http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 004557.php
Roy Hoffman, today: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Roy Hoffman, 2003: "I am not going to say anything negative about him. He's a good man."
Adrian Lonsdale, today: "He lacks the capacity to lead."
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: "As far as I was concerned, the war was won over there in that part for that period. And it was mainly won because of the bravado and the courage of the young officers that ran the boats, the SWIFT boats and the Coast Guard cutters and Senator Kerry was no exception." [Kerry for Senate Press Conference, 10/27/96]
George Elliot, today: "John Kerry has not been honest about what
happened in Vietnam."
George Elliot, 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something not to be looked down upon but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor..."[T]here was no question that it was above and beyond anything that we had seen down there in that case at that time frame...It just so happened that this one was so outstanding that the Silver Star was eventually awarded." [Kerry Press Conference, 10/27/96]
OT: The Swiftees
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
www.stolenhonor.com was done when I clicked on it. As for www.wintersolider.com, they're still peddling the "John Kerry's picture is in Vietnam for what he did 30 years ago" story on the front page that you addressed as bunk earlier in the thread. This site already looks like it's gonna be "fair and balanced".....FatPitcher wrote: In the meantime, check out www.wintersoldier.com and www.stolenhonor.com (1st and 3rd sample clips).
"Did Sen. Kerry, because of his emphasis on his service, open himself up to criticism? Yes. Have we had enough of a review of that? Have we had enough of a review of where President Bush was in Alabama? President Bush and John Kerry served honorably. They served the nation honorably. End of story."
John McCain, in today's USA Today
There we go. Let's get back to what's important. If the SBV's have a personal beef, which they have said they have, then let them have their say. Arguing this back and forth has been an exhausting affair. It's kind of like running a marathon on a treadmill: you keep going and going, but you never get anywhere...
John McCain, in today's USA Today
There we go. Let's get back to what's important. If the SBV's have a personal beef, which they have said they have, then let them have their say. Arguing this back and forth has been an exhausting affair. It's kind of like running a marathon on a treadmill: you keep going and going, but you never get anywhere...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
The USA Today story about McCain's reaction to this pretty much summed up how I feel:
"He [McCain] said it's appropriate to debate whether Kerry was right to oppose the war when he got home, but not appropriate to accuse someone of lying about a situation in which 'bullets are flying and people are dying' because 'there are always different versions about what happens in combat.'
"He said it's pointless to argue over whether Kerry was right or wrong to say he and his crew crossed into Cambodia on a certain night 35 years ago. The Kerry campaign said that he was probably not in Cambodia on Chistmas Eve, 1968, as Kerry had previously claimed. 'So what if he wasn't over the border or he thought he was over the border?' McCain said. 'I don't know exactly where I was flying over North Vietnam all the time.'"
The whole problem with the Swift Boat vets is that their case is based on current testimonials of events from 35 years ago. The other Catch-22 is, O'Neill is also basing some of his case by saying Kerry's own bios sometimes contradict the official citation, and therefore he is unreliable. But that actually supports the idea for using the government records as the main evidence for this. Kerry's own memories are subject to the same pitfalls as everyone else's. Now you have a man from Thurlow's boat (and a man who says he does not like Kerry) saying they indeed took fire.
Really, the 15 minutes for the Swift Boat vets are almost up. I don't think they are liars or dishonest men, and I imagine they do really believe what they are saying. But that doesn't make it true.
"He [McCain] said it's appropriate to debate whether Kerry was right to oppose the war when he got home, but not appropriate to accuse someone of lying about a situation in which 'bullets are flying and people are dying' because 'there are always different versions about what happens in combat.'
"He said it's pointless to argue over whether Kerry was right or wrong to say he and his crew crossed into Cambodia on a certain night 35 years ago. The Kerry campaign said that he was probably not in Cambodia on Chistmas Eve, 1968, as Kerry had previously claimed. 'So what if he wasn't over the border or he thought he was over the border?' McCain said. 'I don't know exactly where I was flying over North Vietnam all the time.'"
The whole problem with the Swift Boat vets is that their case is based on current testimonials of events from 35 years ago. The other Catch-22 is, O'Neill is also basing some of his case by saying Kerry's own bios sometimes contradict the official citation, and therefore he is unreliable. But that actually supports the idea for using the government records as the main evidence for this. Kerry's own memories are subject to the same pitfalls as everyone else's. Now you have a man from Thurlow's boat (and a man who says he does not like Kerry) saying they indeed took fire.
Really, the 15 minutes for the Swift Boat vets are almost up. I don't think they are liars or dishonest men, and I imagine they do really believe what they are saying. But that doesn't make it true.
TOO DISTRACTED TO NOTICE GUNFIRE?!?! How "distracted" must you have to be not to notice bullets whizzing by your head?! That's pretty lame...
