Navy Commander Backs Kerry's Version
Michael Bryant
But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A,
Degen 1102, GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nospam" to reply)
dxAce
Michael Bryant wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/45maf
>
> But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
That's very nice, Fat Boy. However, William Rood is just slightly outnumbered
by the other members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The really critical thing that needs to be determined is just who wrote up
the paperwork for all those medals. Was it John Fraud Kerry? Inquiring minds
would really like to know.
dxAce
A Navy Veteran who will not be voting for John Fraud Kerry.
Oh yes, I'm an 'eyewitness' to your lies and fabrications, in fact, I was
instrumental in uncovering several of them, Fat Boy.
Burr
I wish you would change tunes about Mikey, you've been on him about the
same thing for six months!!!
I sort of don't like the way he parts his hair, what hair he has that
is.
Also, did you ever notice the way he leans his head to the right when he
talks, maybe we could call him "Tilt" or something!!!
As Always,
Mikes friend and supporter,
Burr
The Truth Lies Here
"dxAce" <dx...@iservd.net> wrote in message
news:4127A920...@iservd.net...
dxAce
Burr wrote:
> Damn Cuzz,
> I wish you would change tunes about Mikey, you've been on him about the
> same thing for six months!!!
>
> I sort of don't like the way he parts his hair, what hair he has that
> is.
> Also, did you ever notice the way he leans his head to the right when he
> talks, maybe we could call him "Tilt" or something!!!
Actually I think he tilts to the left...
dxAce
Al Dykes
>
>
>Michael Bryant wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/45maf
>>
>> But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
>
>That's very nice, Fat Boy. However, William Rood is just slightly outnumbered
>by the other members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Except he was there and they weren't. The exception may be Elliot, who
signed a Swift Boat vets document and then recanted, saying it was
lies, and he his signing it was a mistake he regretted.
So the commander of the other boat, and the Secratary of the Navy backing Kerry's
version are not enough for you ?
Kerry about 18
Vets for "truth" 0
>
>The really critical thing that needs to be determined is just who wrote up
>the paperwork for all those medals. Was it John Fraud Kerry? Inquiring minds
>would really like to know.
>
>dxAce
>A Navy Veteran who will not be voting for John Fraud Kerry.
>
>Oh yes, I'm an 'eyewitness' to your lies and fabrications, in fact, I was
>instrumental in uncovering several of them, Fat Boy.
>
>>
>>
>> Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
>> Louisville, KY
>> R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
>> DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A,
>> Degen 1102, GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
>> (remove "nospam" to reply)
>
--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <4127A920...@iservd.net>, dxAce <dx...@iservd.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Michael Bryant wrote:
> >
> >> http://tinyurl.com/45maf
> >>
> >> But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
> >
> >That's very nice, Fat Boy. However, William Rood is just slightly outnumbered
> >by the other members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
>
> Except he was there and they weren't. The exception may be Elliot, who
> signed a Swift Boat vets document and then recanted, saying it was
> lies, and he his signing it was a mistake he regretted.
>
> So the commander of the other boat, and the Secratary of the Navy backing Kerry's
> version are not enough for you ?
You'd better check your facts yet again, Al.
The really critical thing that needs to be determined is just who wrote up
the paperwork for all those medals. Was it John Fraud Kerry? Inquiring minds
would really like to know.
dxAce
A Navy Veteran who will not be voting for John Fraud Kerry.
In fact, it would appear at present that a majority of Veterans will not be voting
for John Fraud Kerry.
Watch him implode!
> Kerry about 18
> Vets for "truth" 0
Bullshit!
Mark S. Holden
> Except he was there and they weren't. The exception may be Elliot, who
> signed a Swift Boat vets document and then recanted, saying it was
> lies, and he his signing it was a mistake he regretted.
>
The reporter from the Boston Globe claimed Elliot recanted his
affidavit, but Elliot called the report "extremely inaccurate" and said
the reporter was "highly misstating his actual views".
At the time, the reporter was still writing a preface for a biography
for the Kerry Campaign - so he wasn't exactly a disinterested person.
Later the same day, the campaign decided not to have the reporter
involved in the book.
clifto
> The really critical thing that needs to be determined is just who wrote up
> the paperwork for all those medals. Was it John Fraud Kerry? Inquiring minds
> would really like to know.
All appearances are that it was indeed Kerry.
--
"Kerry arrived [in Viet Nam] with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-
serving determination to build a foundation for his political future."
-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (Ret.), May 4, 2004
Diverd4777
mwbr...@aol.comnospam (Michael Bryant) writes:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/45maf
>
>But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
>
Don't think facts play too much of a part in this election..
All it takes is a commercial with Scarey Music to Stampede the cattle into The
republican camp.
Cheney / Bush 2004
For the glory that is
the neverending war in The Mideast..
Four More Years..
dxAce
Diverd4777 wrote:
> In article <20040821154236...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> mwbr...@aol.comnospam (Michael Bryant) writes:
>
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/45maf
> >
> >But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
> >
>
> Don't think facts play too much of a part in this election..
>
> All it takes is a commercial with Scarey Music to Stampede the cattle into The
> republican camp.
Did Soames123 and Chandler7600 get stampeded?
dxAce
dxAce
dxAce wrote:
Guess they did, haven't seen 'em in a while. ;-)
>
> dxAce
T. Early
"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040821154236...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> http://tinyurl.com/45maf
>
> But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush
supporters.
>
Since your so concerned with Navy commanders, truth and eyewitnesses,
please give me your opinion of this:
On Kerry's 1968 application for a Purple Heart based on a shrapnel
"wound" protected by a band-aid:
"The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries
from
a rose thorn," Commander Grant Hibbard says in Unfit for
Command. "Kerry didn't get my signature. I said 'no way' and
told him to get out of my office."
Telamon
wrote:
> In article <4127A920...@iservd.net>, dxAce <dx...@iservd.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Michael Bryant wrote:
> >
> >> http://tinyurl.com/45maf
> >>
> >> But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
> >
> >That's very nice, Fat Boy. However, William Rood is just slightly
> >outnumbered
> >by the other members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
>
> Except he was there and they weren't. The exception may be Elliot, who
> signed a Swift Boat vets document and then recanted, saying it was
> lies, and he his signing it was a mistake he regretted.
>
> So the commander of the other boat, and the Secratary of the Navy backing
> Kerry's
> version are not enough for you ?
>
> Kerry about 18
> Vets for "truth" 0
< Snip >
Keep trying it's:
Kerry - 2
Swift boat Vet's - 20
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
clifto
> Kerry - 2
> Swift boat Vet's - 20
I think he's up to three now. A liberal journalist piped up.
<http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-21-2004::12:46|reuters.html>
m II
> Actually I think he tilts to the left...
Trust you to think about on which side he 'dresses'
You are one sick puppy, depravo.
mike
m II
> Since your so concerned with Navy commanders, truth and eyewitnesses,
> please give me your opinion of this:
>
> On Kerry's 1968 application for a Purple Heart based on a shrapnel
> "wound" protected by a band-aid:
> "The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries
> from a rose thorn," Commander Grant Hibbard says in Unfit for
> Command.
Sounds like a Godless zionist warmonger to me!
http://www.lerschphoto.com/jesus_art/crown.jpg
mike
T. Early
"Diverd4777" <diver...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040821180029...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> In article <20040821154236...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> mwbr...@aol.comnospam (Michael Bryant) writes:
>
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/45maf
> >
> >But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush
supporters.
> >
>
> Don't think facts play too much of a part in this election..
>
We learned that after hearing the true believers cream over Fahrenheit
911.
The one really hilarious thing about all of this Swift boat stuff is
how the people who thought Michael Moore walked on water two months
ago all of a sudden have a new found reverence for "facts" when it
comes to Kerry being attacked.
Dwight Stewart
>
> (snip) In fact, it would appear at present
> that a majority of Veterans will not be
I, a veteran, strongly supported Bush last time. But, if this nonsense
continues, he will not get my vote this time. Bush appears to have links to
these swiftboat clowns and has not taken a firm stand against them. Neither
has the Republican party. These swiftboat clowns are not just discrediting
Kerry's medals - they are also potentially discrediting the medals earned by
other vets. If they can convince people the military screwed up with Kerry's
medals, there is nothing at all to suggest the military didn't screw up with
the medals earned by any other vet. The lack of a FIRM response from Bush
and the Republican party will weigh heavily on my mind when I enter that
voting booth.
