Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3660/4700 EXP: 28679024 For next: 656057
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3159 days
| #1 Posted on 10.8.04 1059.26 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1100.43 | Kerry has claimed repeatedly that he spent the Christmas of 1968 in Cambodian territory, despite the denials of the President of the United States(never mind that more than once he has claimed Nixon to be that President, despite the fact that Nixon took office in January 1969).
But, looks like Kerry has been fished out again
Originally posted by Ian Bishop and Vincent Morris in the 8/10/04 NEw York Post John Kerry's claim that he was ordered to conduct an illegal combat mission in Cambodia on Christmas Day in 1968 is made up, Navy vets charge in a new book. The veterans say Kerry "would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there."
Three of the vets quoted in the book were part of the five-member crew that served on Kerry's own boat: Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch and Steve Gardner.
They deny they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. The other two crewmen declined to be interviewed for the book, "Unfit for Command," which raises questions about Kerry's military service.
Instapundit has a littany of links to Kerry's quotes and, conversely, the facts.
(edited by Grimis on 10.8.04 1200) Promote this thread! | | PalpatineW
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1165/1528 EXP: 5379460 For next: 52784
Since: 2.1.02 From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 6265 days Last activity: 6107 days
| #2 Posted on 10.8.04 1135.24 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1135.45 | Man, missed opportunity witht the thread title. | DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple Level: 119
Posts: 1605/3467 EXP: 18386196 For next: 543150
Since: 2.1.02 From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 128 days Last activity: 128 days
| #3 Posted on 10.8.04 1138.05 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1138.06 | Dont you ever get tired of scouring the internet everyday, looking for dirt on Kerry to post? Why dont we just stop fooling ourselves & re-name this folder the "Grimis Hates All Things Democrat, Especially John Kerry" folder?
Sheesh. | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3662/4700 EXP: 28679024 For next: 656057
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3159 days
| #4 Posted on 10.8.04 1150.33 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1151.28 | I don't hate all things Democrat. Just the fact that John Kerry is a compulsive liar and exaggerator, and generally the media has been giving him a free pass until they absolutely have to. | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit Moderator Level: 142
Posts: 2223/5284 EXP: 34593992 For next: 374523
Since: 2.1.02 From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1666 days Last activity: 1666 days
| #5 Posted on 10.8.04 1240.05 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1240.24 | Originally posted by Grimis I don't hate all things Democrat. Just the fact that John Kerry is a compulsive liar and exaggerator, and generally the media has been giving him a free pass until they absolutely have to.
Wars started by Kerry with madeup info on WMD: 0 Wars started by Bush with madeup info on WMD: 1
Sounds like you hate the wrong compulsive liar and exaggerator.
| Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3665/4700 EXP: 28679024 For next: 656057
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3159 days
| #6 Posted on 10.8.04 1305.17 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1305.39 | Actually the score is 0-0, as proven ad naseum, but why let that detail get in the way? :) | DrOp
Frankfurter Level: 65
Posts: 642/859 EXP: 2267537 For next: 68103
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 5669 days Last activity: 4536 days
| #7 Posted on 10.8.04 1315.53 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1323.27 | Do you at least also hate the fact that Bush is also a liar and exaggerator as well?
"The economy is growing and rebounding..."
"There are WMD in Iraq..."
Continuing to say that he is trying to help the working class while creating dividend stock tax breaks for corporations (wasn't Bill Gate's dividend increase something like $5 Million) doesn't sound like compulsive lying to you? | Ozzysun
Polska kielbasa Level: 28
Posts: 44/125 EXP: 125871 For next: 5469
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 6870 days Last activity: 6752 days
| #8 Posted on 10.8.04 1318.16 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1324.33 | Kerry came out yesterday and said that he would have still voted to have gone to war knowing there were no WMDs so he agrees with the president about going to war, he just would have done it differently.
(edited by Ozzysun on 10.8.04 1118) | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3666/4700 EXP: 28679024 For next: 656057
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3159 days
| #9 Posted on 10.8.04 1332.46 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1332.50 | Originally posted by DrOp "The economy is growing and rebounding..."
"There are WMD in Iraq..."