Jared,
You da man. Thanks for taking up the mantle of truth.
Related to someone else who makes up stuff on a regular basis, here's another great site:
www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com
You da man. Thanks for taking up the mantle of truth.
Related to someone else who makes up stuff on a regular basis, here's another great site:
www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com
Gee, I may as well just transfer my ongoing argument with Jared to this thread. Then maybe other people can see why I feel the need to put duct tape around my head to keep it from exploding.
As of our last exchange, Jared still has not read the book "Unfit for Command" although I suggested if he were going to attack the Swift Vets it might be (go figure) valuable to actually read the full text of their allegations and testimonies front to back, or at the LEAST, have a copy of their book present to see the full context of their edit remarks. I've read it cover to cover, and I got tired of digging around it in and typing in excerpts.
THe biggest thing we really have going is that Jared says I've not addressed Kerry's "rapid response" 'fact page', where almost every paragraph begins with "so and so was not a crewmate of John Kerry's". But now we've moved onto the anti-war Kerry (or anti-US Kerry, depending upon what you think of his aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war). And I see that he's repeating the same arguments here that he did with me so this could save HIM some typing too! He's saying that Kerry really somehow didn't smear the vast majority of vets with war crimes accusations, which is patently bunk if you read the text of his 1971 speech before the Fulbright hearings. His comments about Winter Soldier address HOUSE hearings, and I'm not at all clear that those are the same hearings. Interesting that they weren't referred to as the Senate Foreign Relations Hearings or the Fulbright hearings, but as House hearings under another name.
At any rate, totally aside from the issue of Kerry's reputation for honesty, which is taking a beating, is his attempts to squash the Swift Vets by smearing them, making them look like they are taking orders from Bush & Rove, dragging McCain into it, the Cleland stunt, etc. His desparation is only growing with each point he slips in the polls.
Most of the allegations of wrongdoing of the Bush Campaign boomering really quick when you look at the 527 personal connections between the Kerry campaign and groups like Moveon.org, and at there are at least 4 people in the Kerry campaign who should be quitting for the same reason Ginsberg did, but he's following the Clinton tactic of deny, deny, deny until everyone just gives up in disgust and goes away.
The problem he really has, though, is that no matter how hard the mainstream press zealously tries to attack and smear the Swift Vets, the public seems them as having the same right and credentials to speak as Kerry does, and they are finding the Swift Vets MORE credible than Kerry. Bush-haters and left wing academic elites (won't name names here) are obviously going to apply whatever standard of evidence and word parsing that helps them 'win' the argument, but in the court of opinion, the Swift Vets are doing damage to Kerry and the polls bear that out, as does Kerry himself with his increasingly desparate acts to silence the Swift Vets.
He may YET decide that the help he's been getting from the Moveon.Orgs of the world is more than offset by the Swift Vet damage and may agree to ask the 527's to collectively shut up. After all, Bush has weathered over a year of smears from these groups, and it really hasn't put Kerry over the top.
Randy
As of our last exchange, Jared still has not read the book "Unfit for Command" although I suggested if he were going to attack the Swift Vets it might be (go figure) valuable to actually read the full text of their allegations and testimonies front to back, or at the LEAST, have a copy of their book present to see the full context of their edit remarks. I've read it cover to cover, and I got tired of digging around it in and typing in excerpts.
THe biggest thing we really have going is that Jared says I've not addressed Kerry's "rapid response" 'fact page', where almost every paragraph begins with "so and so was not a crewmate of John Kerry's". But now we've moved onto the anti-war Kerry (or anti-US Kerry, depending upon what you think of his aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war). And I see that he's repeating the same arguments here that he did with me so this could save HIM some typing too! He's saying that Kerry really somehow didn't smear the vast majority of vets with war crimes accusations, which is patently bunk if you read the text of his 1971 speech before the Fulbright hearings. His comments about Winter Soldier address HOUSE hearings, and I'm not at all clear that those are the same hearings. Interesting that they weren't referred to as the Senate Foreign Relations Hearings or the Fulbright hearings, but as House hearings under another name.
At any rate, totally aside from the issue of Kerry's reputation for honesty, which is taking a beating, is his attempts to squash the Swift Vets by smearing them, making them look like they are taking orders from Bush & Rove, dragging McCain into it, the Cleland stunt, etc. His desparation is only growing with each point he slips in the polls.
Most of the allegations of wrongdoing of the Bush Campaign boomering really quick when you look at the 527 personal connections between the Kerry campaign and groups like Moveon.org, and at there are at least 4 people in the Kerry campaign who should be quitting for the same reason Ginsberg did, but he's following the Clinton tactic of deny, deny, deny until everyone just gives up in disgust and goes away.
