posted on April 27, 2004 04:01:21 PM new
OK all you pro Kerry wannabe's. Look back to see who 1st brought up the subject of the 3 Purple Hearts. Was it Pres Bush? Was it CP Cheney? Was it Howard Dean?
Hell NO, it was Ol' John Freaking Kerry himself
Now he has created a delima for himself in which there is no way he can resolve.
1) He either lied about thowing his medals over the White House fence.
Or
2) He lied about NOT throwing his medals over the White House fence.
Either way he lied, and it does matter to the majority of Viet Vets
And to quote from " Best of the Web Today - April 27, 2004 By JAMES TARANTO"
Why did Kerry feel that he himself had to bring up the National Guard? For one thing, because he is extremely vulnerable on the medal question. He has built his entire candidacy around the image of himself as a war hero, but when voters learn that he threw his decorations away, and then that he can't even tell a straight story about which decorations they were, the war-hero story becomes at the very least complicated.
Hence the need for a diversionary defense. Letting his surrogates belabor the National Guard would not have been effective, because they've already done so, leading a few weeks back to a kerfuffle that blew over when the White House released Bush's service records. By raising the issue himself, Kerry elevates it--but he diminishes himself in the process. (The Boston Globe notes another Kerry statement that suggests his degree of desperation: "God, they're doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee," he said of ABC News immediately after the "Good Morning America" interview ended--and after he thought the microphone had gone off.)
Blogger Michael Totten suggests a way for Kerry to extricate himself from this quagmire:
Most people don't really care if John Kerry did and said dumb things in '71. I certainly don't. I was only one year old at the time. I do expect him to act like an adult and be honest about it, however. He is, after all, auditioning for president of the United States.
I don't care for John Kerry, but I'll throw him a rope all the same. Here you go, senator. Say this on the TV: "Today's more strident anti-war activists remind me of my own immature self back in 1971." It will kill two proverbial birds with a single figurative stone. It will play well among people who matter. And you'll feel a lot better.
It's a good idea, but we're not holding our breath. Meanwhile, at least one commentator of the left, James Ridgeway of the Village Voice, is declaring, "John Kerry must go." We wouldn't be surprised if others join the chorus.
Bring 'Em On! No, Call 'Em Off!
"If George Bush wants to make national security an issue in this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he'll understand. Bring it on!"--John Kerry, quoted in the New York Times, Feb. 1
"Call off the Republican attack dogs."--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, responding to Dick Cheney's speech on John Kerry's defense record, quoted by the Associated Press, April 26
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on April 27, 2004 04:07:34 PM new
THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT PAST QUOTES – OK, GEORGE W. BUSH IN HIS OWN WORDS FROM THE PAST
THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT PAST QUOTES – OK, GEORGE W. BUSH IN HIS OWN WORDS FROM THE PAST
April 26, 2004 – Talk about double standards.
The non-Moderate Independent press is playing its usual role as one-sided Republican promoters, following along with the Bush campaign's wishes that they make a daily issue out of which word Senator John Kerry did or didn’t use way back in 1971.
A useful press – as we here at M/I are – would do something called reporting actual comparative facts, not just what people feed us to report. In other words, when one candidate starts assailing the other for what he was saying over 30 years ago, we go and – for fairness’ sake – stop to actually look at what the other candidate was saying back then. You see, we don’t wait for people to tell us what to report, we seek out truth and facts.
And the facts are, well, funny – and a stinging indictment of how constant the hypocrisy is both among the Bush administration and the entire US non-M/I media.
For instance, John Kerry is getting assailed today by every single major media outlet, all of them echoing criticisms from the GOP about whether he used the word medal or ribbon or meant medal when he said ribbon when he was testifying and protesting and fighting in defense of his beliefs way back in 1971.
These articles allow for rebuttals from the head of the DNC – who fires back hard – but none – not a single one – stops to look at the facts and give a comparison of what President Bush was saying and doing back then. It is the most basic thing to follow up with: if the Bush camp is making Kerry’s actions and words back in the early 1970’s a front-and-center campaign issue, then what George W. Bush was doing and saying at that same time should be compared for the sake of comparing apples to apples (yes, actual fairness.)
So, during that time they are criticizing Senator Kerry’s actions and words while standing up against the war in Vietnam, what was then-citizen George W. Bush doing and saying?
As reported in the Texas Monthly in May of 1994, "During his twenties, as his father kept rising in the governmental ranks (ambassador to the United Nations, national chairman of the Republican party, U.S. liaison officer to China, CIA director), George W. carried on what he now calls his cavalier days in Houston. He lived the life of the classic bachelor, driving a Triumph, chasing women, drinking, and never seriously pursuing a career." (see article: "Born to run: What's in a name? How about the Republican nomination for governor. Now the highly confident but untested George W. Bush has to convince voters that he's more than just a chip off the old block"
Let’s compare words now, direct quotes from each during that same time period.
