(would prefer both, but will settle for one or the other)
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.
4 comments:
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 ...
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.
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.
4 comments:
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 ...
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.
Oops, forgot to sign mine--but y'all knew it was me, right? Above Kuz ...
Cindy
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.
Post a Comment