The article also has links to the recommendation and citation of L.R. Thurlow's Bronze Star which he received for the same action/service as J.F. Kerry. It also has a link for Thurlow's affidavit.

Edit to add another Washington Post article that is worth a read. (Or reread)
Link

[Spliffdaddy]

lol. please start at page one of this thread.

then edit your post.

[lurkalot]

Spliffdaddy wrote:

"lol. please start at page one of this thread.

then edit your post."

I did. Did you have time to read the article added in my edit yet?

You may have come across this paragraph:
"At this point, Kerry crew members say their boat was hit by a second explosion. Although Kerry's injury report speaks of a mine that "detonated close aboard PCF-94," helmsman Del Sandusky believes it was more likely a rocket or rocket-propelled grenade, as a mine would have inflicted more damage. Whatever it was, the explosion rammed Kerry into the wall of his pilothouse, injuring his right forearm."

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
He did serve, just not in Vietnam.

How do you serve without reporting for duty?

He served as an aid for a campaign of a family friend. We know that. But that doesn't count.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
How do you serve without reporting for duty?

He served as an aid for a campaign of a family friend. We know that. But that doesn't count.

Robert, please do us a favor and read this thread. It's long, but we went through all of the false allegations you keep repeating. Bush reported for duty, completed the required time by making up drills as is completely routine in the National Guard. There are documents, and when this story hit the media earlier this year, eyewitnesses eventually came forward who recall seeing him performing his required duty. That's why he was able to get his honorable discharge. He did what was required of a National Guard pilot.

That's why the "Bush AWOL" story went away from all but conspiracymonger sources. It was completely debunked. It's kind of pointless pretending otherwise, and frankly, its boring reading the same BS debunked Michael Moore allegations over and over. So please, educate yourself.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
How do you serve without reporting for duty?

He served as an aid for a campaign of a family friend. We know that. But that doesn't count.

First of all, this is a thread about Kerry's service. There are plenty of other Bush-Guard threads to rehash. Secondly, you really need to stop making stuff up, or at least get a grasp on what you're talking about.

Bush served in the Guard for years - from 1968-1973. The last year's activities are sketchy as he was bouncing around from Texas and Alabama. Regardless, commanders felt that he served his duty and discharged him honorably.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Robert, please do us a favor and read this thread. It's long, but we went through all of the false allegations you keep repeating. Bush reported for duty, completed the required time by making up drills as is completely routine in the National Guard. There are documents, and when this story hit the media earlier this year, eyewitnesses eventually came forward who recall seeing him performing his required duty. That's why he was able to get his honorable discharge. He did what was required of a National Guard pilot.

That's why the "Bush AWOL" story went away from all but conspiracymonger sources. It was completely debunked. It's kind of pointless pretending otherwise, and frankly, its boring reading the same BS debunked Michael Moore allegations over and over. So please, educate yourself.

Having someone from his campaign say he was there doesn't remedy it.

I could find someone who will say I was there to (despite being born after the date). Does that make me there? Or make me dishonest?

[tie]

Originally posted by tie:
Interesting that Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ad attacking Bush's avoiding service. While Bush has refused to denounce the Swift boat ad. Bush just lacks character.

Oops, double post.

Interesting politics. Kerry comes out with an ad saying that Bush is behind the attacks -- and now Bush changes his mind. I think Bush is playing the game better.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
Interesting that Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ad attacking Bush's avoiding service. While Bush has refused to denounce the Swift boat ad. Bush just lacks character.

Sure sounds like he's in the denouncing spirit...from the article "Kerry Questions Bush Guard Service"

�Was he present and active, on duty in Alabama, at the times he was supposed to be? ... Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.� - John Kerry, before telling the media that is was their responsibility to review Bush's Guard records, Feb 8, 2004

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Nope, the Bush campaign isn't coordinating with the Swiftboaters. Except that they are handing out these fliers:

Oh oh, This is from Democrats.org (scroll down to find the quote, it is below the headline "Raise your Democratic Voice"):

The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us . . .

Whoopsie! Someone didn't get the no coordination message, I guess.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whoopsie! Someone didn't get the no coordination message, I guess.

Heh. No kidding.
Whining about the Swiftboat Veterans, while ignoring the MoveOn wing of the Democratic Party is the usual shameless hypocrisy.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh oh, This is from Democrats.org (scroll down to find the quote, it is below the headline "Raise your Democratic Voice"):



Whoopsie! Someone didn't get the no coordination message, I guess.

I'm not familiar with the law, but what exact ties does it cover? Coordination of the promotion of one candidate or the denigration of another would be covered, I'm sure, but a coordinated effort concerning a policy that long before the any primaries have even begun (see date at top of page: May_9,_2003) seems more like a gray area to me.

