What's Kerry Hiding?

I think you may be right...that is what I'm scared of.

BLD

 

Re: The Bush Men always making up dirt

Of course, the "Swift Boat Men for Truth" do.

Having listened to one, Van Odell, for about one hour on Michael Medved, I'm prepared to agree that different people will come to different conclusions about wounds and their severity. The process ran its course and Kerry won his medals. Unlike Odell, I can't gainsay this.

But Odell was highly credible and serious; the man is humble and wears his knowledge and experience without guile.

Instead, what disturbed me was Kerry's calculation and deceit! We know from a Harvard Crimson story that Kerry opposed the war from before he went to Vietnam; we know that he wanted to be like JFK; we know that he went back to the areas of his exploits as a swift boat commander to film!

Thus, cold-premeditated political calculation is part of Kerry's character.

Next, Odell states that while serving 12 month - three times as long as Kerry - he neither saw, heard, or read about the atrocities Kerry alleged US military did before a Senate committee. So - did Kerry lie to serve his political calculus? While I have no doubt that My Lai and similar war-time atrocities did occur, it seems Kerry did lie about what he knew: despite his public charges of war crimes, nothing came of them.


If Kerry can't run on his record of service in the Senate, and if his exploits in Vietnam are tarnished by lies and calculation - tell me, what's left for Kerry to trumpet? We're in Clintonista country here, dudes: can you say "it's all about me!" narcissisism?

(Hmmm. Let me characature this year's presidential decision: a "smart" calculating narcissisist, or a bumbliing Bible believer - what a country!)

AND I do agree: the timing for this issue's release is counter-calculated to deflate the positives Kerry got out of the Dem's Boston Convention that the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll Tom Head cites above: c'est la guerre.

Contrary to Tom's argument that you'll always find some dissenters among a group of vets, the aggregate numbers loom far more ominously against Kerry: 13 Swift boat guys for Kerry, about 250 others against. (Based on http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes)

Import for the larger service public? "Thursday August 05, 2004--A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%..."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm


--Orson

 

Re: Re: The Bush Men always making up dirt

Well, yes, but none of the 250 recruited by O'Neill actually served on Kerry's boats. I mean, I'm sure Kerry could assemble a "Yale Skull and Bones Against Bush" team with a pretty impressive anti-Bush aggregate too, but what matters is what Bush's closest associates had to say about him.

As for the military difference: I think Bruce could attest to the fact that military folks tend to vote Republican. One poll taken shortly after the convention--I think it was Newsweek's--actually showed Kerry gaining ground among vets, though he's still no danger of passing Bush in that category.

As for Kerry's political nature: Agreed, but can you fault a young New England kid for wanting to be like JFK? He volunteered because he wanted his own PT-109; regardless of his feelings on the war, I don't think his objective coming in was to leave after four months and protest. He knew it would be years before he'd be a serious presidential candidate. And Bush was pretty politically ambitious early on, too--both candidates had unsuccessful runs at the House of Representatives during the '70s.

I think Kerry can run on Vietnam and his Senate record (the Kerry campaign has underplayed his impressive Senate record--no real signature legislation, but that's not what the Senate is usually about), but they're not going to get him elected. He should be running on ideas, not personal history, while at the same time seeming human and real. I think he's walking the tightrope pretty well, judging by the poll numbers.


Cheers,

 

Kerry's Commanding Officer Retracts Criticism

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/vet.kerry.reut/index.html

Excerpt:

Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: The Bush Men always making up dirt

Tom, his Senate record is pathetic. That's why he'll never discuss it unless he's forced to by a skillful debate moderator. I really hope that Tim Russert moderates at least one debate.

I don't like Ted Kennedy any more than Kerry, but at least Ted has accomplished many things on his own in the Senate, rather than simply jumping onto legislation as a co-sponsor to give the appearance of doing something.

 

Kerry's Cambodia claims: a credibility landmine!?

MORE credibility problems for Kerry emerge from the clash of SWIFT boat veteran-critics and the Senator's bio: John Kerry has for a long time, including during his Senate career, claimed that he was sent illegally into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. "Unfit To Command" quotes Kerry saying in the Senate on March 27, 1986:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and having the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared --seared-- in me."

