OT: The Swiftees

[dougb]

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.

Randy

Just like W stopped 9/11 before it happened eh? But I guess spending time at the ranch clearing brush is clearly more important than bothering to do anything aft er being warned about impending hijacking attempts in the United States. Of course, a career made out of being 1) a failed student 2) a failed pilot 3) a failed businessman should have warned us that perhaps he really wasn't up to the job.

And his policy for stopping future terrorist attacks? - attacking countries that don't pose a threat to the United States, killing thousands of innocent civlians and increasing world-wide rage against the United States. That is, to put it charitably, an unusual way to combat terrorism. He's singehandedly managed to reverse all the good will that the United States received from around the world after September 11.

Maybe Kerry is too genteel to defeat Bush. If he really had a mean streak he could go nuclear and run adds showing W sitting in the classroom without a clue how to respond while people were burning to death in the towers. In fact, If I was creating a commercial for him I'd use a split screen with George in the school on one side and footage of people jumping from the towers on the other side.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Inuyasha]

If Bush had Kerry's war record, we would not hear the end of it. Republicans would probably try to pass a bill that put Bush's mug on the top of the Vietnam Memorial.

And I agree, most of this debate is just to smear Kerry by the republicans so they can get the public's attention away from the failure of the Bush Administration the last 4 years. The bush people really have nothing to stand on issues wise.

[Jared]

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).

No. #3 is not what the big debate is about. #1 and #2 are primary historical evidence (especially #1). Eyewitness reports (especially 35 year old eyewitness reports) can be easily mistaken. On both sides. So you go to the historical evidence. And so far, nearly all of the historical evidence has supported Kerry's telling of the events. 35 year-old testimony on both sides is likely to be unreliable. So if there's conflict here, you go to whatever historical evidence you have.

(And a side point about the eyewitness testimony by the Swift Vets. This is stuff that hasn't been uttered in 35 years. O'Neill back in 1971 in a press conference said that he wasn't ever questioning Kerry's service. Kerry's been in the public eye for 35 years. Members of the Swift Vets in the 1st commercial praised Kerry when he ran for Senate in 1996. And now, they've suddenly decided to come out and tell these stories? Not when Kerry was a leader in Vietnam Vets against the war, and not when Kerry ran for Congress or Senate? How does this pass any smell test?)

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?

First of all, this only works if you automatically assume that Kerry was lying. If Kerry wrote the spot reports and didn't lie, then what does it matter if he wrote them or not?

But when you look at the evidence in the spot reports, none of them are signed by Kerry (some are signed by others). And yes, it's possible that Kerry wrote it and someone else signed it. But there's no evidence of this. It's theoretically possible that Kerry wrote them and lied about them and fooled everyone at the time and no one reported on this then or for the past 35 years. But there's no evidence to substantiate this claim. NONE. Just that some of the reports used the Metric system. That's what you're going to base your argument on?

This is where we start getting into the realm of conspiracy theory. Kerry must have written these, and must have lied about these, even though others signed some of these reports. And our argument? IT'S METRIC, SO IT MUST BE KERRY. What kind of evidence is this?

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.

So let's continue your logic. Since these spot reports are inaccurate, then really, all spot reports could be inaccurate. So any Naval history based only on spot reports is inaccurate?

And the reason it's more trustworthy than eyewitness testimony is that this isn't normal eyewitness testimony. It's 35-year-old highly conflicted eyewitness testimony. Think about it. Louis Letson was a Navy doctor. He probably saw lots of horrible things as a Naval doctor in Vietnam. But he also remembers exactly the type of wound that Kerry had, and how he treated it? He may have...or he may not have. 35 years is a LOT of time.

So when you're dealing with really old memories, you have to look to something else. And that's why people are going to the primary historical evidence. And here, it supports Kerry's position.

Of course it's possible that the Naval reports are inaccurate. But they were done on the spot. They were approved by Kerry's commanders. No one complained about them then. No one's complained about them (or Kerry) for 35 years. Isn't that suspicious?

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?

No. The differences I've brought up were contradictions between the primary historical evidence and the Swift Vet stories.

[Brando70]

Also, if I understand the conservative media correctly, if Kerry had written the spot reports, wouldn't they have been in French?

