OOPS! Swiftliars Busted Again

[Rohirrim]

This just out: Remember when O'Neill jumped on Kerry for saying he had gone into Cambodian waters by saying that the borders were guarded and no Swift boat ever crossed the Cambodian border?

OOPS. The AP just came out with an article. It appears they went back to Nixon's copious White House tapes (remember those?) and discovered his meeting with O'Neill (where Nixon is coaching O'Neill in how to attack Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show). During this meeting, O'Neill told the president he had been ordered into Cambodia a few times. "Yes, sir" he says, when Nixon presses him on the issue. "We were in Cambodia."

Here's the funny part: O'Neill says he's not lying now, he was lying then. So he's not lying to us, but he lied to the POTUS?

Maybe he should rename his book: "Unfit for Belief"

More to come.

[Mile High Shack]

I thought Nixon wasn't even president when Kerry said he was in Cambodia

[Rohirrim]

I thought Nixon wasn't even president when Kerry said he was in Cambodia

Kerry's memory was fouled up on that one - but for legitimate reasons (at least to a reasonable person). In fact, he said they entered Cambodian waters on Christmas Eve of 1968. Nixon had been elected in November, but didn't take office till January - so he was the President-Elect. One of the gunners on Kerry's boat told him they weren't there on Christmas Eve, but four days later - it was "around" Christmas. Now the Kerry campaign says they may not have entered Cambodian waters. Hard to make out a border on the water.

Doesn't matter. A personal friend of mine made many trips into Cambodia at that time. If you're chasing VC, who gives a shiite where the border is? Nixon certainly didn't when he ordered illegal carpet bombing into Cambodia and Laos.

[Rascal]

It's okay for Kerry's memory to be fouled up but not O'Neil's? Right...

Yet another hypocritical moment from the left.

And the same damn thing you said about identifying a border could be applied to the O'Neil situation.

This is ridiculous.

[enjolras]

It's okay for Kerry's memory to be fouled up but not O'Neil's? Right...

Sponging a date by a few days is one thing.. saying equivocally "We entered Cambodian waters" on the one hand, and then saying "We never entered Cambodian waters" (a DIRECT cotnradication) is another. One is a problem of getting all of the facts perfectly correct, the other is simply lying.

So yes..they ARE different. It's like interviewing a witness after a crime. They tend to get the broad facts absolutely correct, but screw up the small details.

[Southern Bronco]

Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia. He lied to Congress, he lied to the Boston Globe, he lied to the Senate. Yet Kerry said that being in Cambodia was "seared-- seared" into his memory. The reason he LIED was to gain POLITICAL advantage. This is NOT a small detail, although many here wish it were so.

And he has aready admitted to the LIE.

[watermock]

This is funny.
Carry on.

Kerry has no reference, no backup and doesn't even know who the President is.

It's so damn funny it's hyterical.

It's like Apocolypse Now with Marlon Brando.

He's full of shiat.

It' was the best of times, it was the worst of the times, hell, I don't remember what time it was....it was Nixons Fault....

Kerry was not even in Nam when Nixon cleaned out Cambodia.

Get your facts straight. Jesus Christ. It was 1969.

Kerry says Nixon sent him to Cambodia.

"We cut off heads and ears and arms..."

This is our war hero?

[Rohirrim]

Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia. He lied to Congress, he lied to the Boston Globe, he lied to the Senate. Yet Kerry said that being in Cambodia was "seared-- seared" into his memory. The reason he LIED was to gain POLITICAL advantage. This is NOT a small detail, although many here wish it were so.

And he has aready admitted to the LIE.

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

But O'Neill was there, by his own admission to Nixon, which proves Kerry's point: The U.S. was making illegal incursions into Cambodia.

[watermock]

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

But O'Neill was there, by his own admission to Nixon, which proves Kerry's point: The U.S. was making illegal incursions into Cambodia.

Jesus Christ. Now there is on evidence one way or the other. WTF are you on when you go to May of been and How do you know where a border is. ?

Are you deaf dumb and blind? This isn't a movie. Let me explain something to you again.

Kerry was in Cambodia under LBJ or he wasn't there at all. YOU GOT IT DUMBASS.

You still don't get it.

This is so easy.

[watermock]

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

Here is Ro.

WTF is he even talking about

[Rohirrim]

Jesus Christ. Now there is on evidence one way or the other. WTF are you on when you go to May of been and How do you know where a border is. ?

Are you deaf dumb and blind? This isn't a movie. Let me explain something to you again.

Kerry was in Cambodia under LBJ or he wasn't there at all. YOU GOT IT DUMBASS.

You still don't get it.

This is so easy.

Was Nixon the President-elect at that time and had LBJ already (to all intents and purposes) resigned?

[Rohirrim]

Here is Ro.

WTF is he even talking about

Here's what I'm talking about (for those who are reading comprehension challenged) - Ever been on a boat? Now let's say you're on this boat going up a river and you know, from the charts, that the river goes into Cambodia. Unless you've got SATNAV or something, at what point do you enter Cambodia? Do they have a little arched sign over the river saying "Welcome to Beautiful Cambodia?" Are there little mile markers along the riverside? Are there little Cambodians throwing flowers at your boat as you enter their country? (Whoops, no, that would be Iraq)

[watermock]

First it's not iraq, which is your ulitmate desination. The whole post is full of assumptions. Suppose this, Suppose that.