But there were no Khmer Rouge then in eastern Cambodia - only in the west. And SWIFT boast were not used in border action at that time, either. The book also quotes Kerry telling the Boston Herald the same story:

_ "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Now apart from the fact that Nixon wasn't the president on Christmas Eve 1968, this tale doesn't show up in Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty." The new book concludes that "[d]espite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry's statements are complete lies._ Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War."_

If the book's conclusion is correct, and if it quotes Kerry correctly from the two sources, this is a major, major story, indicating that Kerry has lied in detail about a crucial part of his Vietnam biography._ Such a sweeping -- indeed, almost pathological-- lie would undermine Kerry's credibility on all other aspects of his memories and recountings of his Vietnam experience._ On the other hand, if the book's authors fabricated this section, the book's credibility is shot._ One or the other is true: Someone is lying --either Kerry's critics or Kerry.

If the authors of "Unfit for Command" are correct in reporting that Kerry has spoken of his illegal incursion into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 on the floor of the Senate in 1986, and in an interview with the Boston Herald -- and elsewhere? --then John Kerry has a huge, huge credibility problem._You don't "misremember" heading into Cambodia!

[Much of the above edited from www.hughhewitt.com]

--Orson

 

They played the audio of these exact statements on Michael Medved yesterday. Kerry most definitely made these statements, word for word as the new book quotes. He blatantly lied.

 

Elliot retracts retraction: Boston Globe lie for Kerry...

TURN'S OUT that the Boston Globe lied/spun - and Elliott has retracted the "retraction": http://drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement..."

SOMEHOW this news hasn't made it to CNN, not even FOX-News.

HOW did this happen!!!
Michael Kranish' Friday story headlined "Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry", told us that:

"a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a 'terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.


Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

In the tradition of Maureen Dowd, this may have been the most misleading ellipsis ever published. Kranish wrote a wildly deceptive and misleading story.
Let's restore the missing ellipsis (from the affidavit here http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html), starring the excerpted bits:

"When Kerry came back to the United States he **lied about what ocurred in Vietnam,** comparing his commanders to Lt. Calley of My Lai, comparing the American armed forces to the army of Ghengis Khan, and making similar misstatements. Kerry was also not forthright in Vietnam. **For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.**"

Obviously, Kerry's media allys are deliberately - and unconscionably - muddying the waters of an explosive story in the hope of defusing the powder keg.

--Orson
[Thanks to http:justoneminute.typepad.com "Kranish Is Cooked" for the links]

 

4 more years

lets hope W is re-elected!!!!!!

 

So-where was Kerry?

Kerry claims to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968. This is important to his argument about distrusting government: No one was supposed to be there - yet he knew he was! Or was he?

According to attorney John O'Neill, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth castigating Kerry, he was safely 50 miles inside the border of South Vietnam.
"Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly 'close' to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam."

"Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie."

 

Meanwhile, Boston Globe's Credibility is Sinking...

The Globe remains unrepetant about their lying. "Veteran claims misquote on Kerry; Globe stands by its story," reads the headline Saturday. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/07/veteran_claims_misquote_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story?mode=PF

"Globe Editor Martin Baron" aparently unfazed about inverting the plain meaning of statements in afivavits like the one above, "released a statement saying 'the Globe stands by the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate.'"

New York Times owned and still ethically challenged, The Boston Globe is also busy denying the conflict-of-interest of their reporter Michael Kranish authoring a recent Kerry biography -
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=zg6MHfp9zG&isbn=1586483145&itm=1
where Barnes & Noble STILL lists him -
and continuing to "report" (or is that DISTORT) stories on Kerry.

Blogger Charles Johnson (www.littlegreenfootballs.com) had linked to Kranish' authorship at Amazon.com days ago. Now alerted by a reader that this disclosure has subsuquently been erased, he writes: "after Kranish’s role was exposed, the listing for the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book at the Public Affairs bookstore was sanitized to remove all mention of Michael Kranish."

"And the listing at Amazon, to which we linked a few days ago when Kranish was featured prominently as the author of the book, has also had all mention of Kranish removed: Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World."

"So far they haven’t gotten to Barnes and Noble, where Kranish is still listed as the author. But if you want to see it, you’d better get over there fast." (I did; it's there as of this post.)

"Someone is trying to hide Kranish’s association with the Kerry campaign. And doing a very bad job of it."

THere's a lot of untruth out there, but you have to work pretty hard to ferredt it out sometimes. That's my lesson to you all.

Meanwhile, The Globe sticks to their lame propaganda, despite Kranish' name on the cover of the book! They claim that the book listings at Public Affairs and Amazon were in error, and that Michael Kranish has 'no connection' to the Kerry campaign.

And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya!

--Orson

 

Howie Carr, a columnist for the rival Boston Herald, calls the Globe "the boring broadsheet" and refers to the editorial staff as "the bow-tied bumkissers on Morrissey Boulevard".