That's not exactly scientific evidence, there, McG.
Wasn't meant to be scientific, merely stating a point.
Phoenix32890 wrote:One more time.
What I was referring to was a concept, not a particular. My remark had nothing to do with Kerry, Bush, swift boats, banana splits, or the price of tea in China.
What I was attempting to get across, is that I think that if a site is politically partisan, the material that it presents should not be offered up as a disinterested account.
Craven- Thanks for the chart- That was very interesting (but a separate issue)!
Phoenix, I misunderstood you. You were merely talking about a particular website and it's status so to speak as an objective site of facts and not talking the subject at hand.
Having said that, as a matter of curiosity; what is your opinion based on facts that you have found thus far concerning the allegations from certain folks from the swift boat outfit? Since the website that bbb provided is dismissed so to speak because it is obviously partisan in favor of kerry and edwards; what about the folks involved in the allegations itself who have wide connections with the republican party who started all this in first place? If what they say is dismissed because they are partisan then there is no case and case is dismissed, isn't it? (I admit I am a amateur in comparison to some here, but anyway...)
Phoenix32890 wrote:Karzak- Don't want to beat a dead horse, but, unless you really study what you are reading, the tone of a piece affects a person's perception of what he is reading.
Actually, the readers own political bias and reasoning skill affects the perception far more than the bias of the author.
Here are some verifiable facts that no one appears to be disputing;
John Kerry served on active duty in Swift Boats for 13 weeks, until after getting his 3rd Purple Heart, he was transferred at his own request back to the States. The normal tour in these boat squadrons was for one year as a minimum.
Soon after his release from active duty John Kerry became publically (and prominently) involved with the anti war movement and offered testimony before the Congress of widespread war crimes done throughout U.S. forces in Vietnam, and in his own unit as well. In response to later questions about his own culpability in not contemporaneously reporting these offenses amidst the several action reports he did submit, he stated that he had not directly observed any such crimes.
John Kerry has, throughout his political career, and particularly in the Presidential campaign, made extensive reference to his "heroic" service in Vietnam, and has repeatedly contrasted it to the records of those whom he opposed, both in the primary and now for the election.
There is no record of medical treatmend beyond a little first aid for any of the wounds he received. One would not have even met the OSHA definition of a 'workplace injury' - a low standard indeed.
No one has emerged who claims to have written the citations leading to the award of these Purple Hearts. Though Kerry has not released his service records to public disclosure, the available evidence is that he prepared and submitted the citations himself. In at least one case his then Commanding Officer has testified that he did not know of the citation and would have disapproved it if he had seen it.
Many (perhaps a majority) of the fellow officers in his unit have voiced rather severe criticisms of his self-aggrandizing behavior. This may be motivated by their reaction to his early testimony before Congress, or by their direct reactions to his contemporaneous behavior (as they claim). However, the fact remains that he was considered to be less than a hero by most of those who served with him.
John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star for his Vietnam service in the early '80s after he, a prominent Senator, directly interceded with the Secretary of the Navy on his own behalf.
I believe these facts are indeed sufficient for one to doubt the veracity of John Kerry's claims, and to consider the possibility that self-promotion is likely a greater factor than innate heroism in his actions.
georgeob1 wrote:I believe these facts are indeed sufficient for one to doubt the veracity of John Kerry's claims, and to consider the possibility that self-promotion is likely a greater factor than innate heroism in his actions.
Would that be anything like staging a landing on an aircraft carrier in your GI Joe costume?
Or serving bogus turkey off bogus serving plates to armed service personnel?
Or a setup photo toppling a Saddam Hussein statue?
How about a tv ad for the olympics, an event that is specifically not supposed to be politicized, showing an Iraq and Afghanistan flag and claiming responsibility for them being there?
to name a few.....may I assume that since self promotion is obviously repugnant to you and reason enough to not vote for a candidate that you will be voting Green, Libertarian or perhaps staying home on election day?
LOL BPB, and you have been critical of Bush over these minor matters, but when Kerry takes wartime honor that isnt due him it's OK?
I don't think anyone said there was anything wrong with self-promotion. Let's face it, all politicians do that. I think the real point George was trying to make is that, based on his view of the facts, Kerry's honesty is seriously in question. At least according to George.
Of course, each of us must take the facts and draw our own conclusions.
Bush was a fully qualified military pilot. He was in the right seat of a multi-piloted aircraft for a day landing aboard the carrier. I have seen the same thing done repeatedly in such cases for senior government figures and for a few Brits (and even a French Admiral) as well. It certainly was done both to honor the troops (The Navy guys loved it) and for self-promotion. There is, however, no dispute about the facts in this case, and Bush does have a responsibility for the morale of the military forces.