[RandyM]

Unemployment was down near 4% in the last '90s.

Let me clarify. It was around the current rate when Clinton was running for re-election, and during THAT campaign cycle, Democrats weren't complaining about jobs.

But if Bush runs on the same unemployment %, jobs are down and we need a new guy.

Randy

[Bill_Abner]

Bush the flip flopper =) The fact that the "Kerry is a flip flopper" actually resonated with the public shows that, as a group, the public can be fed anything. Just say it enough times.

Politicians, all of them, flip flop on issues. There are times when changing one's vote or opinion is very much warranted. Some of the Bush flip flops from the above post make sense or are taken out of context. Some don't. When he said he didn't think about bin Laden I lost every ounce of respect for the man. Every shred. He better be thinking about him. Hell he should have killed him by now instead of launching a war that...ah hell that horse is dead. heh. Sorry, now back to your regularly scheduled asinine debate about Vietnam.

[Bill_Abner]

Unemployment was down near 4% in the last '90s.

Let me clarify. It was around the current rate when Clinton was running for re-election, and during THAT campaign cycle, Democrats weren't complaining about jobs.

But if Bush runs on the same unemployment %, jobs are down and we need a new guy.

Randy

Speaking of jobs, all I know is that in Ohio, based on a report released today, the % of children living in poverty is the highest it has *ever* been in the state and the % has went up every year since 2000. In fact, Cleveland ranks #1 in the NATION in under 18 poverty and we have 4 cities in the top 36. Ohio is being hit exceptionally hard, and while not all of this should be laid at the feet of the President, the man and his administration should be held partly accountable for the fact that wages are not keeping up with the (low) inflation rate. How you pull that trick off I have no idea.

The minimum wage remains too low for low income families to make ends meet. We want people off of welfare in this country, and I think we all agree with that, but when the job market is so scarce in Ohio, what's a person to do? Play Powerball and hope for the best?

[RandyM]

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.

FWIW, the Household survey and Payroll survey are two different surveys, but only the Household survey reflects jobs from those that are self-employed or contractors or enterpreneurs. The Democrats quote almost exclusively from the Payroll survey, because they are trying to use things like manufacturing jobs to beat Bush on the head. As far as the jobs/month, consider also that the economy has been in a recovery period. You have a 'norm' of unemployment %. As the economy grows or slips, those numbers are going to deviate from the norm, and during a recovery or recession, the rate at which jobs are gained or lost is going to vary. You can't just sit there and expect some kind of xxxxx jobs per month to be sustained regardless of the upswings and downturns of the economy.

>Second, what I haven't seen is, can anyone prove Kerry wrote the after-action reports? >

Can you prove he did not?

>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).>

John Kerry was not running for Commander in Chief. When he came back from Vietnam, he was in no position to move troops or launch a military offensive. Now we are in the post-2001 era, and we are trying to determine what kind of military leader this man would make, as the President is the ultimate chief of the military. As a Senator, you can let a lot of things go, but as a President, you cannot. Surely this is a straightforward and simple enough answer, and is exactly what Adm. Hoffman said when asked about it. To go public and risk getting smeared publicly for doing so, the stakes need to be high enough to be worth it. As a Senator from Massachusetts, those stakes were not high enough. As President and Commander in Chief, they are. What part of that do you not understand?

>>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. >>

Depends upon how much testimony, and how credible the testimony is, and what the basis of the document was.

> 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. >

I suggest you refrain from pointing out what I'm suggesting unless I actually suggest it. I did NOT say the record should be thrown out. I said that the ORIGINS of those records should be investigated to insure that there was some kind of due diligence. We have a right to know who wrote the on-scene reports that resulted in those citations, and whether that person was credible, and whether anyone else who was on-scene was consulted before the decision to award medals was made. I'm very happy for you that you have 100% faith that the 'official record' is flawless and accurate, but you still have provided no support for that record beyond the spot report, and you have no idea who wrote it or how credible it was.

>> Any lawyer, cop, or historian will tell you that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence there is. >>

There's a way to make it more reliable. Make a spot report and hand it in. Once it's in writing, your eyewitness testimony is unimpeachable, right?

