There is absolutely no evidence or even any kind of allegations that Kerry faked his injuries. There is some bogus attempts to say they were exaggerated but none to say he faked them altogether. You are so far off base, but it is hilarious. You are defending the swiftboat vets who've already been proven wrong and to be lying time after time. Keep it up.
The Swifties never lied once, and if you don't believe that, then ask yourself why Kerry never sued them, engaged them in debate, or challenged their facts in any way. Gnaw on that for a while.
Yes he did challenge their facts repeatedly, and showed them to be wrong and liars. He didn't sue because he doesn't feel it is worth the expense and time, I'm guessing. But like I said keep defending the swifties. It's good to see where you stand.
LOL. As much as it pains me to say it, I'm sure that you are not so stupid as to not understand why a presidential candidate would avoid responding to and repeating lies. In any case, if you really cared about the truth you could try: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html Who very clearly detail and document all of the lies. But since truth is a foreign and uncomfortable concept for you, I'm sure you'll find some way to slander as 'liberally biased' a nonprofit and universally respected fact checking organization that was endorsed by Dick Cheney.
Um, I don't think so. I read a bunch of he-said, she-said that in no way proves your point. Not even close. The facts remain -- Kerry left Vietnam incredibly early on a technicality, but putting in for purple hearts for SUPERFICIAL, MINOR WOUNDS. You think a real leader would put in for that third purple heart and then jump on the opportunity to go home if he really wanted to serve? Heck no. This was likely a pre-meditated strategy by Kerry to look like a hero, but get out of Dodge as early as possible by finding a loophole. I can believe you are naive enough to buy that mess.
He-said, she-said? You have one of the guys the swiftboat vets were using saying what a horrible mistake it was to sign the affidavit with those guys. In addition there are some things that are completely wrong. Who's word do you take TJ? The United States Navy, or a fringe group that already had people defecting from it? Which side of this supposed He-Said, She-Said are you on?
What a ridiculous argument. Your proof that the swifties are correct is "Where are the navy records?" Sorry, but that isn't proof of anything at all. He did release them, I'm sure there were some gaps, but he released the info pertaining to the swifties.
via Crooks and Liars -- In light of President Bush’s disgraceful presser today, Keith Olbermann decided to make a Special Comment on tonight’s Countdown and wow, did he make the most of it. Olbermann blasts the president for his cowardly and un-American behavior of pimping General Petraeus as a political hack and hiding behind him to deflect criticism. To say that Keith took the president to the woodshed would be an understatement. the video -- http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/21616/1/Countdown-SC-Hypocrisy.wmv for those too lazy or afraid to watch the vid, here's the trascript. Transcripts below the fold So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we’d all interrupted him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big-wow political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn’t already — the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway. First off, it’s “Democrat-ic” party, sir. You keep pretending you’re not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect. Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry? But most importantly… making that the last question? So that there was no chance at a follow-up? So nobody could point out — as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight — that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place! Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman — and now you’re complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone? Eleven months ago the President’s own party — the Republican National Committee — introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections. Bin Laden. And Zawahiri’s rumored quote of six years ago about having bought “suitcase bombs.” All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion… and the dire announcement: “These are the stakes - vote, November 7th.” That one was ok, Mr. Bush? Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you? The Republican Hamstringing of Captain Max Cleeland and lying about Lieutenant John Kerry met with your approval? But a shot at General Petraeus — about whom you conveniently ignore it is you who reduced him from four-star hero to a political hack — that merits this pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television? Your hypocrisy is so vast, sir, that if we could somehow use it to fill the ranks in Iraq you could realize your dream — and keep us fighting there until the year 3000. The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed. When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind. When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition - as he did… when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864 and nearly defeated our greatest president. Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures — after four years of fearful servitude — rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him. The list is not endless — but it is instructive. Air Force General LeMay — who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis — and was retired. Army General Edwin Anderson Walker — who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers. Marine General Smedley Butler — who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President — and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy. These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is… not… to… be… crossed! Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man. And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career. The upshot is — and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement — he betrayed himself more than he did us. But there has been in his actions a sort of reflexive courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time of crisis. That the man doesn’t understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops, is not so much his fault as it is your good, exploitable, fortune. But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond. That, sir, is not only un-American — it is dictatorial. And in pimping General David Petraeus, sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it. You did it again today, sir, and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed. It is a line — thankfully only the first of a series — that makes the military political, and the political, military. It is a line which history shows is always the first one crossed when a democratic government in some other country has started down the long, slippery, suicidal slope towards a military junta. Get back behind that line, Mr. Bush, before some of your supporters mistake your dangerous transgression, for a call to further politicize our military.
So what. What does any of that have to do with the Swifties being liars? Answer: It doesn't. They were proven wrong again and again, and if Kerry said he was going to release all his records, but he didn't realease one form, what does that have to do with anything?
link? the as TJ said the factcheck story is just he said/he said. but thank you for admitting that kerry lied when he said he'd produce his full military record. one wonders why you would trust the word of a proven liar, one you yourself have now admitted lied. interesting.
Whend did I ever say I trusted John Kerry? Sorry if that makes it less interesting. Again the fact check story shows swifties admitting they were wrong and backing away from their stories in addition to showing how what they were claiming was documented as false by the Naval records. So do you trust these politically motivated inconsistant swift boat guys who are aso proven liars(they either lied earlier when praising Kerry or later when trashing him) or the records kept at the time by the United States Navy. It looks like a clear case of you not supporting the military(The Naval records). Now that is interesting. It also says a lot to your ability to impartially weigh evidence such as the swifties inconsistant testimony, with little to no corroboration vs. the records of the U.S. military and swift boat veterans who admitted their afidavit's were mistakes. It says a lot.
He filled out the required form. He posted countless records on his website. And you are wrong that a few missing records would say more than people who have changed their testimony about Kerry time and time again, and that one version of the words which you seem to latch onto says more than the naval records, their proven lies, and inconsistencies. You may also want to check these sites about his complete records. This one links to all of his records http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html If those records and stories of their release don't satisfy you, please tell me which records you want released.
I don't know why you guys keep humoring basso when he does this in every thread - posts an incorrect/unsubstantiated statement, then plays dumb when you call him out on it and expects you to do the research to disprove or prove it. Just IL him and move on (pun not intended)
