It's sounding bad for Kerry

[DustyBottoms]

Uhh - If this it pr oven true, then "Better luck next time"... If it's false, then these guys need some federal pound you in the a$$ prison time...

Kerry's big mistake - Running on his military record. Bush was beatable, but whoever wanted to replace him should have had a convincing and better plan for America to convey to the voters. A strong defense voting record would also have helped. Heck - Even a record of consistent defence voting would have helped. But trying to replace the CIC based only on 4 months of questionable duty just doesn't cut it.

Message to you libs.. Clinton showed you the way.. You didn't listen. Clinton was so charismatic and had such a persona that based on that alone, most of the electoral votes went his way. (not mine!) He wins the "guy you would most like to party with" award hands down! In a peacefull world this would be fine, but his lack of response to terrorism led to the current situation. The problems he allowed to be created were inherited by Bush. Today us voters know that the economic "dot com bust" and the terrorists enthusiasm that they can attack without repercussions are based on history. Well - It takes time to turn these things around. Today, we are on track in both areas with economic recovery and a solid aggressiveness against terrorism.

I say we stay the course!

]:flag :flag :flag :smash


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE AUG 03, 2004 21:35:02 ET XXXXX

ANTI-KERRY VETS GATHER FOR ASSAULT; BOOK CLAIMS KERRY WAR 'FABRICATIONS'

**Exclusive**

A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND:


Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.


All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.


A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.


Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.


Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.


Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.

The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"They hired a !!!!!!! private investigator to dig up trash!" charged a top Kerry adviser traveling with the senator late Tuesday. "This is pay for play, and the dirtiest of all dirty tricks ever played on a candidate for the presidency. How low can they go?"

Kerry supporters are comparing the effort by the veterans to the Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton.

UNFIT FOR COMMAND will not be released until August 15.

The names. The details. All on the record.

Beginning tomorrow, the DRUDGE REPORT will break the embargo. :flag

[w1che]

Something strange about this story. If the vets were going to fabricate a story why would that have to hire a private investigator? They could just make it up & throw it out like the Democrats do all the time. I don't get it but of course the Dems will say Bush is behind it even if he isn't. See that's how you do it, no bases of fact, just make it up..

[Dumbie]

Well an Objective View from Mr. W1che, I almost fell off my chair!

Claim: Â_ John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.
Status: Â_ False.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

It was not at all unusual that a Swift boat crew member might be wounded more than once in a relatively short period of time, or that injuries meriting the award of a Purple Heart might not be serious enough to require time off from duty. According to a Boston Globe overview of John Kerry's Vietnam experience:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.
"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."

And according to Douglas Brinkley's history of John Kerry and the Vietnam War:

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.

John Kerry was wounded in his first significant combat action, when he volunteered for a special mission on 2 December 1968:


--





Swift Justice the Men

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

Origins: Â_ John Kerry's service in Vietnam as an officer in command of a Swift boat and his subsequent activities as an anti-war protester have engendered a good deal of controversy, especially among those who also served in Vietnam. Many Vietnam veterans were angered by Kerry's anti-war stance after he returned to the U.S., viewing his anti-war activities — particularly his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 — as unfairly and undeservedly smearing the reputations of all who served in Vietnam.
That said, the piece quoted above, in which a variety of veterans offer their views of John Kerry, isn't really something that can evaluated as "true" or "false." It's true that the men named do exist, that they served in Vietnam, and that they made the statements attributed to them, but the substance of most of these quotes is an expression of opinion, not something objectively classifiable as right or wrong.
The important point to note here is that this piece presents only one side of the story:

* Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:


"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.
"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3
— Fred Short
"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.
I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3
— David Alston
"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2
— James Wasser


* Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:


Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.
"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."1

* How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:


. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.1



Â_ Sources:

Â_ Â_ 1. Â_ Braun, Stephen. Â_ "Kerry's Own War Over Vietnam."
Â_ Â_ Los Angeles Times. Â_ 5 July 2004 Â_ (p. A1).


Â_ Â_ 2. Â_ Braun, Stephen. Â_ "Kerry's War Tour Serves as Theme, Target."
Â_ Â_ Los Angeles Times. Â_ 29 July 2004 Â_ (p. A13).


Â_ Â_ Brinkley, Douglas. Â_ Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War.
Â_ Â_ New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Â_ ISBN 0-06-056523-3.


Â_ Â_ Klein, Joe. Â_ "The Long War of John Kerry."

Â_ Â_ The New Yorker. Â_ 2 December 2002.


Â_ Â_ Kranish, Michael. Â_ "John F. Kerry: Candidate in the Making — Part 2: Heroism, and Growing Concern About War."

Â_ Â_ The Boston Globe. Â_ 16 June 2003.


Â_ Â_ 3. Â_ La Ganga, Maria L. Â_ "Crewmates Attest to Kerry's Mettle as Wartime Commander."
Â_ Â_ Los Angeles Times. Â_ 29 July 2004 Â_ (p. A13).


Â_ Â_ Zoroya, Greg. Â_ "Vietnam Crewmates Steady at Kerry's Side."
Â_ Â_ USA Today. Â_ 29 July 2004 Â_ (p. A4).

[sinecure]

... then why-oh-why can't we see the medical reports and [more importantly] the medal citations??

