"59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: "59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
By Bullrider7788 (Bullrider7788) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Hey, I stumbled upon this article by Dave Kopel which I though was pretty interesting. I haven't gotten around to reading most of it yet.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

BTW, David Kopel is a Ralph Nader supporter.

Have fun.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 06:37 pm: Edit

What a great link. Very interesting!

By Yugekorb (Yugekorb) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Ugh, such a long read...

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Yeah, I've read it. It's worth the long read.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Thanks for the post. There is a four page summary at the site that addresses distortions by Moore in his "documentary". What amazes me is that people spent money to see this propoganda. In past movies, Moore had taken speeches by one person given on separate occasions, spliced them together to make it appear that the person was making one speech. The speech makes no sense at all but of course makes Moore's outrageous point. All of this seems to escape the major media since Moore's view is consistent with their view of the world.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 08:53 pm: Edit

I read it 6-8 weeks ago. It's more restrained than Moore is, so it looks credible, but oddly enough, it has the same mixture of true, true but irrelevant, and true but with over-the-top insinuations that Moore uses.

F9/11 is best looked at as a 90-minute campaign commercial. In that light, it's a hell of a lot better than the Swift Boat ads.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Soft money has got to go. Enough said.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit

I also would like to say that none of this mess would be happening if the loony leftist hollywood machine (LLHM) did not attack Bush first through MoveOn. I don't feel sorry for Kerry. Did Kerry or the party honestly think there wouldn't be an organization that would do the same? For every thesis there is an antithesis (I got that from AP Government!)/For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (I got that from Physics!)

By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit

O bullfeathers.

The Bush Smear Machine hit John McCain in the run-up to the South Carolina primary in 2000 and the GOP ads morphed triple-amputee and decorated Vietnam vet Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden in the 2002 ads. The Bush Smear machine is business as usual for the GOP.

The Swift Boat ads represent a confluence of two factors: outraged Republican entitlement that a Democrat even try to stand on defense and military issues coupled with the mindless "dissent = treason" faction of some veterans...the same false issue is being raised today about Iraq.

In contrast, the MoveOn ads, while attack ads, aren't lies and fabrications. I've got to admit, I don't think anyone from either side anticipated the degree to which 527's would become significant players in the campaigns.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Well, the scope of my comment wasn't meant to be so general. I was trying to refer to the attacks on Bush's service (or lack thereof) during Vietnam. I don't like these organizations.

Everybody knows that the Swift Boat ads are a bunch of garbage pulled together by hundreds of people that served in Vietnam and one or two people that once crossed paths with Kerry.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

"MoveOn ads, while attack ads, aren't lies and fabrications."


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha HA!

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Didn't you know, Jlq3d3? Bush is Hitler!

/end sarcasm

Seriously, let's do an analogy:

Swift Boat Vets for Truth are to Republicans

as

MoveOn.org is to Democrats

Both are smear machines, so don't try to convince me that the Dems are squeaky clean. MoveOn did morph Bush into Hitler in numerous ads. I condemn what the Repubs did to McCain and Cleeland, but the Dems. are no better.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Echo Hunter.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Good job, Hunter, even if you are a Packer fan.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 09:30 am: Edit

Interesting how hollywood gives its best "documentary" award to F911. Last time I checked, a documentary was a "work presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner without editorializing or inserting fictional matter." I wasn't too surprised to see the Hollywood Left give this film top honors, even though they are whacko and nobody takes their views seriously.

By Kluge (Kluge) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Hunter, correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the Bush-morphed-to-Hitler was a **proposed** ad that somebody submitted as an entry in MoveOn's competition, which **didn't win**. Oddly, the Bush side got ahold of it and ran it as an attack ad against the Dems.

Round and round.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Vancat, you mean something like "Nanook of the North"?

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

"Oddly, the Bush side got ahold of it and ran it as an attack ad against the Dems"

=

Kerry/his supporters turning the Swift boat ad against the Republicans, same thing.