The problem is that the economy is growing and rebounding and we've already found WMD in Iraq. You can't pick and choose topics to show that the President is "lying" or "exaggerating" when in these instances he is telling the truth.
Originally posted by DrOp Continuing to say that he is trying to help the working class while creating dividend stock tax breaks for corporations (wasn't Bill Gate's dividend increase something like $5 Million) doesn't sound like compulsive lying to you?
The tax cuts helped the economy rebound. Sorry, but it's true. And I'd much rather have a more Haster-like switch to a flat or a VAT tax than any tax cut... | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 403/2336 EXP: 10146223 For next: 208209
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 4 hours
| #10 Posted on 10.8.04 1348.07 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1351.56 | Originally posted by Grimis Actually the score is 0-0, as proven ad naseum, but why let that detail get in the way? :)
Proven in a reverse-parallel universe where Leprechauns rule and the oceans are made of cotton candy - surely not in the one everyone else exists in....
If Kerry's war record is in anyway controversial in your eyes, then how can you sit there and not be equally critical of Bush's record - either in the National Guard or in Iraq.
What drives me crazy is here's all these attacks on Kerry's war record - things that frickin' happened 30 years ago that have little to no bearing on the world today - and that's the best they can come up.
That's all this is - a smear campaign. And thing that infuriates me most is that people like me end up defending a guy we only like because he's slightly better than George Bush....
Man, am I in a bad mood today. | Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge Level: 51
Posts: 383/502 EXP: 970055 For next: 43890
Since: 6.11.03 From: Dudleyville
Since last post: 6734 days Last activity: 6727 days
| #11 Posted on 10.8.04 1353.34 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1353.42 | Originally posted by PalpatineW Man, missed opportunity witht the thread title.
Truly one of music's finest moments. POL... POT!! POL... POT!! | Battlezone
Potato korv Level: 59
Posts: 404/696 EXP: 1610248 For next: 62890
Since: 27.2.03 From: Seattle, Washington
Since last post: 5579 days Last activity: 312 days
| | Y!: | |
|
| #12 Posted on 10.8.04 1358.57 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1359.02 | Originally posted by Leroy If Kerry's war record is in anyway controversial in your eyes, then how can you sit there and not be equally critical of Bush's record - either in the National Guard or in Iraq.
Good point...
What drives me crazy is here's all these attacks on Kerry's war record - things that frickin' happened 30 years ago that have little to no bearing on the world today...
That you contradict right away.
Here's the thing that bugs me about this from both sides. If it's fair game to look at Kerry's record while in Vietnam, then it's fair game to ask what Bush was doing back then. If what Bush did back then was irrelevant, then was Kerry did back then was irrelevant. But don't tell me that Kerry did this, that and the other in Vietnam, and it was BAD, but Bush avoiding combat (or WHATEVER) doesn't matter because it was so long ago.
You can't have it both ways. And I see this on both sides of the fence, and it drives me NUTS. | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3668/4700 EXP: 28679024 For next: 656057
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3159 days
| #13 Posted on 10.8.04 1400.24 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1400.25 | Originally posted by Leroy If Kerry's war record is in anyway controversial in your eyes, then how can you sit there and not be equally critical of Bush's record - either in the National Guard or in Iraq.
Because John Kerry has been proven a liar over and over and over and over again. Bush has not.
I think that the National Guard thing with Bush is trumped up. I would say the same thing about Kerry too, but...
Originally posted by Leroy What drives me crazy is here's all these attacks on Kerry's war record - things that frickin' happened 30 years ago that have little to no bearing on the world today - and that's the best they can come up.
This is the only thing that Kerry is talking about. The ONLY thing. He gets nothing done in the Senate for 19 years, so he is stuck with trying to be a war hero when he is anything but, if at the very least for his anti-war garbage.
Originally posted by Leroy And thing that infuriates me most is that people like me end up defending a guy we only like because he's slightly better than George Bush....
You guys had your chance with Dean. He at least stood for something... | DrOp
Frankfurter Level: 65
Posts: 643/859 EXP: 2267537 For next: 68103
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 5669 days Last activity: 4536 days
| #14 Posted on 10.8.04 1426.42 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1426.42 | Originally posted by Grimis The problem is that the economy is growing and rebounding and we've already found WMD in Iraq. You can't pick and choose topics to show that the President is "lying" or "exaggerating" when in these instances he is telling the truth.