I'd like to know if Kerry put himself in for even ONE of those PH's or the Star. I'd also like to know how severe the wounds actually were. :question

There wasn't this kind of discussion over Jack "PT-109" Kennedy.... was there?

DB's correct... Kerry and his handlers made a large mistake in running him as a "war hero"... especially in light of his actions when he got home. :mad

As for Slick Willie-- George Will said it best, "Bill Clinton was not the worst President the US has ever had, he was just the worst person to ever be President." :lol :lol :clap

[Dumbie]

sinski, I don’t know why you can’t see the medical reports, but as it was reported by Snopes, at the time all combat related injuries were eligible for medal recognition. If you question his, then question them all, and question the officers and policies that awarded them. There is testimony by crew mates and officers, far more then Bush has produced, so why not dig into Bush’s records, why didn’t you look closely when he was considered? You didn’t care, as long as he fit your mold of what a president should be. Obviously a sound military record, a sound criminal record, a man without substance abuse issues, and honest man, a knowledgeable man, a man who got where he is because he worked for his place rather than cheating his way up wasn’t important to you then. You are a Party Pooper, and anything that comes from you will be endorsed along party lines. :toast

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Dumbie
sinski, I don’t know why you can’t see the medical reports, but as it was reported by Snopes, at the time all combat related injuries were eligible for medal recognition. If you question his, then question them all, and question the officers and policies that awarded them. There is testimony by crew mates and officers, far more then Bush has produced, so why not dig into Bush’s records, why didn’t you look closely when he was considered? You didn’t care, as long as he fit your mold of what a president should be. Obviously a sound military record, a sound criminal record, a man without substance abuse issues, and honest man, a knowledgeable man, a man who got where he is because he worked for his place rather than cheating his way up wasn’t important to you then. You are a Party Pooper, and anything that comes from you will be endorsed along party lines. :toast

Well-- as far as all those PH recipients go... they aren't ALL running for Prez... now ARE they?? If he's so damned proud of his "war record" why can't we see the details? :question

You think snopes.com is the final authority? They never found a liberal cause that they didn't like, or a conservative one they DID like. Might as well say you read it on democraticunderground.com.

"Testimony" has surfaced on BOTH sides of the "medals" question, idiot. Read and try to comprehend.

Kerry didn't work a day for what he has.. he married his money. Dispute that. Like virtually all of the Dims "leadership" he has nothing at all in common with the classic Democratic "common working man" that they pander to.

"Worked for his place..."??? That's funny!

:lol :lol :lol :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

PH for combat injuries?? Is a scratch an injury?

Not in my book.
And snopes is leaving out soem details of their own.

By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.� And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.........By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt’s problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces.
Mr. Kerry has already confessed his complicity in killing civilians as “accidents of war.� However, he has offered a classic Nuremberg defense that this was not only a commonplace occurrence throughout the Vietnam War, but he was carrying out a policy “with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.�

His commander of naval operations in Vietnam, who specifically designed the mission that Mr. Kerry and the other Swiftboat commanders executed, Admiral Zumwalt, clearly disagreed. An examination of the truth behind this disagreement is not an attack on Mr. Kerry. It is a matter of vital historical interest.


Gee...wonder why snopes left THOSE statments out .????????

Kerry crewman James Wasser said he was "absolutely upset" over his former commanding officer's claims that the U.S. committed wartime atrocities as a matter of course.

Saying he recalled no such war crimes, Wasser said of Kerry, "I felt betrayed."

Shipmate Bill Zaladonis was also offended by Kerry's claims. "I didn't like the idea [of Kerry condemning his fellow servicemen]," he told the Sun.

"I certainly didn't believe that all Vietnam veterans were baby-killing women rapers. Most people I know agree with me - they didn't see it."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/15/142343.shtml

As to kerys honesty and the economy;
The optimisim endded fast. On thursday night, John Kerry claimed:

We're told that new jobs that pay $9,000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best we can do. They say this is the best economy that we've ever had. And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. Well, here is our answer: There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can't do better.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-29-kerry-speech-text_x.htm

But reality bites kerry.According to FactCheck.org:;
Kerry continued to talk down the economy using dubious statistics. When he formally announced his candidacy in September 2003 he claimed the nation was suffering the "greatest job loss since the Great Depression," which we pointed out was not true. Now he's saying that the jobs the economy is adding are paying $9,000 less than the jobs they replace. That's not a fact, either.

So this is the aoptomistic campaign Kerry claimed they would run?Just how is talking down a recovering economy optimis.Oh well....this is an election year.

So how did Kerry come by the claim about jobs paying $9,000 less than before?

Kerry bases his claim on an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Economic Policy Institute. But the EPI figures don't support what Kerry said, because they don't actually compare new jobs and old jobs -- only broad averages for entire industries.

The facts are most economists simply can’t agree that the Kerry claim has any validity. Greg Valliere is typical of them:

Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Schwab Soundview Capital Markets in Washington, was quoted by Bloomberg News as saying both sides are looking at the economy through a political prism.

``On the right, people are saying that these are wonderful new jobs, on the left they are not very good jobs,'' Valliere said. ``In truth, most economists would tell you they're not sure.''

The key to the claimis the information available:

Brookings Institution economist Barry Bosworth, a former Carter administration official, says Kerry's approach is "very misleading:"

“We shouldn't be in the business of trying to compare the rates of jobs lost to those gained because we just don't have the information right now to do it. Trying to measure the gross flow of jobs is really futile.�

Kerry said something else on Thursday night:

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war.

