I happen to believe in the end, Bush-Cheney will come out on top. But lets not try and demean the political process. After all, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, its still good enough for todays politicians.
Posted on 08/06/2004 2:57:40 PM PDT by Steven W.
In politics, perception is reality and right now the Kerry campaign, with help from the partisan media cohorts faction of the liberal establishment, are spinning things just right. After the GOP convention, things might be different. Let's hope so.
And.... welcome to FR!
Any DC Freepers who can get to the Library of Congress and find the Congressional Record volume for that date. It's not online ( 95 and on ).
I think journalist and the so called "Mainstream Media" are doing everything they can to get Kerry elected and will go to any means to cover up for him.
Should be on micro-fiche at your local library... or available from inter-library loan.
Ping for the Truth!
Hugh also notes the following re Drudge coverage of Globe fiasco:
If I was Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish, I'd sue Drudge for libel. Drudge slammed Kranish today, stating flatly that "BOSTON GLOBE 'REPORTER' COMMISSIONED TO WRITE CAMPAIGN BOOK FORWARD -- WHILE COVERING KERRY." Boston Globe editor Martin Baron put out a statement today stating that "[i]t is completely untrue that Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish ever contracted to write for a Kerry campaign publication. Earlier this summer, Mr. Kranish worked with Public Affairs, the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry...to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. When Public Affairs subsequently struck anagreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended." I believe Baron though I have been highly critical of him over the years, and appreciate how harmful the Drudge accusation is to the reputation of a reporter. I was ready to spend part of a show blasting the Globe and Kranish when we checked with Kranish and quickly got the real story. If I could do it, why didn't Drudge?
Kranish is undoubtedly a public figure, so the libel standard would be knowing or reckless disregard for the truth, but the damage done to his repuation via this Drudge hit is huge --notice that Drudge used quotation marks around the word "reporter"-- and probably impossible to ever fully repair. Millions of people will think he was in the tank for Kerry in his writing of the swift boat stories and will never get the correction, and the test for libel is damage done to reputation in the community. Drudge would be well-advised to apologize immediately and profusely for his indefensible error.
Have you read Chapter 3 of O'Neill's book, which is available on the web thru Human Events? There was an LCU and other boats stationed in the river near the Cambodian border to prevent anyone from accidentally crossing over into Cambodia. And that's just for starters.
From the book, Chap 3:
"During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.
You miss the point - you don't need to prove whether Kerry was there, all you need to do is prove (a) Nixon was not President in 1968 (DUH) and (b) Kerry spoke on the floor of the Senate as he did fighting Reagan in the 1980's and providing the details of his "story" (thus disproving itself)
How do you know what is in the book? I have read only Chapter 3 and discovered plenty of new facts and information. If the rest of the book contains similar revelations, it will have a major effect. The best time for its release was after the Dems chose him as their candidate.
John Kerry - the precursor to Lynndie England.
Go away troll
Kerry has not denied any of the things the Swift Boat Vets have said as far as I can tell. Kerry has just sent his attack dogs out. Seems Kerry could clear this up with a simple denial and release of records.
Doesn't this clear up the confusion?
Hugh researching this story further ... hopefully he'll be able to get Senate speech. He's approaching this as a lawyer which is the right way because this particular story of Kerry's undermines all his positions and posturing over the years - if shown to be a falsehood then it's the straw which breaks the camel's back & then all the other stories he's made or concocted will fall assuredly.
I happen to believe in the end, Bush-Cheney will come out on top. But lets not try and demean the political process. After all, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, its still good enough for todays politicians.
