This post does not speak of quid pro quo. It does not speak of favoring a lobbyist’s client with contracts. It clearly states that taxpayer’s money was given to the swift boat people.
So far, you haven’t even come close to backing that claim up. Can you back it up?
By this standard you’ll basically refuse to believe it until I come up with a tape wherein Bush and Schachte specifically agree on the exchange of misleading accusations for the contract. Even Bush isn’t dumb enough to let that happen. There’s no concrete evidence available because there’s been no investigation into the issue, and with the GOP controlling Congress there’s not likely to be. So either we can take the ostrich approach to the issue or we can use our common sense.
Schachte had made no attempt to smear Kerry’s reputation for thirty-three years. But mere days after it becomes clear that Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, a massive contract just so happens to come down the line for his company. And only after this contract has been fixed does Schachte suddenly feel a need to make his ridiculous claim about there being no enemy fire on the day Kerry own his first Purple Heart, a claim that has since been throughly debunked. No thank you, I don’t feel like buying a Brooklyn Bridge today.
ITR champion, you have made an unusual claim: That taxpayer’s money was used to fund the swift boat group.
An unusual claim requires compelling proof. A photocopy of a Treasury check made out to the swiftvets, or a copy of the EFT records would do nicely.
Otherwise, you’re just venting bile.
You have an OP that calls something a “kickback” that is a campaign paying (modestly) for someone’s services and you want to quibble about the wording of ITR’s statement?!? Everyone here except you seems to have understood that the quid-pro-quo that has been talked about would amount to essentially using taxpayer’s money to pay one of the Swiftees for his support. Besides which, he subsequently clearly explained what he meant.
It seems you are the one who is venting, probably to distract from just how horrendous an act this would be if it is indeed true.
Oh, piffle. Corruption is seldom so blatant, these are courtesans, not whores. They are not corrupt and cynical, merely hard-headed and realistic.
Schacte talks to Smith, sharing thier mutual civic virtue and deep concern for the future of their beloved Republic. They speak in troubled tones, worrying what dread fate may come to pass if the Wrong People take power, the weak, the vacillating, the wooly-thinking…the liberals!
And Schacte tells Smith what he knows about Kerry, something Smith suspected all along, that Kerry is a fraud and a liar, an obscenely ambitious scoundrel who happens not, this time, to be from Arkansas.
And Smith tells Jones, Jones tells Brown, Brown knows a fellow who works in Contracts and Procurors…Procurement, that is. They are talking about what a fine fellow Schacte is, and an astonishing coincidence comes to light! This very fellow, Schacte, is eligible for a contract, indeed, such a contract is already under consideration! How much stranger is life than fiction, so full of coincidence!
Of course one judges a contract on its merits, but of course many times, there is no clear decision possible simply on fact, one must judge character as well. And the character of Schacte…well, this is amply testified! Good and trustworthy men, men of impeccable civic virtue, have spoken highly of Mr. Schacte’s integrity, honesty, and courage.
This is how dignified men of character conduct themselves. Not “fucky-sucky five dollar, 10 dollar love you long time.”
All 3 would bug me, if true.
I’m just skeptical on #3.
<snip>
I didn’t write the op, and assume no responsibility for it. ITR made a claim which he has as of yet not even come close to backing up.
There are many acts that would be horrendous if proven true. France dropping a nuke on Rome would be a horrendous act if proven true. If I claim that France nuked Rome, it’s up to me to prove it.
Well, I am glad to learn you didn’t write the OP. But what you choose to make a big deal about speaks volumes. ITR has come closer to backing up his claim than the OP to backing up his.
Yes. And, we know that there was a connection that creates at least the appearance of a possible impropriety and since we wouldn’t want such an appearance of impropriety to stain an otherwise virtuous administration, I am sure that you will join me in calling for an investigation to clear this all up and rescue the Administration’s otherwise good name.
By the way, I should clarify that it was probably a poor choice of words for me to have said, “You have an OP…” in that post. I didn’t realize until now that this could be a source of confusion. What I should have said is, “One has an OP…”
There’s no need for an investigation. ITR has made this statement as fact:
All he has to do is prove it, and save the taxpayers he’s so concerned with the millions of dollars an investigation would cost.
Otherwise, “the appearance of a possible impropriety” in the eyes of a few bitter lefties is hardly worthy of an investigation.
If we can spend six years and millions of dollars for Ken Starr to probe every batshit nutjob allegation from the conservative right during the '90s, surely spending a comparable amount of time and energy and money to investigate the allegations on the current President seems to be turnabout and fair play, don’t you think?
