Just an honest mistake

[Mulholland]

In news releases and postings on Kerry's campaign Web site as recently as last Friday, the Massachusetts senator is touted as the panel's former vice chairman. However, according to the Senate Historical Office, Kerry never had the seniority to hold a leadership position on the committee — though he was a member from 1993 until 2001.


"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey — similar names," said Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, adding that any reference to Kerry as vice chairman was an error.

oops...We had no idea...Did you know Bush is stupid and John has 3 - COUNT EM - 3 Purple Hearts?

AP

[Mulholland]

BUSH-CHENEY CREDIBILITY GAP

Narrator: “In the year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry was absent for every single one. That same year he proposed slashing America’s intelligence budget by $6 billion. There’s what Kerry says, and then there’s what Kerry does.”


THE RECORD


John Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field – John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee.

To quote the Kerry/leftWards campaign...Glad we got that on the record Mr. Kerry...How about that credibility gap?


Can you say nookular?

bye bye sKerry (you POS)

[Mulholland]

"Say good night Gracie." [/George Burns]

[Mulholland]

What do a John Kerry and a Bob KerrEy have in common?

ding ding ding ding ding....They both admit to committing war crimes.

(pssst....they are both Democrats)...Robert Byrd would be proud.

[CamB]

I am still intrigued that you accuse Kerry of (a) committing war crimes, and (b) being disloyal to his fellow Vietnam vets by stating that war crimes were committed (because it wasn't true).

Either it is or it isn't.

I have two comments on the above 4 post bonanza. One factual, one editorial:

1) $6 billion was over 6 years and equated to a 3.7% cut, as part of an overall reduction in spending across the board. It is extremely misleading to call this "slashing America's intelligence budget".

2) The Republican smear factory is hardworking. The pretty pictures appear in about 24 hours. There is a lot of talk of the integrity of Bush and Republicans and the lack thereof of Kerry and Democrats, but my impression (and I stress it is impression only) is that REpublican smears/jibes/ridicule outweighs Democrat by a substantial margin.

Of course, I might just be demonstrating my bias (ie, I donn't notice the Democrat ones).

[island911]

hey Cam, how about:

a)Kerry accused himself of committing war crimes (so he could paint the whole war as the same)

b) Kerry could have commited those war-crimes, and kept it TO HIMSELF. . . .even if he thought that 'all the other kids were do'n 'um'

Understand, that Kerry heard stories about really crazy stuff going down. Could be those where just a bunch frustrated guys telling stories, venting what they would like to do. . .all while getting pissed/stoned. .whatever.

Kerry came back and started painting the whole operation as a bunch of baby-killers. Not with just a few choice slams here & there, put rather a concerted effort to disgrace the US govt and those who served.

Now he is running for POTUS, up on the stump, pandering to the military folks with comment about how we all had better give the troops a warm welcome home.

This guy Kerry is a mediocre politician, and his obvious hypocracy is eveidence of this. . . he wants to talk about Vietnam, because, even with the problems he has there, it's the last time he did anything noteable.

He is not in politics for the people. . .if he were, he would have some work as a Senetor to show for it.

He is telling people what they want to hear, for one reason, for John Kerry. (political scum)

[CamB]

This guy Kerry is a mediocre politician, and his obvious hypocracy is eveidence of this. . . he wants to talk about Vietnam, because, even with the problems he has there, it's the last time he did anything noteable.

You're entitled to this view .

I object to him being painted as a war criminal - that's all. Your well defined sense of smell for BS knows it is purely a points scoring exercise with no merit, just the same as I smell it. He is no more a war criminal than the vast majority of US soldiers who served there, despite anything he has said. Everyone knows it, but still you see him referred to as a war criminal.

[A Quiet Boom]

Cam,

In all fairness to you, how can someone who admits to war crimes (in effect painting themselves as a war criminal) not be painted as a war criminal? The fact is I believe he lied about those "atrocities" to aid his cause against the Vietnam war.