Is the economy growing? Really? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-economic-woes,1,1208811.story
Weren't those numbers disappointing? http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/yourmoney/bal-ym.barnhart08aug08,1,4295808.story
As one one person put it: "This maybe Bush's best year yet, but it would have been Clinton's worst year ever."
Don't forget that lost (uncounted) in umemployment numbers are the people who are unemployed and have stopped actively looking for work (usually becasue they can't find it).
Originally posted by Pool-Boy The tax cuts helped the economy rebound. Sorry, but it's true. And I'd much rather have a more Haster-like switch to a flat or a VAT tax than any tax cut...
Trickle-Down economics and deficit spending have never really worked well before. What makes you think they're working so well now?
Here's how the tax break worked out in our state: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fraser08aug08,1,3493235.story
Originally posted by The Baltimore Sun
The middle 20 percent of tax filers, those with incomes around $43,000, will get an average of $1,026 this year, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan, foundation-supported group based in Washington...
Marylanders with incomes averaging over $181,000 (1%) - the top 20 percent - will get an average of $7,351 in relief this year, according to the report.
Those at the $11,000 level, the lowest income group measured, will get an average of $164. The lowest 60 percent of Marylanders will get relief of $624, on average.
Mr. Bush says taxpayers will get an average nationally of $1,126 in tax relief. But averages must be carefully considered: This one looks better because those taxpayers who are getting the big bucks bring it up.
I'm sure that $164 dollars will go a long way to helping those poverty-stricken people. | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 404/2336 EXP: 10146223 For next: 208209
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 4 hours
| #15 Posted on 10.8.04 1442.52 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1442.58 | Originally posted by Grimis Because John Kerry has been proven a liar over and over and over and over again. Bush has not.
I think that the National Guard thing with Bush is trumped up. I would say the same thing about Kerry too, but...
But you don't like Kerry so it's fair game... I can accept that. But this stuff you post OVER and OVER is just ridiculous.
And Bush is a liar. Just admit it....
Originally posted by Grimis This is the only thing that Kerry is talking about. The ONLY thing. He gets nothing done in the Senate for 19 years, so he is stuck with trying to be a war hero when he is anything but, if at the very least for his anti-war garbage.
He's a vet - that's a fact. He's proud of his war record. That's a fact. I find it incredible that - in this counrty - it would be acceptable to attack a war veteran so viscously. By the conservative definition, THAT'S pretty un-American. And they did it to members of their own party, too.
And his supporters roll out these people with obvious political agendas - who "served with" Kerry in the most broadest use of the term - to smear him. Classy.
That's just dirty politics. Plain and simple - and disgusting.
Originally posted by Grimis You guys had your chance with Dean. He at least stood for something...
Actually, I agree with you - and feel so dirty for saying "I agree with you" that I think I need to go home and take a shower.
And "they" had a chance with Dean - I'm not a Democrat. | Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge Level: 51
Posts: 384/502 EXP: 970055 For next: 43890
Since: 6.11.03 From: Dudleyville
Since last post: 6734 days Last activity: 6727 days
| #16 Posted on 10.8.04 1450.12 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1452.05 | Originally posted by DrOp As one one person put it: "This maybe Bush's best year yet, but it would have been Clinton's worst year ever."
And 2001 would have been Clinton's worst ever. It's easy to forget the recession was already upon us when the elections rolled around. Doesn't matter who was in office, the job market was about to tumble. | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3671/4700 EXP: 28679024 For next: 656057
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3159 days
| #17 Posted on 10.8.04 1454.34 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1455.00 | Originally posted by Leroy And Bush is a liar. Just admit it....
C'mon, I know you can do better than that[
Originally posted by Leroy He's a vet - that's a fact. He's proud of his war record. That's a fact. I find it incredible that - in this counrty - it would be acceptable to attack a war veteran so viscously. By the conservative definition, THAT'S pretty un-American. And they did it to members of their own party, too.