Well if this misleading $9,000 claim is any indicator, We dont hold out much hope for his promises.

We have Greenspan putting the damper on Kerries clear lie....sorry, misleadding statements;
There is evidence that jobs are being added at both ends of the spectrum, Greenspan said.

For the economy as a whole, he said, "it balances out. . . . We've not been able to find a significantly meaningful change in the quality of the jobs being produced relative to the quality of jobs being lost for the nation as a whole over the last year."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4121-2004Jul21?language=printer

Where these Wage losses do happen they are largely do to an education-gap.This is from workers trying to reorient themselves with the demands of the market. It not a political problem its a temporary one.

[DEAD ZONE]

here is a new add coming out . The ad begins with Kerry's vice-presidential running mate, John Edwards, speaking: "If you have any question about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him. ..."
"Here's what those men think about John Kerry," reads a message on the screen.

That quote is followed by brief testimonies of 15 men explaining they "served with John Kerry."

Lieutenant Commander George Elliot: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Ensign Al French: "He's lying about his record."

Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Gunner's mate Van Odell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened."

Lt. Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened is the difference between night and day."

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale: "He lacks the capacity to lead."

Lt. Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Lt. Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."

Lt. Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Gunner's mate Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country, he most certainly did."

Lt. Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry. John Kerry cannot be trusted."

No details are available on when and where the commercial will be shown, but talk radio shows are already picking up on the audio track and cable television news shows are bound to follow.

[Dumbie]

Whether anyone is running for anything or not makes no never mind, and Kerry was doing just fine long before he married Heinz. Snopes is not the final word, you are.
Only they post their resources and you don’t.


Newzmax is a joke, the Admiral Elmo Zumwalt article came out in March, the Snopes story was recorded in Feb.

The mates on the stage, the Generals, and the nation who will vote for Kerry is satisfied that he didn’t steal the medals, that his officers gave them to him freely, and that he has a man who is willing to stand in front of the world and say, Kerry saved his life.

The rest is hogwash Until Proven. The man who treated Kerry Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." treated him for an injury, an injury in action warranted a medal, period.

Prove otherwise!!!! :confused

If Kerry hadn't turned against the war in the seventies and someone was disputing his record these same guys would be up in arms. This is all political BS.:lol

[RosieWolf]

well whoolieboo, i'm flat fed up with hearing him spout what a great war hero he was, when he spent 4 months there and did his level-best to get the heck outa there .. don't u question at all WHY he only spent 4 months in nam instead of the usual 1 yr tour ???.. he was an officer, after all, he shoulda been there at least that long if not longer.. all his 'boat-mates' spent their year or two over there.. what's wrong with him that he couldn't????? (ohhhh i know.. he had a MENTAL INCAPICITY!!!.. that has to be it, and u want this guy running our country?))) :lol


I have to surmise that the reason he came home after 4 months was NOT because of any disabling injuries.. which he doesn't show.. but because the people under and above him WANTED him GONE!!!!!!! there were a LOT of men and women who were certainly injured more seriously than he ever was and THEY STAYED...... SO WHAT was his problem staying, since he claims to be such a great soldier and leader??????

think man, think.. ur so far under the snow, we may never dig u out.. :lol

[Dumbie]

Why stay, he probably concluded that the war was wrong and wanted to do something about it, and he did. That is continuing service, and he went on to a lifetime of service. Vietnam wasn’t the only front, the war was here on our homeland as well, don’t you remember? Do you really think that the protesting and the disruptions were going away without resolving the war or civil rights issues? The government was forced to face the facts that the people had recognized the injustices and would not stop until they were set right. If Bush is reelected I suspect it will start again, only this time with more intensity, the government has raised the bar using military gear in civilian policing which is only asking for an equal response. Bush has not been good for democracy or world diplomacy and I don’t think folks are going to stand by and let it continue.

Kerry may not be the best selection in the country, but he far surpasses Bush in the important issue we face today. Anybody but Bush will do, and when history records this presidency this country will never vote for another Bush again. :wave

[RosieWolf]

Originally posted by Dumbie
Why stay, he probably concluded that the war was wrong and wanted to do something about it, and he did.

so instead of staying and being the great war hero, he came home, trashed his comrades, threw his medals he wrote himself so he could leave in the trash, and then proceeded to protest the war every time he opened his mouth.. this is what u call patriotic and the founding of a good president?



GIVE ME A BREAK

[RosieWolf]

btw, whooliedip, HE is one spouting that he's a WAR HERO and HE WASNT THERE LONG ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING HEROIC.. HE is the one saying how he served his country, when he didn't do any such thing.. he RAN for cover first chance he got.. dang chicken-shyte coward is what he REALLY is, and when u dig ur way out from under that snow-job u keep swallowing, u'll realize that.

[sinecure]

Wh00lie.... I've had to think about this for awhile... just so I could find the proper connotation and core meaning in order that you could possibly grasp the meaning and perhaps fully comprehend the substance of the expression.

After a little time and a lot of thinking, the best I could come up with [with full recognition for your preference for scatological references] that YOU might have a chance of fully understanding it is--

Wh00lie, you're nuttier than a Mason jar full of squirrel crap.