Randy

[RandyM]

>> Just like W stopped 9/11 before it happened eh? >>

In other words, your defence of Kerry's position is to attack Bush's? That's all you've got?

Let's see...Bush was in office 8 months before 9/11. Preceding that, Clinton was in place for 8 YEARS. The Director of the CIA was .. George Tenet..Clinton Appointee. Bush kept him. Maybe that was his mistake, not cleaning house. The 9/11 report didn't absolve anyone of blame, nor did it assign blame to anyone per se. The system failed to protect us. Period. If you are going to blame Bush for 8 months I could blame Clinton for 8 years. But where does that get us, really?

> But I guess spending time at the ranch clearing brush is clearly more important than bothering to do anything aft er being warned about impending hijacking attempts in the United States. Of course, a career made out of being 1) a failed student 2) a failed pilot 3) a failed businessman should have warned us that perhaps he really wasn't up to the job. >

Straight from the Michael Moore school of "don't bother me with facts, I just HATE BUSH!"

>> And his policy for stopping future terrorist attacks? - attacking countries that don't pose a threat to the United States, killing thousands of innocent civlians and increasing world-wide rage against the United States. >>

John Kerry felt Iraq posed a threat to us. Al Gore said he did. Bill Clinton said he did. Our intelligence agencies said he did. The British Intelligence said he did. The Russian intelligence said he did. Putin said he warned Bush that Iraq was going to do something to us. But ...Bush just made it up and lied, right? Lesson #1 to future presidents. Don't listen to what your Democratic predecessor and Democratic senators say...they are wrong.

>> That is, to put it charitably, an unusual way to combat terrorism. He's singehandedly managed to reverse all the good will that the United States received from around the world after September 11.>>

Good will doesn't buy you a cup of coffee at 7/11. Good will would not have meant beans when these people were skimming millions of bucks off of the oil-for-food program, one of the most corrupt systems ever installed. But if you had it your way, Saddam would STILL be in power, the rape rooms would be busy 24/7, mass graves would still be being filled, and at some future date al Qaeda might have brought in an anthrax, or nuclear surprise for us, courtesy of Saddam Hussein. But hey, those 25 million Iraqis who are free for the first time in 30 years of living in terror? SCREW 'EM! WE GOT A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TO BRING DOWN! (But it was okay to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, who of course was an imminent threat to us...because it was the "compassionate" thing to do ...and not because the President was a Democrat).

A Democrat's definition of a just war: "One where our National Interests are not involved and we do not stand to benefit in any way".

>> Maybe Kerry is too genteel to defeat Bush. If he really had a mean streak he could go nuclear and run adds showing W sitting in the classroom without a clue how to respond while people were burning to death in the towers. >>

Only if we can make it a triple split screen showing Kerry doing the same thing.

[RandyM]

[quote="Jared
I agree with you on this. But I'm being stubborn, because the Swift Vet claims have little/no evidence...[/quote]

How would you know? You haven't read them.

[RandyM]

>> Speaking of jobs, all I know is that in Ohio, based on a report released today, the % of children living in poverty is the highest it has *ever* been in the state and the % has went up every year since 2000. >>

I'll look into that and get back to you. (I need to see the source).

<<The minimum wage remains too low for low income families to make ends meet. We want people off of welfare in this country, and I think we all agree with that, but when the job market is so scarce in Ohio, what's a person to do? Play Powerball and hope for the best?>>

No, I absolutely think we should raise the minimum wage. What do YOU think it should be? I propose $1,000 an hour. What do you think it should be? And when you've answered what YOU think the minimum wage should be, tell me why you don't think MINE is a good idea.

[Brando70]

Randy, I ask if anyone can prove if Kerry wrote the after-action reports. And you say can anyone not prove it? WTF kind of answer is that? Last time I checked, the burden of proof to convict someone lies with the accuser. Now, if someone brings forth some kind of real evidence to the contrary, I would certainly see the Swift Boat story in a different light. But the problem is, it is probably impossible to do so because, as has been pointed out, there are no signatures and such to claim who wrote the reports.