The problem he really has, though, is that no matter how hard the mainstream press zealously tries to attack and smear the Swift Vets, the public seems them as having the same right and credentials to speak as Kerry does, and they are finding the Swift Vets MORE credible than Kerry. Bush-haters and left wing academic elites (won't name names here) are obviously going to apply whatever standard of evidence and word parsing that helps them 'win' the argument, but in the court of opinion, the Swift Vets are doing damage to Kerry and the polls bear that out, as does Kerry himself with his increasingly desparate acts to silence the Swift Vets.
He may YET decide that the help he's been getting from the Moveon.Orgs of the world is more than offset by the Swift Vet damage and may agree to ask the 527's to collectively shut up. After all, Bush has weathered over a year of smears from these groups, and it really hasn't put Kerry over the top.
Randy
-
FatPitcher
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am
ROFL.
You guys have no shame.
Kerry's been proven to have lied or exaggerated wildly (i.e. his own accounts contradict him, or his campaign has admitted it) on 3 accounts.
And you talk about the "mantle of truth."
It reminds me a of little kid stopping up his ears and yelling because he doesn't want to hear something.
Jared, I haven't had time to respond to all the things you brought up. And I just haven't been motivated enough to debate with people who aren't listening and aren't being rational. Plus, it takes a lot of time to compile all the different accounts and updates and such and put them together.
If you seriously want responses, you should really go to the swiftvets.com forum and ask questions. As long as you aren't confrontational and don't bring up Bush, you'll get all your questions answered to your satisfaction.
If all you want to do is pretend that you're right and have people who haven't even seen all the evidence tell you so, then there's no need.
You guys have no shame.
Kerry's been proven to have lied or exaggerated wildly (i.e. his own accounts contradict him, or his campaign has admitted it) on 3 accounts.
And you talk about the "mantle of truth."
It reminds me a of little kid stopping up his ears and yelling because he doesn't want to hear something.
Jared, I haven't had time to respond to all the things you brought up. And I just haven't been motivated enough to debate with people who aren't listening and aren't being rational. Plus, it takes a lot of time to compile all the different accounts and updates and such and put them together.
If you seriously want responses, you should really go to the swiftvets.com forum and ask questions. As long as you aren't confrontational and don't bring up Bush, you'll get all your questions answered to your satisfaction.
If all you want to do is pretend that you're right and have people who haven't even seen all the evidence tell you so, then there's no need.
Again, on one hand you're attacking a man who volunteered for combat, saved another man's life and was wounded while fighting for his country. On the other hand, you're supporting a man who ducked combat, and even did that in a questionable fashion. Yet, we are the ones who don't listen to facts and have no shame? Puhleeze.FatPitcher wrote:ROFL.
You guys have no shame.
Kerry's been proven to have lied or exaggerated wildly (i.e. his own accounts contradict him, or his campaign has admitted it) on 3 accounts.
And you talk about the "mantle of truth."
It reminds me a of little kid stopping up his ears and yelling because he doesn't want to hear something.
Jared, I haven't had time to respond to all the things you brought up. And I just haven't been motivated enough to debate with people who aren't listening and aren't being rational. Plus, it takes a lot of time to compile all the different accounts and updates and such and put them together.
If you seriously want responses, you should really go to the swiftvets.com forum and ask questions. As long as you aren't confrontational and don't bring up Bush, you'll get all your questions answered to your satisfaction.
If all you want to do is pretend that you're right and have people who haven't even seen all the evidence tell you so, then there's no need.
Admiral comes forward
to dispute Kerry medal
Insists he was in boat with future senator, wound self-inflicted, not from enemy fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 27, 2004
12:13 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. has come forward to dispute John Kerry's contention that his first Purple Heart resulted from enemy fire.
Schachte, who spoke to columnist Robert Novak, says he was in command of the small boat, a "skimmer," when the incident occurred on Kerry's first combat mission.
That assertion conflicts with the accounts of two enlisted men who appeared with the senator on the podium at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month.
Kerry defender Lanny Davis has used the versions of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, who say they didn't know Schachte, to argue "Unfit for Command," the best-seller by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is not credible.
But Schachte told Novak: "I was absolutely in the skimmer," code-named "Batman," in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Kerry was involved in the incident that led to the first Purple Heart.
"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte told the columnist in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C.
In his journal, quoted by "Tour of Duty" author Douglas Brinkley, Kerry said the incident took place near "the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh."
Kerry wrote he and his comrades were "scared s---less" that night, thinking fishermen in sampans might be Viet Cong.
When some of the sampan occupants began unloading something on the beach, Kerry lit a flare, causing the startled men on shore to run for cover. That's when Kerry says he and the other Americans began firing.