Further, the idea that Kerry's comments about that war applied to all
American soldiers fighting in Vietnam is also coming solely from Bush
supporters, when Kerry never said anything of the sort. In other words, it
is Bush supporters who are responsible for lumping, in the minds of the
American people, all Vietnam vets into the same category as war criminals. I
will also be thinking of this when I enter that voting booth.
By the way, if anyone doesn't believe I supported Bush during the last
election, use google to read my comments posted during that time period. Use
the advanced search feature to search for my name ("Dwight Stewart"), along
with the dates of the last election and keywords relating to it ("election,"
"Florida," "ballots," and so on).
Dwight Stewart
Telamon
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote:
> "dxAce" wrote:
> >
> > (snip) In fact, it would appear at present
> > that a majority of Veterans will not be
> > voting for John Fraud Kerry. (snip)
>
>
> I, a veteran, strongly supported Bush last time. But, if this nonsense
> continues, he will not get my vote this time. Bush appears to have links to
> these swiftboat clowns and has not taken a firm stand against them. Neither
> has the Republican party. These swiftboat clowns are not just discrediting
> Kerry's medals - they are also potentially discrediting the medals earned by
> other vets.
< Snip >
That's real nice you are a Veteran but you do not have the certain
knowledge that the Swift veterans for truth are clowns. Far as I'm
concerned it's their word against Kerry's. They were there with Kerry
and it should trouble you that the majority of that group stand against
him.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Mark S. Holden
> "dxAce" wrote:
>
>>(snip) In fact, it would appear at present
>>that a majority of Veterans will not be
>>voting for John Fraud Kerry. (snip)
>
>
>
> I, a veteran, strongly supported Bush last time. But, if this nonsense
> continues, he will not get my vote this time. Bush appears to have links to
> these swiftboat clowns and has not taken a firm stand against them.
The Bush camp has denounced all ads by 527 organizations. As far as I
know, Sen. Kerry hasn't.
President Bush has consistently said he believes Sen. Kerry served
honorably. What has Sen. Kerry said about President Bush's military
service?
Mrs. Kerry donates to organizations that donate to 527 organizations
including moveon.org
Here's a story from the Boston Globe:
<http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_boston_herald-heinz-kerry.htm>
Do you think President Bush is closer to the guys who are supporting the
swift vets than Sen. Kerry is to his wife?
I'd also venture a guess moveon.org has spent considerably more on
attack ads than the Swift vets have.
>Neither
> has the Republican party. These swiftboat clowns are not just discrediting
> Kerry's medals - they are also potentially discrediting the medals earned by
> other vets. If they can convince people the military screwed up with Kerry's
> medals, there is nothing at all to suggest the military didn't screw up with
> the medals earned by any other vet. The lack of a FIRM response from Bush
> and the Republican party will weigh heavily on my mind when I enter that
> voting booth.
>
As I recall, the swift vets are saying some of Kerry's medals were
presented based on reports Kerry filed himself.
> Further, the idea that Kerry's comments about that war applied to all
> American soldiers fighting in Vietnam is also coming solely from Bush
> supporters, when Kerry never said anything of the sort. In other words, it
> is Bush supporters who are responsible for lumping, in the minds of the
> American people, all Vietnam vets into the same category as war criminals. I
> will also be thinking of this when I enter that voting booth.
>
I think you're mistaken. Please read the following paragraph in Sen.
Kerry's testimony before congress in 1971:
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that
several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150
honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified
to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but
crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
officers at all levels of command."
He introduced the idea the war crimes he was talking about were not
isolated incidents, but routine occurrences. The swift vets feel his
remarks gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
T. Early
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:2aVVc.31862$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "dxAce" wrote:
> >
> > (snip) In fact, it would appear at present
> > that a majority of Veterans will not be
> > voting for John Fraud Kerry. (snip)
>
>
> I, a veteran, strongly supported Bush last time. But, if this
nonsense
> continues, he will not get my vote this time. Bush appears to have
links to
> these swiftboat clowns and has not taken a firm stand against them.
Neither
> has the Republican party. These swiftboat clowns are not just
discrediting
> Kerry's medals - they are also potentially discrediting the medals
earned by
> other vets. If they can convince people the military screwed up with
Kerry's
> medals, there is nothing at all to suggest the military didn't screw
up with
> the medals earned by any other vet. The lack of a FIRM response from
Bush
> and the Republican party will weigh heavily on my mind when I enter
that
> voting booth.
>
Do you also consider Michael Moore a clown? A rather significant
amount of his allegedly factual critiques of Bush have been
discredited, and he likens those killing U.S. troops to freedom
fighters. Would it bother you entering the voting booth if any number
of individuals instrumental in bringing Fahrenheit 911 to the screen
or in promoting its success could be shown to have close ties to the
Democratic Party? Has anyone in the Democratic Party repudiated
Moore?
m II
> Has anyone in the Democratic Party repudiated
> Moore?
I hadn't realized his pud was missing...
mike
dxAce
m II wrote:
That thought never came to my mind. But it certainly came to yours,
didn't it?
dxAce
dxAce
Dwight Stewart wrote:
Spare me...
So you're claiming that Bush & Company are tied right into Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth, a 527 PAC, but then Kerry & Company are not then tied into any of the
Democratic 527 PAC's in any way at all?
dxAce
dxAce
m II wrote:
Like yours?
dxAce
dxAce
"Mark S. Holden" wrote:
That's most likely what happened. Kerry was desperate for the medals, so he just
writes up a nifty action report and sends it off.
According to many, it was an easy thing to do. Not very ethical, but still easy.
That's my bet. And I don't place very many bets.
dxAce
Al Dykes
Most of them were not "there with Kerry". O'Neill came into VN 2
months after Kerry left.
The name of the Doc that claims that one of Kerry's wounds doesn't
justify a purple heart doesn't appear on Kerry's paperwork and I have
seen no explaination for this discrepency.
Virtually all the papwerwork done at the time supports Kerry. The Vets
have to provide and prove an alternatte theory for each and everry report.
They have not done that.
Nixon hated Kerry, and directed every arm of gov't to find dirt on him
(IRS, etc) and came up with nothing against him or his war record. The
Sec of the Navy reviewed Kerry's war records and publicly stated that
they supported Kerry. He is now a senior republican and stands by what
he said.
Nobody that was close to Kerry in VN has anything negative to say
about him. Some of these peopel are republicans. All of his critics
were removed in time, or distance.
O'Neill has donated major bucks to the Republicans over the years and
is a candidate for nomination for a judge's seat. The rest of the
poeple behind the Vets have a history of donating to republicans. SOme
of these people have held positions in Republican campaigns in the past.
All of the Vets are angry at Kerry for his antiware positions (which
is a legitimate topic for discussion) and are trying to use his
unblemished war record to discredit Kerry. This is bogus.
Since the the Republican echo chamber is filling up the air with this
mud slinging, I'll adding a couple of Kerry's policy proposals to this
message;
Bush has been reducing oversight of the chemical industry and we are
at risk.
"The National Infrastructure Protection Center Warned of
Al-Qaeda Threat to Chemical Plants. In February 2003, the
National Infrastructure Protection Center warned that Al-Qaeda
"may attempt to launch conventional attacks against the
U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause
contamination, disruption, and terror." [NIPC, 2/12/03]
America Needs Strong, Mandatory Protections for Chemical
Security. Senator Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairs of a
blue-ribbon homeland security commission, have both recognized the
need for mandatory, enforceable standards for chemical plan
security. [Washington Post , 8/11/03 ; 60 Minutes , 11/14/03]
Read Kerry's proposals here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/chemical.html
What's Bush's position ?
Al Dykes
The Secratary of the Navy, at the time, was asked by Nixon to review
the paperwork for Kerry's awards and said that they were legit. He's
now a senior Republican and stands by what he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/222504p-191185c.html
>
>dxAce
>
>>
>>
>> > Further, the idea that Kerry's comments about that war applied to all
>> > American soldiers fighting in Vietnam is also coming solely from Bush
>> > supporters, when Kerry never said anything of the sort. In other words, it
>> > is Bush supporters who are responsible for lumping, in the minds of the
>> > American people, all Vietnam vets into the same category as war criminals. I
>> > will also be thinking of this when I enter that voting booth.
>> >
>> I think you're mistaken. Please read the following paragraph in Sen.