I believe both the dinner plate and the turkey were real. This is standard stuff for visiting VIPs.
The difference is that John Kerry has repeatedly made claims about his own personal values, worth, and standards of behavior that do not appear to square with the available facts. On the contrary, much of it suggests he has been deceiving the public (and perhaps himself as well) for a long time.
John Kerry has shrapnel in his leg from his Viet Nam service.
George W. Bush has two fillings in his teeth from his.
Anything else?
Both are equally adept at making more of their service than is really there.
I'm not willing to call it even.
There are wounded men returning from the Middle East on this very day whose battlefield awards may someday be publicly called into question as a result of this precedent.
That should never be the case.
That, in fact, is horseshit.
The vicious lies told by George Bush's surrogates, and the "liberal" media's complicity in giving these sorry bastards a forum to to spread them, warrant an apology from the President.
No less.
PDiddie wrote:John Kerry has shrapnel in his leg from his Viet Nam service.
George W. Bush has two fillings in his teeth from his.
For which Bush was awarded the Purple Bicuspid.
Josh Marshall applies the smackdown to Bob Dole, so I don't have to:
Quote:Today Bob Dole suggested that one or more of John Kerry's Purple Hearts may have been fraudulent in some way because they were for "superficial wounds."
Dole knows better.
In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."
Notice that even though much was made of Dole's military service during the 1996 election (comparing it to Clinton's draft avoidance), Democrats were much too classy to try and smear Dole's war record or question the validity of his first Purple Heart.
Dole wasn't using his war record in the manner that Kerry has been.
McGentrix wrote:Dole wasn't using his war record in the manner that Kerry has been.
Are you and Sofia taking the same class this semester (Moronic Toss-Offs 221)?
I don't know, you seem to be the one spewing the jargon around here, you tell me.
georgeob1 wrote:Here are some verifiable facts that no one appears to be disputing;
John Kerry served on active duty in Swift Boats for 13 weeks, until after getting his 3rd Purple Heart, he was transferred at his own request back to the States. The normal tour in these boat squadrons was for one year as a minimum.
Soon after his release from active duty John Kerry became publically (and prominently) involved with the anti war movement and offered testimony before the Congress of widespread war crimes done throughout U.S. forces in Vietnam, and in his own unit as well. In response to later questions about his own culpability in not contemporaneously reporting these offenses amidst the several action reports he did submit, he stated that he had not directly observed any such crimes.
John Kerry has, throughout his political career, and particularly in the Presidential campaign, made extensive reference to his "heroic" service in Vietnam, and has repeatedly contrasted it to the records of those whom he opposed, both in the primary and now for the election.
There is no record of medical treatmend beyond a little first aid for any of the wounds he received. One would not have even met the OSHA definition of a 'workplace injury' - a low standard indeed.
No one has emerged who claims to have written the citations leading to the award of these Purple Hearts. Though Kerry has not released his service records to public disclosure, the available evidence is that he prepared and submitted the citations himself. In at least one case his then Commanding Officer has testified that he did not know of the citation and would have disapproved it if he had seen it.
Many (perhaps a majority) of the fellow officers in his unit have voiced rather severe criticisms of his self-aggrandizing behavior. This may be motivated by their reaction to his early testimony before Congress, or by their direct reactions to his contemporaneous behavior (as they claim). However, the fact remains that he was considered to be less than a hero by most of those who served with him.
John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star for his Vietnam service in the early '80s after he, a prominent Senator, directly interceded with the Secretary of the Navy on his own behalf.
I believe these facts are indeed sufficient for one to doubt the veracity of John Kerry's claims, and to consider the possibility that self-promotion is likely a greater factor than innate heroism in his actions.
Those are not undisputed facts.
The following is a couple of links I found trying to find someone in this political race who is honorable and is standing up for Kerry.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002012250_swiftboat22.html
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4859
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/images/index.php?ntid=8809&ntpid=0
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/08/21/news/01kerry.txt
http://www.wqow.com/news/articles/article_1358.shtml
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/9462893.htm?1c
On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under enemy fire that day, qualifying for a third Purple Heart, Navy records favor Kerry. Several documents, including the after-action report and the Bronze Star citation for a Swift boat skipper who has accused Kerry of lying, refer to "all units" coming under "automatic and small-weapons fire."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/823782.cms
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0408230191aug23,1,5066686.story?coll=chi-news-hed
http://www.arkcity.net/stories/081904/com_0004.shtml
McGentrix wrote:you tell me.
Yes, I believe that you must be (taking the same class, in the Advanced Conservative Studies building, the one taught by the man who avoided Viet Nam because he had a nasty pimple at the very lowest tip of his spine).
I suppose those that avoided the draft entirely by escaping to England would be just south of that pimples location, right?