Said Kerry in "Tour of Duty":
My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.
Schachte said he was "astonished" by Kerry's version of the Dec. 2 event in "Tour of Duty."
He told Novak it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swiftboat command in late November 1968.
Two other former officers contacted by Novak confirmed that Schachte was always aboard the skimmer, a Boston Whaler, for these missions, designed by Schachte himself to flush out enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so the larger swiftboats could move in.
Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Schachte's superior officer at the time, told Novak, "I don't think [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment.
Hibbard told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.
Tedd Peck, another swiftboat commander, told Novak he remembered Schachte telling him Kerry's claim of an enemy-inflicted wound "didn't happen."
It would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte, Peck said.
The retired admiral said he initially didn't want to get involved in the effort to counter Kerry's war claims, but changed his mind when he saw his credibility challenged, beginning with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.
He insists he has had no contact with any Republican organization and regards himself as a political independent.
Schachte told Novak he saw Kerry about 20 years after the 1968 incident on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building.
"I called, 'Hey, John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory."
Schachte told Novak they "talked about having lunch" but never did it.
After WorldNetDaily's report last week of a discrepancy in Kerry's personal account of his first Purple Heart, his presidential campaign says it's "possible" the wound resulted from enemy fire.
WND reported that nine days after Kerry claims he was hit by hostile fire in 1968, he wrote in his journal as he set out on a subsequent mission, "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."
With three Purple Hearts, Kerry was allowed according to Navy regulations to leave Vietnam after only four months of his 12-month tour.
to dispute Kerry medal
Insists he was in boat with future senator, wound self-inflicted, not from enemy fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 27, 2004
12:13 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. has come forward to dispute John Kerry's contention that his first Purple Heart resulted from enemy fire.
Schachte, who spoke to columnist Robert Novak, says he was in command of the small boat, a "skimmer," when the incident occurred on Kerry's first combat mission.
That assertion conflicts with the accounts of two enlisted men who appeared with the senator on the podium at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month.
Kerry defender Lanny Davis has used the versions of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, who say they didn't know Schachte, to argue "Unfit for Command," the best-seller by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is not credible.
But Schachte told Novak: "I was absolutely in the skimmer," code-named "Batman," in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Kerry was involved in the incident that led to the first Purple Heart.
"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte told the columnist in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C.
In his journal, quoted by "Tour of Duty" author Douglas Brinkley, Kerry said the incident took place near "the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh."
Kerry wrote he and his comrades were "scared s---less" that night, thinking fishermen in sampans might be Viet Cong.
When some of the sampan occupants began unloading something on the beach, Kerry lit a flare, causing the startled men on shore to run for cover. That's when Kerry says he and the other Americans began firing.
Said Kerry in "Tour of Duty":
My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.
Schachte said he was "astonished" by Kerry's version of the Dec. 2 event in "Tour of Duty."
He told Novak it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swiftboat command in late November 1968.
Two other former officers contacted by Novak confirmed that Schachte was always aboard the skimmer, a Boston Whaler, for these missions, designed by Schachte himself to flush out enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so the larger swiftboats could move in.
Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Schachte's superior officer at the time, told Novak, "I don't think [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment.
Hibbard told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.
Tedd Peck, another swiftboat commander, told Novak he remembered Schachte telling him Kerry's claim of an enemy-inflicted wound "didn't happen."
It would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte, Peck said.
The retired admiral said he initially didn't want to get involved in the effort to counter Kerry's war claims, but changed his mind when he saw his credibility challenged, beginning with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.
He insists he has had no contact with any Republican organization and regards himself as a political independent.
Schachte told Novak he saw Kerry about 20 years after the 1968 incident on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building.
"I called, 'Hey, John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory."
Schachte told Novak they "talked about having lunch" but never did it.
After WorldNetDaily's report last week of a discrepancy in Kerry's personal account of his first Purple Heart, his presidential campaign says it's "possible" the wound resulted from enemy fire.
WND reported that nine days after Kerry claims he was hit by hostile fire in 1968, he wrote in his journal as he set out on a subsequent mission, "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."
With three Purple Hearts, Kerry was allowed according to Navy regulations to leave Vietnam after only four months of his 12-month tour.
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
-
Slumberland
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am
This is just getting ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing Bush and Kerry's differing agendas for the country. You can raise moral questions about either of them, and it's just impossible to nail down. If Kerry is going to be put through the wringer for something that's backed up by official documents and numerous personal accounts, why isn't Bush receiving similar scrutiny for things like his involvement in Harken Energy?
I hope that by the time the debates roll around, we're back to talking about issues and records. The number of Americans living in poverty rose 1.3 million last year, and those without health insurance rose by 1.4 million. Are Bush's policies working? He can't blame a Democratic congress for blocking his policies... the Republicans have the whole enchilada.
