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

[Drake Tungsten]

Now he's got to spend money during a period where he wasn't planning on spending money in order to counter these charges and for a small number of votes.

I don't think he's fighting only for a small number of votes. Independents are also responding to the SwiftVet ads, not just veterans, so Kerry is fighting for a large number of crucial votes. Independents aren't going to vote for someone they think is lying about the military service he based his campaign around.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

To summerize your entire case:

Bloggers have been able to show that Kerry's Cambodia statement, which IIUC were made in the Senate in 1986, do not match the mission logs the public can get their hands on, and thus this claim made by him is very likely not true.

That's incorrect. The bloggers didn't use mission logs to prove that Kerry was lying, since they can't get their hands on the logs. They used the testimony of other vets and Kerry's own diary, two sources I suggested the mainstream media might use (and sources you claimed were worthless or not available for use).

1. If your claims about the Cambodia claim being proven correct are based simply on testimony that can;t be corraborated in another way, then your definition of proof is pretty sad.

2. Much more importantly- were the **** did bloggers get a hold of John Kerry's private diary? And if they have their hands on it, why arent the national review and the washington times, both of which have more than enough resources, right on it? Unless you plan to accuse them of a pro-Kerry bias?

No wonder your making an ass out of yourself; you don't understand my arguments because you don't have even a basic understanding of the facts, as usual. I don't need to waste my time being berated by you, only to find out that you don't have the first damn clue what you were talking about. Now, run along and educate yourself. I'm trying to discuss this issue with intelligent posters.

You so cute when you get PZZNWED

[DanS]

Drake: The number of "winnable" votes on this issue for Kerry is very, very small. On this terrain, it's only a question of how many votes he loses. This will kill him, if he doesn't defend himself and spend tons of dough, but on the other hand gains him nothing substantial for his efforts, other than the survival of his candidacy.

[Drake Tungsten]

1. If your claims about the Cambodia claim being proven correct are based simply on testimony that can;t be corraborated in another way, then your definition of proof is pretty sad.

If everyone involved says Kerry wasn't in Cambodia, including Kerry himself in his diary and via his campaign spokesman, that doesn't corroborate the accusation? My god, you really are a loon...

Much more importantly- were the **** did bloggers get a hold of John Kerry's private diary?

Kerry was nice enough to publish excerpts from his diary in his fawning biography. Unfortunately for him, this allowed the entry that shows he wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 to get out. Makes you wonder what other Kerry lies might be revealed if some intrepid reporter could get a hold of the entire diary, doesn't it?

BTW, way to once again demonstrate your unparelleled grasp of the facts involved in this issue.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake: The number of "winnable" votes on this issue for Kerry is very, very small. On this terrain, it's only a question of how many votes he loses.

I agree with you on that. I'm just saying that the number of votes he is in danger of losing are very high.

[GePap]

Since you think so highly of blogs:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004505.php

KERRY IN CAMBODIA....Instapundit links today to a piece in the Telegraph that quotes John Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley about the "Christmas in Cambodia" kerfuffle:

"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

....He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

"He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

So let me get this straight. Kerry did go to Cambodia — even though that was supposedly impossible, he did take CIA guys in — even though that was supposedly absurd, and he did get a hat from one of them — even though that was supposedly a sign of mental instability. The extent of Kerry's malfeasance is that instead of doing it in December, he actually did it in January and February.

Considering that he's mentioned this story only twice, most recently 18 years ago, and it turns out that his only crime is to have tarted it up with a bit of holiday pathos, I think I'll pass on following it any further down the Swift Vets rabbit hole. But thanks to everyone who displayed their deep unseriousness about this election by participating in this smear. It will be remembered.

So, this "diary access" you speak of is the access his own biographer had. If you note, the biographer is mentioned repeatedly in the NYTimes piece.

Yes, I wonder whic great lies....

[Ned]

GePap, who was president Dec. 25, 1968? Johnson. Kerry's Cambodia story has Nixon ordering him into Cambodia. He even says "president Nixon."

?

Now, GePap, what do you think about this?

[GePap]

And another link showing the press is more than aware of this, and has done all the homework needed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/13/ixworld.html

But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.

Given that your Hero the Gipper once claimed (while president even) that he had been to Nicaragua, when in fact he never once had been there, I fail to see how an equal "mistake" on Kerry's part all of a sudden makes him "a liar". Unless you think Reagan a great liar as well?

And, of course, this kerkuffle has 0 to do with the more serious claims about messing with the medal awards.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, this "diary access" you speak of is the access his own biographer had.

No ****, Sherlock. Anyone who has been following the story with even a passing interest knew this weeks ago. Why are you arguing with me about an issue you clearly know nothing about? Are you a glutton for punishment or what?

And another link showing the press is more than aware of this, and has done all the homework needed.

Jesus, I can't believe you're still defending this obviously false statement...

[Ned]

And, GePap, after seeing "Apocalypse Now," Kerry added that he ferried a CIA agent into Cambodia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, who was president Dec. 25, 1968? Johnson. Kerry's Cambodia story has Nixon ordering him into Cambodia. He even says "president Nixon."

?

Now, GePap, what do you think about this?

I think it is as relevant, as I said, as Reagan claiming when speaking about his Contra policy, that he had been to Nicaragua, which of course was utterly false.

In essence, a total non-issue.

More important are the claims made in the TV ad run by this org, and those ads are under serious and legitimate scrutiny, and their claims pretty weak.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

So, this "diary access" you speak of is the access his own biographer had.

No ****, Sherlock. Anyone who has been following the story with even a passing interest knew this weeks ago. Why are you arguing with me about an issue you clearly know nothing about? Are you a glutton for punishment or what?

And another link showing the press is more than aware of this, and has done all the homework needed.

Jesus, I can't believe you're still defending this obviously false statement...

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

As for "defending a false statement"

defending it?

So what if he was wrong? According to the biographer, again, the source of this, he did go into Cambodia and he did ferry CIA guys-his discrepancies being the dates he metioned (late december vs Late January).

I am supposed to think Kerry a liar becuase he decided to move an incident by one month to give it extra "punch"?

Anyone who votes on something that insignificant is a fool.

[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.

Anyone who votes on something that insignificant is a fool.

You don't seem to understand why the Cambodia story is significant. I'm not surprised.

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
The simple fact is that we are at war and we have to ask ourselves whether a public figure born of the anti-war protest movement is the right person to lead the charge.

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? As opposed to a guy who used political connections to get himself assigned to a unit which had zero chance of being stationed overseas?

[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. Franks and company kicked some serious ass.