If you were active during the 80's then you recall John Kerry as one of the most vitriolic enemies of Ronald Reagan, particularly when it came to his (Kerry's) support of Daniel Ortega. This speech was during the height of the debate on the floor of the Senate. It's not just Vietnam that's at issue here - IT IS THE ESSENTIAL BEING OF JOHN KERRY that is being called into question here ... if the reason he supports the Butcher of Managua or calls the POTUS a liar and promises people in this election that he'll tell the truth because of his EXPERIENCE IN VIETNAM WHEN HE WAS SENT TO CAMBODIA BY A POTUS WHO LIED - that is the crux of everything Kerry has ever stood for and has been proven demonstrably & obviously FALSE & CONCOCTED - Nixon didn't become president until 1969. Thus the whole basis of Kerry's being is VOID and NULL. The rationale for his very existence is completely undermined, no matter what the debate of this day might be.
The Kerry-in-Cambodia-on-Christmas-Eve-1968 story gets stranger.
Here's the relevant section from the Boston Globe's biography of Kerry:
"On Christmas Eve of 1968, as Kerry's fifty-foot aluminum craft floated in the waters off Cambodia, he was about to get firsthand experience with the free-fire policy that he would come to despise."
"The United States believed that the Vietcong would follow a Christmastime truce, and Kerry was expecting a quiet holiday observance. But the truce was only three minutes old when mortar fire suddenly exploded around Kerry and his five-man crew."
"'Where is the enemy?' a crewmate shouted."
"'Open fire; let's take 'em,' Kerry ordered, according to his second-in-command, James Wasser of Illinois. In the distance, an elderly man in the cross fire was tending his water buffalo -- and serving as human cover for a dozen Vietcong manning a machine-gun nest. Wasser said he opened fire with his M-60, hitting the old man, who slumped in the water, presumably dead. With a clear path to the enemy, the fusillade from Kerry's navy boat, backed by a pair of other small vessels, silenced the machine-gun nest."
"When it was over, the Vietcong were dead, wounded, or on the run. A civilian apparently was killed, and two South Vietnamese allies who had alerted Kerry's crew to the enemy were either wounded or killed."
"On the same night, when some South Vietnamese allies launched several rounds into the river to celebrate the holiday, Kerry and his crew had come within a half-inch of being killed by 'friendly fire.'"
"To top it off, Kerry said later he had gone inside Cambodia, despite President Nixon's assurances to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements, he later recalled." [pp.83-84].
My post from earlier today, at 12:30 PM --apologies for the broken permalinks, so you'll have to scroll down-- argues that if the authors of Unfit for Command are correct in reporting that Kerry has spoken of his illegal incursion into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 on the floor of the Senate in 1986, and in an interview with the Boston Herald --and elsewhere?-- then John Kerry has a huge, huge credibility problem. You don't "misremember" heading into Cambodia, or get a detail wrong about who was president during your service, but it is tempting to make up the drama you need to add credibility to your political positions.
The Boston Globe's account seems to suggest that others on the boat have agreed that a Christmas Eve firefight occured. Do they agree it happened in Cambodia, and if so, what's that do to their credibility in the war of words among warriors underway right now? The venom directed at Kerry's critics among the swift boat veterans, including Ann Lewis and Donna Brazille on Crossfire today calling these men "liars"-- tells me that the Kerry campaiogn is deeply worried about this attack on the central theme of Kerry's campaign. Well, if he lied about being sent to Cambodia, Kerry's narrative is in trouble. It will remain true that he saved a man's life, but that day's undeiable courage does not validate or protect Kerry's record then or since. A powerful demonstration of obvious falsehood on a key claim is a major blow to Kerry.
WQhich is why the focus ought to be on the Cambodia story, over and over again. Did Kerry make that claim? Did he do so in the Senate as part of a political argument about Nicaragua? If so, what's that tell us about his willingness to invent personal history to serve his political ambition?
JustOneMinute is relentless on other aspects of the story, and I hope he'll turn his attention to this one as well. Anyone got a Congressional Record from March 27, 1986? Let's see if we can proof the assertion made in Unfit for Command about Kerry's speech in 1986.
I haven't read the book, but if it contained new revelations about John Kerry that cast him in a negative light, we would have heard about it by now. At this stage of the general election campaign, most folks will be perceiving all this anti-Kerry rhetoric, as a last ditch effort to help defeat John Kerry. And you know what, they'd be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.