John Kerry the Braggart: Unfit For Command, Part 4

[Guardian]

Okay, so Kerry got himself into a nice little mess with this whole Vietnam thing. That was kind of stupid, I agree.

But I don't see how this makes Bush any better.
He was arrested for drunk driving - and lied about it because he was "worried about setting a bad example for his daughters".

Yeah, right.

You're a SO much better example when you're caught lying about it and then have to admit what you've done.

[Berzerker]

I don't think so.

Dole and Stevens are both war heroes, and were never in the Klan.

The Klan? You mis-understand their connection to Byrd, they're (or were) among the biggest porkbarrellers in Congress. Sorry, I'm not so much into hero worship that I can overlook what they became in Congress... just a couple of politicians using my money to get elected.

[Berzerker]

You're a SO much better example when you're caught lying about it and then have to admit what you've done.

That was the excuse he used during the N.H. primary when he refused to acknowledge that he used illegal drugs - he said answering that question would send the wrong message to children.

[Lincoln]

Dole didn't brag about his war service, and a draft dodger won the election. Kerry evidently thinks that he can brag about his record in Vietnam and win this election. Kerry made a big mistake by trashing fellow vets though. I heard today that he pulled the ad with McCain rebuking Bush because he was using McCain without his permission to trash Bush. I guess he forgot that McCain supports Bush and campaigns on his behalf. Kerry is about Kerry.

[Patroklos]

If it works fir Ted K.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ogie -

I don't read it that way, it tells me O'Neill worked on the border and ventured into Cambodia on occasion. As for definitiveness, both men said they were in Cambodia. One now says he was never in Cambodia and accuses the other of lying. That's just bizarre to me...

You don't I do.

What was O'Neill's motive for claiming to have been in Cambodia? We were in Cambodia, so wasn't that illegal?

In my opinion to say exactly that we weren't illegally in Cambodia. He chose poor phrasing to do so. By him saying he was in Camboida, on the border, he was attempting to implay he had knowledge of what forces were or more improtantly were not going into Cambodia. (Give the Nixon stooge his props in attempting to not submarine Nixons efforts.)

Kerry called to negotiate a peace treaty with these guys? Is there a transcript of the conversation? I got the impression Kerry asked the guy why he was doing this, that isn't coordinating. Coordinating means substantial assistance, not inquiries into motive.

It was posted earlier on Drudge. Regardless of it being an overt attempt at reconciliation or not, direct contact allows the candidate a window into the operations and motives of the 527 and therefor IMO should be a no-no.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Seems like a good idea, but it doesn't really work that way, does it? It's hardly the case that the general public will discover for themselves that you're a great guy if you're subtle and laid back about it. You have to be explicit about it.

(as a paranthesis I'd say that it's particulary true in the US. Having meet a couple of americans that have moved here, they do not understand how the way they talk about themselves is percieved in a culture boasting about yourself is a deadly, secular, sin.)

This is a very good point. I have known people in my time who do nothing but talk about themselves in almost any conversation. Besides being boring as hell, such behavior to me finds its source in psychological problems.

[Ned]

In the recent polls, IIRC, only around 30% think Kerry is honest about Vietnam. The rest think he exaggerated or lied.

The Swiftvets have made their point. Should they back off now or continue to hammer Kerry?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
The Swiftvets have made their point. Should they back off now or continue to hammer Kerry?

This in no way implies that I agree with them, or think that we don't need campaign reform... but to answer your question...

If they were smart, they would back off for now. Their point has been made, and the Republican Convention should be allowed to take center stage.

However, they should then start up again a few weeks before the election, and attack aggressively. This will help distract Kerry at a key point, and might move some of the undecided away from him. It will allow them to concentrate their limited funds in a short time frame for maximum effect.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ming


This in no way implies that I agree with them, or think that we don't need campaign reform... but to answer your question...

If they were smart, they would back off for now. Their point has been made, and the Republican Convention should be allowed to take center stage.

However, they should then start up again a few weeks before the election, and attack aggressively. This will help distract Kerry at a key point, and might move some of the undecided away from him. It will allow them to concentrate their limited funds in a short time frame for maximum effect.

That would imply cooridinated effort between team Bush and the 527.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

That would imply cooridinated effort between team Bush and the 527.

Not really... it would just imply smart thinking on their part.

Just because the Swiftvets have the same objective as Bush (Keeping Kerry out of the white house) it doesn't mean that it is a cooridinated effort or that the Bush and his cronies are directing their actions.

