New problems for Senator Kerry
 

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408160842.asp


In the last few days, there's been a new accusation floating around the Internet about John Kerry's Vietnam record. It involves speculation that David Alston, one of the "band of brothers" who served on board Kerry's Swift Boat, did not actually serve with Kerry at all. If such a story were true, it would be sensational news, given that Alston has made extensive public statements, including a speech at the Democratic National Convention, about his time with Kerry. The only problem is, it's not true. Alston did indeed serve under Kerry.
But the attention the rumor brought to Alston and his service aboard Kerry's boat, PCF-94, has cast new light on the time the men were together. And it appears that while Alston was in fact on board PCF-94 when Kerry was in command, his total time of service under Kerry was quite brief — perhaps as little as seven days. According to records of Kerry's service posted on his campaign's website, it appears the two men were in actual combat together on two of those days.


But he did win three purple hearts :rolleyes:

The Democrat campaign was going to try the same 'swift boat veterans' tactic to smear Bush, but the only problem was, they couldn't find anyone who had served with him...

For about 4 years, there has been a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who would step forward and document being anywhere GWB was on duty during his 5/72 -- 10/73 National Guard "service."

http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html

So far, nobody has cashed in.

But over 200 peers and COs are apparently able to get passionate about Kerry's service.

. . .and their off. . . the first two ponies out of the gate are "What about Bush' and "Bush Too'. [/horse-track speaker]

Kerry is a seasoned liar . .. though I keep expecting he'll stop making all these rookie mistakes . . the guy is out of touch with plasable truth. Sure he has long history . .. thrown-up his thin-shelled reallity. ..but for a presidental run he should know better.

$10k to step in to a bash-fest . . . is that all?

Couple things you are missing in the above statement...the Swift Boaties who are against Kerry are not on Bush's payroll...There are 254 of them...The Vets for Kerry are on his payroll.

Why doesn't Kerry just end the debate now...release his records?...Because he is lying and manufactured reasons to build a political career. He stabbed his brothers in the back for political office. He married 2 millionaires (now a billionaire)...He lied about wide-spread American sanctioned attrocities, back-peddled -- He lied about Cambodia for the last 30 years, back-peddled.

3+ years of re-heating Bush being AWOL (total nonsense). Kerry gets a pass by the liberal media on his war-record and uses their (being the tag-team of the DNC/media) vast resources to attack decorated vets who didn't cut-and-run at the first opportunity.

c'mon, Mul; they're not Kerry's payroll. . . .they're on Tereeeezzzaaaz payroll.:D

. .. no-no, seriously, it's overstating to say they are on his payroll. They may get flown around on a custom/private 757, whined [sic] & dined . .. given one of THK's many Visa cards.. .but that's just not payroll. . . it's not, it's not, it's not. ;)

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Thom. .You will NEVER ge a straight answer, no matter how much "documentation" you provide. Some people are enamoured by half truths, innuendo and insults. Facts mean very little, although I applaud your efforts.

I would also applaud the efforts of the "other side" if, for once, they would rely on provable details rather than hearsay.

That will never happen.

So, Bob, if they call themseves "factcheck" then, it must be fact! (?)

Thom,
I couldn't find where it said these guys are on the Bush payroll. Can you help us out and point out where that passage is located/ That'ed be great. Thanks...really.

Mark Wilson . .You will NEVER ge a straight retort, no matter how much "documentation" you provide. Some people are enamoured by half truths, innuendo and insults. Facts mean very little, although I applaud your efforts.

I would also applaud the efforts of the "other side" if, for once, they would STAY ON TOPIC for a change, rather than hearsay.

That will never happen.

It doesn't say they are on the Bush payroll. It says they are predominantly funded by Republicans - it is near enough. How do you know the Kerry supporting swift boaters are on his payroll?

Island - factcheck lists its sources, and last time I checked, it demonstrated no significant bias I could see between Bush and Kerry.

how many ways can you people beat a dead horse?

The horse ain't quite dead, but his condition is worsening day by day.

Let's see, in the article linked above, the sources are:
Boston Globe, Boston Globe, New York Times and ....let's see....ah, yes...Boston Globe again.

Douglas Brinkley and Ron Fournier, two other "sources" who are clearly Dems and Libs (Did a quick Google search and found all I needed to see)

And lastly, Jim Rassman...hmmmmm

Can't see the forest for the trees, eh, Cam? :rolleyes:

Randy

Yeah, it's still alive . .. it just asked Kerry a question; "why the long face?" When I read that peice, the bias was obvious, simply from the choice of words, and the developed subtext.

Also, let me point out that the site is funded by the Annenberg Foundation . .. they fund many "puplic" TV productions. NOT apolitical. (though they try to appear as such)

Back to the piece. ..

The "article refnc" shows the birth of the bias. ( a bunch of pro-kerry works)

The most recent, and biggest bomb (against SBVfT) came from a piece by GLOBE reporter (and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, btw :rolleyes: ) Mike Kranish.

Kranish's piece claimed that Captain George Elliott had RETRACTED his support for the SBVfT (perhaps do a "factcheck" on that nugget.) :rolleyes:

Captain George Elliott then had to work to get the word out that " Mike Kranish was extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played. "

So, if "unbiased" is factcheck's objective, who ever wrote that "factcheck" should be fired.

Cam, something tells me that your critical-thinking cap would have been on, had that been an anti-Kerry "factcheck."

Specifically referring to the funding of SBVfT, it lists the IRS and two non-partisan organisations. I see a forest.

I agree, the sources for the other stuff don't clear (or forever condemn) Kerry. I'd love to know whose version of the "truth" to believe in respect of Kerry's Vietnam service.

(edit) To make myself clearer (have now read Island's post), I see only an indication that SBVfT version of the truth is no more certain than Kerry's.

Factcheck's home page lists 6 facts which have been checked. 3 each for Kerry and Bush. From the first of the ones defending Bush:

That ostensibly demonstrates a pretty strong bias towards Bush. Or truth. You choose which (I'm choosing "truth").

Cam
Although many of the SBVftT Vetrans are democrats; surely you did not think that there was any chance that democrats would be funding "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, did you?

So you publish Elliott's retraction of his retaction but not the Globe's response? The Globe has Elliott on tape and has reveiewed his statement, which they say 'is as reported' by Kranish. So, my argument is that the SBVfT team of professional slimers came down on Elliott and made him retract his retraction. But Elliott has since clammed up, so you won't be hearing any more clarification from him.

And what is this all about, anyway? Elliott never claimed direct knowledge of the events that lead to Kerry's Silver Star (a higher honor than Elliott ever achieved). He just approved the account f the poeple who did have direct knowledge. Years later, in an attempt to discredit Kerry, the story got murky -- 'shooting a teenager in the back' -- well, I suppose for anyone who hasn't been in combat, we have to 'splain: shooting someone who has been shooting at you -- even in the back -- is kosher. It means they won't be shooting at you and your comrades afterward. It's also kosher to bomb them when they are sleeping and grenade them in their latrine. It's war and war isn't always pretty.

When we went after Saddam's sons, we didn't spend a lot of time grieving over the 14-year-old kid who was killed with them.

Demospeak: truth=smear campaign