As for your argument about not coming out against a Senatorial campaign, let me try and follow this: it's okay to PRAISE a lying, America-hating, duty-ditching peson when running for Senate. But suddenly, when it's a Presidential election, you turn around and CONDEMN the same man. And who could Kerry have "smeared" in 1971? He had no power. You're going to tell me that O'Neill, who said he respected Kerry's record at the time, remembers things better now? That he wouldn't have thought, as he does now, that it was odd Kerry got 3 purple hearts in such a short time? That other Swift Boat vets, some of whom I imagine knew about Kerry's public protests then, wouldn't have come forth to try and discredit his atrocities statements, statements that were highly inflammatory, at a time when Kerry would have been powerless to do anything about their criticism? I'm not pretending to have the answers to these questions, but can you see how they would raise some skepticism about the motives or memories of the Swift Boat vets?

Then the icing on the cake:

"I'm very happy for you that you have 100% faith that the 'official record' is flawless and accurate, but you still have provided no support for that record beyond the spot report, and you have no idea who wrote it or how credible it was."

I don't have 100% faith in anything, first of all, especially government records. I have done my share of researching through government documents to know they are not 100% objective statements of fact. But here's the thing: the Swift Boat vets have testimony against Kerry. Kerry has testimony for him and has records that support that story. He does have descrepencies in his story, but so do the Swift Boat vets. There's nothing surprising about either of them having different recollections. Nor is there anything surprising about Kerry's bio conflicting with other things he has said. That happens all the time. Nor is there anything unusual about people's journals being inaccurate. Historians find those kinds of discrepancies all the time. Hell, police investigators will find those kinds of discrepancies right at the scene of a crime, from witnesses who saw the same thing.

I guess my point is, I'm not 100% sure of anything, yet a lot of anti-Kerry people seem to be. I've simply not seen enough concrete evidence from the Swift Boat vets to overturn the official version of what happened, or to to conclude Kerry is unfit for command. In fact, using your logic, we should probably investigate Bush's service record again, since those records could very well be inaccurate, and I think only 1 or 2 people have come forward to saw Bush was there. Not to mention no one has really asked why he was unfit to fulfill his duty as a pilot.

As for me, I don't care. Bush was honorably discharged, Kerry served in Vietnam, and it's time to think about stuff that actually matters in 2004.

[Jared]

I agree with you on this. But I'm being stubborn, because the Swift Vet claims have little/no evidence...

How would you know? You haven't read them.

Again with the "you haven't read it, so your arguments are invalid" tack. I've presented arguments to claims in the book. They can be addressed, point by point. Or, you can just hide behind this.

Oh, and by the way, here's another report on a newly discovered Naval document, on Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek/

A previously undisclosed Navy record obtained by NEWSWEEK supports John Kerry’s claim that he was under fire when he rescued a U.S. Green Beret who had pitched overboard from Kerry’s 50-foot Swift Boat during a short but intense engagement in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in March 1969.

....

Lambert’s surviving military records do not include the initial recommendation for this medal, so there is no way to know who filled the required role of witness to vouch for Lambert’s actions. <b>But the citation contains such detail about the actions of both Thurlow and Lambert—actions that Kerry cannot have known since his launch was on the far side of the river—that it seems implausible Kerry could have written the recommendation.</b>

So it's implausible that Kerry wrote this one. And it seems like the main argument you have is a fairly convoluted one, hinging on that Kerry must have written the reports and Kerry must have lied on these reports (and that Kerry's COs must have let the lie slide and that no one reported on this until now, 35 years after the fact). This seems to refute that claim. (Though feel free to counter it.) So now what do you have?

[wco81]

Unemployment was down near 4% in the last '90s.

Let me clarify. It was around the current rate when Clinton was running for re-election, and during THAT campaign cycle, Democrats weren't complaining about jobs.

But if Bush runs on the same unemployment %, jobs are down and we need a new guy.

Randy

I don't know about the unemployment rate itself. It's fairly low now by historical standards. But a lot of people have stopped looking so they don't count against the unemployment rate. They are nevertheless out of a job.

I read somewhere that in raw numbers there are over 8 million and a large number of underemployed people -- people who've taken jobs part time. Also the stats for the number of weeks people are out of work, number of weeks people have been out of work after the expiration of their unemployment benefits, etc. all are not trending well.

