judicial watch: kerry should remove silver star from website

Yet another in the long list of idiotic non-issues that the GOP hopes will distract people from GWB's horrendous record.

DEBATE THE ISSUES, IF YOU CAN!

 

Judicial Watch is the pet project of liberatarian/conspiracy theorist/wingnut extraordinaire Larry Klayman, whose previous cause celebre was Vince Foster's "murder"; just last term he and JW lost his Supreme Court case to have Foster's autopsy photos released over the objections of the DOJ and Foster's family so that he could play "CSI" in his little website.

He's a sick f-ck and a wackjob who makes Al Sharpton look credible. Who cares what he thinks?
Do you, basso?

Republican questions Kerry's service. This is news, why?

 

We should all care if these are facts...

Kerry trumpeted shades of these types of "non-issues" in large part to his favor...I am interested if these delivered favors upon us is a bold-faced lie!. Right now, the heroic war veterans for truth has him scared and reeling, because what they have stated has not been refuted in any meaningful way...Kerry says these war heros are lying,...Why would these war heros lie in such numbers? I cannot take Kerry's proven flippity-flop based rhetoric with any assurance...

 

Anybody care for a slice of reality pie?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=2&u=/nm/20040902/pl_nm/campaign_veterans_dc

Iraq War Veterans Want Debate on Iraq, Not Vietnam

2 hours, 1 minute ago Add Politics - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Mark Egan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites) war veterans on the sidelines of the Republican convention say they are sick of the bickering over the Vietnam War records of President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) and want a serious discussion of Iraq and veterans' issues instead.


"We want to force both candidates to give us some answers here," said Paul Rieckhoff, a platoon leader in Iraq and executive director of Operation Truth, which is lobbying to highlight the Iraq war as an election issue.


"Bush hasn't really given us a clear focus on how he's going to change things and Kerry hasn't given us a clear idea what he will do differently," he said.


Several veterans' groups descended on New York during the Republican convention that nominated Bush for a second term. The veterans are attending debates, doing media interviews and lobbying politicians to offer more specifics about what to do in Iraq, where almost 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.


Kerry, a Massachusetts Democratic senator, was pulling even with Bush among veterans in surveys after the Democratic convention in July when he highlighted his Vietnam War record. Polls suggest that subsequent attacks on his war record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group have cut his support among former soldiers.


Kerry has accused the Bush campaign of collaborating with the Swift Boat group, a charge the White House denies.


Bush refused to condemn the attack ads but said Kerry was "more heroic" than him during the war, when he served in the Texas Air National Guard. Some Democrats accuse Bush of shirking that responsibility, citing gaps in his attendance record.


"The emphasis on the Vietnam War is spurious and has taken away the focus from having a serious dialogue on the Iraq war," said Rebecca Smith of the bipartisan Veterans Institute for Security and Democracy.


"We feel veterans are getting short shrift."


In a tight election, both candidates have aggressively courted the nation's 26 million veterans. Kerry and Bush both spoke this week in Nashville, Tennessee, to the nation's largest veterans group, the American Legion.


Veterans have more basic gripes about the benefits they receive once they return home.


David Lemak, 57, a Republican delegate who served in the Air Force for 20 years, including three in Southeast Asia, supports Bush, but said, "There are some things that need to get taken care of in the next administration.


"The promise to our veterans out there is unlike any other one. It was made many years ago and it was a promise that if you come and serve our country, we'll take care of you for your lifetime. That's got to be honored," he said.


Veterans inside and outside the convention hall complained about the gradual erosion of their benefits, particularly health care, under both former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), a Democrat, and his Republican successor, Bush.


"We need to know where veterans fit into the budget because we are creating new veterans every day in Iraq," said Smith. (Additional reporting by Caroline Humer)

 

Perhaps he's wrong. In the quote you quoted from Fisher, he somehow equates libertarians to the republicans.

Riiiiiiiiight. And he further claims a democrat is not credible. LOL ...t's getting funny to watch the left fight amongst themselves.


Now the NAVY is on to the falsified stuff... did you get that? THE U.S. NAVY. Is the NAVY a republican front organization too?