Not like a campaign adviser appearing in a 527's commercial. That looks like a clear cut violation of the law.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm not familiar with the law, but what exact ties does it cover? Coordination of the promotion of one candidate or the denigration of another would be covered, I'm sure, but a coordinated effort concerning a policy that long before the any primaries have even begun (see date at top of page: May_9,_2003) seems more like a gray area to me.

Not like a campaign adviser appearing in a 527's commercial. That looks like a clear cut violation of the law.

BlackGriffen

I'm no expert on campaign finance law so I can't answer your question. But I doubt there is a clear cut violation by either campaign. My point is simply the people living in glasshouses rule. You pointed to alleged coordination by some local affiliate of the Bush campaign in Georgia(?). I point you to coordination by the Democratic National Committee itself. It's a D'oh! moment.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm no expert on campaign finance law so I can't answer your question. But I doubt there is a clear cut violation by either campaign. My point is simply the people living in glasshouses rule. You pointed to alleged coordination by some local affiliate of the Bush campaign in Georgia(?). I point you to coordination by the Democratic National Committee itself. It's a D'oh! moment.

If you're not familiar with the law, how can you say one is a violation and one is not? I admit that the same applies to me, but I'm just making a judgment call based on the degrees of separation between the campaign and the 527. In the DNC case, there were 9 Democratic campaigns (or so), the activity didn't involve any of them, the activity didn't pertain directly to Bush's reelection (it was an issue centered event), and it was a long time before the Presidential campaign had kicked into gear. In the SBVT case, it's the peak of the campaign season, and it represents direct ties between the Bush campaign and a 527.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm no expert on campaign finance law so I can't answer your question. But I doubt there is a clear cut violation by either campaign. My point is simply the people living in glasshouses rule. You pointed to alleged coordination by some local affiliate of the Bush campaign in Georgia(?). I point you to coordination by the Democratic National Committee itself. It's a D'oh! moment.

the fact that you can't differentiate between the two is a "d'oh" moment.

One is a reelection campaign committee staffer involved directly in organizing a smear campaign of lies about another candidate.

The other is appealing to citizens to contact their representatives on an issue.

erm.....if you equate these two, I don't know what to tell you.

One is legal, one is not.

[BRussell]

Remember also that Bush has denounced 527s and is making a big deal about how they shouldn't be used, and all the while his campaign and the RNC are up to their ears in them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Remember also that Bush has denounced 527s and is making a big deal about how they shouldn't be used, and all the while his campaign and the RNC are up to their ears in them.

probably because they already shot their wad, and it wasn't the resounding success they'd hoped.

[BlackGriffen]

There's also an interesting difference between the 527 tactics of the left and the right. On the left, the 527s are set up to stick around for a long time. On the right the 527s are ad hoc, fly by night operations that spring up overnight with counterfactual names, smear a candidate, and then disappear. Never mind that the staffs of these 527s seem to be the same every time.

I seriously think that some lefties ought to adopt the hit and run 527 tactic. If only to counter the tactics on the right.

Now, my knowledge of this stuff is not encyclopedic by any means, so take it with a grain of salt. This is just the overall impression I get from observing goings on.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
probably because they already shot their wad, and it wasn't the resounding success they'd hoped.

Exactly. You can't punch someone in the face and then say "I give up!" The puncher has to pay some sort of price - be it getting punched or some sort of self effacing apology, or whatever.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
If you're not familiar with the law, how can you say one is a violation and one is not?

I didn't. I said I doubt that either campaign have committed any clear cut violations. It's not because I know anything about the law that I say that, it's because I bet both of them and their lawyers do know the law.

Politically, however, this is important. The Dems can't denounce a web of connections without people noticing their own web of connections.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Politically, however, this is important. The Dems can't denounce a web of connections without people noticing their own web of connections.

Sure they can. The Repub's plank in the eye is bigger than theirs.

BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I didn't. I said I doubt that either campaign have committed any clear cut violations. It's not because I know anything about the law that I say that, it's because I bet both of them and their lawyers do know the law.

Politically, however, this is important. The Dems can't denounce a web of connections without people noticing their own web of connections.

read my post further up.

In case Simey has me on ignore, (which is ok if he does), someone else point him to my post further up about how the two are not even on the same board.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Sure they can. The Repub's plank in the eye is bigger than theirs.

BG

Really? What is MoveOn's budget? Is it $10 million, or $20 million? The Swiftvet's is AFAIR $200k.

And how much did Michael Moore make?

And for Lerk: I do read your posts occasionally. However, I don't usually read them for their legal expertise. I think the FEC is better equipped to decide what is coordination, what is coincidence, what is authorized and what is not.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Really? What is MoveOn's budget? Is it $10 million, or $20 million? The Swiftvet's is AFAIR $200k.

And how much did Michael Moore make?

