National Counsel for Bush Campaign Resigns

how much of those records were blacked-out before being released?

 

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Quit whinning about it.

Again, the fact is that if Mr. Kerry is right and the swiftvets are wrong...PROVE IT!!!!

Release records that show it. Stop whinning like a little 5 year old and saying "your lying". Prove it.


BTW the lead counsel for the Bush Campaign resigned because he felt it was the right thing to do and not hurt the President's campaign. Neither because he did anything wrong nor was he asked to.

Its what people with character do unlike others.

 

Define "blacked-out"

 

in marker. go watch Farhenheit 9/11 to see an example

 

Oh I see. You mean the part about when Bush setup the whole Vietnam conflict so that the swiftvets could attack Mr. Kerry with their lies.

The info given was from an interview of the following person:

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, 'There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"


I don't think that any "blacked-out" portions were indicated.

 

Evidence, link, name, anything?

Or is this just an assertion?

As a matter of fact, even MoveOn denounced the ad that you mentioned and took it off of their site.

Kerry has denounced the ads questioning Bush's service.

 

At least all of those that weren't destroyed.

Kerry HAS released his record. Stop listening to the RNC and look this stuff up yourself.

 

Oh, the irony.

 

The facts HAVE been presented and the vets you refer to did NOT serve WITH Kerry, they were just in 'Nam at the same time.

That is the thing, he HAS released his records, but the RNC just says he hasn't to cast doubt in the minds of people who just buy it without question.

I don't know where you got the 86% number, but you are right that the attack ads from both sides are garbage.

You do realize that even MoveOn denounced that ad and removed it from their website after they vetted it and saw what it said, don't you?

 

find that 7 minutes passage in the 9/11 report yet?

 

Why did Mr. O'Neill (leader of the SBVFT) come out and praise Kerry's service up and down during Kerry's Senate campaign in '96 and now claims that Kerry is lying?

BTW, one of the other officers that you mention NOW says that there was no gunfire, but HE got a bronze star for the same engagement, and the writeup for the medal mentions gunfire during the incident.

 

Of the total number of vets that served in Kerry's squad, only 2 support him and his version of the service. One is dead and the other has refused to take either side. However, the other 20+ people disagree with Mr. Kerry's version so who are we to believe? 1-3 people or 18-20 people? Who has the most to gain by lying?

Are you refering to the 20 some odd pages that were posted on Mr. Kerry's website which are no longer there or are you rrefering to the other 180 pages which have never been released including medical records?

The following is from the Washinton Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040823-084201-1294r.htm


So far, John Kerry has been the direct beneficiary of an estimated $60 million worth of "independent" TV ads, many of which viciously attack President Bush. Ostensibly independent — though clearly Democratic-oriented — 527 political organizations, such as MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, have been financing TV ads and other political activities with unlimited soft-money contributions, which the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance legislation prohibited national political party committees from receiving after the 2002 election.


Democratic 527s have overwhelmed their Republican counterparts, effectively permitting Mr. Kerry to monopolize this McCain-Feingold soft-money loophole. The relatively tiny effort by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth proves the point, which the New York Times completely missed in its Page 1 story on Friday. Instead, the NYT was upset over the fact that the veterans received $225,000 of its initial $500,000 stake from two Texans. The amounts were $200,000 from real estate executive Bob Perry, whom the NYT identified as "the top donor to Republicans in the state," and $25,000 from Harlan Crow, "the seventh-largest donor to Republicans" in Texas. By the standards established by Democratic 527 donors, Mr. Perry would be a piker, while Mr. Crow's contribution would not even qualify as a rounding error. In fact, based on data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, 21 of the 22 individuals who have contributed at least $500,000 to 527s have donated a cumulative $56.7 million to Democratic-oriented groups. These include Peter Lewis ($14 million), George Soros ($12.6 million) and Steven Bing ($8.1 million). The sole exception among the 22 is Carl Lindner, who has donated $1.02 million to Republican-oriented 527s.
Mr. Perry also was identified as an "associate" of Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political aide. With Mr. Rove having worked for numerous Texas politicians, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, an association between a Texas political strategist (Mr. Rove) and the leading Texas political contributor should hardly be surprising. The NYT sought to buttress what it called "a web of connections" linking Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush family by noting that Texas lawyer John O'Neill, a founding member of the group, had a law partner who once served as general counsel to Mr. Bush when he was governor of Texas. Making matters even more sinister, in the eyes of the New York Times, is the additional fact that then-Gov. Bush appointed the wife of another O'Neill law partner as a judge on the state court of appeals.