I really don't know if Kerry would do better. By historical standards, he should. In fact, Bush earlier this year used those historical standards to predict like 2 million jobs this year but backed off that rather early, long before the March number came in at 307k. Then the numbers have declined since.

There's a good chance that with the fiscal mess, high oil prices and possible "structural" problems in the labor market, whoever takes office for the next 4 years will be associated with bad times all around.

[RandyM]

Randy, I ask if anyone can prove if Kerry wrote the after-action reports. And you say can anyone not prove it? WTF kind of answer is that? Last time I checked, the burden of proof to convict someone lies with the accuser. Now, if someone brings forth some kind of real evidence to the contrary, I would certainly see the Swift Boat story in a different light. But the problem is, it is probably impossible to do so because, as has been pointed out, there are no signatures and such to claim who wrote the reports.

I actually agree with you somewhat. Unfortunately, I've been asked to prove a negative so often it's hilarious. John Kerry hasn't produced a shred of evidence beyond his own recollection that he was ever in Cambodia. 3 of the 5 people on his boat say it didn't happen, and he can't seem to get anyone else to supply credibility that he was EVER in Cambodia. All I hear from the Kerry supporters is : "Hey it was clandestine. It COULD have happened. Prove it didn't!!!" Asking to prove a negative.

>> As for your argument about not coming out against a Senatorial campaign, let me try and follow this: it's okay to PRAISE a lying, America-hating, duty-ditching peson when running for Senate. >>

THEIR Explanation for this was that he was being accused of war crimes at the time and I have yet to hear that the Swift Vets are accusing John Kerry of war crimes, regardless of his self-confession that he was a war criminal.

>> I'm not pretending to have the answers to these questions, but can you see how they would raise some skepticism about the motives or memories of the Swift Boat vets?>>

Again, I'm talking about the stakes. A Lot of Vietnam vets, including my family members, often would prefer to forget Vietnam ever happened, were it possible. That war did a lot of damage. Is it hard for you to understand why people don't want to make a public case out of something they'd just as soon forget? But there comes a point for each person where the stakes get gradually raised, again and again, until the point where you feel you can no longer remain silence. The thought of John Kerry taking over direct command of the US Armed Forces apparently was the last straw for some of these men. I don't totally blame you for saying that they SHOULD HAVE talked 30 years ago. But at the same time you have to consider the very real and well documented effects of that war on our vets, and maybe just maybe understand why, while John Kerry was just representing a Northeastern State, it wasn't compelling enough for them to try to drag him down.

>> I don't have 100% faith in anything, first of all, especially government records. >>

Glad to hear you say that, because this just broke:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cs ... ips27.html

Uh oh. That unimpeachable "historical evidence" Jared likes to trumpet just took a whack with a two by foor

<< I've simply not seen enough concrete evidence from the Swift Boat vets to overturn the official version of what happened, or to to conclude Kerry is unfit for command. >>

You've read the book "Unfit for Command?" Good for you.

>> In fact, using your logic, we should probably investigate Bush's service record again, since those records could very well be inaccurate, and I think only 1 or 2 people have come forward to saw Bush was there. Not to mention no one has really asked why he was unfit to fulfill his duty as a pilot.>>

Hey, I don't know about Bush, either. The press went after him pretty zealously on the National Guard thing, especially the non-partisan (!) NY Times But what I would ask you is this. Is George Bush campaigning to the effect that we should re-elect him because he was once a National Guard pilot? Is he surrounding himself with Guardsman who say he was one heckuva great military leader in the Guard? Is he answering every other campaign question with: "Well, when I was a young Guardsman defending us from nuclear bombers from the USSR, I learned...."? No? Didn't think so.

George Bush is running on his RECORD AS PRESIDENT. You don't like that record? Great. Attack away (and I'm sure you will). However, he's BEEN Commander in Chief for over 3 years. We now have a Presidential Resume for George Bush. Almost everything that happened before his first Presidential term is almost meaningless now because we now have a > 3 year term of Presidency by which to reward or fire him. Kerry is running on his 4 months of Vietnam (I want to see a Republican Campaign commercial highlighting Kerry's Senate vote called: "John Kerry- the Missing Years")

Randy

[XXXIV]

I will be so happy when the election is over ........

or later tonite when I crack open my first brew.