I'm outta here for awhile. Surgery at zero-dark-thirty tomorrow morning, and a substiantial stay in UCLA's hospital.

See y'all in a couple of weeks.:wave

[Dumbie]

Well I hope your choice in surgeons is better than your choice in pRestidents, you may come back with a foreign object-ive! If them nurses are Compassionate Conservative you may be better off staying home. :wink

[DustyBottoms]

I'm outta here for awhile. Surgery at zero-dark-thirty tomorrow morning, and a substiantial stay in UCLA's hospital.

See y'all in a couple of weeks.


Sin - Stay stong and get well soon! :smash

[~wildangel~]

Surgery at zero-dark-thirty tomorrow morning, and a substiantial stay in UCLA's hospital.

Sin, hope all goes well.

[RosieWolf]

Originally posted by sinecure
[b]Wh00lie, you're nuttier than a Mason jar full of squirrel crap.

ROFMFAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOO

oh mannnnnn sin, i jes spit lemonaide all over my brand new monitor.. hurrrrrrrrrry back and be well luv, ur in my prayers for a speedy recovery huggggggggggggglez

[~wildangel~]

LMAO:lol :lol

Sin, your also in my prayers:)

:luck

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Dumbie
Whether anyone is running for anything or not makes no never mind, and Kerry was doing just fine long before he married Heinz. Snopes is not the final word, you are.
Only they post their resources and you don’t.
Tipicle lier leftist. I did post the source .You just selectively read.

Newsmax is a joke, the Admiral Elmo Zumwalt article came out in March, the Snopes story was recorded in Feb. Considering the source was march and NOT from news max.:confused
One more time ...and I bold it so your bad eyes can see..By Thomas Lipscomb
The New York Sun | March 1, 2004


besides, you make a jab at newsmax after claiming this:
Snopes is not the final word, you are.
Only they post their resources and you don’t.

Which I never said but did say they are not always correct and this is a good reason why. They did not even mention the common knowledge fact of how military promotions are used to get rid of people nor did they even site other reports like the one I did.
The mates on the stage, the Generals, and the nation who will vote for Kerry is satisfied that he didn’t steal the medals, that his officers gave them to him freely, and that he has a man who is willing to stand in front of the world and say, Kerry saved his life. Who said stole. See above on how he can easily get them.

The rest is hogwash Until Proven. The man who treated Kerry Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." treated him for an injury, an injury in action warranted a medal, period.

Prove otherwise!!!! :confused

If Kerry hadn't turned against the war in the seventies and someone was disputing his record these same guys would be up in arms. This is all political BS.:lol He treated him and said it. The proof is in the records that KERYY refuses to release. WHY??? He is clearly hidding the truth and the eyewitness that treated him is the base untill YOU can prove otherwise.You rely on these generals mates and who ever and none of them treated the guy or put the medals on him. My guys did.

Besides, your post is so hypocritical. You make these above statements about newsmax{which was not the source} and just say hogwash afteryou blasted someone else by saying Snopes is not the final word, you are.
Only they post their resources and you don’t.

http://www.somegoodstuff.com/misc/potkettleblack.gif

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Dumbie


If Kerry hadn't turned against the war in the seventies and someone was disputing his record these same guys would be up in arms. This is all political BS.:lol If Kerry would not throw his service up in everyones face everyother sentence and actually deal with and discus his record in public ofice{which is really what matters} then none of this would be happening. Dont blame others for the subject matter KERRY keeps putting forth.

The Democrats’ daring message at their get together came down to this:

Unlike those mean Republicans (who only care about trust-fund Aryans), we don’t think poor people should starve to death.

We want to spend more on police and firefighters (Now, that’s controversial.)

We like puppies, sunsets and quiet walks on the beach.


There is a reason for this shadow game of theirs and that the FACT they cant risk leveling with the American voter about what they REALLY want to do is proof enough. If they were honest{ that convention was more like a republican one} the voters would run scared silly to the other side.

Here is an example of what they would really put forth if they were honest instead of trying to ride into the white house on Anyone but Bush and I was a war hero but dont aske to many questions about it;

Affirmative Action – We love racial quotas. If you’re white, we’ll see to it that your kid never gets the college admission or job he deserves. We’re willing to sacrifice his opportunities for our political advantage (trawling for minority votes). That’s how committed we really are to equal protection under the law. P.S.: Our message to minorities – You’re too stupid to make it on your own.

Big Government – Our goal is to super-size government until it makes Mt. Everest look like an anthill. The New Deal, Great Society and Hillary’s plan to socialize health care have only whetted our appetite.

We want government to do more, to be more involved in your life, to take more and more decisions out of your hands and turn them over to bureaucrats, who are far more competent than you are.

There’s no problem -- including the common cold -- that we don’t have a program to solve. And you better believe we’ll work overtime to get the government involved in everything, from regulating your diet to controlling the Internet.

Business/Jobs – We don’t like private enterprise. We much prefer public employment to private-sector jobs. We think business is basically corrupt, inefficient and predatory, while government is inherently pure and noble. Bureaucrats are Boy Scouts with rules and regulations. (But we don't like the real Boy Scouts, either.)

We want to see government even more involved with business. We want control over everything – manufacturing, wages, prices, profits, advertising – you name it. If, as a result of our efforts, businesses fail and employees are thrown out of work, no problem. They can always find good jobs in an ever-expanding public sector.