Yes, the Hitler ad wasn't chosen, but it wasn't entirely dismissed- it was in strong consideration.

All I am saying is both sides use smear tactics, you have to big the biggest moron in the world if you think either side is running a clean campaign. Both have their character assassins, both have their smear guys, etc. You are seriously naive if you think the Dems are running a positive/clean campaign. I support Bush/Republicans and I'll admit their using some low tactics, but the Dems are just as bad.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 03:29 am: Edit

Actually, they're not. No side is completely clean. But independent media analysts have broken down the ads and Bush's campaign is by *far* more negative. I suspect that if you Google creatively you can access the reports: about 75 percent of the Bush ads are negative, 25 percent of Kerry's. The difference is both quantitative and qualitative.

As for the Hitler ad, good taste prevailed...so you want to make an issue of that?

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 03:57 am: Edit

I neither like nor support either candidate (am voting libertarian), but I fail to see how Kerry's side is less "negative" than Bush's. While nothing Kerry has put on paid television advertising has come close to matching the ugliness of the Swift Vet ads, the Democrats have nonetheless harnessed the vitriol of Hollywood and pop culture to an astounding degree.

In other words, the Democrats can't claim the higher ground on the issue of negative campaigning. Both sides have merely let different groups do the dirty work for them.

By Bern700 (Bern700) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 04:08 am: Edit

well put purge. I have a problem with both the swiftboaters and hollywood. They are really just doing the dirty work for both candidates. However, I don't have a problem with Bush's official ads. In an election the point is to try to show the public why you are a better candidate than your opponent. In Bush's ads all he does is point out the things that would make Kerry a bad president. He points out Kerry's senate record and doesn't attack things such as vietnam. What's the problem in showing the public that your opponent claims one thing but in reality has done the complete opposite in the past.

I've been wondering this for a few months so if anybody voting for kerry could answer this for me. Ok, do you actually see Kerry as an uptanding, honest, and trustworthy man or are you just voting for him because you just want bush out and will vote for whoever runs even if it were Gene Simmons??? I've noticed this about many kerry followers that I have talked to. They really don't care who is in the white house just as long as it's not bush.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Bern, I have asked many Kerry supporters (neigbors, ppl at rallies...) basic questions about Kerry and about Bush. Most think that Kerry was and is against the war, and most repeat like indoctriated robots that Bush is a facist and a liar. It is very funny.

By the way, Gene Simmons is one of the few celebs who support Bush.

By Bern700 (Bern700) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 01:39 pm: Edit

haha i didn't know that, i was just trying to name some ridiculous person.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Interesting factoid, rocker Alice Cooper is also a big Bush supporter.

By Bern700 (Bern700) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit

i knew that one because he's my neighbor.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit

What's funny is that I've asked a few Bush supporters the same question and they've responded the same way.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Thedad, I have seen the claim from the independent media analysts, but I'll bet you a doughnut that they do not take into account all of the negative 527 ads that Kerry's hit squad is using. Kerry has this well orchestrated two-front attack utilizing the 527 smear merchants for the negative stuff so that he can portray himself as "positive" in his own ads. Then he gets all whiney about being attacked by a 527 group and tries to pin it on Bush. It's a very clever but all too transparent tactic. Unfortunately, the media laps it up.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

fahrenheit 9/11, swiftboat veterans, move on, all 527s, bush's war record (ha), and kerry's real war record aside . . .

kerry is still the better man for the job. i'm ready to try something new. the country's a mess, and whether or not anyone thinks W is the reason . . . he's doing nothing to improve the lives of the working and middle classes or the country's role in the world. i will be spending weekends in ohio this semester to volunteer for the kerry campaign. if bush loses ohio, he will most likely lose the election, and i want to do my part in making that happen.

by the way, where are bush's service records? oh yeah, they mysteriously disappeared from the pentagon.

and to those who compare move on to swiftboat veterans . . . o'neill of swiftboats has been after kerry since the 70's. he'll do anything to destroy him. move on was formed in response to W's policies and abuses in power.

kerry edwards 2004! no more rove.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 02:14 am: Edit

from THE NEW YORK TIMES

August 25, 2004

Cheney Stakes Out His Own Position on Gay Marriages
By ROBIN TONER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 -In a political season marked by Republican efforts to outlaw gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday offered a defense of the rights of gay Americans, declaring that "freedom means freedom for everyone" to enter "into any kind of relationship they want to."

