John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[Kidlicious]

Che,

Don't you know that it's a 'simple fact' that we are at war. Who got us into this mess is irrelevent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

As opposed to the complete morons who got us into the war without a friggan clue as to what the hell they were and are doing?

I don't know about you, but they certainly seemed to know what they were doing during the war, to me at least.

Great, they know how to win a war against a country with one of the weakest armies in the world. Color me inpressed. Man, those Germans were amazing when they rolled over Denmark in 1940. Or maybe, they made up whole scenarios in their minds about how they'd be welcomed with flowers in the streets and they'd find the WMDs, etc., etc. Complete morons.

[DanS]

che: We were talking about Kerry, not Bush. This is a Kerry own goal.

[Drake Tungsten]

and they'd find the WMDs, etc., etc. Complete morons.

I guess every leader in the world was a complete moron, then, given that they all thought we'd find WMD. Hell, even Saddam thought he had them.

Enough of this, though. I know I can't change the mind of a man who still thinks Communism is a viable political theory even after the events of the late 80's and 90's. Back to Kerry...

[chequita guevara]

It pertains as to why they thought going on his war record would be a good idea. Frankly, when leading Senate Repugs line up to defend Kerry against these SBV guys, inculding one who headed Nixon's investigation into Kerry, I suspect that they thought it was a good idea because they didn't expect a smeer campaign based on lies.

I do wonder why Kerry thought it was a good idea to take the issue on directly, rather than counter with a whispering campaign of his own.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

One, why don;t you READ WHAT THE BIOGRAPHER STATES? since he is the primary source for this story?

The biographer isn't the primary source. Jesus, go read about what happened and then come back. As it stands now, I could get a better debate from my neighborhood kids. Their spelling would be better, as well.

I did: in fact, I am the one in this thread (if not part one), who just posted exactly what did happen. While you are a total ass, thankfully third parties will be able to read the truth.

By itself, it's not that important, although a presidential candidate lying for decades about an event that he claims was a turning point in his life does have some importance. It's very important, however, because of what it shows us about other things. As the first of the SwiftVets accusations to be proven, it demonstrates that they have some credibility, at least enough to warrant some sort of attention be given to their claims.The lack of fair coverage given to these claims by the mainstream media, even after the Cambodia story had been proven, demonstrates just how biased the media is in its coverage of this election. The behavior of the NYT, WaPo, LA Times and others in regards to this story have been nothing less than shameful. That's the really story here, one that came about because the Cambodia accusations proved true and the media still refused to cover them.

God,

Maybe the simple basics of journalism escape you:

The swiftboat vets have made many allegations. All of them have been investigated. They made their accusations in a variety of forms- their book and the TV ad. Obviously the book includes many more and more details than the ad. So the press has started trying to see the validity of each accusation independently. You say the Cambodia one has been proven-well, that assumes that someone gave it scrutiny, including the press. The issue, of course, and one you seem not to graps very well, is importance What was "proven"? That Kerry said he was sent by Nixon on Christmas 1968 into Cambodia, when according to the sources in all forms, he actually was sent into Cambodia about a month later (if one takes as you say all the available testimony into account). Of course, the last time Kerry made this story an issue was over a decade ago, so its not relevant to the current campaign-hence, for the current campaign, not important. The accusations about Kerry lying and manipulating his record to gain medals is relevant to the campaign, since this is what Kerry is using in his campaign. Hence, examining the validity of those claims is much more worthy of ink and space than the "cambodia story". And opposite to your rants and raves, the press is covering their assertions, and as the NYTimes piece shows, those assertions about the medals are full of holes.

So the press is giving the accusations of the swiftboat vets a thorough examination- too bad for you those medal allegations turn out to be contradicted not only by previous statements by some of these men, but by the public record.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus, why do I even bother?

All of them have been investigated.

Incorrect.

You say the Cambodia one has been proven-well, that assumes that someone gave it scrutiny, including the press.

Incorrect.

when according to the sources in all forms, he actually was sent into Cambodia about a month later

Incorrect.

Of course, the last time Kerry made this story an issue was over a decade ago

Incorrect.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Jesus, why do I even bother?