Whats better than cool?

[RandyM]

>> Again with the "you haven't read it, so your arguments are invalid" tack. >>>

Yup. And I'm going to keep at it until you actually educate yourself as to the complete case made against John Kerry, not all the news the press chooses to pass on to you. In the amount of time you've spent researching this issue online and answering all these posts, you could have read the book several times over. The only question then remains, why have you not?

>> I've presented arguments to claims in the book. They can be addressed, point by point. Or, you can just hide behind this.>>

I choose not to debate the claims of a book when the book has not been read by BOTH people involved in said debate.

>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek/

"Lambert’s surviving military records do not include the initial recommendation for this medal, so there is no way to know who filled the required role of witness to vouch for Lambert’s actions. But the citation contains such detail about the actions of both Thurlow and Lambert—actions that Kerry cannot have known since his launch was on the far side of the river—that it seems implausible Kerry could have written the recommendation."

This is the key piece. I don't buy it. Aside from the fact that Newsweek (I have a gift subscription regrettably) sides regularly with Kerry and the Democrats on almost every issue. The assumption that is made here by the author of this report is that Kerry could not have known what happened with Thurlow and Lambert, so he couldn't have written the spot report. Hm, so Kerry, right after picking Rassman out of the drink, ran back to the front of his boat, and filed a report about it, and therefore it didn't include information about Thurlow and Lambert. Oh, wait, I got another idea. After rescuing Rassman, Kerry went to one base, and all the other swift boats went to another base, so that they couldn't have shared their stories before writing reports, and Kerry filed his report in a vacuum.

Or could it maybe, just maybe, be that these swift boats, all based at the same spot, returned home, the men talked about what happened and one of them (Kerry or someone else) filed the spot report that included the details of what happened as told by the men?!

The conclusion that if Kerry didn't see it, he couldn't have written the spot report, is absolutely ludicrous and I find it amazing that you don't see that.

Randy

[Bill_Abner]

>> Speaking of jobs, all I know is that in Ohio, based on a report released today, the % of children living in poverty is the highest it has *ever* been in the state and the % has went up every year since 2000. >>

I'll look into that and get back to you. (I need to see the source).

I'd link it but it's subscription only:

Poverty plight worsens in Ohio
Problem hits women, kids; ranks of uninsured grow, census says

Friday, August 27, 2004
Alan Johnson and Catherine Candisky
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

CHRIS RUSSELL | DISPATCH
Devante Brown, 6, finishes off a meal at a youth center on the West Side. His mother, Gwen, straddles the poverty line month to month.

Women and children were hit hardest as more Ohioans slipped into poverty and the ranks of the uninsured last year, according to new U.S. Census Bureau data.

About one in six children and nearly one in three households in Ohio headed by women were in poverty in 2003, both increases from the previous year, setting a new record for the state.

Poverty in Columbus was more dramatic, with 24 percent of children and 13 percent of the overall population living below the poverty line, which varies by family size, according to the American Community Survey, also conducted by the Census Bureau.

Cleveland ranked No. 1 in the nation in both overall (31.3 percent) and under-18 poverty (46.9 percent). Cincinnati was 15 th, Toledo 20 th and Columbus 34 th overall. While Toledo ranked even higher on the scale for under-18 poverty, Columbus and Cincinnati dropped to 36 and 16, respectively.

The Census Bureau also reported that the number of uninsured Ohioans grew to more than 1.3 million.

The jumps in the poverty rate and number of uninsured in Ohio were similar to new national figures. Census Bureau data released yesterday showed the number of Americans living below the poverty level rose by 1.3 million and the uninsured ranks leaped 1.4 million between 2002 and 2003. Both categories increased for the fourth straight year.

About 35.8 million Americans lived in poverty, including nearly 800,000 children. About 45 million people were without health insurance, 15.6 percent of the population — the highest level on record in the nation and in the state of Ohio.

With the Nov. 2 election approaching, the statistics added fuel to the already charged presidential campaign. Some critics, noting that the unveiling of the data occurred a month earlier than usual, said the release was timed to minimize political embarrassment for President Bush.