I hope that by the time the debates roll around, we're back to talking about issues and records. The number of Americans living in poverty rose 1.3 million last year, and those without health insurance rose by 1.4 million. Are Bush's policies working? He can't blame a Democratic congress for blocking his policies... the Republicans have the whole enchilada.
The "Historical Evidence"
As I understand it, the "historical evidence" that Jared appeals to consists of the following:
1. Spot reports (or after action reports)
2. Citations for the medals
3. Eyewitness testimony
Let me know if I missed anything here...
The problem is, #2 seems to come FROM #1, and #3 is what the big debate is about, (how many eyewitnesses can dance on the head of a pin).
From this follows the theory that's being floated:
Citations come from...
....Spot Reports which come from....
....John Kerry?
John referred to having written a lot of spot reports in his 1971 testimony. The reports in question were specified with meters, not yards, whereas the Navy didn't start using the Metric system until 1975. Would John Kerry with his upbringing be more disposed to use the metric system for his reports than the men with whom he served?
But regardless of who wrote the reports, what is the other "historical evidence" that backs up the "spot reports"? What independent verification do we have that the spot reports are accurate?
Until I get some clarification about what makes a "spot report" more trustworthy than anything else, I'm going to have to say I'm not giving aton of credibility to them, and it is they which form the basis of the "historical evidence" that Jared keeps saying is on his side.
Secondly, a lot of the contradictions in the UfC book refer directly to differences with the Brinkley Tour of Duty book. Given that this is Kerry's AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY, and that Brinkley has seen records that the press hasn't, we have to look at Kerry's indirect claims in that book as much as what the citations say. For instance, if Kerry's recollections for TOUR disagree with the citation, based upon the spot report, whom are we to believe?
Randy
1. Spot reports (or after action reports)
2. Citations for the medals
3. Eyewitness testimony
Let me know if I missed anything here...
The problem is, #2 seems to come FROM #1, and #3 is what the big debate is about, (how many eyewitnesses can dance on the head of a pin).
From this follows the theory that's being floated:
Citations come from...
....Spot Reports which come from....
....John Kerry?
John referred to having written a lot of spot reports in his 1971 testimony. The reports in question were specified with meters, not yards, whereas the Navy didn't start using the Metric system until 1975. Would John Kerry with his upbringing be more disposed to use the metric system for his reports than the men with whom he served?
But regardless of who wrote the reports, what is the other "historical evidence" that backs up the "spot reports"? What independent verification do we have that the spot reports are accurate?
Until I get some clarification about what makes a "spot report" more trustworthy than anything else, I'm going to have to say I'm not giving aton of credibility to them, and it is they which form the basis of the "historical evidence" that Jared keeps saying is on his side.
Secondly, a lot of the contradictions in the UfC book refer directly to differences with the Brinkley Tour of Duty book. Given that this is Kerry's AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY, and that Brinkley has seen records that the press hasn't, we have to look at Kerry's indirect claims in that book as much as what the citations say. For instance, if Kerry's recollections for TOUR disagree with the citation, based upon the spot report, whom are we to believe?
Randy
Here's the cognitive dissonance that makes my head explode:
--you can't trust the mainstream media because they are controlled by liberals. If you don't believe that you're a freedom hatin' elite/retard.
--you can trust Web sites with obvious right-wing bias because they are not controlled by the liberal media elite.
Likewise...
--there are a lot of vets who were there and say the record is wrong. There are so many they must be right.
--there are vets, fewer yes, but still a number of them, that say the record is right and Kerry's account is correct, more or less. They are obviously wrong, because Kerry must be wrong, because he was wrong about Cambodia.
But then...
--John O'Neill's swearing that he "never" in Cambodia is true even though he told President Nixon he was "in Cambodia sir." Well, he simply mispoke, he was only near Cambodia.
--John Kerry swearing he was in Cambodia and then seeming to be mistaken means he's a lying, because he lied about seeing atrocities in Vietnam. There is no chance he is simply mistaken and was only near Cambodia.
Speaking of contradictions...
--John Kerry must be lying because he has contradicted himself a number of times in remembering key events from 35 years ago.
--The Swift Boat Vets who have contradicted themselves by being for Kerry earlier but against Kerry now simply didn't know the whole story, even though the stories they were telling both times only relied on their own memories, which are super duper razor sharp now but not so super duper razor sharp when they said nice things about his service before.
And finally...
John Kerry got a big boost of support from another freedom hating liberal and rabid Kerry supporter, President Bush:
"Bush also told the Times that he did not believe his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, had had lied about his service in Vietnam. The group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has aired advertisements challenging Kerry's account of his service and claiming Kerry lied about circumstances surrounding his war medals. Kerry has accused Bush of using the group as a front to run a smear campaign.