I don't find it acceptable to attack a vet because they served. I was not particularly thrilled with what happened to Cleland in 2002 and McCain(disclaimer: I was a McCain supporter in the primary) in 2000. But what I do find acceptable is to point out obvious discrepencies with Kerry's war record, discrepencies with his own statements and discrpencies with those who serverd with him.
Originally posted by Leroy And his supporters roll out these people with obvious political agendas - who "served with" Kerry in the most broadest use of the term - to smear him. Classy.
That's just dirty politics. Plain and simple - and disgusting.
AWArulz had a great explanation that yes they did serve with Kerry.
And yes these men do have a political agenda; to defeat a man they served with who they think is unfit to serve as President. How is that any different than that blowhard Micahel Moore bloviating that Bush is unfit to serve?(Hint: It's not).
Originally posted by DrOp Is the economy growing? Really?, etc.
C;mon, you've got to do better than commentaries from the Daily Disappointment to make the argument.
Originally posted by DrOp As one one person put it: "This maybe Bush's best year yet, but it would have been Clinton's worst year ever."
As we have said before, economies cannot be attributed to Presidents. Clinton was in the right place in the right time for the tech boom. The writing was on the wall well before the 2000 election. Between the tech crash and 9/11, Bush did not have a prayer to "match" "Clinton's" numbers.
The economy is improving because of two things: the natural order of things(an economy that goes down must come up) and the tax cuts. Assuming no tax cuts(or increases) in a Gore administration, the economy would still be recovering right now(albeit probably slower than it is now). | Pool-Boy
Lap cheong Level: 88
Posts: 1527/1761 EXP: 6568550 For next: 82140
Since: 1.8.02 From: Huntington Beach, CA
Since last post: 197 days Last activity: 154 days
| #18 Posted on 10.8.04 1516.08 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1517.14 | Kerry in Vietnam and Bush in the Guard are two different matters - because they are treating them differently.
Kerry's service is open for scrutiny because he is using it as his #1 qualification for office. Bush uses his actions over the last four years. Democrats have no problem attacking Bush's campaign points. So why isn't it OK to attack Kerry's?
Vietnam was decades ago. I hate that it is being used in the campaign. But you just can't say on one hand that it is OK for Kerry to trumpet his service, and it isn't ok for someone to rebut him, just because it is too long ago. That is giving Kerry license to make up any damned thing he wants to (which he is), and you can't say boo about it because it is wrong to question it.
Pro Kerry positions just don't make any sense. You attack Bush for going into Iraq, when Kerry says that he still would have voted for the war KNOWING WHAT HE KNOWS TODAY. You have been attacking Bush's Guard service long before Kerry even came into the picture (with much more questionable complaints than we have against Kerry), but now it isn't ok to attack Kerry's service because it was too long ago. You supported a DRAFT DODGER in Clinton, but now serving in the Guard isn't enough for you. You mock Bush's seven minutes gap between hearing the news of 9-11 and his departure from the school (ignoring the fact that most of that was his STAFF preparing to have him depart early), and you ignore Kerry's admitted 45 minute period of dumbfoundedness and inaction after he first heard about the news. You ignore evidence right in front of you that there were terrorist ties to Iraq, that Hussein DIDN'T provide proof that his weapons were destroyed, you ignore the proof that they weren't, you ignore them when they are found, you ignore positive economic news, you ignore an unemployment rate that is lower than it was in '96, and instead grasp at slow "job growth" in a specific sector, and point at that as a failure in his economic plan. Time and time again, when the facts are against you, you make shit up to support your beliefs.
Why are Republicans so critical of Kerry? Because he is a poor choice for the job. You picked wrong. It is really telling when you poll Democrats about Kerry, and they even say they don't like the guy, but they are still voting for him. Why? Because they hate Bush. Why? Because in November of 2000, Gore was trumpeted as the winner, only to have that taken away from you. You hate Bush because you thought your guy won, but in the end, Bush legitimately took the election. And don't go balking about the courts - remember, it was GORE who started the litigation on the election, and it was the left-wing media who six months later recounted and quietly announced that indeed Bush had won.
You picked the wrong guy. You are so blinded by anger over that teased win in 2000 that you ignore all facts around you in favor of one goal - a Democrat back in power. You can't admit one good thing Bush has done for this country. You can't even admit that this country has made positive strides since the recession that began under Clinton, and since 9-11, because anything that is good for this country under Bush is bad for Kerry, and you can't have that.