>> Kerry's testimony before congress in 1971:
>>
>> "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that
>> several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150
>> honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified
>> to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but
>> crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
>> officers at all levels of command."
>>
>> He introduced the idea the war crimes he was talking about were not
>> isolated incidents, but routine occurrences. The swift vets feel his
>> remarks gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
>>
>> > By the way, if anyone doesn't believe I supported Bush during the last
>> > election, use google to read my comments posted during that time period. Use
>> > the advanced search feature to search for my name ("Dwight Stewart"), along
>> > with the dates of the last election and keywords relating to it ("election,"
>> > "Florida," "ballots," and so on).
>> >
>> > Dwight Stewart
>> >
>
And Now A Policy Statement from Kerry For President:
The Kerry-Edwards national Security Proposals will:
* Expand America's Active Duty Forces by 40,000 to relieve the
strain on today's military.
* Double America's Special Forces Capability and increase other
specialized personnel to improve America's ability to conduct
counter-terrorism operations, perform reconnaissance missions
and gather intelligence.
* Complete the Process of Technological Transformation by ensuring
that our military has the most modern equipment and technology
available.
* Transform the National Guard for homeland security by assigning
guard units to a standing joint task force that will prepare and
execute homeland security strategies with state and federal
governments.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/military.html
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
Better check those facts yet again Al, what you state is simply not true.
> Some of these peopel are republicans. All of his critics
> were removed in time, or distance.
Again, not true Al. Check your facts.
> O'Neill has donated major bucks to the Republicans over the years and
> is a candidate for nomination for a judge's seat. The rest of the
> poeple behind the Vets have a history of donating to republicans. SOme
> of these people have held positions in Republican campaigns in the past.
So? You did mention 'some'.
> All of the Vets are angry at Kerry for his antiware positions (which
> is a legitimate topic for discussion) and are trying to use his
> unblemished war record to discredit Kerry. This is bogus.
Really? How so?
> Since the the Republican echo chamber is filling up the air with this
> mud slinging, I'll adding a couple of Kerry's policy proposals to this
> message;
>
> Bush has been reducing oversight of the chemical industry and we are
> at risk.
>
> "The National Infrastructure Protection Center Warned of
> Al-Qaeda Threat to Chemical Plants. In February 2003, the
> National Infrastructure Protection Center warned that Al-Qaeda
> "may attempt to launch conventional attacks against the
> U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause
> contamination, disruption, and terror." [NIPC, 2/12/03]
>
> America Needs Strong, Mandatory Protections for Chemical
> Security. Senator Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairs of a
> blue-ribbon homeland security commission, have both recognized the
> need for mandatory, enforceable standards for chemical plan
> security. [Washington Post , 8/11/03 ; 60 Minutes , 11/14/03]
>
> Read Kerry's proposals here:
>
> http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/chemical.html
>
> What's Bush's position ?
You know exactly what it is.
Look at Kerry's Senatorial record... give it a try Al, I know you can muster up the
strength to bang the keyboard just a few more times.
dxAce
A Navy Veteran who will NOT be voting for John Fraud Kerry.
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
panix.... Hmmmmmmmm. Explains a lot!
dxAce
Diverd4777
writes:
>
>T. Early wrote:
>
>> Since your so concerned with Navy commanders, truth and eyewitnesses,
>> please give me your opinion of this:
>>
>> On Kerry's 1968 application for a Purple Heart based on a shrapnel
>> "wound" protected by a band-aid:
>> "The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries
>> from a rose thorn," Commander Grant Hibbard says in Unfit for
>> Command.
>
I do believe all medal recommendations go before a military comittee and are
often downgraded..
Questioning ANY Viet nam Veterans medal is
Questioning ALL medals given out by the Military..
Iraq ? Najaf?... WMD's ?
dxAce
Diverd4777 wrote:
See that's just it, you Liberal folks really got a problem with asking
'questions', don't you?
If they are 'your' 'questions', it's perfectly A-OK, but let anyone else
question, and it's not OK.
Tell me about your pal, Teddy Kennedy, plenty of 'questions' there, is there
not?
dxAce
Beloved Leader
> Here's a story from the Boston Globe:
> <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_boston_herald-heinz-kerry.htm>
Actually, that's an op-ed piece, not a news article. And it's not from
the Boston Globe; it's from the Boston Herald. Further, here's a link
to what Snopes.com has to say about Teresa Kerry and the Tides
Foundation:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp
>>
Claim: Teresa Heinz Kerry donates millions of dollars to fringe
political groups through the Tides Foundation.
Status: False.
Examples: [Collected on the Internet 2004]
....
Last updated: 11 July 2004
<<
Since the page at Snopes was last updated over a month ago, the facts
have been available for quite some time. I'm sure that in the future,
you'll make sure not to spread the false allegations anymore.
Finally, if you want an editorial from the Boston Globe, try this one
from today's paper:
>>Big lies for Bush
August 22, 2004
IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch
the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was
given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to
one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men
bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained
later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate
heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his
radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?
The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with
exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in
1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an
admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.
Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as
supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John
Kerry.
The situations are not completely parallel. Bush was not a draft
dodger, but he certainly was a Vietnam avoider, having joined the
Texas Air National Guard rather than serving in the regular military.
Kerry, on the other hand, may have done more than Dole to qualify as a
genuine war hero. Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least
two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat,
saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a
Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from
eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves.
....
<<
I hope you find these corrections helpful.
Al Dykes
In the Dukakis-Bush race of 1988 some unaffiliated Democrats
funded an advert that questioned Bush Sr's actions
when he bailed out of his aircraft. Dukakis immediatly
made a major announcement that Bush Sr was honorable
and his WWI actions had nothing to do with the 1988 election and
that the advert should be retracted. it was.
FWIW Dukakis served in the military, also.
Bush Jr should act as honorably.
Stephen M.H. Lawrence
"Diverd4777" <diver...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040821180029...@mb-m21.aol.com...
| In article <20040821154236...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
| mwbr...@aol.comnospam (Michael Bryant) writes:
|
| >
| >http://tinyurl.com/45maf
| >
| >But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
| >
|
| Don't think facts play too much of a part in this election..
|
The
| republican camp.
|
Was John Kerry in Cambodia, Christmas 1968?
Answer the question, please....
73,
--
Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota
(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
Why? The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have a valid point. Also, there are certainly diffent campaign laws in
effect now, that were not then.
Al, you really got's to do some research.
I know that's a lot to ask, but please, give it a try, or give it a rest.
dxAce
dxAce
"Stephen M.H. Lawrence" wrote:
> "Diverd4777" <diver...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040821180029...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> | In article <20040821154236...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
> | mwbr...@aol.comnospam (Michael Bryant) writes:
> |
> | >
> | >http://tinyurl.com/45maf
> | >
> | >But, I'm sure that eyewitnesses won't be enough to deter Bush supporters.
> | >
> |
> | Don't think facts play too much of a part in this election..
> |
> | All it takes is a commercial with Scarey Music to Stampede the cattle into
> The
> | republican camp.
> |
> | Cheney / Bush 2004
>
> Was John Kerry in Cambodia, Christmas 1968?
Of course he was... it is 'seared --- seared, into his memory'.
And Nixon was President then too.
LOL...
dxAce
Stephen M.H. Lawrence
"dxAce" <dx...@iservd.net> wrote:
| Tell me about your pal, Teddy Kennedy, plenty of 'questions' there, is
there
| not?
|
| dxAce
He isn't what most women would think of as an "ideal date."
The Kennedy family tended to serve in the Navy; perhaps
Tubby would have been more effective as a submaring captain --
he surely had a better frame of reference!
But the ComSymps are more concerned with diaperheads
than they are with the fact that one Senator from Massachussetts
confessed to committing crimes against humanity, and another one
is a murderer.
Now, THAT is boggling!
Where WAS John Effing Kerrnedy in Christmas of 1968???
dxAce
"Stephen M.H. Lawrence" wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@iservd.net> wrote:
> | Tell me about your pal, Teddy Kennedy, plenty of 'questions' there, is
> there
> | not?
> |
> | dxAce
>
> He isn't what most women would think of as an "ideal date."
> The Kennedy family tended to serve in the Navy; perhaps
> Tubby would have been more effective as a submaring captain --
> he surely had a better frame of reference!