"'I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,' Bush said. 'No, I don't think he lied.'"
It's time to put the Swifties back out to pasture where they belong and get back to focusing on the issues. I don't have a problem with people hating John Kerry for what he did after Vietnam or thinking he's weak on the issues. They're entitled to their opinions and free to express them. I do take offense to people trying to say a man is a liar about what he did in combat when their stories contradict the official record and they cannot offer any PROOF to the contrary.
And here's a hint on how to tell proof from opinion: if it smells like it came out of your ass, it's probably not proof. Unless you're waiting for lab results on a stool sample.
I was not waiting for stool, however. I was waiting around for stuff more than Washington Post op-eds, un-fact-checked Web sites, and more admonishions to "read the book" than a Time-Life operator trying to sell me all 12 volumes of Mysteries of the Unexplained. Since that hasn't happened, I'm going to do the patriotic thing and listen to our President.
--you can't trust the mainstream media because they are controlled by liberals. If you don't believe that you're a freedom hatin' elite/retard.
--you can trust Web sites with obvious right-wing bias because they are not controlled by the liberal media elite.
Likewise...
--there are a lot of vets who were there and say the record is wrong. There are so many they must be right.
--there are vets, fewer yes, but still a number of them, that say the record is right and Kerry's account is correct, more or less. They are obviously wrong, because Kerry must be wrong, because he was wrong about Cambodia.
But then...
--John O'Neill's swearing that he "never" in Cambodia is true even though he told President Nixon he was "in Cambodia sir." Well, he simply mispoke, he was only near Cambodia.
--John Kerry swearing he was in Cambodia and then seeming to be mistaken means he's a lying, because he lied about seeing atrocities in Vietnam. There is no chance he is simply mistaken and was only near Cambodia.
Speaking of contradictions...
--John Kerry must be lying because he has contradicted himself a number of times in remembering key events from 35 years ago.
--The Swift Boat Vets who have contradicted themselves by being for Kerry earlier but against Kerry now simply didn't know the whole story, even though the stories they were telling both times only relied on their own memories, which are super duper razor sharp now but not so super duper razor sharp when they said nice things about his service before.
And finally...
John Kerry got a big boost of support from another freedom hating liberal and rabid Kerry supporter, President Bush:
"Bush also told the Times that he did not believe his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, had had lied about his service in Vietnam. The group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has aired advertisements challenging Kerry's account of his service and claiming Kerry lied about circumstances surrounding his war medals. Kerry has accused Bush of using the group as a front to run a smear campaign.
"'I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,' Bush said. 'No, I don't think he lied.'"
It's time to put the Swifties back out to pasture where they belong and get back to focusing on the issues. I don't have a problem with people hating John Kerry for what he did after Vietnam or thinking he's weak on the issues. They're entitled to their opinions and free to express them. I do take offense to people trying to say a man is a liar about what he did in combat when their stories contradict the official record and they cannot offer any PROOF to the contrary.
And here's a hint on how to tell proof from opinion: if it smells like it came out of your ass, it's probably not proof. Unless you're waiting for lab results on a stool sample.
I was not waiting for stool, however. I was waiting around for stuff more than Washington Post op-eds, un-fact-checked Web sites, and more admonishions to "read the book" than a Time-Life operator trying to sell me all 12 volumes of Mysteries of the Unexplained. Since that hasn't happened, I'm going to do the patriotic thing and listen to our President.
How can you say this, when I challenge you on these claims and you don't defend them? If I claimed that Bush was a coke addict (which by the way, I don't think), and you presented an argument to counter this, and I didn't address it....then how could I still claim that Bush was a coke addict without responding to your claims?FatPitcher wrote:ROFL.
You guys have no shame.
Kerry's been proven to have lied or exaggerated wildly (i.e. his own accounts contradict him, or his campaign has admitted it) on 3 accounts.
Again, with XMas in Cambodia, he definitely got the date wrong. And if you want to hold O'Neill to the same standard of exactitude....well, he changed his stories on himself going to Cambodia within a week:
http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003260.html
So within 5 days, O'Neill changed his story. How come I'm not hearing about how O'Neill has been "proven to have lied or exaggerated wildly"? How come you're not talking about the "mantle of truth"? These things happened 35 years ago. Kerry could have messed up a detail, as O'Neill could have. It's possible. But instead of letting it be that, it's that Kerry's a serial exaggerator.In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon.
......
In an interview Sunday on ABC's "This Week" O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, <b>only</b> slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
This is the same strategy that the Republicans used against Gore (liar, liar) and it's being used against Kerry....in this case, focusing on his Vietnam service.