Mr. Cheney said the issue was what kind of government recognition to give those relationships, and indicated that he preferred to let the states define what constitutes a marriage. In contrast, President Bushhas argued that a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is essential. Mr. Cheney noted that Mr. Bush sets policy for the administration.

In unusually personal remarks on the issue, delivered at a campaign forum in Davenport, Iowa, the vice president referred to his daughter, Mary, who is a lesbian, saying that he and his wife "have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with." He added, according to a transcript of his remarks, provided by the White House, "We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them."

He spoke on the same day that a draft version of the Republican platform was distributed to convention delegates that declared, "We strongly support President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage." The draft platform added, "Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges."

Gay rights advocates immediately accused the Bush administration of trying to have it both ways, reaching out to moderate voters one week before the party's convention in New York, after months of advocating a constitutional amendment that was a key goal of social conservatives.

"President Bush must be feeling the heat," Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, said in a statement.

"Millions of Republican families, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members and are offended by President Bush's efforts to put discrimination in the Constitution," Ms. Jacques said.

A leading group of social conservatives, the Family Research Council, indicated it was disappointed at the "mixed messages" from the administgation. Anne Womack, Mr. Cheney's campaign press secretary, said Mr. Cheney's position had not changed. "That's been his position for the past four years; his position has been completely consistent," Ms. Womack said. "The idea that he broke new ground or broke with the president today, people are just ignoring the reality of his statements over the past three and a half years."

Mr. Cheney emphasized: "The president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."

Mr. Bush, who endorsed a federal constitutional amendment in February, has argued that it was necessary to protect the traditional institution of heterosexual marriage from being redefined by activist courts.

The debate, however, has highlighted divisions within the Republican Party, between social conservatives seeking the amendment and more libertarian and states rights-oriented Republicans who believe marriage is a local issue. The amendment was soundly defeated by the Senate last month.

Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, had said at the time that the recognition of marriage should remain under state control.

Mr. Cheney's remarks, in response to a questioner in Davenport, restated the position he voiced four years ago in the vice-presidential debate, well before Massachusetts' highest court ruled last year that gay marriage was not prohibited under that state's Constitution. In 2000, he also declared "freedom means freedom for everybody." He noted Tuesday that the issue remained what kind of "official sanction, or approval, is going to be granted by the government, if you will, to particular relationships.''

"Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states," Mr. Cheney added."I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled."

But Mr. Cheney noted that the president believed a recent round of court decisions, notably in Massachusetts, "were making the judgment or decision for the entire country," and had thus embraced a constitutional amendment.

The vice president also argued that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton "may be sufficient to resolve the issue." That measure holds that no state is obligated to recognize a gay marriage from another state.

Mr. Cheney has been asked about this issue several times this year, and has generally given succinct answers. The issue has roiled politics for much of this year, but most politicians have treated it carefully. Asked to respond to Mr. Cheney's Tuesday comments, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign said, "We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that it should be decided by the states, and we do not support a constitutional amendment. That's where Kerry's always been."

By Annakat (Annakat) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 02:18 am: Edit

and for all of you who hate "hollywood", as if it's this monolithic entity of evil . . . put your money where your mouth is. stop going to the movies, stop watching tv shows, stop buying and playing their video games. read books and newspapers.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit

"Monolithic entity of evil" is pretty harsh for anything, but I stopped going to the movies years ago.

I don't have a TV.

By Songman (Songman) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit

MoveOn ads, while attack ads, aren't lies and fabrications."


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha HA! Ditto!

