Well then, how about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Ashcroft – how any American soldier got into this, I don’t know. Mr. Clinton, you may have noticed, isn’t running for office. Sooner or latter I suppose that, like Mr. Hoover, Mr. Clinton will not be held up as the horrible example and fair sample.
I can only hope that you, the cab driver, the guy in the deli, and your children and their children enjoy the benefits of paying for Mr. Bush’s deficit.
blush That’s a mistake I often make. It’s not quite as embarrassing as a there/their/they’re, its/it’s, here/hear type mistake, which I try much harder not to do, but it’s still embarrassing.
It shouldn’t be an issue, but it is. The Swift Boat Liars for Bush have questioned the service of John Kerry, and the media picked it up and gave them millions of dollars in free publicity. Now, people like my dad believe the Liars. Is it wrong to try to fight that or should their lies stand as truth?
It’s also not fair (as if anything in politics is) that Bushco can accuse Kerry of being wimpy and weak, but then if he talks about Vietnam, he’s running on his war experience. Then if anyone on the left brings up Bush’s cowardly ducking into then running away from his National Guard service, people say that none of that’s important. It is important, because the contrast in character between Kerry and Bush is vast.
I’m not qualified to answer any of these, but I do believe that Kerry will make sure that the answers to 4 and 5 are yes. As far as 4 is concerned, we’re due for another attack, I think everyone knows that. It will happen no matter who’s in office. Still, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch because (I believe) he didn’t listen to the warnings of the outgoing Clinton administration, Richard Clarke, or his daily briefings, among many other things. Then he left Afghanistan to simmer while he went off and attacked a country that didn’t pose any immediate harm, creating more terrorists. That’s simplified, but I don’t have the kind of mind that can create long, detailed posts. There are plenty of books that do go into detail (“Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” by Richard A. Clarke, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism” by Anonymous-CIA agent, “Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & the Future of America” by Anonymous-CIA agent, “See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism” by Robert Baer, “Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11” by Gerald L. Posner, “A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies” by James Bamford, “The Age of Sacred Terror : Radical Islam’s War Against America” by Daniel Benjamin, Steven Simon, and most recently, “Intelligence Matters” by Senator Bob Graham, among others) about what Bush did wrong in the leadup to 9/11. I don’t think anyone (credible) is saying he knew for sure it was going to happen, wanted it to happen, or let it happen on purpose, but there are so many steps he could have taken to TRY and catch it before it did happen, and he and his people dropped the ball because they didn’t take al-Qaeda seriously. I haven’t seen much evidence that he’s any more competent now. Just because we haven’t had an attack on American soil since, doesn’t mean that it’s because of anything HE’S doing.
I’m biased, I’ll admit it, and the “War on Terror” isn’t the only reason I want him gone, but it’s an important one. I live in a big city that’s going to be a target at some point. I’d rather not die. I don’t think the people in charge are competent.
That they are lies is yet to be proven. The truth will out. But it was Kerry who first brought up his service in Vietnam; others have a different recollection of events and it is entirely fair that they can have their say.
Looking from the outside (being British), in a way, the veracity of the allegations is less relevant; more relevant is the way Kerry has failed to deal with them. This does not speak well of his Presidential abilities. Perhaps it’s been a mistake to treat the organisation as a Republican attack dog rather than simply an anti-Kerry group? (Hasn’t the leader been after Kerry for 20+ years?)
Only 8 more weeks!
Ohmygod this is so cute!
In what sense is it fair that PROVEN (sorry to shatter your illusions) LIARS get a national, nearly unchallenged voice?
“Outside,” you’ll forgive me, is the key word hear. The media has REFUSED, across the board, to challenge these liars. Kerry’s camp is just about the ONLY source of challenges to this group. You obviously are getting pretty narrowly focused media “from the outside.”
Yes; and after twenty years, he’s being funded and supported by . . . Bush/Cheney’04 and their cronies! Coincidence? Could be . . . when MONkeys come FLYing outta my ASS!
Only 8 more weeks!
Phew! When I read the thread title I thought it was on Bill Clinton.
The truth IS out, they’re liars!
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
Not if they’re lying. They’ve had free reign of the airwaves without anyone of importance smacking them down. It’s shameful. It’s beyond shameful.
The truth is not relevant? THE TRUTH IS NOT RELEVANT?? The truth is ALWAYS relevant! They’re tearing down a man’s honor with lies. That’s not relevant?
I don’t think so. His choice was to ignore the Liars. I disagree with that, but that was his choice. He certainly had more respect for his fellow veterans than they had for him.
I don’t believe this is true. The Washington Post and the New York Times published editorials and opinion pieces that were emphatically dismissive of the SwiftVets.
Damn, where’s the liberal media bias when you need it?
Editorials and opinion pieces SO don’t count.
The most damaging, emphatic, and compelling factual refutation of SBVT I’ve seen was from Fox News. There’s a recent thread on it here in the Pit somewhere.
The most damaging, emphatic and compelling factual refutation of SBVB was on eRiposte. I guess it depends on what you believe.
If Fox did such an emphatic factual job debunking them, I guess I could review their coverage since May and seea coherent and consistent fact-checking job, huh? I mean, it wouldn’t be a johnny-come-lately distancing of the SBVB once they had done their job, would it?
I’ve visited swiftvets.eripost.com and read the articles on his first Purple Heart and his visit to Cambodia.
On the first Purple Heart, in any British force he’d be laughed out of court. But Americans do things differently, and by the letter of the regulations he is certainly legally entitled to the medal.
With regard to his Cambodia visit, I got as far as
At which I burst out laughing (but read on). Sorry, but you don’t travel a delta at that speed. Never mind the noise, and I don’t know if the VC or NVA used mines, but a major danger is submerged objects like logs. You go even a fraction that fast and you risk having the bottom of your boat ripped out by a submerged rock or log. And let us not forget that you’re going against the current, so his true speed had to have been well over 23 kts - beyond the speed of the boat. Now the boat didn’t need to go that fast - even half the speed would have given him time, but certain things seem very iffy: firstly, they’d just been on patrol, including a skirmish, and would have come back to base for replenishment of fuel and arms and secondly, we’re relying on Kerry’s own diary being contemporaneous. I have the greatest of difficulty believing that he actually had time to sit down and write. Surely he’d be too busy captaining his boat? Is there any other record of him having met the other two boats? Sorry, I call bullshit on Kerry’s claim.
So far I call it evens.
So does anyone have anything either confirming or denying this story?