As a seasoned media professional, that's what I would recommend if they came to me for advice

[DanS]

President Bush is going to go out and rebut this, for the most part, with paid advertising. He doesn’t have “The New York Times” every day. if you added up the value of all “The New York Times” propaganda, it would probably be $3 or $4 million.

Bob Dole is a master of damning with feint praise.

[Arrian]

No, Bob, he doesn't have the NYT. He has Faux News, though.

-Arrian

[spartak]

Originally posted by notyoueither


3 quatloos on 20.

Don't you mean qweegles?

[GePap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/politics/campaign/27bush.html?hp

Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam
By DAVID E. SANGER and ELISABETH BUMILLER

Published: August 27, 2004

FARMINGTON, N.M., Aug. 26 - President Bush said on Thursday that he did not believe Senator John Kerry lied about his war record, but he declined to condemn the television commercial paid for by a veterans group alleging that Mr. Kerry came by his war medals dishonestly.

Mr. Bush's comments, in a half-hour interview with The New York Times, undercut a central accusation leveled by the veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose unproven attacks on Mr. Kerry have dominated the political debate for more than two weeks.

In the interview, which included topics like preparations for the Republican National Convention, the reconstruction of Iraq and the twin nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran, Mr. Bush portrayed himself as a victim of the same type of political interest groups - called 527 committees for the section of the tax code that created them - that are attacking Mr. Kerry.

"I understand how Senator Kerry feels - I've been attacked by 527's too,'' he said, adding that he had spoken earlier in the day to Senator John McCain and had agreed to join him in a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission to bar the groups.

Mr. Bush also acknowledged for the first time that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be'' in postwar Iraq. But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency that has upended the administration's plans for the country was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory'' against Saddam Hussein's military, which fled and then disappeared into the cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against the American forces far faster than Mr. Bush and his aides had anticipated.

He insisted that his strategy had been "flexible enough'' to respond, and said that even now "we're adjusting to our conditions'' in places like Najaf, where American forces have been battling one of the most militant of the Shiite groups opposing the American-installed government.

Mr. Bush deflected efforts to inquire further into what went wrong with the occupation, suggesting that such questions should be left to historians, and insisting, as his father used to, that he would resist going "on the couch'' to rethink decisions.

On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.

The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."

Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's press secretary, said later that the administration was not changing its position on global warming and that Mr. Bush continued to be guided by continuing research at the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. Bush conducted the interview in an unusual setting: A cinderblock dressing room, outfitted with a conference table and leather reclining chairs, accessible only by walking through a men's room underneath a small stadium here, where he appeared for a campaign rally. The president was joined by one of his closest advisers, Karen P. Hughes, who is now traveling with him; the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice; former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who was introducing him at rallies across the state; and his press secretary, Scott McClellan.

In the interview and at three rallies across the state, Mr. Bush appeared relaxed in an open-collared shirt with his shirtsleeves rolled up. Aides said he was in a good mood because of recent polls that showed him gaining ground on Mr. Kerry after months of bad news in Iraq.

A poll conducted by The Los Angeles Times found that Mr. Bush was running ahead of Mr. Kerry for the first time this year and suggested that some of the erosion in Mr. Kerry's support could be linked to the attacks on his military service. But the Times poll and several others released on Thursday showed the race to be deadlocked, with neither candidate holding a lead beyond the margin of sampling error.

One senior political adviser to the president said the shift in Mr. Bush's favor was due to Mr. Kerry's statement two weeks ago that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known that the country currently possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

"It felt like he had finally made his position clear,'' Mr. Bush said in the interview, referring to Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry's argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.

He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by "tolerate.''

"I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea "'was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called "the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years.

Mr. Bush spoke on the first leg of a multistate tour in advance of the convention: He spends late Friday in Florida, Saturday on another bus trip through Ohio, and Sunday in West Virginia. All are considered crucial swing states.

Mr. Bush did not hesitate when asked about the central charge issued by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the veterans' group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's record in Vietnam. "I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Mr. Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied.''

But when pressed repeatedly if he would specifically denounce the advertisements, which Mr. Kerry has said were being run with the tacit approval of the Bush campaign, the president refused to condemn then. Instead, he said he would talk only of the "broader issue'' of the political committees that take to the airwaves with attack advertisements.

"Five twenty-sevens - I think these ought to be outlawed,'' he said. "I think they should have been outlawed a year ago. We have billionaires writing checks, large checks, to influence the outcome of the election.''