Watch the end of the movie called "Network" 1973? In my opinion, this is how the world really operates. As matter of fact rent and watch the entire movie if you can. It is so timely it is scary .

I do not trust either party. This is all nonsense to me designed to keep people below the surface arguing over silly topics that will never be solved: gay marriage,abortion,wars,immigration,deficits,military records......jeez when will someone actually do something to create positive change?

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Don't even let me start on the New York Times.

By Songman (Songman) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

A quote from La Jolla Economics this morning:

" How much of a winning candidate's vision gets implemented after the November election in the next administration depends on the candidate's margin of victory and the composition of the next congress".

In other words more of the same!

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Fundingfather, you and the Bush campaign are very slick in trying to sidestep the content of the Swifties' ad vs. the 527 funding source. You got a complaint about a specific ad? Make a complaint about a specific ad, not the funding source. I'll go toe to toe with you in such a discussion and might even agree with you on some specific ads. Don't faint.

However, the Swiftie ad is the point of contention, not its funding source. Those whose statements are in, the contradictions between the ad statements and either established fact and/or previous statements from the same people, and the lie of the statement that they're non-partisan and independent are the focus of discussion. O'Neill, for instance, was first hired to attack Kerry by the Nixon administration, has voted in every Republican primary for years, is a significant Republican donor in Texas, etc....hardly non-partisan or independent. See also, the backgrounds of the main funders, Perry and Crow.

======

Meanwhile, a response that I had written to you in the previous thread before it was closed:

1)Do you approve of the smear tactics funded by $60 Million (100 to 1) against Bush?

The question is null. Note the shift of semantics from "negative" to "smear."

Fwiw, independent media analysts have said that Bush's campaign ads through sometime in early July were 75 percent negative, 25 percent negative.

I can understand the GOP's frustration with the MoveOn ads: they focus on issues instead of attacking people and they demonstrate the bankruptcy of Bush's policies.

2) Do you think Kerry should have the courage to ask that these ads be withdrawn?

Another null question. The wording is slickly framed as it being a question of courage, which is bs. The MoveOn ads are certainly harsh but they aren't lies and fabrications. Comparing the MoveOn ads to the Swift Boat ads, using a construct that they're both negative ads run by 527's and are therefore equivalent, is a nice debate technique but is fradulent.

3) Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell Michael Moore and Terry McAuliffe that George Bush was not a deserter or AWOL? Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell Al Gore that Bush did not betray his country? Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell his wife to stop impugning the patriotism of Bush and Cheney? Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell Whoopie and others that out of respect for the office of the President that they should not lower themselves to such gutter talk?

3. Interesting wording, another slick attempt at re-framing. Bush certainly wasn't a deserter by most reasonable understandings of the word. But not so fast on linking it to the AWOL charge, which is certainly still open to dispute.

In contrast to Kerry, no one has surfaced who remembers serving with Bush during the period he was allegedly serving in Alabama prior to receiving a discharge due to said service being inconvenient with his plans to attend business school...and I pause to wonder how many people serving in the NG today find it inconvenient with their plans. And then there's Dick Cheney, who didn't serve because he "had other priorities."

As for "respect", how dare you! Comparing the responses on everything from Harken Energy to malfeasance with respect to Iraq, the critics of Bush have been quite restrained in comparison to the witchhunt launched by the Republicans against Bill Clinton on Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky; in the former case nothing was there, despite the incredible pressure on Susan McDougal by Ken Starr to perjure herself in the former and the relative non-consequence in the latter. What sanctimonious hypocricy. Don't talk to me about respect for the presidency as a defense of Bush, he's gotten for more than the Republicans gave Clinton or are giving Kerry.

But, yeah, I'd talk about the ads and personalities, too, if I had Bush's record to defend. And I regarding Iraq, terrorism, and the attacks on Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief, I'd wave my hands and strive mightily to ignore the words on the subject by current CENTCOM Franks, former CENTCOM Zinni, Merril McPeak (AF chief of staff during the first Gulf War), former JCS Gen. Shalikashvili, former CoS of the Army Shinseki, McCain and even normally pro-GOP veterans/columnists like Col. David Hackworth and Joe Galloway.

