Connections between Bush and Swift Vets

[jesse_ewiak 0]

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Uh huh. Using graphs like this and with their logic you can connect almost anyone to another person.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, a more irrelevant story cannot occur. You mean John O'Neill, a prominent lawyer in Texas KNOWS OTHER REPUBLICANS IN TEXAS?

 

Get the fuck OUTTA TOWN!

 

Nice of them to research not the charges, but the Moore-esque conspiratorial theories behind this group.

To be sure, the New York Times takes a page from the L.A. Times playbook: prejudice the reader against the Vets before breathing a word of their actual accusations. But the New York paper takes this strategy to a new level.

 

I don't think I have ever seen such a partisan hit piece in my life.

 

The story opens with these paragraphs:

 

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

Today the New York Times echoes those sentiments.

 

Okay, I made up that last sentence. Sort of. Read the article and you'll see what I mean.

 

The theme of the article is stated clearly in its third paragraph: the Vets are simply mad that Kerry called them war criminals:

 

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

 

This is the prelude to the first half of the article, which is devoted to fleshing out every last detail (complete with a handy graph) of the group's "web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove":

 

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family -- one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

 

The article then spends an incredible amount of space detailing this "web of connections," which boils down to this: John O'Neill, a successful lawyer in Houston, knows some influential Republicans in Texas. He even knows people, including current and former law partners, who know George Bush and Karl Rove. Wow.

 

Full disclosure time: I feel an ethical obligation to reveal my "web of connections" to Democrats. I share an office with someone whose friend is married to Democrat California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. No kidding. The grandmother of one of my best friends is an ardent Democrat who knows Hillary Clinton. I have good friends, colleagues, and former employers who have contributed thousands to John Kerry. I am married to a Democrat, and her entire family is 100% Democrats. At least one of her family members thinks George W. Bush is one of the most evil men alive.

 

This is all absolutely true. And I could go on. Why, if I were any good at Photoshopping, I could make you a pretty cool chart with these facts.

 

Anyway. Apparently, some of the Republicans that O'Neill knows don't like Kerry. Go figure.

 

Honestly, my eyes started to glaze over at what Ed Morrissey accurately terms a "litany of begats and connected-tos that lead to no conclusion whatsoever." Just when it looks like the story is about to get to the meat of the accusations, about halfway through the article, we get even more of the guilt by association schtick. We are told about the publisher of the Swift Boat Vets' book (Regnery): it publishes books hostile to Democrats! We are reminded that some bigoted statements have been made on the internet by a co-author of the Swift Boat Vets' book. Never mind that he is not one of the veterans who serve as eyewitnesses to Kerry's actions. He's just a guy who helped write the book. But he has said some stupid things in his life, so it's important that you know that.

 

Finally, the piece gets around to discussing some of the Vets' actual allegations. If you want to tread through that thicket, I recommend this post from Captain Ed. He shows how much of the New York Times's defense of Kerry is based on inadequate investigation and discredited arguments. For example, there is no mention of the fact that Kerry's own journal contradicts the central point of his most widely publicized act of alleged bravery. And so on.

 

The piece makes one telling point. It provides quotes praising Kerry from three of the Vets who currently condemn him: Roy F. Hoffmann, Adrian L. Lonsdale, and George Elliott. I think this is fair commentary -- the only fair commentary in the piece. If three Vets praised Kerry in previous years, that's a fair point. They should explain why they are saying something different now.

 

That makes three of over 250 veterans who are in the group. (Note, for the math-deficient, that's less than 2%)

 

What is both amazing and utterly predictable is that the "Christmas in Cambodia" story is saved for the very end. This is the one accusation made by the Vets where the facts are clear -- and the facts show that Kerry was not truthful, as even the Kerry campaign has had to admit. How does the New York Times characterize the "Christmas in Cambodia" story? Take a deep breath. It says that the story is "the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest."

 

Not "the allegation that has forced Mr. Kerry's campaign to explain that Mr. Kerry has not been telling the truth." Just the one allegation that they haven't yet "put to rest."

 

The article then explains that, according to Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley, Kerry was probably in Cambodia -- just not on Christmas Eve.

 

Simply unbelievable. Nothing about the magic hat. Nothing about his gun-running missions. Nothing about the memories being "seared -- seared" into Kerry's head. No explanation about how Kerry claimed that he encountered friendly fire from the Vietnamese celebrating Christmas.

 

If you think that the New York Times would downplay a clear story of Bush unmistakably lying about an event he claimed was a turning point in his life, raise your hand.

 

Fair-minded people only!

 

I see no hands.

 

P.S. The Times also runs an article titled Kerry Calls Ad Group a 'Front for the Bush Campaign'. No mention of the apparent fact that the New York Times is now a front for the Kerry campaign.

http://patterico.com/archives/002586.php

-=Mike

...The NY Times does a hit piece aginst conservatives? I'm shocked --- SHOCKED!

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Well, it all leads to a simple fact...if Bush wanted to, he could get them to stop running the ads. He's not. Thus, the ad should just go ahead and have Bush saying, "Well, I don't approve of this ad, but ya' know, I'm only the leader of the Free World and the GOP, so what can I do?" Cue the shrug and a wink. So, maybe the right should stop acting like this is an independent group and call it what it is....a smear machine for their side.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, it all leads to a simple fact...if Bush wanted to, he could get them to stop running the ads.

Even though John O'Neill has expressly stated that he wouldn't quit even if Bush asked?

He's not. Thus, the ad should just go ahead and have Bush saying, "Well, I don't approve of this ad, but ya' know, I'm only the leader of the Free World and the GOP, so what can I do?"

So, because he didn't speak out against it, Al Gore was TOTALLY supportive of the NAACP accusing Bush of causing the death of James Byrd? Was Clinton totally supportive of the NAACP claiming that a vote for a Republican is a vote for church burnings and lynchings? Of course not. That's insane. As is your criticism.

 

Bush has NO say with this group whatsover. He's criticized 527 ads from BOTH sides of the aisle.

Cue the shrug and a wink.  So, maybe the right should stop acting like this is an independent group and call it what it is....a smear machine for their side.

But, moveon.org IS independent, right? NEA is totally independent, right? The NY Times is completely independent, right?