As ABC News reported today, Kerry said back in 1971 (see: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html ): "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals." He said this "in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971," reports ABC. The next day, Kerry reportedly said, ""In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives."
That is what the Bush administration – and the entire non-M/I media – is saying is a huge issue challenging Kerry’s character and integrity.
Now here is what George W. Bush was saying back then: "In 1973, when George W. was 26, he got drunk and drove over a neighbor's trash can. When he was confronted by his father, the younger Bush challenged him to a fight, saying, "You want to go mano a mano right here?" reports the Texas Monthly.
Hmm. Which words from that time period show a lesser character? Which actions? John Kerry standing up for what he believed in and using medals to mean ribbons or medals? Or George W. Bush cavorting around drunk off his gourd, breaking the law by driving drunk and damaging and neighbor’s property, and trying to pick a fight with his own father?
While the press goes along nitpicking Kerry’s words from over 30 years ago, they, of course, are giving President Bush a free pass. They allow the Bush team to say what Kerry was doing and saying 30 years ago is a testament to his character, but don’t apply the same standard to President Bush. Yet more evidence why the entire non-Moderate Independent media is nothing but useless Republican puppet press, like the old Soviet Pravda.
There’s more, even more recent. From the same article, Bush said during this interview in 1994: "I've never been a long-term planner about anything," he says. "I have lived my life with more of a short-term focus." Hmm, that seems to explain his short-sighted approach to Iraq, and his enjoyment of running up the nation’s credit cards without regard to the long-term consequences. But you won’t hear this quote in the non-M/I press.
Wait, how about more about Bush’s character from way back when – you know, the period they are now trying to say Kerry showed a lack of character during.
"His closest pals, who all say he can act brash and cocky, have nicknamed him the Bombastic Bushkin."
Even his mother, former first-lady Barbara Bush couldn’t help but admit: "When the queen of England came to the United States and had dinner with the Bush family, Barbara seated George W. at the other end of the table so he wouldn't be heard saying anything offensive. "He's the Bush black sheep," she proudly told the queen." An early indication of his knack for skilled diplomacy, eh?
And when asked during this interview about his draft dodger status, he replied jokingly, mocking the subject of avoiding service to his country. As the interviewer recounts: "When I ask him if he tried to avoid the draft, he grins and says, "Hell, no. Do you think I'm going to admit that? You are out of your mind. Let me give you the political answer, Mr. Reporter"--and then he tells me he wasn't dodging anything."
Right, not saying he didn’t do it, just that of course he won’t admit that, but instead will give a "political answer."
As for the issue of the medals, the press didn’t even bother to interview actual soldiers – which shows their political motivation. They only talked to Republican politicians.
Well, I talked to a retired naval gunner friend of mine who used to fire off pom-pom guns, who called me while I was writing this article to ask incredulously what this issue was all about. He is a Bush supporter and pro-kill’em-all type Republican, but couldn’t imagine who would launch such a ridiculous line of questioning.
"Who started this topic?" he asked bewildered. "Whoever started this obviously never served in the military."
To make absoultely clear this man's leanings, he worked for the first President Bush, receiving an appointment directly from him. But even for this Bush fan, the issue was too absurd to hold his tongue about.
"Medals are just something you throw in your drawer – maybe take them out for special occasions. The ribbons you wear everyday – they are decorated to show where you served, whether you were honored with purple hearts or for achievements."
We asked if Kerry’s claim that there was no real difference in a serviceman’s eyes between a medal and a ribbon was accurate.
"Well they’re different – you don’t wear the medals. The ribbons are what you wear everyday on your uniform. The ribbons are more important – the medals are just clanky pieces of metal that you take out for special occasions."
"So throwing away a ribbon is just as significant as throwing away a medal?" I asked him.
"This whole topic is ridiculous. Anyone who would make an issue of this obviously never served and knows nothing about the military. Even a reservist would know this is a ridiculous attack."
Funny, we know of one supposed reservist – George W. Bush – who doesn’t know this. Seems like Bush never even learned the basics, according to this Navy man and conservative Republican. Of course Cheney wouldn’t know, as he never served.
Yes, not only did the media not do its job in laying out the fair comparison as to what George W. Bush was saying and doing while Kerry was speaking out for his country and throwing his ribbons, but they also ran all of their articles without bothering to get a clarification of the issue from actual servicemen who could address the supposed issue. It is clear they wanted to air the partisan attack and not let reality or fairness get in the way.
To lay things out a bit further, just from this one 1994 Texas Monthly article we learn another very interesting thing. George Bush ran on a platform of terror. That’s right, it was a Texas-size version of fear mongering and a war on terror. As then-candidate George W. Bush put it, people needed to vote for him rather than his opponent because, "Everyone is still scared to leave their homes," and only he could protect them.