None of this, of course, in any way demonstrates an illegal conspiracy between the veterans group and the Bush campaign. If Mr. Kerry is really looking for a smoking gun, he ought to examine the Media Fund (total receipts: $27.2 million), which is run by former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and America Coming Together (total receipts: $26.9 million). The chief spokesman for both of these Democratic 527s is Jim Jordan, who happens to be Mr. Kerry's former campaign manager. Not surprising, a separate article appearing in Friday's New York Times regarding Federal Elections regulation of 527s mentioned Mr. Jordan in his capacity as spokesman for the Media Fund and ACT, but neglected to mention his Kerry connection.

That is true but was up again soon after that. It is currently not up but they did not vett anything.

 

No I was not directing that at you, I was talking about Mr. Kerry's reaction.

No offense intended...

 

what about the 40 minutes Kerry sat with 3 other members of the Senate before he even picked up the phone to find out what was going on?

 

O'neill has stated that he feels Mr. Kerry is unfit to serve as president. That is why he came out now, after he won the primaries.

That person has also said if that was the case, he does not want to medal due to the false report written by Kerry himself.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/20/01315.shtml


The Swift Boat vet who came under attack on Thursday for saying that John Kerry didn't deserve his Bronze Star because he wasn't under enemy attack at the time has been corroborated by another Swiftvet who witnessed the episode.
In its first serious coverage of the Swiftvet controversy so far, the Washington Post obtained the citation for Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star, which was awarded for the same action that earned Kerry his medal. Thurlow's citation claims that he came under "constant enemy small arms fire," a description seized on by Kerry backers to discredit all the Swiftvets' claims.

Thurlow maintains, however, that the citation was inaccurate.

Fellow Swiftvet Andy Horne backed Thurlow's claim on Thursday, saying that the reason for the discrepancy was because Kerry himself wrote up the skirmish after-action report, exaggerating Thurlow's valor along with his own in order to secure the decoration.

"Nobody saw the after-action message that generated any awards out of that action until very recently," Horne told radio host Steve Malzberg, who was filling in for Linda Chavez on the Liberty Broadcasting Network.

Horne said that when Kerry's account of the skirmish turned up on his campaign Web site, the reaction from a number of Swiftvets was "Wait a minute, it didn't happen that way."

Kerry was in the habit of writing up the after-action reports himself, Horne told Malzberg, "and John Kerry's message then becomes the basis" for the enemy fire claim.

"The Navy system trusts officers to write the truth," Horne said, indicating that in Kerry's case, that trust was misplaced.

The Swiftvet said that Thurlow didn't even receive his Bronze Star citation until he was back home in Kansas, at which point the "enemy fire" discrepancy seemed like a moot issue.

 

Every single man who served on Kerry's boat and is still alive were on stage with him during his DNC acceptance speech. Who are we to believe, people who served WITH Kerry on his boat or people who now CLAIM that they were in the vicinity? The SBVFT did NOT serve WITH Kerry, they just happened to serve on other swift boats in Vietnam, and many of them didn't even serve at the same time as Kerry.

They are lying and that is clear.

BTW, the people who stand to gain the most are Bush backers who receive tax breaks where under Kerry, those tax breaks will be cut.

I am referring to the FACT that Kerry released his records, none of which were destroyed as Bush's were. Again, you are taking the RNC at their word and not looking for yourself. You can see the records if you just look.

Nowhere in that article did it say anything about 86%, so where did you pull that number. I have already said that the attack groups on BOTH sides should chill, but you actually threw out a number and claimed it was fact.

WHAT THE HE!! ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?! They took the ad down after they looked at it and determined it was inappropriate. They NEVER put it back up. You are either sorely mistaken or have been misled by the GOP....again.

 

And in 1996, O'Neill said that Kerry was the model leader and was a "hero" during his service in Vietnam. He said this while standing on a stage next to Kerry during the '96 campaign. Why the change?

Even if (and that is a HUGE if) this is completely factual (which, based on the SBVFT's track record is unlikely at best), how do you dispute the article written last week about the situation where Kerry won the Silver Star? That man (I think his name was Roos) described in detail how Kerry led three swift boats and took out several ambushes along the river.

This man stayed quiet about the events for 30 years and only came out to clear up the lies told by the SBVFT.

You need to get your head out of the sand and watch something other than Faux News.