I'm not saying Bush is perfect - far from it. I could give you a long list of things that he has done that I don't support. But it was up to you to put up a better guy for the job. Unfortunately, you picked wrong this time. And chanting over and over "Anyone but Bush" doesn't change that fact that we need a specific kind of leader in this country right now, and Bush is closer to that guy than Kerry is.
Even if Kerry is destined to lose, why aren't you taking this chance to bring real issues to the table? Why is Kerry going on and on about his service in Vietnam, when we have reports of terrorists leaking across the wide-open Mexican border, infiltrating our country? Seems Bush is legitimately weak there. Why is Kerry spending his time juggling economic numbers to look BAD, when Homeland Security is woefully under funded, yet we still have all this money for Iraq?
Things aren't perfect, not by a long shot. It is the DUTY of the challenger of an incumbent to bring up these issues where the country is weak, and force a debate on them. Kerry has tap-danced around all of these, and instead relies on play-acting with his "Swift Boat Buddies," and trying to convince everyone that the things that are really going RIGHT for this country are actually bad.
You want to see a stop to the criticism about Kerry's service? Have him stop talking about that, and talk about some actual, serious issues instead. I'm open for it.
I suppose I'll be called a terrorist again or something like that. Heaven forbid you explain why you don't take a single thing those who disagree with you say seriously....
(edited by Pool-Boy on 10.8.04 1323) | Jaguar
Knackwurst Level: 116
Posts: 2411/3284 EXP: 16927655 For next: 396490
Since: 23.1.02 From: In a Blue State finally
Since last post: 1894 days Last activity: 1894 days
| #19 Posted on 10.8.04 1557.49 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1559.01 | Originally posted by Pool-Boy I suppose I'll be called a terrorist again or something like that. Heaven forbid you explain why you don't take a single thing those who disagree with you say seriously....
Oh somebody called you a terrorist? What are you, anti-war or something?
But if you insist...
Originally posted by Grimis Please admit that you are a terrorist appeaser and move on.
-Jag | rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter Level: 62
Posts: 599/763 EXP: 1897429 For next: 87268
Since: 9.1.02 From: Virginia Beach Va
Since last post: 4016 days Last activity: 1 day
| #20 Posted on 10.8.04 1743.13 Reposted on: 10.8.11 1745.15 | Originally posted by Pool-Boy You attack Bush for going into Iraq, when Kerry says that he still would have voted for the war KNOWING WHAT HE KNOWS TODAY.
I myself dont attack Bush for going into Iraq, just for the way it was done. His approach to Iraq was extremely reckless and irresponsible. We could have waited and built a better case for our allies, we could have waited to get more of our own forces on the ground for the assault. There was no immediate need to go into Iraq as fast as we did.
Originally posted by pool-boy You mock Bush's seven minutes gap between hearing the news of 9-11 and his departure from the school (ignoring the fact that most of that was his STAFF preparing to have him depart early)
I actually defended Bush on this in an earlier post, but that was before I knew exactly what he was told. He was told "America is under attack." He should have gotten up and left right away. Theres no excuse to sit there looking baffled. The staff doesnt have to "prepare" for him to leave. The Presidential Limo is always running. He couldve told the kids and the reporters that there is an emergency and he has to leave right away. No one wouldve blamed him for that. He shouldve gotten up, got in the damn car and got back to Air Force One. Hes the President and I expect him in a National Emergency to be giving orders and asking questions AS SOON AS HE BECOMES AWARE of a problem. Not sitting looking like a scared kid who wet his pants.
Originally posted by Pool-Boy Kerry's admitted 45 minute period of dumbfoundedness and inaction after he first heard about the news
Nope sorry, not even remotely the same thing. Kerry wasnt the President at that time. Its not like he could give any orders to anyone.
Originally posted by Pool-Boy You want to see a stop to the criticism about Kerry's service? Have him stop talking about that, and talk about some actual, serious issues instead. I'm open for it.
Kerry is talking about the issues, its just that weve got the GOP Shock troops running around making up Vietnam stories.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |