The W
Views: 100902542
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.07 0725
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - More Innacuracies with Kerry's Military Record
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(730 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3838/4700
EXP: 21667631
For next: 169031

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1304 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#1 Posted on 30.8.04 0649.50
Reposted on: 30.8.11 0650.25
I'd stop posting stories here about Kerry's Vietnam-related lies, but there are so many Kerry apologists running around here, that it is nice to prvoide more(and more) proof:

First, Kerry claims that he won an award that has never been awarded:
    Originally posted by Thomas Lipscomb in the 8/27/04 Chicago Sun-Times
    But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

    But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

    Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

    B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.


And then there is an issue with his Citation:
    Originally posted by Thomas Lipscomb in the 8/28/04 Chicago Sun-Times
    Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

    "It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.
Lehman was Secretary of the Navy...in the Reagan administration, long after Kerry was out of the service.

It's funny that Kerry is too far entangle into his own lies that he can't just admit them and cut and run...
Promote this thread!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 1881/3059
EXP: 11613730
For next: 248435

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2022 days
Last activity: 1956 days
#2 Posted on 30.8.04 0845.39
Reposted on: 30.8.11 0850.53
Dude, when even BUSH has come out and admitted the guy's heroism, don't you think it's time you shut up?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3840/4700
EXP: 21667631
For next: 169031

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1304 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#3 Posted on 30.8.04 0848.08
Reposted on: 30.8.11 0851.03
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Dude, when even BUSH has come out and admitted the guy's heroism, don't you think it's time you shut up?
1. I believe that the President said Kerry served "honorable" and "nobly." Showing up for work is not heroic.

2. Just becuase you do something heroic does mean that you aren't a lying piece of shit.

3. The majority of people who served with Kerry, who would know if would be heroic, think he's a lying piece of shit.

4. Thank you for proving my point about the apologists...

(edited by Grimis on 30.8.04 0948)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1848/6363
EXP: 33811879
For next: 308219

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 15 hours
#4 Posted on 30.8.04 0904.38
Reposted on: 30.8.11 0906.20
Well, I look at it like this. Did John Kerry serve Honorably? Yes. Has he distorted the truth about his service? Yes. Has he gained personally, and politically from the distortion? Yes.

So, if he is STILL trying to get something out of his four months, in country, then perhaps we should be scrutinizing it as much as we are. If he had a lot of things on his website about his Senatorial Career, wouldnt we look into that as well, to see if it were accurate and portrayed in the factual sense that it should be?
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator
Level: 94

Posts: 879/2431
EXP: 8227631
For next: 129057

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#5 Posted on 30.8.04 0914.23
Reposted on: 30.8.11 0915.43
Wouldn't you rather focus on who can best lead your country for the next four years?

The Republican party, when questioned about Kerry's service, should simply say, "The United States appreciates Senator Kerry's service in the Vietnam war," and then jump into, "This is President Bush's economic/foreign/defense/employment policy for 2004-2008."

The military service of either man 30+ years ago is such a non-issue. Aren't there enough things to talk about?
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 433/793
EXP: 1402714
For next: 83223

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3218 days
Last activity: 3218 days
#6 Posted on 30.8.04 0938.12
Reposted on: 30.8.11 0938.16
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The majority of people who served with Kerry, who would know if would be heroic, think he's a lying piece of shit.


Wow. More "Attack Ads" from Grimis. Big surprise. That's some spicy rhetoric you got there, Grimis. "Sack of shit," eh? Those are powerful words. Sounds like you're getting desperate to do some character assassination. I guess, since '92, that's been the GOP's only strategy, too. Makes sense, though. If you can't make your own guy look good (and who could make Bush, that silver-tongued smooth-talker, look good?), better cut down the opposition.

But. Proof please.

Real proof.

Not back-door, soft-money-campaign "proof in quotation marks" from the swift boat veterans who never actually served with Kerry (in the sense they worked on the same boat or in the same unit).

Besides which, footage exists of some of those veterans in those ads praising Kerry as well. That makes some of them, in your words, Grimis, "lying sacks of shit", or in my words, "opportunistic hypocrites who can't be trusted".

So, real proof, please. Because this is getting ridiculous.

What's the difference between a Kerry apologist and a Bush apologist? Hmmmmm? What's the difference between one over-blown fanatical rhetoric and another. Just politics? Or a desperate fear losing and being made a fool of?

If you want to call Kerry's moral fibre into question, go ahead, but afford George Walker Bush the same courtesy. Or does the very idea send icicles down your spine. My god! George Bush's moral fibre? Couldn't knit a mitten with it!

And if the republicans wanted to put Bill Clinton's personal life and personal past and business dealings and relatives under a microscope, then they should be willing to do the same to their own.

They should recognize George W. Bush for what he is: a puppet president for a cabal of oil-thirsty war-mongers (Skull&Bones' version of a Manchurian candidate... hey, remember dumb old George?), a man with a misunderestimated I.Q. somewhere between 85 and 100, a man with a history of cocaine and alcohol (and god knows what else) abuse, reckless driving and gross incompetence in business. [Edit: I forgot to mention that's he was a cowardly draft-dodger, using family connections to stay out of Viet Nam]. Yes, he went to Harvard Biz school. That's not the same as Harvard Law. Any rich jackass can go to Harvard Biz and buy a sheepskin. Man alive, if he were a Democrat, the GOP would be merciless. They'd run together a montage of all his dazzling verbal acrobatics (most of which fall painfully off the beam) and run a line under it: "Is this the mind you want speaking for the country when it can't even speak for itself?" The doddering buffoon should count his lucky stars that the Democrats have decided to take the high road and not make fun of his obvious, "special" mental defects.

And Cheney? Please. If that crooked old prick were a Democrat, Ken Starr would be up his ass so deep and so far with Hussein-gate and Iran-gate they'd have to call Baby Jessica for tips on getting the little weasel back out again.

There, how's that for rhetoric?

Thanks, I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip your waitress.


(edited by Stilton on 30.8.04 1054)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3843/4700
EXP: 21667631
For next: 169031

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1304 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#7 Posted on 30.8.04 1019.14
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1019.17
    Originally posted by The Goon
    The Republican party, when questioned about Kerry's service, should simply say, "The United States appreciates Senator Kerry's service in the Vietnam war," and then jump into, "This is President Bush's economic/foreign/defense/employment policy for 2004-2008."
And that should be what happens. The Republicans will do it as soon as the Democrats stop, the Democrats will do it as soon as Republicans stop, etc. The fact of the matter is that in modern Presidential politics it is easier to attack than it is to talk issues because it is more effective.
    Originally posted by The Goon
    The military service of either man 30+ years ago is such a non-issue. Aren't there enough things to talk about?
I don't know...Senator Kerry?

    Originally posted by Stilton
    If you want to call Kerry's moral fibre into question, go ahead, but afford George Walker Bush the same courtesy. Or does the very idea send icicles down your spine. My god! George Bush's moral fibre? Couldn't knit a mitten with it!

    And if the republicans wanted to put Bill Clinton's personal life and personal past and business dealings and relatives under a microscope, then they should be willing to do the same to their own.
I would like you to name one Republican or Bush-supporter in this forum who has not called out another Republican for their moral character or for doing something stupid?\

As far as your anti-Bush rant? Proof that the Democrats need to embellish stuff to criticize the President about on top of what is already there. I love how the liberals criticize Bush for being a Skull-n-Bones guy when Kerry is too...
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 436/793
EXP: 1402714
For next: 83223

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3218 days
Last activity: 3218 days
#8 Posted on 30.8.04 1031.44
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1031.48
    Originally posted by Grimis
    As far as your anti-Bush rant? Proof that the Democrats need to embellish stuff to criticize the President about on top of what is already there. I love how the liberals criticize Bush for being a Skull-n-Bones guy when Kerry is too...


Grimis, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Socialist. I don't think I embellished my impression of Bush's verbal intelligence. I really do think he's mildly retarded. I realise Kerry was also involved with Skull-n-Bones, but he also had the courage to volunteer for Viet Nam when cowardly Bush used backdoor connections for a cushy National Guard post (which is basically failed to show-up for most of the time), and Kerry can think and act for himself, or so it appears so far. At any rate, the American economy, employment stats, health and education systems, and international esteem couldn't possible be any worse under Kerry than under Bush.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3846/4700
EXP: 21667631
For next: 169031

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1304 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#9 Posted on 30.8.04 1039.28
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1039.28
    Originally posted by Stilton
    I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Socialist.
Nevermind, that explains everything...

(edited by Grimis on 30.8.04 1139)
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1407/2212
EXP: 6907014
For next: 8914

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#10 Posted on 30.8.04 1043.25
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1043.28
Uh, Grimis, this was covered like 3 days ago:

http://the-w.com/threadx.php/id=21917 (posts 19, 20)

The official Kerry blurb attributes (correctly) the combat V to the bronze star. And if its attributed elsewhere to the Silver Star then its almost certainly whats known as a typo. And I KNOW the Republicans are exceedingly tolerant of such minor errors as typo's/grammatical errors in speeches and what have you, so hopefully we can put an end to this silliness no?

I doubt it will though so while we're at it...

    Originally posted by Grimis
    I'd stop posting stories here about Kerry's Vietnam-related lies, but there are so many Kerry apologists running around here, that it is nice to prvoide more(and more) proof:


To my knowledge I haven't seen you post any. You've linked to the SwiftVet ads (produced by a group who in their 2nd ad revealed reason enough to suggest they have motive to lie about Kerry), claimed the Winter soldiers were discredited by numerous sources (while offering one Republican site as such) and then found this apparent typo. Um, well done?


    1. I believe that the President said Kerry served "honorable" and "nobly." Showing up for work is not heroic.


No, but honour and nobility do imply inetgrity and honesty, which would suggest even the guy you want to run the country doesn't agree with your point.


    2. Just becuase you do something heroic does mean that you aren't a lying piece of shit.


Huh? So there's no link between heroism and honesty. Whats your point exactly? Should everyone vote for Bush because he can't claim to have acted heroically?


    3. The majority of people who served with Kerry, who would know if would be heroic, think he's a lying piece of shit.


You asked them ALL?! Wow, its a wonder you find the time to post.
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 75

Posts: 792/1453
EXP: 3770651
For next: 56270

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 30.8.04 1142.26
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1145.16
When John Kerry personally designed his website in Dreamweaver, he should have written it down correctly!

It's amazing what people pounce on. Yeah, it should have been listed correctly to begin with, but this is obviously the fault of some computer geek. It's looking as if Kerry recieved it with the Bronze Star.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 30.8.04 0943)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1149/2706
EXP: 8977997
For next: 10822

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 19 hours
#12 Posted on 30.8.04 1300.49
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1301.09
If this and all the other Kerry posts that Grimis started are true, how did Kerry get this far? Really, doesn't the truth lie somewhere in the middle?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1209/1528
EXP: 4099860
For next: 91288

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2865 days
Last activity: 2707 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 30.8.04 1515.33
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1518.29
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    If this and all the other Kerry posts that Grimis started are true, how did Kerry get this far? Really, doesn't the truth lie somewhere in the middle?


Without speaking to the truth of the Kerry allegations, I'm not at all convinced that the truth would necessarily out.

There are some very obvious discrepancies in Kerry's record that have only now come to light. John Kerry traded for years on his Cambodia story, and it has now been proven false, and retracted by the Kerry camp and historian/Kerry partisan Doug Brinkley.