Go ahead and take your punches. We'll take them and give them back. We're coming.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Fundingfather, you and the Bush campaign are very slick in trying to sidestep the content of the Swifties' ad vs. the 527 funding source. You got a complaint about a specific ad? Make a complaint about a specific ad, not the funding source. I'll go toe to toe with you in such a discussion and might even agree with you on some specific ads. Don't faint.

However, the Swiftie ad is the point of contention, not its funding source. Those whose statements are in, the contradictions between the ad statements and either established fact and/or previous statements from the same people, and the lie of the statement that they're non-partisan and independent are the focus of discussion. O'Neill, for instance, was first hired to attack Kerry by the Nixon administration, has voted in every Republican primary for years, is a significant Republican donor in Texas, etc....hardly non-partisan or independent. See also, the backgrounds of the main funders, Perry and Crow.

======

Meanwhile, a response that I had written to you in the previous thread before it was closed:

1)Do you approve of the smear tactics funded by $60 Million (100 to 1) against Bush?

The question is null. Note the shift of semantics from "negative" to "smear."

Fwiw, independent media analysts have said that Bush's campaign ads through sometime in early July were 75 percent negative, 25 percent negative.

I can understand the GOP's frustration with the MoveOn ads: they focus on issues instead of attacking people and they demonstrate the bankruptcy of Bush's policies.

2) Do you think Kerry should have the courage to ask that these ads be withdrawn?

Another null question. The wording is slickly framed as it being a question of courage, which is bs. The MoveOn ads are certainly harsh but they aren't lies and fabrications. Comparing the MoveOn ads to the Swift Boat ads, using a construct that they're both negative ads run by 527's and are therefore equivalent, is a nice debate technique but is fradulent.

3) Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell Michael Moore and Terry McAuliffe that George Bush was not a deserter or AWOL? Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell Al Gore that Bush did not betray his country? Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell his wife to stop impugning the patriotism of Bush and Cheney? Do you think that Kerry should have the courage to tell Whoopie and others that out of respect for the office of the President that they should not lower themselves to such gutter talk?

Interesting wording, another slick attempt at re-framing. Bush certainly wasn't a deserter by most reasonable understandings of the word. But not so fast on linking it to the AWOL charge, which is certainly still open to dispute.

In contrast to Kerry, no one has surfaced who remembers serving with Bush during the period he was allegedly serving in Alabama prior to receiving a discharge due to said service being inconvenient with his plans to attend business school...and I pause to wonder how many people serving in the NG today find it inconvenient with their plans. And then there's Dick Cheney, who didn't serve because he "had other priorities."

As for "respect", how dare you! Comparing the responses on everything from Harken Energy to malfeasance with respect to Iraq, the critics of Bush have been quite restrained in comparison to the witchhunt launched by the Republicans against Bill Clinton on Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky; in the former case nothing was there, despite the incredible pressure on Susan McDougal by Ken Starr to perjure herself in the former and the relative non-consequence in the latter. What sanctimonious hypocricy. Don't talk to me about respect for the presidency as a defense of Bush, he's gotten for more than the Republicans gave Clinton or are giving Kerry.

But, yeah, I'd talk about the ads and personalities, too, if I had Bush's record to defend. And regarding Iraq, terrorism, and the attacks on Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief, I'd wave my hands and strive mightily to ignore the words on the subject by current CENTCOM Franks, former CENTCOM Zinni, Merril McPeak (AF chief of staff during the first Gulf War), former JCS Gen. Shalikashvili, former CoS of the Army Shinseki, McCain and even normally pro-GOP veterans/columnists like Col. David Hackworth and Joe Galloway.

Go ahead and take your punches. We'll take them and give them back. We're coming.