>
> But the ComSymps are more concerned with diaperheads
> than they are with the fact that one Senator from Massachussetts
> confessed to committing crimes against humanity, and another one
> is a murderer.
>
> Now, THAT is boggling!
Shame on the people of Massachusetts.
dxAce
T. Early
"Beloved Leader" <Kim_J...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:26a0f230.0408...@posting.google.com...
> "Mark S. Holden" <ma...@bmas.org> wrote in message
news:<a6-dnRxjP6j...@adelphia.com>...
>
> > Here's a story from the Boston Globe:
> >
<http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_boston_herald-heinz-kerry.ht
m>
>
>
> Actually, that's an op-ed piece, not a news article. And it's not
from
> the Boston Globe; it's from the Boston Herald. Further, here's a
link
> to what Snopes.com has to say about Teresa Kerry and the Tides
> Foundation:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp
>
> >>
> Claim: Teresa Heinz Kerry donates millions of dollars to fringe
> political groups through the Tides Foundation.
>
> Status: False.
>
> Examples: [Collected on the Internet 2004]
> ....
>
> Last updated: 11 July 2004
> <<
>
> Since the page at Snopes was last updated over a month ago, the
facts
> have been available for quite some time. I'm sure that in the
future,
> you'll make sure not to spread the false allegations anymore.
>
I doubt Mr. Holden needs my assistance here, but since your reply to
what he wrote is on the board, let's look at it. His remark was:
"Mrs. Kerry donates to organizations that donate to 527 organizations
including moveon.org"
Your "rebuttal" from snopes looks like this:
"Claim: Teresa Heinz Kerry donates millions of dollars to fringe
political groups through the Tides Foundation.
Status: False." [followed by an interesting link to a discussion of
the Tides Foundation's work]
I'm in a quandary as to how one answer from snopes specific to Heinz
Kerry's donations to the Tides Foundation and "fringe political
groups" invalidates a more general comment about her donations (no
mention of Tides whatsoever) to -other- organizations. Since you seem
so concerned with false allegations, perhaps you could clarify since
your original response seems, well, non-responsive on this point.
Stephen M.H. Lawrence
"dxAce" <dx...@iservd.net> wrote:
| > Was John Kerry in Cambodia, Christmas 1968?
|
| Of course he was... it is 'seared --- seared, into his memory'.
|
| And Nixon was President then too.
|
| LOL...
|
| dxAce
(laughing)
Precisely! Which begs the question: Are the ComSymps so
desparate in their "anyone but Bush" lust that they turn their
backs, collectively, on the truth?
I know, I know, "Rhetorical question you're asking there, Lawrence."
VY 73,
Beloved Leader
> Nixon hated Kerry, and directed every arm of gov't to find dirt on him
> (IRS, etc) and came up with nothing against him or his war record. The
> Sec of the Navy reviewed Kerry's war records and publicly stated that
> they supported Kerry. He is now a senior republican and stands by what
> he said.
That would be U.S. Senator John Warner. He is despised by the extreme
right for speaking out against Ollie North when North ran for the
Senate in Virginia in 1994.
Beloved Leader
> ... Mr. Holden ... remark was:
>
> "Mrs. Kerry donates to organizations that donate to 527 organizations
> including moveon.org"
Which he followed immediately with the statement:
Here's a story from the Boston Globe:
<http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_boston_herald-heinz-kerry.htm>
The immediate positioning of the second sentence leads the reader to
believe he intended the article (actually from the Boston Herald) to
be proof of his statement. As it develops, the article is a
regurgitation of the false allegations Richard Scaife has been
throwing against the wall and attempting to make stick for a long
time. Snopes points out what utter nonsense those allegations are.
On the other hand, if he didn't intend the article from the Herald to
provide prrof for his statement, then he offers no proof for his claim
at all.
Either way, he does not prove his claim. It is incumbent upon the
claimant to back up his claim. He has failed to do so. If Mark Holden
has proof that Teresa Kerry has given money to any 527 organizations,
let him provide it. Maybe he can write Teresa Kerry and ask her.
Dwight Stewart
"Telamon" wrote:
>
> (snip) Far as I'm concerned it's their
> word against Kerry's. They were there
> with Kerry and it should trouble you
> that the majority of that group stand
> against him.
But it is not just Kerry's word. It is also the words of the crewmembers
who served on his boat, the Captain of one of the other boats that day, the
guy Kerry pulled out of the water, and the text of the two citations for
medals issued that day. Each of these agree with Kerry's version of the
events.
One of the people appearing in the anti-Kerry swiftboat advertisement was
also issued a medal that day. The written citation for his medal supports
Kerry's version of the events, not his own version. In response to that,
this guy, thirty-five years later and only after he appeared in that
advertisement, is now claiming that written citation is wrong.
Finally, according to published reports, only a very small handful of the
swiftboat group were there with Kerry that day - most never even knew Kerry
while he was serving aboard that boat.
Stewart
Dwight Stewart
>
> The Bush camp has denounced all
But not the ones specifically attacking Kerry's medals.
> As I recall, the swift vets are saying
> some of Kerry's medals were
> presented based on reports Kerry
> filed himself.
The swiftboat vets are preying on people's ignorance of the military's
medal process. Medals of this type must be signed by a senior flag officer.
In the Navy, that means an Admiral or higher. To reach that level, a
recommendation must go through several steps of the chain of command with a
signiture from at least one junior flag officer (Lt. Commander or higher)
and at least one non-flag officer. Each officer signing is responsible,
through his subordinate staff, for insuring the events described in that
recommendation are accurate and worthy, as outlined in military regulations,
of special recognition. In other words, even if Kerry filed the paperwork
himself (very unlikely), he cannot give himself a medal. The military has a
system to ensure medals are obtained properly.
> I think you're mistaken. Please read the
> following paragraph in Sen. Kerry's
> testimony before congress in 1971:
Kerry wasn't a senator in 1971. Furthermore, it was indeed 1971, not
today. Today, anyone under thirty was not likely even aware of Kerry's
testimony decades ago until it was brought up by the swiftboat vets and
other Republicans. These people, not Kerry, made his words decades ago known
to these young people today. Further, most other Americans have long
forgotten most of the events of that period. Again, these people were
reminded of those events by the swiftboat vets and other Republicans, not
Kerry. Kerry, on the other hand, went out of the way to feature Vietnam
service in a positive light at the DNC.
> He introduced the idea the war crimes he
> was talking about were not isolated
> incidents, but routine occurrences. The
> swift vets feel his remarks gave aid and
> comfort to the enemy.
The types of incidents Kerry talked about back then (search & destroy
missions, free-fire zones, and so on) were well known and being discussed by
many around the world at that time. In other words, Kerry didn't "introduce"
any idea.
Stewart
Dwight Stewart
>
> Do you also consider Michael Moore
To be honest, absolutely. But Michael Moore is not the President of the
United States, nor Commander-in-chief of the military. As such, Bush has a
higher responsibility to the veterans who served this country, and a higher
responsibility to maintain proper decorum during this election.
Stewart
Al Dykes
Warner sounds like the kind of Republican I'd vote for. We need more of them.
Dwight Stewart
>
> Spare me...
>
> So you're claiming that Bush & Company
> are tied right into Swift Boat Veterans
> for Truth, a 527 PAC, but then Kerry &
> Company are not then tied into any of the
> Democratic 527 PAC's in any way at all?
I have not addressed PAC's in any way whatsoever, dxAce. Instead, I'm
talking about the specific actions of a specific group - a group I feel is
acting in a manner that may potentially harm many veterans.
Stewart
T. Early
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:56dWc.1039$Y%3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
in chief, has an equal responsibility to those who -will- be veterans
and are currently in the field in Iraq to denounce a clearly
misleading film that, regardless of what one thinks of the war effort,
certainly undermines the contributions of those soldiers while still
in harms way. There are IMO simply too many parallels between the
reception afforded this "Swift boat" business and that afforded
Fahrenheit 911 to ignore. Those who want to charge partisanship and
irresponsibility with regard to the Swift boat issue can't have it
both ways when it comes to the film.
T. Early
"Beloved Leader" <Kim_J...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:26a0f230.0408...@posting.google.com...
Sorry, I do not see the article linked as a regurgitation of any
false claims refuted by the snopes piece. The article has -nothing-
to do with whether Heinz-Kerry's money itself goes to radical causes,
which is what snopes is writing about. All you have to do is look at
the way snopes itself frames the issue: "Teresa Heinz Kerry donates
millions of dollars to fringe political groups through the Tides
Foundation." This may in fact be false. It also is not what we're
talking about or what the linked piece addresses.