"These numbers confirm the failure of President Bush’s policies for all Americans," said Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Democrat presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry. "President Bush sticks to his ‘turning the corner’ slogan, but incomes have gone down while the number of people living in poverty and without insurance has gone up."

The Kerry campaign noted that since Bush took office in 2001, the median family income has declined by $1,535, 4.3 million more people are in poverty and 5.2 million fewer people have health insurance.

Neither Bush nor his top aides discussed the poverty numbers yesterday. Instead, his campaign issued a statement from Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, chairman of the Senate committee dealing with health care.

"President Bush recognizes the challenges faced by those who lack health insurance and remains committed to ensuring that every American looking for a job is able to find one and to expanding access to affordable health care for all Americans," Gregg said.

[RandyM]

Jared, that Newsweek report I just responded to was giving credit at the bottom to David Corn, who filed the report for "The Nation". I hopped over and read the initial report from Corn...and then saw this at the end of the article by the guy who said it was "implausible" that Kerry wrote the spot report:

-----------
DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is NOW AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK
-------------

Okay, so the author of "The Lies of George W. Bush" is also the author of this piece that was picked up by Newsweek. But, hey, no possible bias here!! And you rail at me for quoting right wing sites. Do you GET much more left than this? This guy's credibility just went in smoke, and his OPINION that "it was implausible" for Kerry to have wirtten the report is certainly the opinion of an objective reporter...LOL!

Randy

[wco81]

Bush calls himself the "war president." He's been trumpeting his status as the commander in chief. One of their slogans is "Stay the Course." IOW, don't make waves, stay with the known, regardless of the results. So he started this whole thing about muscle-flexing.

Bill, as badly as Ohio has been hit economically, each new poll coming out seems to show Bush's lead there increasing. Seems like the only Battleground State solidly on his side at this point. Pocketbook is obviously not a big enough issue. Maybe Bush will win a lot of votes just on cultural issues like gay marriage and guns.

[Jared]

I actually agree with you somewhat. Unfortunately, I've been asked to prove a negative so often it's hilarious. John Kerry hasn't produced a shred of evidence beyond his own recollection that he was ever in Cambodia. 3 of the 5 people on his boat say it didn't happen, and he can't seem to get anyone else to supply credibility that he was EVER in Cambodia. All I hear from the Kerry supporters is : "Hey it was clandestine. It COULD have happened. Prove it didn't!!!" Asking to prove a negative.

The thing is we don't know if he was there or not AND there's no primary evidence either way. I don't know if Kerry is telling the truth on this or not. But there isn't enough evidence for me to say he's lying either. This is probably the "best" claim that the Swift Vets have, and it's something that's iffy.

>> I'm not pretending to have the answers to these questions, but can you see how they would raise some skepticism about the motives or memories of the Swift Boat vets?>>

Again, I'm talking about the stakes. A Lot of Vietnam vets, including my family members, often would prefer to forget Vietnam ever happened, were it possible. That war did a lot of damage. Is it hard for you to understand why people don't want to make a public case out of something they'd just as soon forget? But there comes a point for each person where the stakes get gradually raised, again and again, until the point where you feel you can no longer remain silence. The thought of John Kerry taking over direct command of the US Armed Forces apparently was the last straw for some of these men. I don't totally blame you for saying that they SHOULD HAVE talked 30 years ago. But at the same time you have to consider the very real and well documented effects of that war on our vets, and maybe just maybe understand why, while John Kerry was just representing a Northeastern State, it wasn't compelling enough for them to try to drag him down.

And the stakes weren't high when Kerry was leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War? This is when O'Neill said that he had no issue with Kerry's record. But now, it's different? This is possible...but it doesn't pass many smell tests...especially when there are problems with the historical evidence.

>> I don't have 100% faith in anything, first of all, especially government records. >>

Glad to hear you say that, because this just broke:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cs ... ips27.html

Uh oh. That unimpeachable "historical evidence" Jared likes to trumpet just took a whack with a two by foor

First, none of us have said that the historical evidence is unimpeachable. If you want to attack straw men, go somewhere else. Secondly, this article seems to claim that it was impossible to get a Silver Star w/Combat V in Vietnam. So I did a quick Google search on this. Seems like others have gotten this as well:

http://home.att.net/~jimarmstrong/seabee/Seabee.htm
http://cap139.homestead.com/CAP139Yearbook1970.html

So it was either a fairly common mistake made on official records, or it WAS given during Vietnam, OR these people are lying. Which is it? Where's the two by four?