What I really don't understand is that he is on the record as early as 1997 recommending the removal of Saddam Hussein, effectively criticizing Clinton for not doing enough about the problem, yet now that a Republican president actually did it he feels the need to criticize the way in which it was done. He's gone on record saying Bush deceived the American people into war when he himself saw the very same intelligence and voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq. I'd have a lot more respect if he'd stick by his original agenda (pre GWB) of removing Saddam and drop the symantics.

On the other hand I pi$$sed at Bush (whom I support) for using WMD as the primary reason for the Iraq invasion. I'd bet there would have been far more support for the war if he'd have made the humanitarian case the primary one and terrorism/WMD secondary. Even many liberals could have jumped on this bandwagon since they did afterall support Clinton in Kosovo.

Above all I hate strong partisanship, I supported both Bushes in Iraq, and know why we left the last time (hint: we abided a UN resolution to remove Saddam from Kuwait) as well as Clinton in Kosovo and his bombing campaign in Iraq (which was widely and incorrectly percieved as a diversion from the Monica scandal)

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
. . .He is no more a war criminal than the vast majority of US soldiers who served there, despite anything he has said. Everyone knows it, but still you see him referred to as a war criminal.

Yep, it smells, for sure.
I agree that he was likely BS'n (LYING, perhaps?) the congress. . .and likely didn't do all those war crimes he made claim of.

When I see people refer to Kerry as a war criminal, I see people trying to force his hand. (did you, kerry, lie to congress, paint your fellow soldiers as baby-killers OR did you commit that list of war-crimes?)

Kerry painted himself in to that corner. He stratagized that he had an "out" by claiming he was ordered to commit those war-crimes.

I've got to ask, just how tough would it be for Kerry to NOT follow those supposed orders? . . .or was he just a confused lad from Yale?

But, of course, he was just an attention-whore, pushing an embellished image, of who he is, and what he did.

btw; I understand your liking Kerry. . you live outside the US, and Kerry has a strong record of being anti-US.
But what I don't understand is how you could like such a self-serving, lying weenie. . . or is Kerry a Rambo?

Well today the Iraqi soccer (football) team is playing with out the threat of torture when they return to Iraq.

If Kerry were prez, this wouldn't be the case.

[Moneyguy1]

It is nice the Iraqi team is there.

At what price? I would rather see the 940 American young folks home living and breathing than an Iraqi soccer team in Athens. And don't be so disingenuous to say "If Kerry were prez..this or that would or wouldn't happen..." Pure conjecture on your part and totally unprovable. You simply do not know. Be big enough to admit that.

Look, Kerry may not be a perfect person. I lived during the Vietnam war, was lucky enough to be out of the service and not go, out before the "big buildup". If Kerry was guilty of "helping lose the war", then also was Kronkite. You Know what Lyndon said when Walter started doubting the war?

"If we've lost Kronkite, we've lost America" (meaning public opinion)

(Yeah, yeah...call Walter a "liberal"......therefore a traitor...I can see it coming....) Considered the most TRUSTED journalist of his era.

There were MANY voices against the war. Many silenced and in the ground.

Taken in historical retrospective, it was a civil war, and we took sides. The paranoia of the "domino principle". And how many young Americans never came home all in a cause that was lost before it began?

It is easy to say today that it was not our fight; it was damn hard initially for anyone to say it back then. The jingoism was, at first, just like today, waving the flag and wrapping ourselves in it, trying to convince ourselves we were doing the right thing but in reality in the wrong way, and in retrospect, for the wrong reasons. I wonder how the ghosts of 100,000+ dead viewed the day we "normalized" relations with Vietnam?

Sometimes I think you guys get it and then I see you don't. Find yourselves some grunts from 'Nam. Ask THEM what they thought of it. Betcha don't get many glowing reports on the nobleness of the cause. You never saw the pictures of burning villages? Photo of the year of a handcuffed man being executed with a pistol? War crimes? Ask the civilian dead. Every night on CBS...Body counts. We turned off the news; our kids were too small to see that.

Go to the library. Get copies of "Life" magazine from the era. You might learn something.

You get me going with your ignorance of the era and what it did to our society: wounds that are still there and will be until each and every person who lived through it ARE DEAD.

Hopeless.....No solution to the divisive attitude, and history repeats itself over and over and over. The real "war lovers" are the ones that don't have to see it up close and personal.