The linked piece simply says in summary: 1) Heinz-Kerry has given
about 6 million to Tides; 2) Tides has given money to other groups
that have donated money to groups such as MoveOn.org (which I'm
guessing is a 527 group, but don't know) If these claims are in fact
false, nothing from snopes addresses that issue since the piece is not
talking about -her- money going anywhere other than to Tides.
If it's your contention that Mrs. Kerry does -not- donate to
organizations that themselves donate to 527 groups, that's fine. But
you've produced nothing yet that supports that. At the risk of being
repetitious, the issue is not where Heinz-Kerry's money is going, as
addressed by snopes. The issue is where the money of the
organizations to which Heinz-Kerry donates is going.
IMO, the more interesting question is whether a smart woman like
Heinz-Kerry scrutinizes the activities of a foundation before donating
to them, and de facto approves of those activities through her
donations regardless of where her actual dollars go.
Telamon
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote:
You don't seem to understand that Kerry wrote the after action reports
the citations are based on so as a matter of course they are in
agreement with Kerry. Those are Kerry's words not his crewmates. The
veterans that served with him, other than the four other officers in the
squad did not have the opportunity to write those reports. Some claim
that they did not even know that he received some of his medals until
recently so they speak up now when the stakes are high to inform the
rest of the populace that they do not agree with Kerry's version of
events decades old.
The swift boat veterans for truths version of events are at odds with
Kerry's and they comprise the majority of people still alive of that
squad. Two or three of that squad stand with Kerry. Somebody is lying.
Is it the Kerry camp or the swift boat veterans for truth? Tough call so
far.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote:
< Snip >
>
> > I think you're mistaken. Please read the
> > following paragraph in Sen. Kerry's
> > testimony before congress in 1971:
>
>
> Kerry wasn't a senator in 1971. Furthermore, it was indeed 1971, not
> today.
Aw Dwight your so cute when you do that.
> Today, anyone under thirty was not likely even aware of Kerry's
> testimony decades ago until it was brought up by the swiftboat vets and
> other Republicans.
< Snip >
Count me in as part of the over thirty crowd that remembers that
testimony. It's seared in my mind I tell you! Kerry's a traitor for
giving that false testimony before congress.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Dwight Stewart
>
> You don't seem to understand that
> Kerry wrote the after action reports
> the citations are based on so as a
> matter of course they are in agreement
> with Kerry. Those are Kerry's words
Oh, I understand that is the claims of some members of the swiftboat
group, but have seen nothing to suggest it is true. Kerry was not the senior
officer during that engagement and it is usually the senior officer who
signs off on the action reports. Regardless, the only other living officer
present that day, William Hood, has recently spoke out to support Kerry's
version.
> (snip) the four other officers in the
> squad (snip)
Three swiftboats on the river that day, three officers and fifteen
crewmembers.
Stewart
Dwight Stewart
"T. Early" wrote:
>
> (snip) There are IMO simply too
> many parallels between the reception
> afforded this "Swift boat" business
> and that afforded Fahrenheit 911 to
To be equally honest, I have not seen the movie Fahrenheit 911, nor will I
likely ever see it. Therefore, I really can't comment about it. Sorry.
Stewart
dxAce
Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "dxAce" wrote:
> >
> > Spare me...
> >
> > So you're claiming that Bush & Company
> > are tied right into Swift Boat Veterans
> > for Truth, a 527 PAC, but then Kerry &
> > Company are not then tied into any of the
> > Democratic 527 PAC's in any way at all?
>
> I have not addressed PAC's in any way whatsoever, dxAce.
Sure you have. Better check your facts.
> Instead, I'm
> talking about the specific actions of a specific group - a group I feel is
> acting in a manner that may potentially harm many veterans.
Harm? That is absurd.
dxAce
A Navy Veteran who will not be voting for John Fraud Kerry.
dxAce
Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "Telamon" wrote:
> >
> > You don't seem to understand that
> > Kerry wrote the after action reports
> > the citations are based on so as a
> > matter of course they are in agreement
> > with Kerry. Those are Kerry's words
> > not his crewmates. (snip)
>
> Oh, I understand that is the claims of some members of the swiftboat
> group, but have seen nothing to suggest it is true. Kerry was not the senior
> officer during that engagement and it is usually the senior officer who
> signs off on the action reports. Regardless, the only other living officer
> present that day, William Hood, has recently spoke out to support Kerry's
> version.
Yeah he's a 'Hood' all right... check your facts Dwight.
dxAce
Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "Mark S. Holden" wrote:
> >
> > The Bush camp has denounced all
> > ads by 527 organizations. (snip)
>
> But not the ones specifically attacking Kerry's medals.
And why should he? It is well within their rights as American Citizens to run
those ads if they so choose.
It is not the Presidents right to tell them they cannot.
That would be censorship.
The President apparently is 'against' all the 527 groups, but he cannot tell a
single one of them to pull their ads.
Additionally, if the President COULD tell the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to
pull their ad that would imply some kind of connection, would it not?
A connection is just what the Lib's are fishing for.
I guess crybaby Kerry will have to continue to put up with the ads (which seem
to be quite effective by the way), just like the President has had to put up
with the attack ads from all the Democrat 527's out there.
A message to Kerry: Get a spine, you might just need it.
John S. Dyson
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> writes:
> "Mark S. Holden" wrote:
>>
>> The Bush camp has denounced all
>> ads by 527 organizations. (snip)
>
>
> But not the ones specifically attacking Kerry's medals.
>
527 organizations... There should be no need to re-iterate
his distaste, because he is far far ahead of Kerry in that
regard. Alas, Kerry still hasn't denounced ALL of the 527s,
but he has mostly denounced those that are against Kerry.
Kerry shows his extreme self-centered nature, and shows absolutely
NO balance.
Kerry's hypocritical nature is being spun where he denounces
the 527s that are against himself, and then complains when
Bush denounces ALL 527s. Bush shows balance by noting that
essentially all 527s appear corrupt, but that predominant
distasteful method of advertisement funding by Dems does appear to
correlate with Democrat values and ethics. When a few $100K
are being spent by some non-direct-Bush advocates (in the
anti-Kerry ads), that pales in comparison with the multi $1M
by Dems (and their foreign interest funding.)
It would be good if Kerry would step up to the level of
denouncing of all 527s, like Bush has done. There would be
no need of denouncing only the anti-Kerry 527s (like Kerry
desires), if Kerry would denounce all of the 527s (including
Soros with numerous foreign non-US interests, essentially in
league with the Democrat party.)
John
John S. Dyson
the bounds that he can do so.) However, Kerry has shown extreme disrespect
to his military cohorts, and has apparently taken direct advantage of his
military service to try to make a big name for himself.
John
Al Dykes
O'Neill, and all of his people, were far from the events that got
Kerry his medals. The ALL have only second-hand knolwdge. Litterally
true. And ALL of people that were in combat with Kerry support his
story.
See this for a clearly written assasment of the Kerry/SBV discussion:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231
(Factcheck.org has been criticizing the claims of both Kerry and Bush.
If you want to judge for yourself how "fair and balanced" they are
go to their website and look at the archives. )
The SBV advert is a masterfull piece od misleading editing and streaches
the phrase "I servered with Kerry" to the limits of absuridity.
A new eye-witness witness spoke up for the first time (William B. Rood
commanded another Swift Boat during the battle) and ke supports
Kerry's story.
Elliot has contradicted himsels several times
"A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that
decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place
under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by
Elliott."
"Note: We have also updated the article with information from
an Aug. 17 Los Angeles Times story quoting the doctor who
says he treated the wound for which Kerry was awarded his
first purple heart. The Times quotes Louis Letson as saying
that what he heard about Kerry's wound being self-inflicted
came third-hand.
A July 15 filing with the Internal Revenue Services now shows SBV initial
funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has
also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates,
mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority
Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston
-------
All the above clips, and much more about the SBV can be read in their
full context in the factcheck.org URL, above.
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
ALL of the people? Better keep checking those facts, Al.
dxAce
Al Dykes
Beloved Leader
> If it's your contention that Mrs. Kerry does -not- donate to
> organizations that themselves donate to 527 groups, that's fine. But
> you've produced nothing yet that supports that.