If you're so big on the "mantle of truth", then I'm sure you're going to defend my counters to your claims.And you talk about the "mantle of truth."
No offense, but that sounds like a cop out. Accuse the person of "not being rational" so as to not respond to their claims. I'm still waiting for someone (anyone) to address the issues I brought up on the FIRST PAGE of this thread.Jared, I haven't had time to respond to all the things you brought up. And I just haven't been motivated enough to debate with people who aren't listening and aren't being rational. Plus, it takes a lot of time to compile all the different accounts and updates and such and put them together.
And it's not just FatPitcher or Randy....most of the right-wing sites that I've visited have been crowing about Cambodia, but don't even bother to defend things like how the primary historical evidence doesn't fit with their story, or how people have flip-flopped on their positions in 1996, or how it's suspicious that these people have NEVER said anything about these allegations until now, 35 years after the fact. And now we have people involved with the group that are contradicting their own recent stories...another suspicious thing. But no one seems to want to address this. If you're going to throw out claims against Kerry, you should have the guts to defend them. Otherwise, why bother throwing them out?
I might go to the Swift Vet forums...I didn't think of that. Though this still doesn't absolve the people that are making these claims from defending them themselves. Maybe I'm old fashioned...but if someone makes a claim, they should defend it...either with their own words, or links from other articles, or links from forums, or whatever. Just telling your opponent that they "pretend that [they're] right" is a cop-out.If you seriously want responses, you should really go to the swiftvets.com forum and ask questions. As long as you aren't confrontational and don't bring up Bush, you'll get all your questions answered to your satisfaction.
If all you want to do is pretend that you're right and have people who haven't even seen all the evidence tell you so, then there's no need.
That's a great theory, Slumberland. However the problem with any agenda is that it's only as good as the trustworthiness of the person who is promoting it. John Kerry wants to create 10 million new jobs? He says he's going to do it. Do you realize what a whopper of a promise that is? Given that our unemployment is at about the same percentage as it was during Clinton's heydey, ( < 6%), and near historical lows, where is he going to create all these new jobs? Is he going to make new branches of the government, and hire all the unemployed people and then tax the crap out of the rest of us to pay their salaries? Because short of that, it won't happen.Slumberland wrote:This is just getting ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing Bush and Kerry's differing agendas for the country.
He claims he's going to do a better job in the war on terror. Ask him how, and he says he's going to "rejoin the community of nations". Ask him how, and he said....wait, no one has actually ASKED him how he's going to accomplish the latter.
Kerry's "agenda", whether you agree with it or not, only makes sense if you actually believe in his character that he's going to do what he says. His credibility becomes a key point. When he says "I defended this country as a young man, and I'll defend this country as President", another allusion to his Vietnam service, if his "young man" service was bogus, exaggerated, or self-serving, then what do we infer from that for his "defend this country as President" comment?
He says he's going to make our country safer by .... giving more money to first responders like firemen and police officers. Great. So when the next big one goes off, we'll have more people rushing to the scene, as opposed to the Bush policy of "stop it BEFORE it happens" with our military and intelligence agencies.
There are things Kerry says that sound good, even to a Republican like me, but then he can't satisfy the "how?" questions.
1. How do you persuade Jacques Chirac to join your coalition when he and his cronies are on the take from Saddam himself?
2. How do you persuade gerhard Schroeder to join when he got elected by BASHING your country?!
3. What makes you believe that returning the "war on terror" to lawyers and police is going to be more effecitve this time than it was when clinton was doing it?
4. Do you not think that telling our enemies still in Iraq we're outta there in 6 months lets them know they only have to sit tight and we'll leave the whole place to them, regardless.
HOW? is an important question, one that Kerry doesn't answer. He wants us to believe that he is just so wonderful a guy that our allies will say "Aww that John Kerry is one helluva great guy. Let's go along with him!", because he gives us nothing else but his 'winning personality' to go on when dealing with foreign leaders. No leverage, no bribes, no nothing...just good ole Mr. Sensitive Kerry.
Randy
I agree with you on this. But I'm being stubborn, because the Swift Vet claims have little/no evidence, but their claims are being hailed as near truth. And when people question these claims, the response isn't to the questions, but it's "read the book" or you're not "being rational". This seems like it's an unevidenced smear, and I'm calling people on it. This bothered me before when people did this to McCain in 2000, and it bothers me now. It should be dropped...but if people keep throwing out unsubstantiated claims, I'm gonna keep calling people on it.Slumberland wrote:This is just getting ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing Bush and Kerry's differing agendas for the country. You can raise moral questions about either of them, and it's just impossible to nail down. If Kerry is going to be put through the wringer for something that's backed up by official documents and numerous personal accounts, why isn't Bush receiving similar scrutiny for things like his involvement in Harken Energy?