I know, I know – fat chance of seeing that happen. The Republican Party may talk a mean game about how they’re dedicated to truth and morality and ethics, but it’s all so much lip-flapping inaction when it’s one of their guys under the microscope…
Funny, I haven’t yet seen any conservative half so willing do doubt the connection on the issue of Kofi Annan and the oil-for-food in Iraq business. As I’ve said, if Bush did give the contract in exchange then what it would look like is exactly what we see. The only way to get firm proof would be as investigation by Congress or the media, and organizations under the control of the Republican Party are unlikely to begin an investigation that might damage Bush.
Schachte accused Kerry of a very serious crime, namely faking a war injury in Vietnam. A little bit a poking around quickly proved that the accusation was entirely false. Why would a war veteran and respected businessman suddenly start spreading ludicrous and vile slander about a fellow veteran other than that he was getting paid to do so? Answer me that, and then I’ll retract my claim. (Well you also have to explain why he was totallly silent for thirty-three years but suddenly decided to begin spreading lies about Kerry right after he got the contract. And why it was that in 2003 he actually praised Kerry for his service in Vietnam. And explain why the contract was established right after it became clear that Kerry would be Democratic nominee.)
Of course, as the article mentioned, this is only one of several cases of an improper connection between Bush and the Swift Boat Goons. One lawyer for the Bush campaign resigned rather than having an investigation into his ties with the SBG. Hmmm, I wonder what he was afraid of us finding out.
But we haven’t seen anything, have we? You made an accusation, and then came up with something that does not establish what you claim.
Perhaps the fellow veteran in question was running for an office for which he was unqualified. And the war veteran/respected businessman thought he had information relevant to Kerry’s qualifications.
I have read any amount of “ludicrous and vile slander” against Bush, Cheney, and every other prominent Republican on the SDMB. Are all of you being paid off as well?
Regards,
Shodan
No, not as yet. What are you offering?
Just for the record, here is my list of current “scandals” of this administration that I am still waiting to hear more about. I put the word “scandals” in quotes just because a few of these appear to involve only extreme mendacity and/or incompetence but not actual criminal acts:
(1) The outing of Valerie Plame.
(2) The whole prisoner abuse thing, including the Administration’s internal directives in regards to the questioning of prisoners and adherence to the Geneva Conventions.
(3) The apparent leaking of the super-top-secret information about us having broken the Iranian codes to Chalabi who may have then given the information to the Iranians.
(4) The extent to which the Iranian intelligence may have worked through Chalabi to encourage the U.S. to attack their enemy Iraq, and how the neo-con true-believers fell into this trap.
(5) The whole Israeli intelligence connection / Douglas Feith / Larry Franklin thing. [I admit that I didn’t follow this one very closely so I don’t have any strong opinion on it.]
(6) The whole issue of the guarding of Iraq weapons sites and, more specifically, a full accounting of what the administration did to try to insure that if Iraq did have WMD they were not more likely rather than less likely to have ended up in the hands of terrorists.
(7) The whole Swift Boat / Bush Administration connection being discussed in this thread.
Feel free to add to the list…I suspect it is incomplete.
[And just to anticipate, no, Shodan, it is not “ludicrous and vile slander” to note serious charges that have been made / stories that have surfaced and have not yet been resolved one way or the other. What is ludicrous and vile slander is when one lies about personal knowledge that one claims to have about someone.]
And the reason why the erroneous memories about Kerry’s conduct in Vietnam only popped into Schachte’s head after the Bush administration handed his company a massive contract is…?
There comes a point in every thread where both sides have clearly decided what they’re going to believe. We’re going to see a logical connection between Schachte’s spontatneous discovery of false memories concerning Kerry’s service and a forty million dollar payout from the Bush administration, and you’re going to go on believing that it’s all a sepctacular random coincidence. So if you folks want to drag this thread on for hundreds of more posts then go right ahead, but you’ll have to do it without my enlightened wisdom.
…that Kerry was running for President, and that the national office of Commander-in-Chief is more significant to the nation’s security than Senator. And that much of his alleged qualifications for President was based on his war record.
Regards,
Shodan
So, I am confused, are you saying that the seriousness of the situation of Kerry becoming Commander-in-Chief caused Schachte to have false memories, caused Schachte to lie, or caused Schachte to tell the truth even though his version of “the truth” seems not only to be at variance with his original version of the truth but also the version of those known to have been under Kerry’s command on the boat?
Recovered memory. You ask Rosanne Barr about that.
See, the dreadful prospect of Kerry as CinC shocked Schacte’s psyche. Reeling in horror and disbelief, he went into flashback mode, and relived the previously repressed trauma (see Freud, Sigmund). After this excruciating psychic lurch, he realised, to his astonishment, that his previous memories were false; perhaps planted by Fondavik operatives (see Candidate, Manchurian).
Being a patriot, he had no other option but to come forward with his new! improved! memories.
Its all quite simple when you understand how this stuff works. Really.