And why should I? Similarly, I cannot prove that aliens did not crash
land at Roswell in 1947. I cannot prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
in cahoots with the CIA, Fair Play for Cuba, the Mafia, or any one
else. I cannot prove that the planes that crashed into the World Trade
Center and Pentagon were not guided by remote control.
It is the duty of the person making the claim to provide evidence
backing his claim. That's true for Roswell, it's true for Oswald, it's
true for 9-11, and it's now true for the Tides Foundation. The has
failed to provide any proof whatsoever. If he has evidence, let him
show it.
"Ready whenever you are, Mr. DeMille."
Beloved Leader
> Regardless, the only other living officer
> present that day, William Hood, has recently spoke out to support Kerry's
> version.
William Rood, who said:
"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts
on the merit of what others did," he wrote, "but their version of
events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder
for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be
untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821kerry,1,7582568.story?coll=chi-news-hed
clifto
> I, a veteran, strongly supported Bush last time. But, if this nonsense
> continues, he will not get my vote this time.
Did he get your vote last time, or just your words?
--
Both Kerry and Edwards announced their candidacy near the beginning of September,
2003, so let's only count votes before then. From January, 2003, to August, 2003,
Senator Edwards didn't vote 69 out of 320 opportunities (~22%) and Senator Kerry
didn't vote 182 out of 320 opportunities (~57%). <http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001349.php>
longwave
>
> Nixon hated Kerry, and directed every arm of gov't to find dirt on him
> (IRS, etc) and came up with nothing against him or his war record. The
> Sec of the Navy reviewed Kerry's war records and publicly stated that
> they supported Kerry. He is now a senior republican and stands by what
> he said.
So the Kerry bashing started with tricky Dick. If Nixon couldn't find
any dirt on Kerry, no one can. It looks like the Bush people are still
using Nixon's tactics.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
T. Early
"longwave" <long...@comlink.net> wrote in message
news:412A26A8...@comlink.net...
> Al Dykes wrote:
> >
> > Nixon hated Kerry, and directed every arm of gov't to find dirt on
him
> > (IRS, etc) and came up with nothing against him or his war record.
The
> > Sec of the Navy reviewed Kerry's war records and publicly stated
that
> > they supported Kerry. He is now a senior republican and stands by
what
> > he said.
>
> So the Kerry bashing started with tricky Dick. If Nixon couldn't
find
> any dirt on Kerry, no one can. It looks like the Bush people are
still
> using Nixon's tactics.
>
Oh really? Do you have any proof of that or is it just more rhetoric?
The mind boggles at people who want to jump on every perceived
"inaccuracy" coming from the "Bush people" but have no problem
spreading speculative inaccuracies of their own. It's almost as funny
as those who have spent three years bashing Bush but who are now oh so
offended at what's being directed at Kerry.
Al Dykes
http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/NotTooSwift
"On the Nixon tapes, White House special counsel Charles
Colson can be heard assuring Nixon that "We'll keep hitting
him (Kerry), Mr. President." In addition to putting Kerry
under FBI surveillance, Colson and Nixon recruited cleancut
Vietnam vet and toe-the-line right-wing ideologue John
O'Neill, who had an hour-long meeting with the President in
which Nixon coached him to "Give it to him, give it to him."
I've seen a picture of O'Neill and Nixon sitting in front of
that White House fireplace. I suppose O'Neill saw his "Kerry
character assassination" assignment from Nixon as a 33 year
gig."
Remember that everything Nixon said is on tape.
T. Early
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cgdcoe$c82$1...@panix3.panix.com...
"targeted" Kerry, among the many other individuals that Nixon also
targeted. My problem was with the comment: "It looks like the Bush
people are still using Nixon's tactics." Well, no, it doesn't.
Tom Betz
>> So the Kerry bashing started with tricky Dick. If Nixon couldn't find
>> any dirt on Kerry, no one can. It looks like the Bush people are still
>> using Nixon's tactics.
>
> Oh really? Do you have any proof of that or is it just more rhetoric?
You mean proof that Nixon hired O'Neill and tried to find dirt on Kerry?
Sure.
A background article on Kerry that covers the matter:
<http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml>
Tape transcripts of Nixon's Oval Office discussions with Chuck Colson
and John O'Neill on the subject of Kerry:
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/>
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534613/>
--
Where was AWOL George W. Bush?
Tom Betz
$61fe...@news.rcn.com:
> My problem was with the comment: "It looks like the Bush
> people are still using Nixon's tactics." Well, no, it doesn't.
No, not exactly the same tactics. Unlike Nixon, who was unable to find
any dirt for O'Neill to use on Kerry, and required O'Neill to keep the
argument clean, Bush and Rove don't have any qualms about letting O'Neill
just make shit up, and convince a bunch of confused and bitter Vietnam
veterans to perjure themselves swearing in affadavits to the lies O'Neill
has fed them.
dxAce
Tom Betz wrote:
> "T. Early" <fenwick...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:412a3f3b$0$21749
> $61fe...@news.rcn.com:
>
> > My problem was with the comment: "It looks like the Bush
> > people are still using Nixon's tactics." Well, no, it doesn't.
>
> No, not exactly the same tactics. Unlike Nixon, who was unable to find
> any dirt for O'Neill to use on Kerry, and required O'Neill to keep the
> argument clean, Bush and Rove don't have any qualms about letting O'Neill
> just make shit up, and convince a bunch of confused and bitter Vietnam
> veterans to perjure themselves swearing in affadavits to the lies O'Neill
> has fed them.
Do you have hard, credible evidence that Bush and Rove are connected to Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth?
dxAce
T. Early
"Tom Betz" <spamme...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954EA1C27D3B6g...@166.84.1.69...
> "T. Early" <fenwick...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:412a3f3b$0$21749
> $61fe...@news.rcn.com:
>
> > My problem was with the comment: "It looks like the Bush
> > people are still using Nixon's tactics." Well, no, it doesn't.
>
> No, not exactly the same tactics. Unlike Nixon, who was unable to
find
> any dirt for O'Neill to use on Kerry, and required O'Neill to keep
the
> argument clean, Bush and Rove don't have any qualms about letting
O'Neill
> just make shit up, and convince a bunch of confused and bitter
Vietnam
> veterans to perjure themselves swearing in affadavits to the lies
O'Neill
> has fed them.
>
I agree that Rove and perhaps Bush likely do not have any qualms about
this flap. Having been on the receiving end themselves for the past
three years of numerous and varied distortions left uncondemned by the
leading Democrats, they probably recognize that you take what you can
get in politics because the other guy will treat you the same way--and
in this case has. I also have no doubt that you will not recognize
that. I also submit that you are out to lunch and betray a severe
ideological bias if you think O'Neill et al have just made this "shit
up," or have consciously perjured themselves. While their charges may
or may not be true, your characterization of the individuals is
completely unproven. What we do -know- at a minimum is that Senator
Kerry lied about his Christmas '68 mission to Cambodia and has opened
the door with his chest thumping at the Convention. And again, I note
how quickly the heat rises form those on the left when the Michael
Moore's and Joe Wilson's of the world show up on the Bush side.
Tom Betz
$61fe...@news.rcn.com:
> I also submit that you are out to lunch and betray a severe
> ideological bias if you think O'Neill et al have just made this "shit
> up," or have consciously perjured themselves. While their charges may
> or may not be true, your characterization of the individuals is
> completely unproven.
Time will tell. You will please note that the PDF files of their
affadavits are no longer available for download from swiftvets.com, and
not a word about the change in the status of those files appears on their
web site. I suspect that Spaeth was working the shredders in her office
overtime this weekend. Gotta get rid of the incriminating evidence!
Every day, another brick in the wall of their false claims is countered,
as the Navy record is supported by yet another Swift Vet WHO WAS REALLY
THERE coming forward and countering their lies.
dxAce
Tom Betz wrote:
O'Neill was on Rush today. He still sounds pretty damn credible to me.
dxAce
A Navy and National Guard Veteran who will not be voting for John Fraud
Kerry.
clifto
> "T. Early" <fenwick...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:412a3f3b$0$21749
> $61fe...@news.rcn.com:
>
>> My problem was with the comment: "It looks like the Bush
>> people are still using Nixon's tactics." Well, no, it doesn't.
>
> No, not exactly the same tactics. Unlike Nixon, who was unable to find
> any dirt for O'Neill to use on Kerry
Boy, it's funny how often Nixon comes up in the minds of liberals.
Lyndon Johnson was strongly believed to do the same kind of dirt-digging;
he just never got as close to being caught as Nixon, though more people
got the brunt of it.
Lying to the American people is only a crime when a Republican president
does it. A Democratic president can do it repeatedly, even under oath,
with impunity.
clifto
> Time will tell. You will please note that the PDF files of their
> affadavits are no longer available for download from swiftvets.com, and
> not a word about the change in the status of those files appears on their
> web site. I suspect that Spaeth was working the shredders in her office
> overtime this weekend. Gotta get rid of the incriminating evidence!
Right off the bat I found <http://humaneventsonlihne.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html>
with George Elliott's affidavits. Third Google hit on "swift affidavit".
It doesn't take much to hide evidence from you... that must be how you
can still justify supporting Kerry.
Mark S. Holden
> "T. Early" <fenwick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4128d885$0$21750$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
>
>
>>... Mr. Holden ... remark was:
>>
>>"Mrs. Kerry donates to organizations that donate to 527 organizations
>>including moveon.org"
>
>
>
> Which he followed immediately with the statement:
>
> Here's a story from the Boston Globe:
> <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_boston_herald-heinz-kerry.htm>
>
>
> The immediate positioning of the second sentence leads the reader to
> believe he intended the article (actually from the Boston Herald) to
> be proof of his statement. As it develops, the article is a
> regurgitation of the false allegations Richard Scaife has been
> throwing against the wall and attempting to make stick for a long
> time. Snopes points out what utter nonsense those allegations are.
>
> On the other hand, if he didn't intend the article from the Herald to
> provide prrof for his statement, then he offers no proof for his claim
> at all.
>
> Either way, he does not prove his claim. It is incumbent upon the
> claimant to back up his claim. He has failed to do so. If Mark Holden
> has proof that Teresa Kerry has given money to any 527 organizations,
> let him provide it. Maybe he can write Teresa Kerry and ask her.
I did goof by attributing it to the Globe.
Tides does give to 527's including moveon.org, and Mrs. Kerry does give
to them, so if I was a liberal politician in trouble, I could claim a win.
But I'm happy funds she gives to Tides are restricted - and thank you
for the snopes article.
But if your candidate would stop doing what he accuses my candidate of
doing, I'd be happier.
Mark S. Holden
> "Mark S. Holden" wrote:
>
>>The Bush camp has denounced all
>>ads by 527 organizations. (snip)
>
>
>
> But not the ones specifically attacking Kerry's medals.
>
>
President Bush denounced ALL ads from ALL 527 organizations shortly
after the first Swift Vets ad aired. How many ads by 527 organizations
that are anti Bush has Sen. Kerry denounced?
The 527's opposing Bush have reportedly spent 25 times as much on
advertising as the ones who oppose Kerry.
>
>>As I recall, the swift vets are saying
>>some of Kerry's medals were
>>presented based on reports Kerry
>>filed himself.
>
>
>
> The swiftboat vets are preying on people's ignorance of the military's
> medal process. Medals of this type must be signed by a senior flag officer.
> In the Navy, that means an Admiral or higher. To reach that level, a
> recommendation must go through several steps of the chain of command with a
> signiture from at least one junior flag officer (Lt. Commander or higher)
> and at least one non-flag officer. Each officer signing is responsible,
> through his subordinate staff, for insuring the events described in that
> recommendation are accurate and worthy, as outlined in military regulations,
> of special recognition. In other words, even if Kerry filed the paperwork
> himself (very unlikely), he cannot give himself a medal. The military has a
> system to ensure medals are obtained properly.
>
>
If Lt. Kerry wrote the incident report, and nobody else who was there at
the time read or disputed it, this would explain the lack of questioning.
The presumption is and should be that soldiers will be honorable.
>
>>I think you're mistaken. Please read the
>>following paragraph in Sen. Kerry's
>>testimony before congress in 1971:
>
>
>
> Kerry wasn't a senator in 1971. Furthermore, it was indeed 1971, not
> today. Today, anyone under thirty was not likely even aware of Kerry's
> testimony decades ago until it was brought up by the swiftboat vets and
> other Republicans. These people, not Kerry, made his words decades ago known
> to these young people today. Further, most other Americans have long
> forgotten most of the events of that period. Again, these people were
> reminded of those events by the swiftboat vets and other Republicans, not
> Kerry. Kerry, on the other hand, went out of the way to feature Vietnam
> service in a positive light at the DNC.
>
>
I used his current title as a courtesy.
The reason people are bringing up his testimony is Sen. Kerry seems to
have based most of his campaign on his Vietnam service record. Many
Vietnam Vets feel his testimony gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
>
>>He introduced the idea the war crimes he
>>was talking about were not isolated
>>incidents, but routine occurrences. The
>>swift vets feel his remarks gave aid and
>>comfort to the enemy.
>
>
>
> The types of incidents Kerry talked about back then (search & destroy
> missions, free-fire zones, and so on) were well known and being discussed by
> many around the world at that time. In other words, Kerry didn't "introduce"
> any idea.
>
The message my first reply was to said:
> Further, the idea that Kerry's comments about that war applied to all
>American soldiers fighting in Vietnam is also coming solely from Bush
>supporters, when Kerry never said anything of the sort. In other
words, >it is Bush supporters who are responsible for lumping, in the
minds of >the American people, all Vietnam vets into the same category
as war >criminals.
You said Sen. Kerry said nothing of the sort.
The Swift Vets wouldn't be able to play tapes of him saying those things
if John Kerry hadn't said them.
Personally, I'd rather see more focus on John Kerry's Senate career, and
his plan for the future.
> Stewart
>
dxAce
"Mark S. Holden" wrote:
Unfortunately, John Kerry does not want any focus on his career in the Senate.
His plan? He's said he'll let us know after he's elected. That is on tape too.
dxAce
Mark S. Holden
I presume you'll accept the snopes article you provided as proof Mrs.
Kerry donates to Tides Foundation.
Here is a link to the supporting documentation for the 2002 form 990 for
the Tides Foundation showing Moveon.org as a recipient.
<http://www.tidesfoundation.org/2002_grants_list.pdf>
Also, Peter Shurman, the executive director of moveon.org was the
keynote speaker for the tides Money Making Change workshop in 2003.
Al Dykes
--------------------------------------------
A Bush Campaign member has quit because of his participation
in the SBV advert
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/
TPStory/LAC/20040823/WORLDRE23-3/TPInternational/Briefs
----------------------------------------------
O'Neil clerked for Justice William Rehnquist, and is in line
for a judgeship, but only if Bush stays president
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4998.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231
[...]
Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the
group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift
Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a
report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now
shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home
builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the
Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas,
including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom
DeLay, whose district is near Houston
Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift
Boat group through the end of June, according to its
disclosure report .
[...]
Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to
Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a
database maintained by the Institute on Money in State
Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican
donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and
New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the
database
At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since
1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to
DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a
Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the
Center for Responsive Politics .
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
Kerry's funding is not? Democractic 527's are not funded by highly partisan
contributors?
You really need to save a bit and buy a clue!
dxAce
T. Early
connected to Swift
> >Boat Veterans for Truth?
> >
> >dxAce
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> A Bush Campaign member has quit because of his participation
> in the SBV advert
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/
> TPStory/LAC/20040823/WORLDRE23-3/TPInternational/Briefs
I can't follow this link. Please inform of the exalted position this
person held (unmentioned in your post) and whether or not his
resignation was requested.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> O'Neil clerked for Justice William Rehnquist, and is in line
> for a judgeship, but only if Bush stays president
>
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4998.shtml
Perhaps, but please provide another far less ludicrous source for
this. I would find it more comforting. Since it seems pretty
relevant, I'm sure there are many other links.
So what? Are we supposed to think that these guys would be funded by
Kerry supporters? This is one of those supposed revelations that
really says nothing. Sort of like "liberal democrat Harvey Weinstein
at Miramax supports Michael Moore" Well, duh.
We started with "Do you have hard, credible evidence that Bush and
Rove are connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?" We're still
there.
Beloved Leader
> I cannot prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
> in cahoots with the CIA, Fair Play for Cuba, the Mafia, or any one
> else.