Our goal is to give America an economy that’s stagnant, but compassionate.

Defense – New weapons systems? We don’t need no stinking new weapons systems! We’re pacifists at heart. Haven’t we proved that by opposing everything defense-related that’s come along in the past 20 years? If it were up to us, there would be no MX Missiles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Bombers, Apache Helicopters, etc.

We’d really like to see the entire defense budget transferred to Health and Human Services. Defense spending is not only (by definition) wasteful, but inherently dangerous. If we have weapons, at some point we might use them. The perception of foreign enemies capable of inflicting harm on us is an illusion. 9/11 really didn’t happen – and Oliver Stone is making a movie to prove it!

Education – We need to spend more on public education, by which we mean shoveling more of your tax dollars to the bureaucrats who are called educators. Spending money in the public sector is always a good idea. Besides, teachers unions are part an important part of our base. We need to demonstrate our gratitude – with your wallet.

Children need to learn – about appreciating other cultures, embracing environmentalist dogma, the practice of safe sex, the benefits of global government and why dead white males are responsible for all of humanity’s problems. By comparison, that other stuff – history, English, math and science – is inconsequential.

We are unalterably opposed to tuition tax credits, vouchers, charter schools, etc. Any challenge to the public-school monopoly is dangerous. The power to educate is the power to inculcate certain ideas. And we intend to see to it that we’re the ones doing the indoctrinating. We don’t want poor, or middle-class, parents to have choices. They might exercise them in ways we find unacceptable.

English – It’s so unreasonable to expect newcomers to our shores to learn English. How dare we impose on them by insisting they learn our language. Instead, we should set an example in tolerance by facilitating retention of their native tongues – they and their children and grandchildren.

We pledge to combat language chauvinism – with bi-lingual education, bi-lingual ballots, regulations requiring the recipients of federal funding to provide interpreters, and government action against employers who ask their workers to speak English on the job.

Think bilingualism has worked well in Canada? Wait ‘till you see what we have planned for America.

[DEAD ZONE]

Foreign Policy – The foreign policy of the past three Republican administrations turned the world against us. Foreign intervention should only come with the blessings of the French, Germans, Russians, Dutch and Walloons.

At all costs, we should avoid annoying the sophisticated Europeans, who are morally and intellectually superior to vulgar Americans.

One of the chief attributes of national sovereignty – the power to defend our homeland – should be ceded to the wise and benevolent UN. As our nominee, John French Kerry, once put it, "I am an internationalist. I would like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Immigration – We envision what might be called a Wide-Open Door Policy. America has no right to keep anyone out. Illegal immigrants – excuse us, undocumented workers – just want the same opportunities spoiled Americans get at birth. Who cares if they don’t feel any loyalty to this nation, or identify with our history and heritage? So what if they won’t even bother to learn English.

Immigration is a right. If, in the process of receiving a million legal and illegal immigrants a year, we increasingly look like a Third World country, so much the better. As that great Democrat, Jesse Jackson so eloquently put it when he led a protest at Stanford a few years back, "Hey, hey, ho, ho – Western culture’s gotta go!"

Besides, what you call illegal aliens, we call potential voters.

If elected, we promise to abolish the Border Patrol, tear down barriers along the Rio Grande and provide free bus service from Mexico to all points north.

Judges – We want judges to decide everything – the definition of marriage, whether or not to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance, life and death matters like abortion and euthanasia. It’s so much simpler to have these decisions made by appointed officials than by elected legislators. Besides, judges are impervious to public opinion. And -- since we don’t trust the people -- we want to limit public influence over government as much as possible.

Let’s face it: Our agenda can’t be legislated; it can only be decreed. Judges are our last resort. And our first resort.

Not only do we believe judges should have the final say on everything, but, regardless of who wins elections, they should reflect our values and ours alone. Nominees who believe in judicial restraint, who think the Constitution should be interpreted as written, are a threat to the rights of minorities and women. Give us Cole Porter – "Anything Goes" – jurists.

Religion – We view traditional religion as the enemy. People who take the Bible seriously could interfere with our plans.

Any attempt by evangelical Christians or Catholics loyal to Rome to use the political system to advance their values is a threat to the First Amendment. We favor deploying the IRS to keep uppity churches in line.

Our judges will see to it that Ten Commandments monuments are locked away in the closet, that crèches and menorahs don’t sully public places during the holidays, and that schools remain faith-free zones. To accomplish this, we will re-write American history to make the Founding Fathers secular humanists.

Taxes – We might as well admit it: We’re going to raise your taxes – right through the proverbial roof.

We think you’re an idiot who has no idea of what’s good for you. You can’t be trusted to dispose of your income. Why, you might spend it on something frivolous – like a new car, a vacation or your kids’ education. That’s money that should go to funding (our conception of) the public good – welfare, public works, higher salaries for government workers, more multicultural education and more benefits for illegal aliens.

Don’t be a selfish lout. Let us spend your money for you.

The War on Terrorism – We don’t like the expression "War On Terrorism," which implies that we have implacable enemies who are out to destroy us. We’d prefer to call it: The Policy Initiative To Address the Problem of People Who Need to Learn Better Methods of Conflict Resolution.