-=Mike

...Of course, the NY Times also referred to the Cambodia story --- which is PROVEN false --- as being the one claim he can't "put to rest"...

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Well, it all leads to a simple fact...if Bush wanted to, he could get them to stop running the ads.

Even though John O'Neill has expressly stated that he wouldn't quit even if Bush asked?

 

Yup, I'm sure Rove and Hughes absolutely had nothing to do with these at ads at all. They're innocent as babes. If the Bush campaign asked them to stop before the ads came out, I'm absolutely sure they would've ploughed ahead anyway.

 

Bush has NO say with this group whatsover. He's criticized 527 ads from BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

So, he's for tougher campaign finance reform. Odd, I don't remember that stance during his election. Hmm....

 

 

Cue the shrug and a wink.  So, maybe the right should stop acting like this is an independent group and call it what it is....a smear machine for their side.

But, moveon.org IS independent, right? NEA is totally independent, right? The NY Times is completely independent, right?

 

Mike, just admit the fact you're pissed that the top "Conservatve" papaer in country can't crack the top 50 in circulation. You're pissed because unions haven't been totally broke yet, and that us Democrat's have grown a spine this time and won't be Dukakised.

 

                  -=Mike

...Of course, the NY Times also referred to the Cambodia story --- which is PROVEN false --- as being the one claim he can't "put to rest"...

 

PRoven false by who, freerepublic? Or Sean Hannity? Novak or Carlson, perhaps?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Wow, a more irrelevant story cannot occur. You mean John O'Neill, a prominent lawyer in Texas KNOWS OTHER REPUBLICANS IN TEXAS?

 

Get the fuck OUTTA TOWN!

O'Neill, who notes being an Independent, shows that by donating to Duane Sand (Republican Congressional candidate from North Dakota), Peter Staub Wareing (Republican State House candidate from Texas). [Note: The Wareing donation came in the 2002 cycle. O'Neill also donated to the elder Bush]

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527eventsdetail.asp (that's Harlan, not Hardin, there's no donations for the name Hardin Crow)

 

Bob J. Perry has also made donations to the following candidates in the last year (via Opensecrets): President Bush (R-TX), Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Michael McCaul (R-TX)

 

Harlan Crow has been generous to both the Swift Vets (25K in the second cycle) and the following candidates: Kit Bond (R-MO), Jerry W Brooks (R-OR), Carl Isett (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Tom Petri (R-WI), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Jim Talent (R-CO), Mike Pence (R-IN), Mark Sanford (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Judd Gregg (R-NH), John Thune (R-SD), Bob Smith (R-NH), Norm Coleman (R-MN).. apologies if this is getting a bit repetitive. There's more. Such as Lisa Murkowski, Rick Santorum, Rick Lazio aaaaaaaand..

 

George W. Bush (2,000 in June 2003 and 1,000 in April 1999)

 

Christine Lindsey - $2,000 for the SBVT and $2,000 for Bush

Weymouth D Symmes - $2,000 for the SBVT and $500 for Bush

Robert D Dingeman - $500 for the SBVT and $1,200 for Bush

Steven N Brody - $500 for the SBVT and $500 for Bush ($250 in 1999 and $250 in 2003)

Ann C Iverson - $200 for SBVT and $1000 for Bush ($750 in the 2000 cycle, $250 this time)

 

8 out of 11 of the donors donated to other Republicans, 7 of those 8 donated money to Bush.

 

John O'Neill, a successful lawyer in Houston, knows some influential Republicans in Texas. He even knows people, including current and former law partners, who know George Bush and Karl Rove. Wow.

 

And the donors who make up 98% of the financial base of SBVT donated to other Republicans (82% of which have donated to John O'Neill)

 

I don't know why you'd ever suspect SBVT links to the Republicans. ;)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, it all leads to a simple fact...if Bush wanted to, he could get them to stop running the ads.

Even though John O'Neill has expressly stated that he wouldn't quit even if Bush asked?

Oh, well he's clearly a hero. I don't know how half a million dollars suddently appeared for them to air this ad, and I don't know how they're getting away without being charged for slander either.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Because you lend instantly credibility to a group by trying to silence them. It's the same reason Bush didn't go after Moore.

[Guest SideFXs]

KERRY has changed his version of the events 4 times. Just like he changed his story of his medal throwing, at the White House front lawn. Who is telling the truth? I know its the swift boat veterans.

 

So what is the motivation for the swift boat veterans? Kerry insulted their honor, as fellow soldiers, back in 1971, when he lied about American soldiers.

 

I question, why in the world, would Kerry try to create this illusion of being a hero in Vietnam, when he was on the public record as being against the war. I guess he believes it will justify his leadership as war-time-President. Or maybe he just worked so hard to cultivate this illusion, he has to use it.

 

So if Kerry is lying, well, he can't defend his record, he has to try and blame someone else, namely Pres. Bush, the Republican party, and a few of its 100,000 dollar contributors, for supporting the swift boat veterans advertisement campaign.

 

Somehow that makes their disputes of Kerry's version of the events a lie? Somehow that makes Pres. Bush look like a coward? Kerry is trying to redirect the publics attention away from the truth. Pathetic!

 

Oh, Kerry received 20 million from Sorros.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

The Republican Party has recieved millions from Scaife, so what's your point?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Oh, Kerry received 20 million from Sorros.

Wanna back that up?

 

Opensecrets says that Soros donated 12 million to 527s.

 

It sorta seems like you pulled a number out of your ass.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Coincidences continue

 

On the same day that the Bush-Cheney campaign repeatedly denied coordinating attacks with the anti-Kerry group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," the Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida was caught promoting a rally in Gainesville for the group.

A flyer being distributed at the Alachua County Republican party headquarters, which doubles as the Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters for the county, promotes a weekend rally sponsored by "Swift Boat Vets for Truth, Veterans for Bush, Alachua Bush/Cheney Committee," and others.

 

"George Bush has disgraced himself by allowing his campaign to promote the ugly smears being spread by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," said Scott Maddox, Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party.  "The Bush campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement with this group, but now we know the real truth.  While George Bush falsely declares his respect for John Kerry's war record, his henchmen on the ground in Florida are attacking it under the radar."