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Right on

By Annakat (Annakat) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

kerry edwards 2004.

just a better choice.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:12 am: Edit

"trying to sidestep the content of the Swifties' ad vs. the 527 funding source." ... "However, the Swiftie ad is the point of contention, not its funding source." I guess you haven't been paying much attention to what your party has been saying. The source of the funding has been their first and foremost weapon used to discredit the ads.

You paint their story as "lies" but yet do not point to specifics. If you come from the fact that everything that is written in naval documents is gospel, then there certainly are contradictions between the two stories. However, if you introduce other "facts", including Kerry's own journals, then things get to be a lot more open to debate and to automatically label the swift boat vetereans as liars is not being fair to other decorated war heroes.

Changing stories? I would say that the changes in stories are to those of Kerry's story:

- they can't make up their mind whether he was in Cambodia on Christnas Eve as was so "seered" into Kerry's mind or not

- The "no man left behind story from the convention of a few weeks ago has now been changed to be more consistent with the Swift boat vets - indeed Kerry did flee the scene while the other boats stayed to help the boat that was mined

- Now they are not quite so sure that his first purple heart was warranted due to lack of any evidence of enemy fire (and that darned Kerry journal which is inconsistent with those inerrant naval records).

- Forget the official records, lets follow the lead of CSI and do a bit of forensic work. The lack of bullet holes to Kerry's boat (in the bronze medal incident) despite the "withering fire" as reported by Kerry seems to be more consistent with what the swifties are saying. How is it that not a single person in 5 boats received a bullet wound - even as they spent 90 minutes lashing the crippled boat to tow it away. If the VC were that bad at marksmanship, how did we ever lose that war?

- funny that the shrapnel that is in Kerry's butt (according to Kerry from a second mine, thus laying the groundwork for a third purple heart and a get out of Vietnam free card) would have had to go through the hull of Kerry's boat to hit him, but miraculously there was no hole in the hull. Interesting, don't you think?

- Oh, and then there was the sampan incident where official naval records (as filed by Kerry) show that he attacked a sampan and killed a bunch of Viet Cong. Unfortunately, his own journal and the testimony of his gunner shows that the sampan was only occupied by a Vietnamese family with a small child - all killed. So much for the accuracy of official naval records.

- Oh, with respect to the records, why doesn't Kerry sign the form to allow full release of ALL of his records? Why doesn't he make his full journal public? You know darned well that if a Republican tried to hide his records like this you would be all over him.

Who knows which party is telling the truth. However, to automatically assume that the Swifties are telling scurrilous lies in the face of these unanswered questions and proven inconsistencies/changes to the Kerry story is itself scandalous.

Nice try at trying to pin it on O'Neil. First, he was not "hired" by Nixon; he sought Nixon out after seeing Kerry give testimony about atrocities that were committed by his fellow swift boat people that he had good reeason to know were not true. He paid his own way to appear on the Dick Cavett show to debate Kerry. In the current debate, he is acting as the author, recounting the stories of 60 swifties who have first hand experience about what happened. Are all 60 of them liars?

If Kerry is convinced that they are liars, why doesn't he have the gonads to challenge O'Neil to a second debate. You claim that he "cleaned his clock" the first time around, so he shouldn't be afraid of anything. Should he? What better way would there be to reaffirm his hero status than in front of a huge national television audience - likely a bigger audience than he will have in the presidential debates. My money would be on O'Neil.

I agree that this whole story of what happened or didn't happen 35 years ago is bogus and should not be part of a presidential campaign ... EXCEPT Kerry made it an issue. Not just an issue but a central issue to his campaign. If Kerry had never mentioned his Vietnam service or mentioned it as as just a peripheral part of his overall biography, I think most would agree that the swifties would have been out of place by trying to reintroduce these charges. But, given that he did make it a central part of his campaign, he should be man enough to face those who's names he tarnished with his allegations. Instead he is trying to stifle their first amendment rights.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:44 am: Edit

a bit of clarification, I do believe one of the swift boats (possibly Kerry's) DID have bullet holes. Though there were only 3 found in the after action damage report, and does not necessarily mean that Kerry's boat was under fire or had suffered hits during that operation.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit

No, it was Thurlow's boat, not Kerry's. Thurlow maintained that they were from a previous incident. Even if it was from that incident, Thurlow's boat was quite distant from Kerry's at the time since he had stopped to help the number 3 boat. Kerry was up river (and on the opposite side of the river) from there after fleeing and subsequently returning to pick up Rassman. If Kerry's boat was under the withering fire that he recorded, why were there no holes on HIS boat?

