Wednesday, August 11, 2004

I didn't say it

A summary of a book that is a summary of the, um, "misundertruths" of our President. No hard feelings, my dear, lovely, good-hearted Republican friends.

8 comments:

Snolen said...

Why is the press is all but ignoring the charges raised by the Swift Boat Veterans about Kerry’s four months in Vietnam? Whenever the press mentions them, it’s almost always to condemn the group as wicked, evil, naughty people with “Republican ties.” Kerry’s repeated claims of having been illegally in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968 (during the Nixon administration, no less!) have been shown to be false. Are there other inaccuracies?Remember how the press searched high and low for proof that W. was AWOL while serving in the National Guard? They even interviewed a dentist that treated W. at the time, hoping to find some dirt. Why aren’t the press applying the same rigorous fact-checking standards to Kerry’s military record as they did to W.’s? After all, Kerry’s tour in Vietnam is a central tenant of his campaign.

Anonymous said...

That's kind of funny--I've been wondering why "the media" hasn't been reporting on this either. The Dallas Morning News starts off here: http://snipurl.com/8e8y (sorry, it's via philly.com and you have to register). But I certainly think if these claims are going to be put out there, we should be reporting the truth, not a he-said, she-said kind of deal. So far, it looks like these guys are political operatives with little knowledge of what happened to Kerry in Vietnam and a giant chip on their shoulder due to his post-war protesting. Given what's happened to Max Cleland and John McCain in the past, this doesn't surprise me, but you might be able to convince me to postpone judgment till I have the complete story. If their accusations fall apart, though, I think the whole thing is despicable.

As for digging into John Kerry's military record--I do think it's appropriate for the press to ask questions, and I hope he releases any requested records. I would hope we're getting to the point where candidates recognize you can't keep this stuff under wraps anymore. But one thing that makes it different than W. right off the bat is that we're not disputing whether or not he was actually there--pretty tough to win medals if you're not.

One of the things I am most curious to know from the Swift Boat Truth Squad is why he won the medals if he didn't deserve them. Was there some sort of vast left-wing military conspiracy? It just doesn't make sense to me. As my Republican friend, Nolen, you get the honor of trying to explain it to me ...

Kuz said...

Oh, snolen! Please read this for why the press might be laying off the Swift Boat claims. I don't know anything about this Cambodian Christmas thing - I'll have to check that out.

Meanwhile, if you want the election to be about a comparison of choices made in the 60's and 70's, I'll take Kerry's choice of service over Bush's frolicking with ambitious secretaries anyday.

It does look like raising these questions has brought in some doubt, but seriously, if the incumbent is in the 40%'s in approval and has to resort to this at this point in the campaign, it can only mean one thing: desperation.

Anonymous said...

Oops, forgot to sign mine--but y'all knew it was me, right? Above Kuz ...

Cindy

Snolen said...

Kerry touts his time in Vietnam as proof he’d be a better commander-in-chief than Bush. Yet any scrutiny of Kerry’s military record or challenges to his version of events in Vietnam are viewed as ugly and unseemly. Maybe these Swift Boat “operatives” are raising the issue because the media isn’t; they accept Kerry's version at face value, which we know they shouldn't. Moreover, since Kerry is campaigning almost solely on his veteran credentials, his military record is fair game. Personally, I don’t believe a veteran is necessarily more qualified than a non-veteran to be president. In Kerry’s case, four months in Vietnam more than 30 years ago automatically means he’s more qualified than Bush to fight terrorists?

Kuz said...

It's not that "any" challenges are discredited - we're seeing people claiming to serve "with" Kerry when they actually served after he left, claiming to "treat" Kerry's wounds when they are nowhere on the documentation, and claiming he shot civilians in the back when they were nowhere near the action and couldn't possibly have witnessed the alleged action. Gimme a break.
Kerry has run for office plenty of times before, and these same jokers always appear out of the woodwork and are discredited. They're not telling the truth, and they have a strong motive to not tell the truth.

Oh, and I don't believe a veteran is more qualified to be C-in-C either, but apparently, 9/11 changed everything.

Dad K said...

I agree that decisions made 30 years don't always predict future behavior, but it does give some insight into the decision making model that one uses. George 2nd doesn't have a very strong track record af making good decisions.

I would wager that if George 2nd's name had been Berkowitz or Soprano rather than Bush, he'd never have gotten a sniff of the Texas Governorship, much less the White House.

For my money, I'll take the man that had the stones to serve his country rather than use Daddy's influence to avoid that service. It's been said that it takes one that has been in war to fully appreciate peace!



Finally, if George 2nd had George 2nd as VP (Instead of the cooly intelligent and cerebrally manipulative Cheney) we'd all be in even more serious trouble than we are right now!

Dad K said...

Sorry, the correct quotation is....

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
-- Dwight Eisenhower