 

 

Hmm.. the Alachua Bush/Cheney committee, the Alachua County Republicans, the SBVT

 

I bet the defense for this will be "The Democrats do it toooooooo!"

 

Hmm.. I'm checking though the CFR

 

SEC. 214. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.

 

(a) DEFINITION OF COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES-

 

(1) SECTION 301(8)- Section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--

 

(A) in subparagraph (A)--

 

(i) by striking `or' at the end of clause (i);

 

(ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting `; or'; and

 

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

 

`(iii) coordinated activity (as defined in subparagraph ©).'; and

 

(B) by adding at the end the following:

 

`© `Coordinated activity' means anything of value provided by a person in connection with a Federal candidate's election who is or previously has been within the same election cycle acting in coordination with that candidate, or an agent of that candidate on any campaign activity in connection with a Federal election in which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal office (regardless of whether the value being provided is in the form of a communication that expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and includes any of the following:

 

`(i) A payment made by a person in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, the political party of the candidate, or an agent acting on behalf of a candidate, authorized committee, or the political party of the candidate.

 

`(ii) A payment made by a person for the production, dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or authorized committee (not including a communication described in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a communication that expressly advocates the candidate's defeat), except materials published on a candidate's website and republished at a cost of less than $1,000.

 

`(iii) A payment made by a person if, in the same election cycle in which the payment is made, the person making the payment--

 

`(I) is serving or previously has served as-- `(a) an employee;

 

`(b) a fundraiser; or

 

`© an agent of the candidate or the candidate's authorized committee in an executive or policymaking capacity; or

 

`(II) has previously participated in discussions (other than on an incidental basis) that have been-- `(a) with the candidate, an agent of the candidate or the candidate's authorized committee, or with a political party that is coordinating with the candidate; and

 

`(b) about the candidate's campaign strategy and tactics, including a discussion about advertising, message, allocation of resources, fundraising, or campaign operations.

 

`(iv) A payment made by a person if, in the same election cycle, the person making the payment retains the professional services of any person who has provided those services in the same election cycle to a candidate (including services provided through a political committee of the candidate's political party) in connection with the candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, including services relating to the candidate's decision to seek Federal office, and the person retained is retained to work on activities relating to that candidate's campaign.

 

`(D) For purposes of subparagraph ©, the term `professional services' means polling, media advice, fundraising, campaign research, political advice, or direct mail services (except for mailhouse services) in support of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election, to Federal office.

 

`(E) For purposes of subparagraph ©, all political committees established and maintained by a national political party (including all congressional campaign committees) and all political committees established and maintained by a State political party (including any subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be considered to be a single political committee.

 

`(F) COORDINATION BY A POLITICAL PARTY- When a political party committee makes any expenditure that refers to a clearly identified candidate of that party, or to the opponent of a candidate of that party, in connection with a Federal election, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against the candidate, the expenditure is deemed to be made in coordination with the candidate of that party, unless the party certifies under penalty of perjury that there has been no coordination by the party.'.

 

and here's some more on the IRS 527 code

 

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=103480,00.html

[Jobber of the Week 0]

KERRY has changed his version of the events 4 times. Just like he changed his story of his medal throwing, at the White House front lawn. Who is telling the truth? I know its the swift boat veterans.

Oh? Even though they've been caught in a lie once already, including a lie on a signed affadavit? And now they're running an ad that takes Kerry out of context (Not shown on the ad is Kerry's preface to those comments, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a conference of Vietnam veterans in Detroit. Instead, a member of the Swift Boat group refers to the statements as "the accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam.") so I guess they really are non-partisan patriots seeking the truth.

 

So what is the motivation for the swift boat veterans?  Kerry insulted their honor, as fellow soldiers, back in 1971, when he lied about American soldiers.

Whoop-te-doo. And this means SO MUCH to the current race. I was up there with everyone else going "LOL KERRY SERVED IN VIETNAM LOL DID YOU HEAR?" about six months ago. Never thought we'd get stuck this far in shit that happened decades ago.

 

So if Kerry is lying

Or if he's not.

 

well, he can't defend his record

Or he can't respond to personal attacks.

 

he has to try and blame someone else, namely Pres. Bush, the Republican party, and a few of its 100,000 dollar contributors, for supporting the swift boat veterans advertisement campaign.

And he is joined by such "independant" thinkers like Bill O'Reilly, who slammed the Swift Vets ads shortly after the first one premiered and said it was going too far. O'Reilly is an experienced right-wing shill, and you can see the thirst for blood in the right-wing bloggers and message board posters when they latch onto these guys like some kind heroes not for what they did in Vietnam, but for telling stories that seem to contradict what they've said in the past and accusing a guy of lying and cheating and stealing as a youth to help his political career in the present. COME. ON!

 

And yet so many of these people talk about how extreme the left is becoming.

 

Somehow that makes their disputes of Kerry's version of the events a lie?

It's kind of a lie if you previously held a contrary view of events or held a contrary view of John Kerry prior to the election business.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Well, the Kerry campaign is officially tired of the Swift Vets:

 

Kerry files FEC complaint against critical veterans group

(CNN) -- The Kerry presidential campaign on Friday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging ads from an anti-Kerry veterans' group are inaccurate and "illegally coordinated" with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign.

 

The complaint was filed against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It states that "based on recent press reports and SBVT's own statements there is overwhelming evidence that SBVT is coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney campaign."

 

Members of that group have denied any coordination with the GOP campaign, as have members of the Bush-Cheney team.

 

A spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign dismissed the complaint as "frivolous and false," but said it welcomed a broader look at the role 527 groups -- named for a section of the federal tax code -- have played this election season.

 

"For months we've been trying to shine a spotlight on the coordination between the John Kerry campaign and 527 groups," Bush campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin told CNN.

 

Kerry's complaint came as the veterans' group released a new ad Friday, reaching back more than 30 years to take issue with some of Sen. John Kerry's comments as an anti-war activist.

 

The 30-second spot compares Kerry's comments upon his return home from service to confessions sought through torture inflicted on American captives in Vietnam.

 

The ad, part of a $600,000 ad buy in battleground states, is funded primarily by Republican contributors from President Bush's home state of Texas, according to federal records.