Let’s face it: America created terrorism. If we weren’t involved in the Middle East, if we didn’t defend ourselves when attacked, if we ceded our sovereignty to the United Nations, if we weren’t a crusader state, disciples of the Religion of Peace wouldn’t be trying to kill us.

If Democrats are returned to power, we’ll put an end to this insanity, by returning to our tried and true Cold War formula – negotiations with people who want to bury us. Jimmy Carter, Ramsey Clarke and Jane Fonda would sit down with Osama bin Laden and the Iranian mullahs and iron things out. Peaceful coexistence would replace global conflict.

And we’d sit by in our fortress America while militant Moslems overran the world, content in the knowledge that the crocodile will lunch on us last.

Well, that’s our real platform. What do you think?

Why do you have that look of horror on your face? Where are you going? Stop screaming. Wait, we haven’t even told you our plans for gay marriage....

thank you Don Feder

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL

McCainn blasts the t.v. add

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

The White House declined.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush........"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."

Well its a fare question. So ...Mr McCain....do YOU know all the facts??

[Dumbie]

Oh DeadZone your blowin smoke up my pant leg here. My post was directed to Sinski, as anybunny could plainly see. Jump up and down if you want sweetheart, Kerry was awarded his medals, he did not steal them. His service was long enough, so say the Officers that allowed him to Move-on. Your argument is with the officers that gave him the medals, that allowed him to leave after 4 1/2 months in the swift boats.

Tipicle lier leftist your a f-injerk

Now that you have my attention:

If Kerry would not throw his service up in everyones face everyother sentence and actually deal with and discus his record in public ofice{which is really what matters} then none of this would be happening. Dont blame others for the subject matter KERRY keeps putting forth.


Attacking Kerry’s military record was part of Bush’s smear campaign, Kerry responded..... and as he should have, with overwhelming force

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_administration_smear_campaig ns:_John_Forbes_Kerry

Like so many Compassionate Conservitives, they put their right foot forward. Affirmative Action – We love racial quotas. Tough !%!%!%!%!% you live in a multicultural country who NEEDS a segment of the population to be minority and underclass. That’s why they bred them and fed them, and that’s why they leave the borders open. It’s a little late in the game to ask the military or Capital driven America to go without an underclass when the nation was built on their backs. Education and Medicine is becoming elitist in a nation that assures equality. We had a civil war to unit the country and stop slavery and it took 100 years to give the descendants of those slaves the right to vote. Now 2 generations later you expect them to be on the same level playing field as the white population? Well dream on Alice you’ll make it to wonderland. It’s OK to give George Bush a seat in Yale or Harvard with a C average, but it’s not all right to give that seat to a 4.0 A average black student who doesn’t have the resources? George Bush is a byproduct of Affirmative Action, he has not, without his Daddy’s Name, earned one thing in his life, not one. This is what your defending? Get a life!!:lol

[Dumbie]

It's sounding bad for Kerry ? did U mean Bush?

I'm beginning to suspect Bush stole his C average as well! :question

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said. :lol :lol :clap :lol :lol

[PlayCrackTheSky]

From what i hear Kerry shot himself accidently one time and got a Purple Heart (The one the doctor speaks about). Since you cant get a purple heart for freindly fire...

Now is it true the Kerry people are threating to sue over the book "Unfit for command" and the commercials with the Naval men who are against Kerry? Just something i heard...

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Dumbie
Oh DeadZone your blowin smoke up my pant leg here. My post was directed to Sinski, as anybunny could plainly see. Jump up and down if you want sweetheart, Kerry was awarded his medals, he did not steal them. His service was long enough, so say the Officers that allowed him to Move-on. Your argument is with the officers that gave him the medals, that allowed him to leave after 4 1/2 months in the swift boats.
No it was not. Read what YOuwrite;
Whether anyone is running for anything or not makes no never mind, and Kerry was doing just fine long before he married Heinz. Snopes is not the final word, you are.
Only they post their resources and you don’t.


Newzmax is a joke, the Admiral Elmo Zumwalt article came out in March, the Snopes story was recorded in Feb.

The mates on the stage, the Generals, and the nation who will vote for Kerry is satisfied that he didn’t steal the medals, that his officers gave them to him freely, and that he has a man who is willing to stand in front of the world and say, Kerry saved his life.

The rest is hogwash Until Proven. The man who treated Kerry Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." treated him for an injury, an injury in action warranted a medal, period.

Prove otherwise!!!!

If Kerry hadn't turned against the war in the seventies and someone was disputing his record these same guys would be up in arms. This is all political BS.

Note the bold. He did not mention the damiral I did andf you did not break it up in that sentence so clearly it was directed at me.Being as I stated similar and you did NOT specify, I must assume you have at least 2 working synapsis and are talking to me. If not then be clear so you will not have to retreat .

Tipicle lier leftist your a f-injerk

Now that you have my attention:

If Kerry would not throw his service up in everyones face everyother sentence and actually deal with and discus his record in public ofice{which is really what matters} then none of this would be happening. Dont blame others for the subject matter KERRY keeps putting forth.