Actually that's what I want to know. I keep poping in here because the thread is popular, but I have no idea why? What the hell is the big deal?

[GePap]

You don't try. You post **** and then act like an ass when you are proven wrong. That, or you are trully so blind to the obvious you can;t see anything.

But do leave, the debate was much better without you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Incorrect.

Which ones have not been investigated?

when according to the sources in all forms, he actually was sent into Cambodia about a month later

Incorrect.

Do you have a link to where you get yourt allegations? Cause I already provided one.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It pertains as to why they thought going on his war record would be a good idea. Frankly, when leading Senate Repugs line up to defend Kerry against these SBV guys, inculding one who headed Nixon's investigation into Kerry, I suspect that they thought it was a good idea because they didn't expect a smeer campaign based on lies.

I do wonder why Kerry thought it was a good idea to take the issue on directly, rather than counter with a whispering campaign of his own.

Because he's already played his "whispering campaign".

This is more a case of "right back atcha".

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


And the funny thing is, if you read the NYTimes piece:

I cant read it since I dont feel like signing up for any more spam.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


At least I need not stoop to your level to prove you wrong. Really sad Drake, really sad.

I can't go searching for the evidence, obviously. That's why it pisses me off that the investigative journalists in the mainstream media (whose job it is to look into things like this) are ignoring the charges of the Swift Boat Vets because of their partisan support for Kerry. A large group of veterans are making serious charges against a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One of these charges has already been proven accurate through the work of amateur journalists in the blogosphere. A big thumbs-up to the bloggers, but I'd still prefer it if the reporters in the mainstream media would do their ****ing job and actually investigate this issue. Luckily, it doesn't seem to be going away as they wanted, so maybe they'll be forced to actually deal with this issue sometime in the future. Most people aren't partisan morons like you who will accept articles like today's piece in the NYT as responsible journalism, so they're going to have to actually deal with the issue fairly at some point. I hope so, at least...

Maybe you don't get it- but obviously you are a simple person, so lets take it simply, and lets use the NYT piece you criticize to show you why you are wrong.

These vets claims that there was no enemy fire during the missions in which Kerry won medals. This group makes this charge, and provides as proof statements from its members. OK, so how does one investigate that?

Well, a good investigator first gets the stories from everyone: the SBV provide one set of stories- Kerry and his supporters provide another set of statements. But all of these are statements 30 years after the facts, AND contradictory as well (one set says there was no fire, the other that there was). So, given two sets of contardictory statements about events 30 years before, you seek better evidence, specially any evidence contemporanous with the events in question. What we have then are the official navy records, navy logs, incident reports, and all other public records which the papers, including the NYT's, have checked.

And lo and behold- the offical navy records of the time one by one back up Kerry's comments. So, given two sets of contradictory statements, the tie breaker is the more solid evidence from the very period. And that evidence backs Kerry.

So tell us oh Drakie poo, just how are "reponsible investigative reporters" supposed to check? Besides THE OFFICAL NAVY RECORDS, what magical stash of information is there to tap, huh?

Please, so tell.

To save time do you have a link where someone has posted the official records i.e. not the edited bull**** on the Kerry/Edwards website.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by GePap
And Veterans are a small part of the voting public, and far less important than say women or minorities for Kerry - he should be spending his time and money ensuring maximum hispanic and black voter turnout than worrying about keeping what has always been a highly republican field like veterans.

This race looks like it will be real close. Kerry wanted the votes of vets (he almost got my dad's vote for example) and he may need it to win. If he would have just left Vietnam alone he could have won alot of vets because they themselves are divided on Vietnam. Most just want to forget it. Even when I was helping to fight the Vietnam War I really didn't think I was fighting some great cause so I personally could not care less if Kerry opposed the war and made an issue of it.

What irritates vets is the fact that he uses them as if they were pawns just like he did 30 years ago to make a name for himself when opposition to the war was popular in states like Mass. He used them just like he is now in his run for President. He opened up wounds and now he is paying the price for his opportunism at the expense of others. This may very well cost him the election.

[Ming]

Drake Tungsten and GePap...

Would you two just

CHILL

Enough with the personal insults... get civil or get restricted!