 

"This Republican front group for Bush is out of credibility after being caught in lie after lie day after day," said Kerry campaign press secretary David Wade.

 

The group, however, has no direct connection to the Bush campaign, and group members said they have acted independently of the president's re-election effort.

 

It was during a campaign stop Thursday that Kerry, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, said the fact that Bush won't denounce the ads "tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work."

 

The White House rejected that criticism. "I do think that Senator Kerry losing his cool should not be an excuse for him to lash out at the president with false and baseless attacks," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday.

 

The latest ad from the swift boat group selects quotes from Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 about fellow soldiers. He is seen saying, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn."

 

Selected comments

Not shown on the ad is Kerry's preface to those comments, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a conference of Vietnam veterans in Detroit. Instead, a member of the Swift Boat group refers to the statements as "the accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam."

 

A Swift Boat member says, referring to captives in Vietnam, "That was part of the torture, was to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes" and says Kerry "betrayed us" by his comments upon his return.

 

Another says Kerry "gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us."

 

An official transcript of Kerry's testimony shows he was referring to the meeting in Detroit, part of what was called the Winter Soldier investigation. He told the Senate committee that at that meeting "many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia" and relived the "absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do."

 

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

 

Kerry has said he regrets some of the comments he made as a young man just back from war three decades ago, but he stands by his protests against the Vietnam war.

 

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth recently released another ad accusing Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, a charge Kerry and some veterans with whom he served vigorously dispute.(Full story)

 

"The bottom line is this: The United States Navy awarded John Kerry a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for his service in combat," said campaign spokesman Wade.

 

The "Republicans running these lying ads" told the Navy of Kerry's leadership decades ago, "before Karl Rove's attack squad convinced them to lie about it because George Bush is afraid to talk about jobs, health care, and making America safe," Wade said.

 

Ad's reach

Meanwhile, a new survey suggests the ad about Kerry's service medals is reaching a wide audience.

 

More than half the country has seen or heard about that ad, a survey by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey found.

 

The ad, began airing in battleground states August 5. But the survey of more than 2,200 people between August 9 and August 16 found it was the heavy news media attention that gave the ad its reach.

 

"The influence of this ad is a function not of paid exposure but of the ad's treatment in free media," said Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the survey, in a written statement. "The advertisement has received extensive coverage, particularly on conservative talk radio and cable news channels, and has been the subject of some attention in broadcast news as well."

 

Of all people polled, 59 percent believe Kerry earned all of his medals, while 21 percent believe he did not. Responses fell largely along party lines -- more than three-fourths of Democrats believe Kerry earned his medals, while 59 percent of Independents do, and only 39 percent of Republicans.

 

Bush has said he would not question Kerry's service in Vietnam. He has called for an end to all political ads being put out by 527 committees. Many such groups favor Kerry.

 

The Bush campaign has challenged Kerry to echo the call for an end to the 527 ads. And the Kerry campaign has challenged Bush to denounce the ads attacking the Democrat's military service.

 

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Republican and former prisoner of war in Vietnam, has also urged the White House to condemn the swift boat ads. Bush has not done so.

 

McClellan asked "where has the Kerry campaign been for the last year while more than $62 million in funding from these shadowy groups have been used to negatively attack the president?"

 

One, MoveOn, released an ad accusing Bush of using family connections to get into the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, and then failing to report for duty for part of his time. The Bush campaign says the president fulfilled his Guard obligations and was discharged honorably.

 

Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ad.

 

The Kerry campaign also released its own ad Thursday, featuring former Green Beret Lt. Jim Rassmann -- the man Kerry pulled from the water in the now-disputed engagement. "All these Viet Cong were shooting at me," Rassmann says. "I expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine."

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, it all leads to a simple fact...if Bush wanted to, he could get them to stop running the ads.

Even though John O'Neill has expressly stated that he wouldn't quit even if Bush asked?

Yup, I'm sure Rove and Hughes absolutely had nothing to do with these at ads at all. They're innocent as babes. If the Bush campaign asked them to stop before the ads came out, I'm absolutely sure they would've ploughed ahead anyway.

Can you definitively prove ANY input the White House had with this ad?

 

What? You can't? Shocking.

Bush has NO say with this group whatsover. He's criticized 527 ads from BOTH sides of the aisle.

So, he's for tougher campaign finance reform. Odd, I don't remember that stance during his election. Hmm...

Actually, he opposed it because he thought there was a good chance it wouldn't really fix the problem.

 

I know, what a fool, huh?

Cue the shrug and a wink.  So, maybe the right should stop acting like this is an independent group and call it what it is....a smear machine for their side.

But, moveon.org IS independent, right? NEA is totally independent, right? The NY Times is completely independent, right?

Mike, just admit the fact you're pissed that the top "Conservatve" papaer in country can't crack the top 50 in circulation.

Actually, since they don't pay me, it of precious little concern.

 

However, THEY have managed to avoid the circulation inflation problems that some liberal papers have had.

 

Just saying.

 

BTW, nice of you to admit that the NY Times is liberal.

You're pissed because unions haven't been totally broke yet, and that us Democrat's have grown a spine this time and won't be Dukakised.

Hmm, this is me continuing to not give the first shit about unions.

 

As for the Dems growing spines, kudos to them. If only they'd work on the whole "attack the message and not the messenger" thing, they'd be peachy.

...Of course, the NY Times also referred to the Cambodia story --- which is PROVEN false --- as being the one claim he can't "put to rest"...

PRoven false by who, freerepublic? Or Sean Hannity? Novak or Carlson, perhaps?

Um, Kerry himself? How about a touch of historical knowledge that indicates that on Christmas, 1968 --- Nixon was not the President?

 

Not enough for ya, huh?

 

Oh, and Rob, pointing out mutual donors does not really indicate anything.

 

Shall I go into what groups, say, the Hollywood left donates to? The Democratic Party and...? You know that could be one real fun game.

Oh, well he's clearly a hero. I don't know how half a million dollars suddently appeared for them to air this ad, and I don't know how they're getting away without being charged for slander either.

To give you a hint, roughly 20 times as many people who served with Kerry are a part of Swift Boat Vets than are siding with Kerry.