Attacking Kerry’s military record was part of Bush’s smear campaign, Kerry responded..... and as he should have, with overwhelming force
Sorry but no it never has been. Where has Bush attacked it? Kerry keps bringing it up instead of addressing his time in office for a reason.
[QUOTE]
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_administration_smear_campaig ns:_John_Forbes_Kerry

Like so many Compassionate Conservitives, they put their right foot forward. Affirmative Action – We love racial quotas. Tough !%!%!%!%!% you live in a multicultural country who NEEDS a segment of the population to be minority and underclass. That’s why they bred them and fed them, and that’s why they leave the borders open. It’s a little late in the game to ask the military or Capital driven America to go without an underclass when the nation was built on their backs. Education and Medicine is becoming elitist in a nation that assures equality. We had a civil war to unit the country and stop slavery and it took 100 years to give the descendants of those slaves the right to vote. Now 2 generations later you expect them to be on the same level playing field as the white population? Well dream on Alice you’ll make it to wonderland. It’s OK to give George Bush a seat in Yale or Harvard with a C average, but it’s not all right to give that seat to a 4.0 A average black student who doesn’t have the resources? George Bush is a byproduct of Affirmative Action, he has not, without his Daddy’s Name, earned one thing in his life, not one. This is what your defending? Get a life!!:lol [/B] This makes little to NO sense. Apaprt from being an Unabated fraud,Who needs to descriminate against anyone by law and play victim. Even minorities know they have been had. Cosby has admited it as do many others. Even the ones you claim to speek for know you are full of crap.What level field? No one is on a level field and nowhere is that guarantied anyway. You all have an equal shot.Blaming others is a loosers qway out.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030526-104003-2403r.htm

If you would like to be taller than you are, do you think that joining a basketball team would help? After all, statistics prove that members of basketball teams are taller than other people.
If this seems like a strange way to reason, it is the same kind of reasoning used by those who argue that minority students need affirmative action to get into top-rated colleges and universities, because graduates of those institutions have more upscale careers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that you will read it anyway.

:smash

[DEAD ZONE]

DUO you are correct;

Lt. Thomas Wright admitted to me on the air today several exclusive and revealing looks at the Vietnam service of John Kerry.

Wright's first claim was that as his former commanding offcier, Wright frequently had to confront Kerry over willful disobedience to orders aboard Swift Boat patrols.

On frequent occasions Wright stated that Kerry would randomly fire at "things he thought were moving" along the shoreline. Wright stated that the protocol was only to fire when the unit was receiving hostile fire. Wright explained that part of the Swift Boat patrol's goal was to develop contacts with non-combatants living along the rivers being patrolled.

Wright pointed out that firing on the people you were meant to develop contacts with generally worked against the goals.

Wright also points out that when confronted about his defiance of patrol rules, Kerry would make claims of not hearing the orders, knowing the protocols or "thinking that he saw something".

Wright's boldest claim was that after Kerry had in fact received his third purple heart, Wright along with two other ranking officers basically flat out asked Kerry to leave Vietnam. The reason being his behavior continually put the group in greater vulnerability and danger.

Listen to the audio here;
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/kmc/?adate=8/4/2004#1277583

John Kerry, quoted by the Boston

Globe:http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed

contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the

swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal

patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after Kerry arrived in Vietnam, the Navy changed the swift boats' mission to

patrolling the Mekong river to attract enemy attention, a dangerous job to be sure.
8-5-04
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_01_archive.html#1091679708922749 92
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2104503&
As Chris Suellentrop pointed out on Slate, Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty before it

became so dangerous. Here's how the Boston Globe recounted the story in its multi-part

series on Kerry:

Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most

fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats

cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they

were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed

contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the

swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal

patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went

from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most

dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with

patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy.

Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.

Kerry's biography on his campaign website (which Edwards echoed almost directly) promotes

this confusion, citing the Globe's description of the revised mission of the swift boats and

implying it was what the Massachusetts senator volunteered for:

In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and volunteered to serve on a

swift boat, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. Swift boats patrolled the

narrow inlets and canals around the Mekong Delta 'to draw fire and smoke out the enemy,'

according to the Boston Globe."

In his convention speech, former President Bill Clinton also obscured what Kerry thought he

was volunteering for, saying, "When they sent those swiftboats up the river in Vietnam and

they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag and bait the

enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: Send me."

And some journalists have also gotten the facts wrong. For instance, Bennett Roth of the

Houston Chronicle, who wrote that "Kerry enlisted in the Navy after graduating from Yale in

1966 and requested to command a Swift boat, one of the more dangerous assignments during the

war."

Despite Kerry's decorated service record, the circumstances surrounding his request for

swift boat duty should not be mischaracterized.

But John Kerry also said last February that President Bush's Air National Guard service was

a way to avoid Vietnam:http://www.discriminations.us/storage/002471.html
Washington Post political reporter Dana Milbank, whose article, “Bush Honors Soldiers,

Prepares Them For More,� appeared in the Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49017-2004Feb17&notFoun

d=true
Bush was referring to remarks such as those made by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), his

likely presidential challenger, equating Guard service with avoiding the draft during the

Vietnam era. But Kerry said, "I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made

about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious

objector, going into the National Guard." (Emphasis added)

Kerry here is clearly saying that serving in the National Guard is “avoiding the draft� and

that it is about the same as going to Canada or going to jail. Kerry seems to think that

draft dodging and volunteering for the Guard were equivalent.fact is this;
Kerry went to Vietnam and asked to be assigned to a swift-boat unit in the hope he wouldn't

see combat. His unit's mission was changed and he did see combat.

