Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (13837)	8/20/2004 11:00:15 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Can't disagree with that. I've noticed that Kerry's language in defense of the claims is extraordinarily petulant. I think it diminishes him (or shows his true colors, take your pick). Every time he personally enters such frays, he looks less and less presidential. The most interesting part of his campaign, and the DNC approach in general, is the language used. They tend to talk like the rabid leftists on SI rather than in a professional and confidence inspiring manner. I can just picture Kerry screaming his head off at staff when things don't go his way, blaming them the way he blamed the poor SS agent who "made" him fall while skateboarding. If he can't take this kind of stuff, he shouldn't be running for high office and certainly shouldn't be allowed to attain it.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (13837)	8/20/2004 12:50:46 PM
From: Selectric II	Respond to of 90947

Yup. Kerry is trying to bait Bush into a debate about their service. He know's he's safe doing it and won't have to respond to charges brought by Bush, because Bush won't bite. However, Kerry didn't count on surrogates making the charges against him, in the same manner that Kerry surrogates have been charging Bush in order to try to keep Kerry's nose clean. In short: Anything the dems do is fair. Anytime republicans open their mouths to speak, it's unfair, if not downright illegal.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (13837)	8/20/2004 2:15:41 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I liked this from this week's Federalist ...lays it out pretty well....... Regarding Kerry's schizoid anti-war/war-hero campaign facade (which is it this week?), the new book by John O'Neill (and other Vietnam Swift Boat veterans), "Unfit for Command," is causing Kerry and company some serious heartburn. Despite the fact that the book has risen to third place on The New York Times list of best sellers (and is now number one in sales on both the Amazon and Barnes & Noble sites) the Leftmedia has mentioned the book, and its charges that Kerry is unfit for any command, only in stories to discredit its veteran authors. For example, according to the Media Research Center, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted 75 news stories to Kerry's claims that Bush was "AWOL" from his National Guard service, yet only nine stories have been aired regarding Kerry's embellished war record since the Swift Boat vets announced their opposition to Kerry at the National Press Club in May. The Leftmedia's spike of the charges notwithstanding, "Unfit for Command" is a loud and clear shot across the bow of Kerry's campaign. Consider these words from O'Neill: "Kerry, now the four-term senator from Massachusetts and the Democrat presidential nominee, is also the only known 'Swiftee' who received the Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound. None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time. Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire." And that pesky ad the Swiftees are running questioning Kerry's record during his abbreviated (four-month) tour in Vietnam really has the Kerry campaign ducking and covering. (To view the ad and the Kerry campaign lawyers' efforts to silence it, link to -- kerry-04.org ) Kerry does not refute the claims, opting instead to shoot the messengers and accuse the Bush campaign of funding the Swiftvet ads. Of course, The New York Times repeats Kerry's claims,asserting that the Swift Boat Veterans are part of a "web of connections to the Bush family...and President Bush's chiefpolitical aide, Karl Rove." Using the same logic, one couldlook at Kerry's donor base and suggest that he is connected to all manner of criminal activity and malfeasance underwrittenby his supporters. (We have seen his major-donor disclosures,and Kerry does not want to go down that road.) Notably, The Washington Post broke ranks with Kerry on this one, making clear on its front page, "There is no evidence the president's campaign has direct connections to the anti-Kerry veterans group," and noting that Kerry is busy assailing his fellow veteran commanders (flash back to 1971) rather than addressing the charges. For example, Thursday Kerry went after Swift Boat commander Larry Thurlow, who refuted Kerry's claims that their boats were under enemy fire as both their Bronze Starcitations note. Of course, Kerry's and Thurlow's citations werebased on events as "seared" into the memory of Kerry, who wrote up the report on which the citations were based. So whom to believe? Well, there were two other Swift Boat commanders working along side Kerry and Thurlow on the day in question. Both Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees are on recordsaying they have no recollection of any enemy fire on the day in question. By our count, that is 3-1. Of course, Kerry does not want to address the serious charges about his "hero" status because there are BIG holes in his embellished service record -- he knows it, as do we. Set aside Kerry's collection of three Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star in his four months in Vietnam, and consider for a moment, Kerry's Silver Star -- the third-highest military honor our Nation can bestow (below the Medal of Honor and the three service "Crosses"). Kerry's DD 214 Record of Transfer or Separation (posted on his website), lists a Silver Star with a combat "V"(for valor) -- but, according to the Navy Awards Manual, the "V" Combat Distinguishing Device is never awarded with the Silver Star -- regardless of what Kerry threw over the fence in 1971. Stay tuned! Memo to John: We suppose that as your service record in the Senate is lackluster at best, you decided to found your campaign on your service record in Vietnam. Unfortunately for your presidential prospects, it appears your service record in Vietnam was equally lackluster.