Oh, please, as if this were about the budgets involved. We're playing X degrees of George Bush/John Kerry. The distance between Bush and the particular 527 the SBVT is small compared to the separation between Kerry and MoveOn.org (given current evidence). If you've got evidence of closer links, bring it up.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Oh, please, as if this were about the budgets involved. We're playing X degrees of George Bush/John Kerry. The distance between Bush and the particular 527 the SBVT is small compared to the separation between Kerry and MoveOn.org (given current evidence). If you've got evidence of closer links, bring it up.

BG

But it is a web of contacts. Facts don't matter. Shared clients, law firm partners who know each other, people with ideas in common, it's all enough. Just ask the New York Times!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the fact that you can't differentiate between the two is a "d'oh" moment.

One is a reelection campaign committee staffer involved directly in organizing a smear campaign of lies about another candidate.

The other is appealing to citizens to contact their representatives on an issue.

One is legal, one is not.

"John Kerry's campaign has hired Zach Exley, a top strategist at MoveOn.org, to run the presidential hopeful's Internet operations, according to a report in the New York Post. The Bush administration has accused MoveOn.org and other controversial "527" groups of spending supposedly outlawed "soft money" on attack ads against the president.

Exley portrayed President Bush as a crack user on a political parody site he created in 2000."

"What's more, MoveOn, whose sole mission is to defeat President Bush in November, maintains that Exley is allowed to "communicate" with the 527 group even as he works for the Democratic nominee."

[SimeyTheLimey]

A handy-dandy New York Times style chart. It's about as probative too.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Really? What is MoveOn's budget? Is it $10 million, or $20 million? The Swiftvet's is AFAIR $200k.

And how much did Michael Moore make?

And for Lerk: I do read your posts occasionally. However, I don't usually read them for their legal expertise. I think the FEC is better equipped to decide what is coordination, what is coincidence, what is authorized and what is not.

and you shuck and jive that you're not an expert on campaign law....pshaw!

but somehow you've determined you know more than I, right?

how does that work?

simple question, compare the two instances: one is to slander a political opponent, one is to encourage voters to contact their representatives.

If you say you hold them both on the same level, you're either lying, stupid, or blinded by partisanship.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"John Kerry's campaign has hired Zach Exley, a top strategist at MoveOn.org, to run the presidential hopeful's Internet operations, according to a report in the New York Post. The Bush administration has accused MoveOn.org and other controversial "527" groups of spending supposedly outlawed "soft money" on attack ads against the president.

Exley portrayed President Bush as a crack user on a political parody site he created in 2000."

"What's more, MoveOn, whose sole mission is to defeat President Bush in November, maintains that Exley is allowed to "communicate" with the 527 group even as he works for the Democratic nominee."

you're...you're a CONSPIRACY NUT!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you say you hold them both on the same level, you're either lying, stupid, or blinded by partisanship.

Time to switch to decaf again, Lerk.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Kerry campaign and Leftist 527s (incl. MoveOn.org): Connections Flow Chart.

I wonder when the NY Times is going to publish this one.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
one is to slander a political opponent, one is to encourage voters to contact their representatives.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

do try to keep up, and debate honestly.

I was referring to the original two examples.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Time to switch to decaf again, Lerk.

naw, I prefer to keep my eyes open.

If you're allowed to call me a conspiracy nut, insane and medicated, I'm allowed to suggest three reasons for you not to recognize the obvious. You're free to supply an alternative reason.

Additionally, you and spacefreak are putting forth conspiracy theories no different than the ones I do, but they aren't considered conspiracy theories...you think they represent the truth...right?

You have suspicions that in the democratic party, there are connections that are not immediately apparent or provable...right?

the only difference is you are republicans. that is the ONLY difference in the character of the theories.

So welcome to being just like me. I'll scoot over a little on the bench for you.

[kido]

Americans for Jobs, Healthcare & Progressive Values

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You have suspicions that in the democratic party, there are connections that are not immediately apparent or provable...right?

I think there are connections among Democrats inside the campaign and in outside groups that are immediately apparent and provable in exactly the same way as the ones the Kerry campaign is trying paint with the Republicans.

The difference between you and me is that I don't think that either are a big deal. Mostly it is just that in a small town like DC or Houston, people who travel in certain circles know one another. It's unavoidable, and certainly not a conspiracy.

When I post the links among Democrats it isn't an attempt to paint a conspiracy. It's to show people who need to calm down that what they are being spun into a frenzy over is just life. People know each other. And the people they know know others. That does not a conspiracy make. That's why I posted a chart that isn't an argument, it is a parody of the New York Time's idiotic chart.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You and spacefreak are putting forth conspiracy theories no different than the ones I do, but they aren't considered conspiracy theories...you think they represent the truth...right?