G. W. Bush, OTOH, became an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air Guard and was assigned to a

fighter wing that was sending pilots to fly in

Vietnam.http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military

duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group,

as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the

very time Bush enlisted. In fact, F-102 squadrons had been stationed in South Vietnam since

March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a

large US military presence in the nation as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.

F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in South Vietnam and Thailand throughout most of

the Vietnam War. ...

... the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102

pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam

for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970.

Furthermore, Bush asked to be sent to Vietnam.
Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he

and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were

told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were

still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required.

Bill Hobbs has exhaustively documented Bush's military record.

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/cat_was_bush_awol.html

[DEAD ZONE]

TIG found a good article but selectively reads it.Tig posted it on another board. It is good so;

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...icism_of_kerry/

quote:WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=39850

But the veterans group says the article is "particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."

Kranish, who is covering the Kerry campaign, wrote the foreword to the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book and is listed as the lead author, the Drudge Report noted today.

Telephoned for comment, Kranish declined to speak on the record with WorldNetDaily but forwarded a statement from the Globe which said the paper stands by the story.

"The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate," said the statement by Globe Editor Martin Baron.

Baron asserted it is "completely untrue" that Kranish "was ever contracted to write for a Kerry campaign publication."

The editor explained that "earlier this summer, Kranish worked with Public Affairs, the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry, 'John Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best,' to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. "

Baron said that when Public Affairs "subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended."
In the affadavit, given to the newspaper to back the group's contentions, Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry "lied about what occurred in Vietnam ... for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to a Feb. 28, 1969, incident in which Kerry won the Silver Star after shooting a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. Kerry's crewmates said in interviews last year they thought the action was necessary and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, the Globe reported.

But some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to the crew.

The Globe quotes Elliott as saying yesterday, "I still don't think he shot the guy in the back. It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

The book says "Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

In the television ad, Elliott says, "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." The book also raises questions about the action of March 13, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart.

In the interview with the Globe, Elliott said that based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats, he now thinks his assessment that Kerry deserved the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart may have been based on poor information.

"I simply have no reason for these guys to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy," he told the paper. "So, on the basis of all of the information that has come out, I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand."
=====================================
http://kmclive.com/

Another link to the kerry asked to leave story;

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=39835

[DEAD ZONE]

bythe way, that doctor was on Boortz.
You will remember that during the 2000 election the Democratic Party sent legions of lawyers to every single election district in Florida with marching orders to see to it that every single vote cast by a member of our armed forces serving overseas be disqualified. Such is the love of the Democrats for the U.S. military. The Democrats have rallied the lawyers again, and once again their targets are military; this time Vietnam veterans.

Lawyers for the Democratic Party and the Kerry/Edwards campaign are sending letters to television stations threatening them with legal action if they run the ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. What's the matter, boys? Can dish it out, but you can't take it?

Yesterday on The Neal Boortz Show we interviewed Dr. Louis Letson. Dr. Letson was the physician who treated John Kerry for the superficial wound that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart. In the letter to television stations the Democratic lawyers have a few things to say about Dr. Letson and that particular incident. Paragraph 4 of the letter reads:

"Further, the 'doctor' who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet."

Later in that threatening letter to television station managers the Democrat lawyers even charge that Letson is a "phony" doctor. This tactic seems to be working. Even Brit Hume of Fox News Channel was questioning last night if Letson is actually a doctor. We covered this with Letson yesterday on the air. Louis Letson confirmed that he was, indeed, a doctor, and was the only physician serving in that particular region of Vietnam. Letson told us that it was his practice to have one of his assistants sign all of the records for treatment received at the dispensary. Further, Letson said that the person who signed Kerry's treatment record was NOT, as the Democrat's letter states, a physician, but was in effect a medic.

In the letter the Democrat lawyers also seem to be quite upset that the Vietnam Veterans for Truth are being financed by a Houston homebuilder. Imagine that! What about those ads the Democrats have been running under the umbrella of those "527" organizations? What about Moveon.org? How are the ads being run by these organizations different from the ads being run by the swift boat veterans? Those ads, you see, are financed by a wealthy international financier named George Soros. Democrats have no problem with having a foreign-born international money man financing their ads slamming George Bush, but let a Texan, a Houston homebuilder, finance ads against John Kerry and it's the end of the world!

This morning I saw Jim Rassman on television. Rassman is the man whom Kerry pulled out of the river. Rassman has been called forth by the Democrats to say that this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertising campaign is not very nice. Rassman said that "It's very dishonest at this stage of the game, 35 years after the fact, to call this into question. This is an example of the lowest form of politics."

Funny ... do you remember any Kerry supporters coming forth to say that very thing about Bush's National Guard service? That, too, was 35 years ago. The difference, of course, is that George Bush is not running on the record of his years in the National Guard. He's running on his years as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, and nobody has even whispered a suggestion that he strayed from that post. Kerry? All he has is Vietnam? He's been focusing on those four months since he announced his candidacy. OK .. so he wanted to make those four months his primary qualification for the presidency. Fine. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are happy to rise to the challenge.

[DEAD ZONE]

Leave it to tig to beleive a lie s. liberals can create a fraudulent headline.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit [see below] in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow. “The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

“Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam.�

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html

[Dumbie]

As I said, I was posting to sinski. Your wasting your time and imagination.

[DEAD ZONE]

right...using my quote and words.

:question