This is not the first time we've heard Kerry's boasting; it is, however, the first time anyone's bothered looking into it. It's taken an election season, and the resultant flow of dollars, to bring this to the public's attention. And it's taken an unrelenting focus from the alternative media to get this story any attention from the mainstream media.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3851/4700
EXP: 21667631
For next: 169031

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1304 days
Last activity: 1101 days
#14 Posted on 30.8.04 1528.26
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1529.01
I think that the reason its gotten this far is the blogospher. Blogs have an uncanny way of picking up on things that the major newspapers miss or, oftentimes, choose to ignore.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1211/1528
EXP: 4099860
For next: 91288

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2865 days
Last activity: 2707 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 30.8.04 1539.26
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1540.06
Bob Ehrlich is a bizarre-looking man.

On topic, thought I'd throw this on the fire: http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200404210833.asp

Article by NR's Kate O'Beirne, comparing the current Kerry flap to the 1996 probe of Navy Admiral Mike Boorda, who was accused, like Kerry, of falsely wearing the combat V.

Quotes of note:

    Originally posted by Kate O'Beirne
    Evan Thomas, then Newsweek's Washington bureau chief who was scheduled to interview the Admiral, explained that he was devastated by his death, but defended his magazine's pursuit of the combat award story. "We've got to do our job," he said. "Part of that job is checking on the truthfulness of people in positions of power. Like the admiral."


I haven't seen this sentiment applied to John Kerry, and I think that goes a long way to explaining how he's gotten this far.

Also: Ted Kennedy killed a woman. And if he can get away with that, then it's not at all a stretch to think that Kerry could get away with some relatively harmless (though sleazy) lies.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1851/6363
EXP: 33811879
For next: 308219

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 15 hours
#16 Posted on 30.8.04 1545.51
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1547.35
As far as the Kerry in Viet Nam thing, I find it amusing that he contends he doesnt want to get into the fact of who went, and who didnt, yet can give interviews and take back handed swipes at the President "If people went to Canada, if people opposed the war, if people chose to be in the Gaurd, thats thier choice and I've never raised that in an issue." (From the Boston Globe 3 Feb 04.)

"I have never made any judgements about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada,, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Gaurd. Thos are choices people make" Los Angeles Times Article dated 4 Feb 04.

So, its quite alright for him to trumpet his own service, yet basically call anybody who went in the gaurd a coward and likening them to draft dodgers and criminals? But to then turn around and complain about the people who are making ads that question his own military service is hypocritical. If you are proud of your service, great, be proud, if you are running, and a large portion of your website biography is about your service in Viet Nam, dont be suprised when people actually look into it.


It could be so much easier really for Republicans if they would just show his VOTING RECORD and how he has always voted for Tax INCREASES accross the board, has voted AGAINST tax cuts accross the board, has always voted to eliminate weapons funding, intellegence funding, military spending, etc. But, somehow the fact that he may have fudged a bit on his military record gets people in a tizzy. I dont understand. If GWB hired somebody tenacious to run his campaign, he could be just SLAMMING Kerry for being a socialist, a tax happy politician who thinks he knows better than Joe Average Citizen what Joe Average Citizen needs in his life, and from his government.

Or if they pointed out Kerry was present at a rally of the VVAW where it was discussed how they should assasinate senators who were in favor of the war.

Or they could dig up some info on how he has stated time and time again that he would like to disperse AMERICAN troops around the world and let the UN set thier duties for them.

Or, how he claims he wants to never raise taxes, yet is proposing universal healthcare (which we all KNOW is cheap and efficient, right?)

But, instead they are wasting time making him look like a hypocritical ass, when his record does enough of that for him.
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 75

Posts: 794/1453
EXP: 3770651
For next: 56270

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on 30.8.04 1616.15
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1624.56
StaggerLee, those quotes above show that Kerry was emphasizing that he wasn't calling Bush a coward. I'm sure you're implying some double-reverse sarcasm here, but the quote doesn't read that way.

"If people went to Canada, if people opposed the war,if people chose to be in the Gaurd, thats thier choice and I've never raised that in an issue." (From the Boston Globe 3 Feb 04.)

Kerry was covering all of the decisions people were making at the time and, yes, he did single out George W Bush's choice to go into the National Guard. And he said he wasn't going to make any judgments about it or raise an issue.