Not long after I sent that, it occurred to me that Lee Harvey Oswald
was greatly involved with Fair Play for Cuba, to the extent that he
handed out leaflets for them on street corners in New Orleans. I would
like to revise that sentence to read:
I cannot prove that whoever assassinated John Kennedy was not backed
by the CIA, Fidel Castro, the Mafia, the John Birch Society, the
military-industrial complex, or anyone else.
Tom Betz
.. and the simplest and most damning circumstantial evidence
of all: If the objective of the Swift Liars was simply to
prevent Kerry from becoming President, why didn't they trot
themselves out during the primary campaigns, not even
permitting Kerry the satisfaction of gaining the nomination?
I'll tell you why -- because by doing so, they could not have
helped to ensure that Bush would win the election.
Bush, and only Bush, benefits from their waiting until after
the Democratic convention to begin their slander campaign.
"Cui bono" is an ancient legal principle used to aid in the
ascertaining of guilt or innocence of an individual for a
particular act. Combine this with the fact that Bush has used
the same campaign smear tactics in every one of his political
campaigns (as did his father before him) -- reflecting a
principle of evidence known to the legal profession as
"pattern and practice" -- the facts indict George W. Bush.
--
Where was AWOL George W. Bush?
<http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm>
Any government will waste money.
Only the worst waste lives.
Tom Betz
>> O'Neil clerked for Justice William Rehnquist, and is in line
>> for a judgeship, but only if Bush stays president
>>
>> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4998.shtml
>
> Perhaps, but please provide another far less ludicrous source for
> this. I would find it more comforting. Since it seems pretty
> relevant, I'm sure there are many other links.
How about the nation's oldest newspaper?
<http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_attack_hawks22>
--
Where was AWOL George W. Bush?
<http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm>
dxAce
Tom Betz wrote:
Get a grip, Butz.
dxAce
T. Early
> Quoth "T. Early" <fenwick...@yahoo.com> in
news:412a8d71$0$21741$61fe...@news.rcn.com:
>
> >> O'Neil clerked for Justice William Rehnquist, and is in line
> >> for a judgeship, but only if Bush stays president
> >>
> >> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4998.shtml
> >
> > Perhaps, but please provide another far less ludicrous source for
> > this. I would find it more comforting. Since it seems pretty
> > relevant, I'm sure there are many other links.
>
> How about the nation's oldest newspaper?
>
>
<http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&cata
logno=NN_attack_hawks22>
>
Thanks. I had assumed, since we started with Capitol Hill Blue, there
was nowhere to go but up. You proved me wrong.
But I did slip on my hip boots, wade through the highly partisan dreck
("...plausible accounts are beginning to surface which bring into
question George W. Bush’s sanity") and still could find no
confirmation for O'Neill currently being in line for any judgeship if
W wins.
T. Early
>
> .. and the simplest and most damning circumstantial evidence
> of all: If the objective of the Swift Liars was simply to
> prevent Kerry from becoming President, why didn't they trot
> themselves out during the primary campaigns, not even
> permitting Kerry the satisfaction of gaining the nomination?
You may see this as some great insight, but let me give another
possible explanation. Depending on when the book was started (I have
no knowledge of that), these individuals saw no reason to get involved
until the prospect of a Kerry presidency became imminent. Why risk
being branded as liars and perjurers by those with no real knowledge
of the charges and with nothing but partisan axes to grind when only a
nomination is at stake?... Particularly when dealing with a party of
ideologues who might actually be dumb enough to nominate Howard Dean.
But congrats on the "circumstantial" part --keeping in mind that this
started with:
"Do you have hard, credible evidence that Bush and Rove are connected
to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"
That would be a "No."
>
> I'll tell you why -- because by doing so, they could not have
> helped to ensure that Bush would win the election.
>
> Bush, and only Bush, benefits from their waiting until after
> the Democratic convention to begin their slander campaign.
>
> "Cui bono" is an ancient legal principle used to aid in the
> ascertaining of guilt or innocence of an individual for a
> particular act. Combine this with the fact that Bush has used
> the same campaign smear tactics in every one of his political
> campaigns (as did his father before him) -- reflecting a
> principle of evidence known to the legal profession as
> "pattern and practice" -- the facts indict George W. Bush.
In other words, once again you have no "facts" tying Bush to any of
this, so you'll just call supposition "facts." An interesting
tactic.
And since you are such a legal scholar, I'm sure you're aware that the
majority of "prior acts" are inadmissable in court because they have
no bearing on the real issue at hand, and are usually only used to
prejudice the situation by those who have no "case." Folks like this
often prefer to use overly broad generalizations to muddy the
waters--you know, like "the same campaign smear tactics" where
evidence of "sameness" is nowhere to be found.
Telamon
"Dwight Stewart" <stew...@NOearthlinkSPAM.net> wrote:
> "Telamon" wrote:
> >
> > You don't seem to understand that
> > Kerry wrote the after action reports
> > the citations are based on so as a
> > matter of course they are in agreement
> > with Kerry. Those are Kerry's words
> > not his crewmates. (snip)
>
>
> Oh, I understand that is the claims of some members of the swiftboat
> group, but have seen nothing to suggest it is true. Kerry was not the senior
> officer during that engagement and it is usually the senior officer who
> signs off on the action reports. Regardless, the only other living officer
> present that day, William Hood, has recently spoke out to support Kerry's
> version.
>
>
> > (snip) the four other officers in the
> > squad (snip)
>
>
> Three swiftboats on the river that day, three officers and fifteen
> crewmembers.
I did not say Kerry signed if off. I said he wrote it. I'm sure there
are several levels of command that need to sign off on the report.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Tom Betz <spamme...@pobox.com> wrote:
> "T. Early" <fenwick...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:412a3f3b$0$21749
> $61fe...@news.rcn.com:
>
> > My problem was with the comment: "It looks like the Bush
> > people are still using Nixon's tactics." Well, no, it doesn't.
>
> No, not exactly the same tactics. Unlike Nixon, who was unable to find
> any dirt for O'Neill to use on Kerry, and required O'Neill to keep the
> argument clean, Bush and Rove don't have any qualms about letting O'Neill
> just make shit up, and convince a bunch of confused and bitter Vietnam
> veterans to perjure themselves swearing in affadavits to the lies O'Neill
> has fed them.
"Where was AWOL George W. Bush?"
You are such a hypocrite. You state the above when continue to bash Bush
in your signature. What a loser.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Tom Betz <spamme...@pobox.com> wrote:
< Snip >
Just more smear on your part about the swift boat veterans. You do not
know what happened and are guessing like the rest of us that were not
there you stinking liberal parrot.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Beloved Leader
> I did goof by attributing it to the Globe.
No problem. It happens.
> But I'm happy funds she gives to Tides are restricted - and thank you
> for the snopes article.
De nada, dude.
Tom Betz
$21756$61fe...@news.rcn.com:
> Thanks. I had assumed, since we started with Capitol Hill
> Blue, there was nowhere to go but up. You proved me
> wrong.
It's a fun broadsheet, ain't it? In the fine American tradition
of yellow journalism.
I just came across it a few days ago. I'm inclined to buy a
hardcopy subscription just for the entertainment value.
Dwight Stewart
"dxAce" wrote:
>
> Yeah he's a 'Hood' all right... check your facts Dwight.
Sorry, William Rood. But, of course, you knew that.
Stewart
Dwight Stewart
"dxAce" wrote:
>
> And why should he? It is well within
> their rights as American Citizens to run
> those ads if they so choose.
>
> It is not the Presidents right to tell them
> they cannot.
>
> That would be censorship.
Well, I certainly wasn't aware that DENOUNCING an unseemly advertisement
by obvious supporters during a political campaign was censorship. Don't try
to change the subject to fit your position, dxAce. Nobody, prior to your
comments above, was talking about the president telling anybody they cannot
run an ad.
Stewart
Dwight Stewart
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
>
> Actually, Bush is against the general ethical
> corruption of the 527 organizations... (snip)
John, denouncing certain ads in general is clearly not the same as
denouncing the highly questionable claims of obvious supporters during a
political campaign. Instead, denouncing ads in general simply side-steps the
issue, leaving the harm done by those questionable claims fully intact.
Stewart
dxAce
Dwight Stewart wrote:
Took you all this time to realise that?
Keep checking those facts.
dxAce
dxAce
Dwight Stewart wrote:
Nobody?
You really need to get up to speed Dwight, and do just a little research.
dxAce