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit

The Swifties are #1 on the NY Times best-seller list, I don't agree with their position, but it's nice to say to the NYT: You were pwn'd! I think we have a bit of F911 syndrome going, this time in the opposite direction. Two pieces of slanderous, bias, lies made popular by the side opposed to them harping on it.

I'm going to say this once and for all: Bush/Kerry, please shut the •••• up about Vietnam. As Bill Maher said (although about Japanese internment relating to profiling), "it was a long time ago, and nobody really gives a •••• ." Not to degrade anyone's service, I want to make that clear, I am speaking about how the Vietnam war somehow affects today's election more than the economy, Iraq, etc. Both candidates seem to want to talk about nothing else. Kerry wants to run on the "I'm a purple heart winner, and yes it's true I won it thrice" ;) platform (seriously, watch his Convention acceptence speech) . Now the swifties, let's get to some real issues. I do not see military service as a requirement for President, nor do I see it as an automatic Presidential victory, but I see it as part of the whole "why I should be President picture", part, not all of it- sort of "extra credit". There is a difference from learning from the past, and living in the past.

Thedad, I know any argument I give will be interpreted as some "slick Republican ploy", but I think if you would step back from both parties, you'll see that, frankly, they're both asses regarding campaigning. Yes, you might not see MoveOn.org as a smear organization, but Bush supporters (like myself) do, the same way that Dems view the swifties. It's the nature of being partisan.

You are not going to convince me that either candidate is a "bad" person, nor will you, via the internet, convince me that either is wrong, because it should all come down to personal circumstances. Don't vote against Bush because his campaign is negative, vote against him because you don't like his stance on tax cuts and how they'll affect your family. Don't vote against Kerry because he may have feigned an injury to get a purple heart, vote against him because he looks like Herman Munster...I mean, because his educational plan is the most ridiculous piece of crap you've ever seen :) . Finally, whomever wins, cut the fricken' bitterness, take your lumps, (if you can) shake his hand, and say "Congrats Mr. President" and remember that your party probably won Congress- so the govt. will be deadlocked for at least another 2 years.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

thanks for the clarification Fundingfather

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit

This is weird. I agree with Hunter ...

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Hunter - I tend to agree with you except that I think you have over-stated the Bush campaign's role in the Vietnam thing. They have been very consistant and on-message in acknowledging that Kerry's record should not be questioned. The only time they bring up Vietnam is in response to a question from reporters regarding the Swiftie claims. I'm sure that they would much rather focus on Kerry's record as a senator.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Craigk10 agrees with me? VICTORY IS MINE!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Oh, except for the bitterness part. I'll be bitter no matter who wins.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

It is hard for the kerry campaign not to focus on Vietnam when his almost his entire speech was based on it instead of his senate record. Also, every campaign stop he goes to has pre arranged vets and or generals there to pose with him. I am not a fan of 527s, but kerry cannot base his campaign on his service and then try to silence those who say his service was not as honorable as a few people claim.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I do agree with you there Jlq. I went to a Kerry rally and was pleased with some of the things he wanted to do (which is good because I am relatively hard to convince and I had been standing in 90 degree heat for over 3 hours). Still, the Vietnam thing was overblown. The rally was on the waterfront and he talked about it so much I thought the next step was to re-enact it. He really did ask for it (though it still doesn't make it right).

Still, I would really respect Bush if he does do something to reform 527s especially if McCain is involved as he's one of the few politicians I trust.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page