 

Just to keep it in a bit of perspective.

Wanna back that up?

 

Opensecrets says that Soros donated 12 million to 527s.

 

It sorta seems like you pulled a number out of your ass.

I bet he donated to the Dems, too.

Oh? Even though they've been caught in a lie once already, including a lie on a signed affadavit? And now they're running an ad that takes Kerry out of context (Not shown on the ad is Kerry's preface to those comments, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a conference of Vietnam veterans in Detroit. Instead, a member of the Swift Boat group refers to the statements as "the accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam.") so I guess they really are non-partisan patriots seeking the truth. rolleyes.gif

Except they haven't. They explain, in full, the whole problem. Try reading the OTHER side once in a while, 'K?

 

BTW, Kerry made those comments under oath to the Senate. He said HE saw them several times afterwards. It's HIS problem. Just like having the memory of spending Christmas in Cambodia in 1968 "seared" into his memory, even though his own personal journals don't even mention it. You'd think a huge event in his life --- remember, it changed his view on America --- would have received a mention at the time, wouldn't you?

Whoop-te-doo. And this means SO MUCH to the current race. I was up there with everyone else going "LOL KERRY SERVED IN VIETNAM LOL DID YOU HEAR?" about six months ago. Never thought we'd get stuck this far in shit that happened decades ago.

You missed the DNC, didn't you?

 

BTW, if Bush spent his campaign for the nomination in 2000 discussing how he NEVER took a drug, NEVER drank in his life, and NEVER made a poor business decision --- I suppose you'd think people questioning it were wrong to do so, right?

And he is joined by such "independant" thinkers like Bill O'Reilly, who slammed the Swift Vets ads shortly after the first one premiered and said it was going too far.

And what has O'Reilly said since then? It's been a while now.

It's kind of a lie if you previously held a contrary view of events or held a contrary view of John Kerry prior to the election business.

3 out of 264 did. That IS powerful stuff.

 

And, Edwin, this complaint is the dumbest move Kerry could have made. Look for Bush to file a complaint against ALL of the 527's --- you know, the ones who have staff that seem to go back and forth between them and the DNC a bit too frequently --- who support Kerry.

 

This is going to blow up in his face.

-=Mike

...BTW, he could simply sign a form to have ALL of his records released and send the form to the media, indicating that he has requested the Navy to release everything. I mean, Bush released HIS records...

[Justice 0]

Attack groups are like Mosquito bites: The more you scratch it, the more it will itch. The more Kerry just tries to shut them down without providing a completely forthcoming answer (He really hasn't other than "It isn't true, now stop!") it'll continue to get media attention. That, and the fact that most of his campaign has been built around his Vietnam experience, so when it's being called into question big-time, it'll start to get tons of coverage.

 

Just my simple take on this. I'd ignore it if I were him; Bush has done the same with how many blantantly untrue and slanderous ads against him. Same with the massive number of attack books against him as well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Attack groups are like Mosquito bites: The more you scratch it, the more it will itch. The more Kerry just tries to shut them down without providing a completely forthcoming answer (He really hasn't other than "It isn't true, now stop!") it'll continue to get media attention. That, and the fact that most of his campaign has been built around his Vietnam experience, so when it's being called into question big-time, it'll start to get tons of coverage.

 

Just my simple take on this. I'd ignore it if I were him; Bush has done the same with how many blantantly untrue and slanderous ads against him. Same with the massive number of attack books against him as well.

Hell, Bush got heat because Disney didn't want to release F 9/11.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

NEA is totally independent, right?

Question: What are you talking about here? National Education Association?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Oh, and Rob, pointing out mutual donors does not really indicate anything.

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything that the Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth, a group which claims to be non-partisan, recieves most of their money from people who also donate to Republicans.

 

Shall I go into what groups, say, the Hollywood left donates to? The Democratic Party and...? You know that could be one real fun game.

 

Care to bring up a Hollywood-run 527 which is claiming to be non-partisan?

 

To give you a hint, roughly 20 times as many people who served with Kerry are a part of Swift Boat Vets than are siding with Kerry.

 

Just to keep it in a bit of perspective.

 

And only one of the people who actually served on the same boat as John Kerry is with the Swift Boat Veterans group.

 

I bet he donated to the Dems, too.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.a...hou=0&txt2004=Y

 

Hmm.. SideFX came about $19,998,000 short of that Kerry claim.

 

And, Edwin, this complaint is the dumbest move Kerry could have made. Look for Bush to file a complaint against ALL of the 527's --- you know, the ones who have staff that seem to go back and forth between them and the DNC a bit too frequently --- who support Kerry.

 

This is going to blow up in his face.

 

Any comment on the SBVT/Republican Super-party in Gainesville? That seems a bit.. coordinated. Which, last I heard, is illegal.

 

As for the Bush defense, today the defense is "Kerry's becoming angry". Hopefully he doesn't become angry like John McCain supposedly was in 2000. ;)

 

he could simply sign a form to have ALL of his records released and send the form to the media, indicating that he has requested the Navy to release everything. I mean, Bush released HIS records...

 

These records?

 

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...ry_records.html

 

Hmm..

 

anything else you want?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except they haven't. They explain, in full, the whole problem. Try reading the OTHER side once in a while, 'K?

No thanks, I'd just prefer if yall rotted and died and then we wouldn't have to deal with it.

 

BTW, Kerry made those comments under oath to the Senate. He said HE saw them several times afterwards.

 

Did you not even see that the quotes they used were taken out of context? He was describing what other people claimed to have seen. If you want to trap a guy in something like this, if you are going to assault his character, you can't leave room for error like that.

 

Wah wah wah, Cambodia, wah wah wah. Why am I hearing this from so many now? It's one of those things you can't really prove either way. It certainly makes logic that he'd be up there around that time. A Kerry campaign advisor said he was there on Christmas Eve, but others assume it was simply Christmastime but not on the holiday itself.

 

And what has O'Reilly said since then? It's been a while now.

 

Since the other week? I don't watch O'Reilly regularly, so I can't answer that. The only information on the show site is a transcript of some interviews done on an episode where Bill had a stand-in. He still said it. He still said he found the advertisement to be wrong.