Sound familiar?
Yes, he even took this fear mongering to the level of war. As he said when talking about dealing with juvenile crime, "In order to win the war, we have to…" Look at George in action – even back in 1994 as just a candidate for Governor of Texas, he was talking about winning the "war," justifying harsh, radical actions because there is a "war" we are fighting; about how only he can free people from the terrorism that has "everyone… scared to leave their homes." Notice a pattern?
The article also talks about his "temper," and how "arrogant" he is, and how "he does not respond well to criticism" – traits that are still evident but that you never – ever – hear used with regard to him anywhere in the media.
And he was even displaying how he deems anyone who even questions him fairly to be "against him" – a hatred based purely on paranoia and a penchant for attacking anyone who asks something he doesn’t like.
As the article reported, then-candidate Bush was "weak on specifics," in one case offering to build extra prisons but not saying how he would pay for it. So, "…an older woman" tried to get an answer from him about how he would pay to build the prisons. President Bush’s reply, said to the interviewer privately after the event: "Well, there's someone who's against me."
Yes, anyone who challenges him become his enemy. But wait, the punch line, as the interviewer reports: "Then the woman walked up and asked if she could get Bush's autograph and take his picture." Yes, this was just a supporter who was trying to get an answer to a fair question, but to the paranoid, intolerant Bush, she instantly became an enemy who was "against him."
We could go on and on, but the point is simple. The entire media is now assailing John Kerry for – at worst – being a bit boastful, or more likely, being slightly imprecise in one sentence of a TV interview he was undertaking as a twenty-something year old, already-battle-tested-and-scarred war hero standing up for his fellow soldiers.
The press is acting as an arm of the Republican National Committee, challenging Kerry’s character for his actions in his twenties, but not pointing out the inescapable comparison that would make for a fair article, that, quite simple, as even Bush says about himself, "During his twenties, (as John Kerry was healing his war wounds and petitioning the Senate to save the lives of his fellow soldiers,) George W. carried on what he now calls his cavalier days in Houston," driving drunk over neighbors’ trash cans, challenging his father to drunken brawls, still with nothing but a couple decades of hard drinking ahead of him.
But don’t tell the non-M/I press that. They will just think you are "against them" – and the Republican Party they act as puppets for.
And John Kerry knows this. As CNN reported yesterday, "At the end of the interview, as he unclipped his microphone, Kerry, apparently not realizing the camera was still on, turned to someone and muttered, "God, they're doing the work of the Republican National Committee." (see: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/26/kerry.medals/index.html )
Again we have the question, why can’t Democrats speak the truth? Why is Kerry only saying this once he gets off mic? As we learned in the primaries watching Wesley Clark get torn apart by the right-wing hate-and-lie machine, if you don’t directly confront the non-M/I press’ right-wing bias, you will be doomed. And John should know this, having survived by turning gunboats directly into enemy fire.
posted on April 27, 2004 04:25:23 PM new
skylite - Who in the world are the "non-moderate Independent press"? lol
Secondly - John kerry has no one but himself to blame....FOR YEARS....everytime he's made a speech or given an interview HE'S brought up his Vietnam service. HE'S the one who chose to bring it into the political arena and the [anybody but Bush] dems followed right behind hoping that maybe, just maybe, his military service might make a difference in how many votes he got. They just forgot to remember what he did AFTER he asked to be released from his obligation of serving his country. [Speaking out against our country's actions.]
posted on April 27, 2004 10:37:01 PM new
Edward Peck, was in command PCF94 Jan. 26, 1969 in the after-action combat reports posted on Kerry’s web sight not Kerry. Peck was also in command of PCF94 in the after action combat Jan 29, 1969. which he Peck was severely wounded. Both reports listed on the web sight list Kerry in command.
Ribbons you can buy. Medals, copies you can buy. You can only receive 1 that is real.
It is now up to Kerry to sign off on form 180 to release his complete recored to the media as President Bush did.
It is not Bush or the Republicans pushing Kerry about his Medals. But the Majority of the Vietnam Veterans of this Nation. We could Care less about how he got his medals.
We want him to clear our good name he slaandered 30 + years ago tell the truth .
posted on April 27, 2004 11:00:26 PM newWe want him to clear our good name he slaandered 30 + years ago tell the truth .
But everything Kerry stated about Vietnam was true.
There were free fire zones where soldiers shot anything that moved.
There were soldiers that murdered innocent civilians.
There were soldiers that mutilated dead enemey soldiers.
There were soldiers that tortured enemy combatants.
Have we forgotten the Mi Lai massacre of men, women and children ?
I have yet to see anything Kerry said about Vietnam that was false.
The only problem I noticed with what he said, and it was minor and completely excusable, was he used infinitive terms such as "our soldiers" instead of saying "some soldiers".