Why would Kerry be condemning conscientious objectors when he himself became one after the war?

I think Kerry, an eventual objector to the war, would fully understand why anyone would avoid going to war. The only time the Dems have gone after Bush's military record was when they were trying to sniff out whether he went AWOL, but I don't think that got any far. Kerry has never condemned Bush's National Guard service.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1542/1759
EXP: 4949186
For next: 43684

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1350 days
Last activity: 117 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 30.8.04 1617.37
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1626.24
Eh - republicans started this campaign pointing out Kerry's voting record, and that tactic was attacked for being too "negative."

So if you can't talk about Kerry's voting record, and you can't respond to his claims about his Vietnam service, exactly what is someone who opposes Kerry supposed to talk about?

Personally, I have no problem with these threads Grimis puts up. For MONTHS we had to deal with story after story about how Bush was AWOL, or dozens of other BS stories that the Bush-bashers here trumpeted as honest to god truth. I mean, seriously, how long did some of you go on, and CONTINUE to bring up, Bush allegedly being AWOL from the guard when that issue was put to rest in 2000?

If you could dish it out then, I think you can take it now. And if you didn't want to see so many stories about how screwed up Kerry is, maybe you shouldn't have supported a guy with so many problems, who has such a hard time sticking to one story on any damned issue...

Kerry's military service is open game. So what if Bush distanced himself from the ads - it was the right thing for him to do. He SHOULD be above the fray. But that doesn't mean that the charges aren't serious. How about responding to them, instead of trying to minimize the charges, or trying to turn things around on those who are making the charges?

It isn't going to go away- no matter how much Kerry supporters cover their ears and "lalala" about it. When Kerry himself can't even keep his story straight about his service, and he is trying to use that service as a reason we should vote for him as president, it does need to be discussed. And Kerry does need to respond to the charges beyond calling the swiftvets liars, and accusing Bush of putting out the ads...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 30.8.04 1420)
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1050/1494
EXP: 3961679
For next: 44400

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on 30.8.04 1744.05
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1744.10
    Originally posted by The Goon
    Wouldn't you rather focus on who can best lead your country for the next four years?

    The Republican party, when questioned about Kerry's service, should simply say, "The United States appreciates Senator Kerry's service in the Vietnam war," and then jump into, "This is President Bush's economic/foreign/defense/employment policy for 2004-2008."

    The military service of either man 30+ years ago is such a non-issue. Aren't there enough things to talk about?


I read a column today that presented an interesting theory about why this thing seems to be such a big deal. The reason he thought that such seemingly small issues were being magnified was that Kerry simply refuses to take a strong position on any big issues (outside of repealing tax cuts), especially on anything that would differentiate himself from Bush. It as though Kerry is afraid he might offend an undecided, so he wants to stay as close to neutral as possible.

I'll try to find a link. It was written by a Kerry supporter (mild supporter, more against Bush than for Kerry).
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1213/1528
EXP: 4099860
For next: 91288

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2865 days
Last activity: 2707 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 30.8.04 1845.14
Reposted on: 30.8.11 1846.32
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    StaggerLee, those quotes above show that Kerry was emphasizing that he wasn't calling Bush a coward. I'm sure you're implying some double-reverse sarcasm here, but the quote doesn't read that way.

    "If people went to Canada, if people opposed the war,if people chose to be in the Gaurd, thats thier choice and I've never raised that in an issue." (From the Boston Globe 3 Feb 04.)

    Kerry was covering all of the decisions people were making at the time and, yes, he did single out George W Bush's choice to go into the National Guard. And he said he wasn't going to make any judgments about it or raise an issue


Let's not be naive, here. I don't think the remarks were inappropriate or out of hand, but they're clearly the comments of a politician intending to point out a strength in contrast to an opponent's weakness.

And, ges, is this William Raspberry piece what you were looking for?
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Virginia Congressman stepping down
Next thread: Militants slay 12 hostages
Previous thread: Michael Moore explains RINOs
(730 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - More Innacuracies with Kerry's Military RecordRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.213 seconds.