 

3 out of 264 did. That IS powerful stuff.

 

And I'm sure every one of those 264 worked with Kerry personally? That's been one of the biggest myths about this so far, is exactly what it means to have someone who "served with Kerry" complain. Technically, anyone who served in Vietnam could say they served with Kerry and anyone else who fought in the war.

 

Look for Bush to file a complaint against ALL of the 527's --- you know, the ones who have staff that seem to go back and forth between them and the DNC a bit too frequently --- who support Kerry.

 

This is going to blow up in his face.

          -=Mike

We now have undeniable proof that you are an idiot. I'd absolutely despise you if your ongoing support for all things GOP without regards to facts or previous opinions just wasn't so damn funny.

[Guest MikeSC]

NEA is totally independent, right?

Question: What are you talking about here? National Education Association?

Yup.

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything that the Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth, a group which claims to be non-partisan, recieves most of their money from people who also donate to Republicans.

Rock the Vote claims to be non-partisan. Care to guess where their money came from?

 

Americans Coming Together claims to be non-partisan. Who funds them? (Hint: George Soros).

 

You aren't actually DISPUTING the message at all. You're simply hoping that if you smear the messenger enough, their message will go away.

 

Kerry is going to the FEC about this. This is only going to make things MUCH worse for him because there is more than a little reason to assume the Kerry camp and THEIR 527's have worked together --- and that the DNC and them co-ordinated also.

Care to bring up a Hollywood-run 527 which is claiming to be non-partisan?

Umm, ALL of them?

And only one of the people who actually served on the same boat as John Kerry is with the Swift Boat Veterans group.

Funny --- they have his COMMANDING OFFICER on their side.

Hmm.. SideFX came about $19,998,000 short of that Kerry claim.

WHOA!

 

Somebody who donated to left wing groups ALSO donated to Kerry?

 

GET THE FUCK OUTTA TOWN!

 

Let me guess -- unlike in THIS case, there was no co-ordination, right?

 

BTW, if you REALLY want to hold a President responsible for what his biggest donors and fund-raisers did --- well, Clinton deserved a prison sentence.

Any comment on the SBVT/Republican Super-party in Gainesville? That seems a bit.. coordinated. Which, last I heard, is illegal.

Go ahead, tell me how it's illegal. Feel free. Of course, if you want to dig into some things, the funding of Air America radio is quite fascinating, no?

As for the Bush defense, today the defense is "Kerry's becoming angry". Hopefully he doesn't become angry like John McCain supposedly was in 2000.

This is called a meltdown. When he loses, feel free to point to this idiotic decision as the reason.

These records?

 

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...ry_records.html

 

Hmm..

 

anything else you want?

He simply needs to fill out an SF-180 to have the Navy release EVERYTHING.

 

Without that --- he's likely picking and choosing.

-=Mike

...Hey, why not use the whole "THey're accusing the military of lying" line next?

 

EDIT:

No thanks, I'd just prefer if yall rotted and died and then we wouldn't have to deal with it.

"Why do you think we libs have gone over the edge? WHY? WHY? WHY...DON'T YOU JUST DIE! DIE! DIE!"

 

Dig the sand out, Jobber.

Did you not even see that the quotes they used were taken out of context?

Apparently, unlike you, I read ALL of them MONTHS ago. When it FIRST was mentioned.

 

Stay in the now.

Wah wah wah, Cambodia, wah wah wah. Why am I hearing this from so many now?

Because it was a lie he's repeated OFTEN.

It's one of those things you can't really prove either way.

He wasn't in Cambodia. His OWN JOURNALS don't mention Cambodia.

 

And the whole Nixon not being President in 1968 doesn't seem to slow you down. Odd.

It certainly makes logic that he'd be up there around that time.

Why? The covert operations they ran up there sure as hell wouldn't have done with the fairly slow swift boats.

 

Can you find anybody OUTSIDE of Kerry (who, mind you, is having his bio by David Brinkley CHANGED because of this) who can verify him being there?

A Kerry campaign advisor said he was there on Christmas Eve, but others assume it was simply Christmastime but not on the holiday itself.

Brinkley now claims January --- and no proof exists of THAT, either. You'd think he'd have SOME record of being there --- even in his personal journals and the like.

 

Remember, though, spending Christmas in Cambodia (hell, some of his aides now claim he was within 50 miles of Cambodia --- which only covers almost all of Vietnam) and hearing Nixon say he wasn't there (even though Nixon wasn't President) while he was being fired on (he wasn't) was "seared" in his memory.

 

SEARED. Nobody told him to use that terminology REPEATEDLY --- he did.

Since the other week?

It's been a few weeks, actually.

I don't watch O'Reilly regularly, so I can't answer that. The only information on the show site is a transcript of some interviews done on an episode where Bill had a stand-in. He still said it. He still said he found the advertisement to be wrong.

Well, since you know O'Reilly so well, I'll have to bow to your obvious well-kept, first-hand knowledge. *giggle*

And I'm sure every one of those 264 worked with Kerry personally?

Can you prove otherwise?

That's been one of the biggest myths about this so far, is exactly what it means to have someone who "served with Kerry" complain. Technically, anyone who served in Vietnam could say they served with Kerry and anyone else who fought in the war.

Actually, they were all in his company and served on boats on missions with him fairly regularly.

 

Do you honestly think the boats worked in solitude?

We now have undeniable proof that you are an idiot. I'd absolutely despise you if your ongoing support for all things GOP without regards to facts or previous opinions just wasn't so damn funny.

The funny thing is that you totally miss the irony of you saying that after making this asinine post. Christmas in Cambodia has beenUNEQUIVOCALLY debunked --- and you refuse to let go of it. Sad.

 

All you have to do is disprove them. And Kerry has not begun to do so.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yup.

Oh, okay. I see what you mean there.

 

Americans Coming Together claims to be non-partisan.

 

Do you have anything to back that up? Their front page says ACT needs you to help beat George W. Bush and elect Democrats up and down the ticket in 2004 so I suspect they're not exactly trying to put on an air of objectivity.

 

You aren't actually DISPUTING the message at all. You're simply hoping that if you smear the messenger enough, their message will go away.