[Brando70]

I just looked at the docs on Kerry's site. First, the Sun-Times is wrong, the Zumwalt citation is on the site, it's just in the big file with the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and Silver citations.

Second, it is certainly suspicious that the Navy doesn't issue a Silver Star with a combat V. However, do they issue a Bronze Star with a combat V? Because the document in question, the DD-214, lists all his awards in one box. The two stars are written like this:

Bronze Star with Combat "V"
Silver Star with Combat "V"

If he got a Bronze Star with a Combat V, I could see a simple case of mistyping. But if that is incorrect, I still don't quite get the significance of this finding. The actual citations themselves don't reference the combat V, they just say Bronze Star and Silver Star. Also, who types up the DD-214, the person in question, or the Navy/Defense Dept.? That would make a big difference I would think.

I guess my question is, is the implication the citations themselves are fake? I can see the red flag, I just don't understand the significance of it since he has actual copies of the citations, and those citations don't mention the Combat V.

[XXXIV]

You guys have convinced me Bush and Kerry are both Satan..........Im writing in Jack Youngblood for president............

[Jared]

Jared, that Newsweek report I just responded to was giving credit at the bottom to David Corn, who filed the report for "The Nation". I hopped over and read the initial report from Corn...and then saw this at the end of the article by the guy who said it was "implausible" that Kerry wrote the spot report:

Okay, so the author of "The Lies of George W. Bush" is also the author of this piece that was picked up by Newsweek. But, hey, no possible bias here!! And you rail at me for quoting right wing sites. Do you GET much more left than this? This guy's credibility just went in smoke, and his OPINION that "it was implausible" for Kerry to have wirtten the report is certainly the opinion of an objective reporter...LOL!

Randy

First of all, where have I railed at you for quoting right wing sites? Back up your claims. I've railed on you for using articles that are deceptive...but not because they're from a specific source.

Anyways, this argument is irrelevant, in that it's attacking the accuser, not his argument. I believe this is called an "ad hominem". It's textbook bad argumentation.

[Brando70]

Jared, that Newsweek report I just responded to was giving credit at the bottom to David Corn, who filed the report for "The Nation". I hopped over and read the initial report from Corn...and then saw this at the end of the article by the guy who said it was "implausible" that Kerry wrote the spot report:

-----------
DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is NOW AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK
-------------

Okay, so the author of "The Lies of George W. Bush" is also the author of this piece that was picked up by Newsweek. But, hey, no possible bias here!! And you rail at me for quoting right wing sites. Do you GET much more left than this? This guy's credibility just went in smoke, and his OPINION that "it was implausible" for Kerry to have wirtten the report is certainly the opinion of an objective reporter...LOL!

Randy

Except you forget two important things, Randy. First, that conservative writers also appear in mainstream "liberal" publications.

Second, unlike just about any Web site (right or left), major publications and periodicals (and major TV news, I think) are fact-checked. Someone other than the writer calls and tries to verify what is being reported. That's to curb the kind of abuse you're implying. Now, it can't curb everything, such as perceiving whether someone could have seen or not seen something, as you did point out. But the problem with World Net Daily and NewsMax, for instance, is that they are not run the same way regular news agencies are. They pretty much desiminate stories that are not vetted through the journalistic process.

Also, in terms of accuracy, books are not fact-checked nearly as rigorously as news is. You may have manuscripts vetted by an outside expert, but those guys are not usually calling/e-mailing to verify facts. That's why a lot of campaign-time books, on either side are suspicious. Remember the bio on Bush that accused him of having been busted for cocaine? Turns out the author a) quoted anonymous sources and b) was an ex-felon who had tried to have a former boss killed. Destroyed the credibility of the book after the fact, didn't prevent it from being published. It's harder, but not impossible (see Jason Blair) to do that in a newsroom.