Sweet.

 

Is that the same NAVY that you claim is wrong wrong about the records for Kerry's Vietnam service?

 

I didn't claim that the NAVY was wrong.

Quote me.

Read the article. Again. The NAVY is looking into this. They may have found something that was wrong on Kerry's part.

I didn't claim that the NAVY was wrong.

 

I'm sorry I thought you said you believed the Swiftboat ads. By believing those ads and their book, you saying the navy was wrong on Kerry's part. The NAVY has reports of medals that weren't written by Kerry himself that say he got what he deserved with the medals. Some of the reports are even signed by members of the Swiftboat vets.

If you realize that 98% of the Swifboaty boys charges against Kerry aren't credible, then I apologize for saying that you believed the Navy was wrong.

 

Judicial Watch is very much a conservative watchdog group. Perhaps you are unaware of the noteworthy way in which they've attacked Dick Cheney and Halliburton, because as a member of the Congregation, it is appealingly easy to ignore any source which conflicts with your faith.

In spite of this, every story, article, or blurb prior to this in the past four years which has mentioned them has described them as "conservative watch-dog group Judicial Watch". Because of their remarkable candor and honesty in criticizing their own political orientation when they find it objectionable, (a virtue which I'm sure you can not fathom), I am willing, as the last liberal Republican, to accept their impartiality on the subject.

In other words, if they question the degree to which Kerry pimps his war record, I will accept their opinion. In spite of this, no matter how much he may be exaggerating his record, it does not overshadow the fact that "W" and his entire cabinet were, to various degrees (most notably the Attorney General and the seven deferments he worked hard to get), seeking deferments and ways to leave the war to the common man. Even if Kerry is a Vietnam coward, at least he went.

If Judicial Watch seeks to question his record, I (for one) accept that they really believe that his record needs questioning. If there's smoke there's most likely fire. Kerry is overplaying his hand on Vientam. If I were him I'd probably do the same, given the way in which Democrats have been portrayed as whimps and passifists in the last 20+ years.

 

To whoever said that we should debate the issues: Kerry has made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. That means any discussion having to do with his service is fair game. If Kerry didn't remind the public every 2 seconds that he served in Vietnam, it wouldn't be an issue. It's the same way that attacks on Bush for his Iraq policies are part of the discussion because that's the centerpiece of Bush's campaign

 

I'm in Agreeance.

 

I would rather other issues be the the center of debate but if someone wanted to debate the actual issues of Kerry's service in Viet Nam I'd be willing to hear that.

Instead the talk about Vietnam is from a bunch of bitter vets, who have changed their story printed different versions of the story which have been regularly discredited, and don't talk about what really happened.

Bush mentioned tax cuts. If a bunch of people came out and said Bush is lying he actually raised taxes, and is a tax lover, who wants nothing more than to raise taxes. Is that true? Are we in a real debate about tax cuts? No, and No. I'm just making stuff up. With all the factors involved did the taxes on the middle class actually go up? They did slightly and the chart showing this is posted on this board, so there is a kernel of truth to this, but none-the-less I'm not really debating Bush's pet issue of tax cuts. The same is true of Kerry's service. If people want to actually debate that, then they should stick to the truth and debate it.

 

Ok let me get this straight.

GWB is a liar and an exagerator - check

JFK is a liar and an exagerator - check

Both are politicians - check

Hmmmm, is anyone really surprised?

DD

 

That's a legitimate debate. I don't mind debating those issues. Trumpeting service, and speaking out against the war, might upset some people. That's fine to argue as long as it's done with facts, and not bogus claims.

 

I move that any thread that is posted here that doesn't discuss an ISSUE from this campaign, not a smear attack, not some crackpot theory concocted by EITHER side, have a big fat masterlock attached to it.

If not I guess I'll just have to read the first post and see that it is not something worth using as a tissue to wipe my... nose, and move on.

But that's just me. You may like to read drivle.

 

With the exception of calling Kerry a liar and promising to kill many more Arabs, what exactly is the Republican platform this year?

Because I have yet to hear a *SINGLE* good idea on how to improve anything in this country.