You have suspicions that in the democratic party, there are connections that are not immediately apparent or provable...right?

the only difference is you are republicans. that is the ONLY difference in the character of the theories.

I'm just pointing out how your concoctions can be also applied to the Democrat Party.

Presidential campaigns are the toughest game on Earth. That's why I have often maintained that the campaign trail is the ultimate proving ground. If a person can win the Presidency, they are therefore qualified for the job. That's my position. If Kerry wins, he's qualified. If you, Lerkfish, win, you're thereby qualified as far as I'm concerned. The game is that tough.

Now whether or not I agree with the winner's policies - that's an entirely different issue.

As for Kerry's war record, I feel that because Kerry has made his Vietnam service 30 years ago the centerpiece of his campaign, said service is fair game for further examination. If anyone, even a Republican, wants to spend a bunch of money to bring such an examination to the forefront of the national campaign coverage, then so be it.

And now we have Kerry's campaign saying it is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound. Apparently, his own journal entery 9 days later states that they hadn't seen gunfire yet. And the Cambodia story has already been revised a few time, even though is was "seared" into his head.

If Kerry hadn't made Vietam the heart of his campaign, then I'd probably agree that this examination into his service is uncalled for, being that it was 30 years ago. But the fact is Kerry has been more than pimping his service as his primary qualification to lead this nation.

[BRussell]

The whole idea of linking the Bush campaign to the 527 is pretty lame. It's not like this swiftboat group can't figure out for themselves that attacking Kerry on one of his strengths is good for Bush. I personally don't think it really matters if Rove or whoever is in cahoots with these O'Neill people. They're de facto a part of the Bush campaign. They're Kerry opponents. That's all that matters politically, even though it doesn't matter legally.

I just can't imagine how Kerry has failed to make this backfire on them. You have Bob Dole going on TV and criticizing Kerry's war wounds for not bleeding enough. That's just sad. This should blow up in their faces. There's no there there. If reporters would actually look into the facts of these claims, rather than just reporting on process, they'd fall utterly flat everywhere except Instapundit and that ilk. The best thing they've got is that Kerry's diaries are unclear if he was actually in Cambodia or just close to the border on Christmas 1968, or if he went into Cambodia a few weeks later. Hardly a damning revelation.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And now we have Kerry's campaign saying it is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound.

do you have a link for that, beside Drudge?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Nobody knows but Kerry since he won't release the medical records pertaining to such.

Rumor has it now that Kerry got shrapnel in his butt from throwing his own grenade on an unarmed sack of rice.

Frankly I can't trust a person who intentionally inflicts wounds upon himself to get out of action and run back home and run for office while thousands of people are being shot at and killed in real combat.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do you have a link for that, beside Drudge?

Here's an article by Kerry's biographer about the first Purple Heart. You have to go through that day pass thing, but basically he says they ran into some enemy and shot at them, and Kerry was hit by something, but it's not clear what it was.

Given the hurly-burly circumstance of Dec. 2, 1968, Kerry -- and the other men on the mission -- are not sure whether they were hit by enemy fire or if shrapnel from one of the other men on the Boston Whaler injured Kerry. It could have even been Kerry's own M-16 backfiring that caused the shrapnel wound.

But Kerry didn't "admit" that it could have been his own weapon. It doesn't matter - he deserved the Purple Heart for being wounded in battle, period.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The whole idea of linking the Bush campaign to the 527 is pretty lame. It's not like this swiftboat group can't figure out for themselves that attacking Kerry on one of his strengths is good for Bush. I personally don't think it really matters if Rove or whoever is in cahoots with these O'Neill people. They're de facto a part of the Bush campaign. They're Kerry opponents. That's all that matters politically, even though it doesn't matter legally.

I don't see much point in it either - anyone over the age of 10 knows that whether there's an official connection or not, it's all part of the same campaign. Bush can't attack Kerry's record, so a wealthy surrogate does it for him. All it takes is a phone call. The Democrats are no different, they just don't have the killer instinct.

[voodoo]

All this brouhaha will be more in Kerry's benefit in the end than Bush's. That was a bad (phone)call the Bush campaign made.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Here's an article by Kerry's biographer about the first Purple Heart. You have to go through that day pass thing, but basically he says they ran into some enemy and shot at them, and Kerry was hit by something, but it's not clear what it was.
But Kerry didn't "admit" that it could have been his own weapon. It doesn't matter - he deserved the Purple Heart for being wounded in battle, period.

funny how that translates in the repub mind as "who intentionally inflicts wounds upon himself to get out of action and run back home and run for office while thousands of people are being shot at and killed in real combat."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
All this brouhaha will be more in Kerry's benefit in the end than Bush's. That was a bad (phone)call the Bush campaign made.

frankly, if they were going to do it, they should have picked more reliable sources and people who were more honest. The fact that they went completely overboard is what undid them.