C'mon, Jared. Admit it. you've assigned a shortcut key to whack this into your posts, haven't you? I swear, it's like a Talking Point bullet for you. You just keep typing it in and hope no one ever asks you what that "primary historical evidence" is and whether it is beyond all question.Jared wrote: "primary historical evidence"
Randy
No. As I've said in my e-mails to you, I haven't had the time to read the book. I've addressed the claims made by the Swift Vets about Kerry winning medals, claims that are made in the book. On the FIRST PAGE of this thread. And people still haven't responded to them. If you have claims against this, from the book or not, then it should be easy to retort these. You can hide behind "read the book", or you can answer the questions.RandyM wrote: As of our last exchange, Jared still has not read the book "Unfit for Command" although I suggested if he were going to attack the Swift Vets it might be (go figure) valuable to actually read the full text of their allegations and testimonies front to back, or at the LEAST, have a copy of their book present to see the full context of their edit remarks. I've read it cover to cover, and I got tired of digging around it in and typing in excerpts.
Actually, you're forgetting something here. It's the points that I keep making...looking at the primary evidence, looking at how stories have contradicted themselves, asking why these people haven't said anything over the past 35 years about this. This all has to do with the Swift Vets actual arguments...things that people are still unwilling to address.At any rate, totally aside from the issue of Kerry's reputation for honesty, which is taking a beating, is his attempts to squash the Swift Vets by smearing them, making them look like they are taking orders from Bush & Rove, dragging McCain into it, the Cleland stunt, etc. His desparation is only growing with each point he slips in the polls.
And I agree...trying to tag this to Bush/Rove officially won't work (see an earlier post by me). And I think the Cleland thing was stupid. But you're making it seem like Kerry is only addressing these claims with smears. But you fail to mention all of their arguments against the Swift Vets claims. Your omitting very relevant information to make a point.
Again, this isn't the best tactic. But it's not their only tactic. They've been presenting arguments against the Swift Vets claims. Arguments that people are unwilling to address.Most of the allegations of wrongdoing of the Bush Campaign boomering really quick when you look at the 527 personal connections between the Kerry campaign and groups like Moveon.org, and at there are at least 4 people in the Kerry campaign who should be quitting for the same reason Ginsberg did, but he's following the Clinton tactic of deny, deny, deny until everyone just gives up in disgust and goes away.
Well if these are smears by the mainstream press, then you should easily have a defense for all of these horrible allegations. I mean, if they're smears, then you should have a defense for my claims on the first page.The problem he really has, though, is that no matter how hard the mainstream press zealously tries to attack and smear the Swift Vets, the public seems them as having the same right and credentials to speak as Kerry does, and they are finding the Swift Vets MORE credible than Kerry. Bush-haters and left wing academic elites (won't name names here) are obviously going to apply whatever standard of evidence and word parsing that helps them 'win' the argument, but in the court of opinion, the Swift Vets are doing damage to Kerry and the polls bear that out, as does Kerry himself with his increasingly desparate acts to silence the Swift Vets.
I'm still waiting.....
First, of all, Randy, referring to a previous post, 10 million jobs in 48 months is about 210,000 jobs per month. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Bush administration said the tax cuts would create about 300,000 per month. Which they did not. But I am not saying I'm absolutely right, as I have a simple layman's grasp of economics, and maybe we're talking about different categories of jobs. BTW, Kerry's plan for creating jobs is right on his Web site. Have no idea how realistic it is (I'm sure it's the pie-in-the-sky version), but the point is it is out there for public scrutiny.RandyM wrote:C'mon, Jared. Admit it. you've assigned a shortcut key to whack this into your posts, haven't you? I swear, it's like a Talking Point bullet for you. You just keep typing it in and hope no one ever asks you what that "primary historical evidence" is and whether it is beyond all question.Jared wrote: "primary historical evidence"
Randy
Second, what I haven't seen is, can anyone prove Kerry wrote the after-action reports? One other thing: did anyone ever challenge Kerry in the 70s about his medals? He garnered a lot of attention for his protests then, yet I only recall O'Neill challenging him on the atrocity statement (which I do think you can argue logically about).
The thing is, I think any court would give more credance to a written record or government citation from the event than to testimony 35 years after the fact. There are discrepancies on both sides of the story. That should come as no surprise. What Randy is suggesting is that the official record be thrown out and replaced with what the Swift Boat vets say, even though other vets say the Swift Boat accounts are wrong. Any lawyer, cop, or historian will tell you that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. There are thousands of people who swear--under oath, under lie detectors--they have been abducted by aliens. Does that make them right? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The point is, just because they believe it, we can't prove it, even though some abduction stories have some odd anomalies to support them.
Flip Flopper in Chief
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]