Amusing self-observance in action. THAT DARN LIBERAL MEDIA!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Lord, the day after Election Day is going to be so entertaining...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"Why do you think we libs have gone over the edge? WHY? WHY? WHY...DON'T YOU JUST DIE! DIE! DIE!"

I would have requested you roll over and die pre-Bush because you're that annoying. The non-hacks can stay, though. You wanna know how you can tell the non-hacks? They're not saying anything one way or the other right now because they don't necessarily believe these guys either.

 

Except for O'Reilly, who transcends those hack/nonhack tests.

 

Apparently, unlike you, I read ALL of them MONTHS ago. When it FIRST was mentioned.

 

Stay in the now.

 

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the new ad, released today, using lines from a Kerry hearing which is actually Kerry retelling what he had been told by other people.

 

Because it was a lie he's repeated OFTEN.

 

NY Times story: This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

 

Admittedly, a Kerry campaign manager has a different retelling, that Kerry was in the Mekong Delta on the border on Christmas Eve. Again, it's one of those things that can't really be figured out either way.

 

He wasn't in Cambodia. His OWN JOURNALS don't mention Cambodia.

The Mekong river goes across the Cambodian border. Where are you having difficulties following along?

 

Remember, though, spending Christmas in Cambodia (hell, some of his aides now claim he was within 50 miles of Cambodia --- which only covers almost all of Vietnam) and hearing Nixon say he wasn't there (even though Nixon wasn't President) while he was being fired on (he wasn't) was "seared" in his memory.

 

SEARED. Nobody told him to use that terminology REPEATEDLY --- he did.

 

It doesn't change anything unless you insist that what he meant was that he was there December 25th, and not any other day. See above.

 

Can you prove otherwise?

Common sense.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yup.

Oh, okay. I see what you mean there.

 

Americans Coming Together claims to be non-partisan.

 

Do you have anything to back that up? Their front page says ACT needs you to help beat George W. Bush and elect Democrats up and down the ticket in 2004 so I suspect they're not exactly trying to put on an air of objectivity.

 

Actually, you're right. They do not claim to be nonpartisan.

 

However, THIS:

ACT is targeting swing voters – such as pre-retirement women or younger voters – who need extra information about issues the persuade them to vote for John Kerry and Democrats in federal, state and local elections.

is EXTREMELY illegal under campaign finance law. They cannot endorse or oppose a specific candidate, if memory serves.

You aren't actually DISPUTING the message at all. You're simply hoping that if you smear the messenger enough, their message will go away.

Amusing self-observance in action. THAT DARN LIBERAL MEDIA!

The media has ignored this story from the get go until the NY Times published their hit piece.

 

It's sad that the INTERNET has better journalists than the friggin' media.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

 

"Why do you think we libs have gone over the edge? WHY? WHY? WHY...DON'T YOU JUST DIE! DIE! DIE!"

I would have requested you roll over and die pre-Bush because you're that annoying.

Amazing that I can disagree with you and not wish death upon you.

 

Then again, you suck at debate.

The non-hacks can stay, though. You wanna know how you can tell the non-hacks? They're not saying anything one way or the other right now because they don't necessarily believe these guys either.

So, care to NAME the non-hacks?

Apparently, unlike you, I read ALL of them MONTHS ago. When it FIRST was mentioned.

 

Stay in the now.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the new ad, released today, using lines from a Kerry hearing which is actually Kerry retelling what he had been told by other people.

And I read the testimony MONTHS ago. Just because the press is a little slow on the uptake doesn't mean one has to wait for everything.

Because it was a lie he's repeated OFTEN.

 

NY Times story: This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

 

Admittedly, a Kerry campaign manager has a different retelling, that Kerry was in the Mekong Delta on the border on Christmas Eve. Again, it's one of those things that can't really be figured out either way.

No, there is no "figuring out" left to be done.

 

HE WAS NOT THERE. What "figuring out" do you need? His own BIOGRAPHER saying he wasn't there isn't enough for you? Him listenining to a speech from "President Nixon" before Nixon was President isn't enough for you?

 

BTW, he has claimed it repeatedly, including in the primaries.

 

And, until ANYBODY verifies Kerry was EVER there, this has to be viewed as a lie.

He wasn't in Cambodia. His OWN JOURNALS don't mention Cambodia.

The Mekong river goes across the Cambodian border. Where are you having difficulties following along?

HE. WAS. NOT. THERE.

 

They had boats STATIONED there to make sure you didn't accidentally go over there. A commander of one of the boats there --- Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, has said that no swifts were in the area at the time and would've been stopped if they appeared.

 

FACT: In 12/68, he was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo.

 

FACT: Patrol areas went as far as Sa Dec --- about 55 mi. from the Cambodian border. (Again, more than half of Vietnam is within 55 miles of the border --- you know, being a thin country and all).

 

FACT: Areas closer, in the area of the Mekong River, were patrolled by PBR's --- not swift boats.

 

FACT: All of the living members of his chain of command state that Kerry was never ordered to Cambodia.

 

FACT: All 3 of his crewmen --- Zaldonis, Hatch, and Gardner --- state he wasn't there. In fact, Garnder got injured during that time frame --- many miles away from the Cambodian border.

 

And I'll be nice and not mention that at the time, Kerry tried to go to a Bob Hope show at Dong Tam base, got completely lost and ended up in one of the most dangerous canals in Vietnam --- ignoring the fairly easy navigation by radar and map.

 

You know, you really have no leg to stand on here. None.

Remember, though, spending Christmas in Cambodia (hell, some of his aides now claim he was within 50 miles of Cambodia --- which only covers almost all of Vietnam) and hearing Nixon say he wasn't there (even though Nixon wasn't President) while he was being fired on (he wasn't) was "seared" in his memory.

 

SEARED. Nobody told him to use that terminology REPEATEDLY --- he did.

It doesn't change anything unless you insist that what he meant was that he was there December 25th, and not any other day. See above.

See above.

Can you prove otherwise?

Common sense.

So, not a single corroborating witness, but PLENTY of witnesses who say he wasn't there --- that's not common sense.

 

Your assumption because, darn it, Vietnam was evil and we did all kinds of bad things --- that's common sense.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything that the Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth, a group which claims to be non-partisan, recieves most of their money from people who also donate to Republicans.

Rock the Vote claims to be non-partisan. Care to guess where their money came from?

Hmm.. did I miss the ads where Rock the Vote bashed a specific candidate?

 

I probably did.

 

Americans Coming Together claims to be non-partisan. Who funds them? (Hint: George Soros).

 

{removed for now, JTTS covered it}

 

I'm sure it's somewhere

 

You aren't actually DISPUTING the message at all. You're simply hoping that if you smear the messenger enough, their message will go away.

 

By smear the messenger, you mean "cite military records which contradict what is claimed", right?

 

Now, if smearing was the game, there'd be more personal attacks on the specific guys. Instead of citing records and all that.

 

And we can assume that the SBVT are really the guys who have room to complain about smearing.

 

Kerry is going to the FEC about this. This is only going to make things MUCH worse for him because there is more than a little reason to assume the Kerry camp and THEIR 527's have worked together --- and that the DNC and them co-ordinated also.

 

Presumably there's actual evidence instead of assumptions.

 

Care to bring up a Hollywood-run 527 which is claiming to be non-partisan?

Umm, ALL of them?

 

Can you name a Hollywood-run 527?

 

hint.. a "get out the vote" effort run by a music network doesn't count as "Hollywood-run". Unless you believe MTV movies runs Rock the Vote or something like that/

 

And only one of the people who actually served on the same boat as John Kerry is with the Swift Boat Veterans group.

Funny --- they have his COMMANDING OFFICER on their side.

 

Yeah, and he was so outraged by John Kerry that he campaigned FOR him.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9455159.htm

Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star "for an act of courage."

 

Oh yeah.. citing what the Swift Vets said 8 years ago is smearing them. Elliot didn't have a problem with Kerry's record then. Must have been hypnosis.

 

Although the 15 veterans featured in the attack ad all state "I served with John Kerry," none of them served on the same boat with him.

 

Damn the smearing. Can't they be fair like the Swift Boat Vets*!

 

*Swift Boat Vets may not have served on the same boat as John Kerry

 

Hmm.. SideFX came about $19,998,000 short of that Kerry claim.

WHOA!

 

Somebody who donated to left wing groups ALSO donated to Kerry?

 

GET THE FUCK OUTTA TOWN!

 

Let me guess -- unlike in THIS case, there was no co-ordination, right?

 

Yeah, Soros really coordinated in that donation of $2,000 dollars. He coordinated the handing over of it on his private Island.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5772722/

 

What does it take to prove coordination under the FEC rules?

 

To prove, for example, that an outside group’s ad was coordinated with a candidate’s campaign, any one of the following is required, according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack:

 

The ad being aired by the group was broadcast at the request or suggestion of the candidate, his campaign or an agent of the campaign.

 

The group suggested the ad and the candidate or his agent assented to the ad, for example, by saying something such as, “That sounds like a good idea to me.”

 

The candidate or his agent was materially involved in decisions about the content of the ad, the times and places where it would air, the medium used, etc.

 

The ad was aired after what the FEC calls “substantial discussion” between the person or outside group paying for the ad and the campaign. If, for example, a campaign manager said to the head of a 527 group, “Over the next two weeks, our campaign’s ads will focus on the loss of textile jobs in this state,” and the outside group then ran its own ads buttressing that message, it would be coordination

 

Hmm.. you don't seem to grasp the concept of coordination. Maybe it's just me.

 

BTW, if you REALLY want to hold a President responsible for what his biggest donors and fund-raisers did --- well, Clinton deserved a prison sentence.

 

Well, right now, there's no evidence of Bush having a direct link. We'll see if anything else comes up. Knowing the FEC's swift investigations, we'll know the truth by 2008.

 

Any comment on the SBVT/Republican Super-party in Gainesville? That seems a bit.. coordinated. Which, last I heard, is illegal.

Go ahead, tell me how it's illegal. Feel free. Of course, if you want to dig into some things, the funding of Air America radio is quite fascinating, no?

 

Hmm.. Is Air America a 527?

 

As for coordination. We'll have to see if having the SBVT, the county Republican party, the local Bush/Cheney campaign committee and Republican candidates together for a Pro America rally is illegal.

 

As for the Bush defense, today the defense is "Kerry's becoming angry". Hopefully he doesn't become angry like John McCain supposedly was in 2000.

This is called a meltdown. When he loses, feel free to point to this idiotic decision as the reason.

 

Hmm.. yeah. Still seems like there's a preoccupation with anger.

 

These records?

 

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...ry_records.html

 

Hmm..

 

anything else you want?

He simply needs to fill out an SF-180 to have the Navy release EVERYTHING.

 

Without that --- he's likely picking and choosing.

 

I counted 50 different documents. So, anything specifically missing from these documents?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, care to NAME the non-hacks?

Look at who's not talking. Plenty of people see too many holes in these guys' reputation to give an opinion about it beyond moderate interest, if any at all.

 

No, there is no "figuring out" left to be done.

 

HE WAS NOT THERE. What "figuring out" do you need?

Kerry and O'Neill have both claimed on TV to have been in Cambodia. This was when they were both quite a bit younger. What motivation does Kerry have to lie about it over 30 years ago?

 

All the SBVfT crap will be revealed as bullshit, just give it time.

[Vyce 0]

You aren't actually DISPUTING the message at all. You're simply hoping that if you smear the messenger enough, their message will go away.

 

That's the crux of it, really.

 

The Swift Boat Veterans aren't just throwing out blanket statements....they've made some very specific charges against Kerry, and so far he hasn't done anything to address them other than to try and obfuscate the issue and place blame on George W. Bush, even though -despite the desperation of our colleagues here - such an accusation is (and will prove to be) groundless.

 

Now, you could argue that he should just ignore the problem and not address it at all, but I don't really think he can. He's placed so much emphasis on his Vietnam War record as a qualification of his candidacy that when serious charges such as these are leveled against him I don't know that he CAN simply ignore them.

 

His best bet would be to release his records, though I doubt that he will. I don't know how much of this SBV stuff is true, but at this point I'm starting to believe that at least SOME of it probably is legit, which is why Kerry is going so apeshit to try and silence it.