Even his Biographer had dished this liar and your playing suppose this suppose that?

Dude. The that game is over. Your an idiot. Game over.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?


Really? For all the Dems that like to cite the official record as proof of his actions, nothing documented said he was ever there and none of his commanders said he came anywhere close.

Besides Kerry's comments, there's nothing to say he was there and for someone who likes to trot out his crewmates to back him up at every opportunity, they're strangely silent on this issue.

[Rohirrim]

Really? For all the Dems that like to cite the official record as proof of his actions, nothing documented said he was ever there and none of his commanders said he came anywhere close.

Besides Kerry's comments, there's nothing to say he was there and for someone who likes to trot out his crewmates to back him up at every opportunity, they're strangely silent on this issue.

And yet, the guy who took over Kerry's boat after he left country told Nixon that he went into Cambodia a number of times. I wonder if those trips were "on the record?"

And one of Kerry's crewmates did agree that they went into Cambodia. He just said Kerry got the date wrong. He says it was three days after Christmas, 1968, not Christmas Eve.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

And one of Kerry's crewmates did agree that they went into Cambodia. He just said Kerry got the date wrong. He says it was three days after Christmas, 1968, not Christmas Eve.

and yet the Kerry campaign has moved it to sometime in 1969 now. Funny that Kerry can't seem to remember the date, or come close to it, of an event that he considers a turning point in his life and its memory is seared into him. Most people are able to remember the date of events like that pretty closely or at least relatively closely, they don't give a couple month period of time.

[Blueflame]

The point is that O'Neill (head liar of the SBVB) has been caught in yet another whopper. Have any of these guys told a verifiable truth yet?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

The point is that O'Neill (head liar of the SBVB) has been caught in yet another whopper. Have any of these guys told a verifiable truth yet?

Let's see, Kerry has admitted he wasn't in Cambodia, backed off his statement that in the action he won his Bronze Star he was the only Swift Boat that stayed after the mine explosion when in fact he was the one who left and then came back, and acknowledged that his 1st Purple Heart could have been self-inflicted.

I'd guess that by going by Kerry's response to those three claims by the Swift Boat guys, that's pretty verifiable that their claims have merit. If not Kerry would sue for libel, merely threatening it isn't enough. You said that the WH should go after people who make backhanded comments on Hardball if it was a lie, or you can't claim it was. Guess you should be consistent in your argument that if what the SBVT were saying was a lie, Kerry should sue for libel.

Weird that you said you were exhausted with this topic Blue, but continue to post in threads about it.

[Rohirrim]

This is what gets me: You have a guy like O'Neill. He was hired by Charles Colson (the guy who went to prison for running Nixon's dirty tricks team) to smear Kerry in 1971. He meets with the King of Darkness himself for some coaching on how to attack Kerry on the night of his TV appearance. He (according to O'Neill) lies to Nixon in that meeting. He's an attorney who is now using Hoffman, Thurlow, etc. to hawk his book and make a bunch of money. And now, we're supposed to take everything this guy has to say at face value? Yeah, he's telling the truth, and Kerry's lying.

Earth to people: THE GUY'S A PROFESSIONAL LIAR.

[Blueflame]

Let's see, Kerry has admitted he wasn't in Cambodia, backed off his statement that in the action he won his Bronze Star he was the only Swift Boat that stayed after the mine explosion when in fact he was the one who left and then came back, and acknowledged that his 1st Purple Heart could have been self-inflicted.

Strange that you swallow whole cloth lies like "we weren't under fire" from Thurlow and "I witnessed these events; oh, my bad, that was based on third-hand hearsay" from Al French, yet cry bs over faulty memory of trivial details on Kerry's part.

I'd guess that by going by Kerry's response to those three claims by the Swift Boat guys, that's pretty verifiable that their claims have merit. If not Kerry would sue for libel, merely threatening it isn't enough. You said that the WH should go after people who make backhanded comments on Hardball if it was a lie, or you can't claim it was. Guess you should be consistent in your argument that if what the SBVT were saying was a lie, Kerry should sue for libel.

He very well may sue for libel. Right now the guy's rather preoccupied with other matters, though.

Weird that you said you were exhausted with this topic Blue, but continue to post in threads about it.

I am fatigued with having to make the same arguments over and over again... covering the same territory with different posters. The previous conversation was nothing more than a rehash of another discussion.

This topic (yet another O'Neill lie) is new, not 3-day-old news.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Strange that you swallow whole cloth lies like "we weren't under fire" from Thurlow and "I witnessed these events; oh, my bad, that was based on third-hand hearsay" from Al French, yet cry bs over faulty memory of trivial details on Kerry's part.

Actually I've never said anyone's claims were 100%, but I've always said they can't be totally lying if Kerry can't keep his story straight and is always changing it. You're the one that swallows any claim that supports Kerry as hook, line, and sinker such as the new guy today who was simply a witness just like the SBVT all were, but his claim is somehow 100% true.



He very well may sue for libel. Right now the guy's rather preoccupied with other matters, though.

His campaign has been preoccupied with going after SBVT for a couple weeks now and the ads are costing him voters in a close election, you'd think that if they were libeling him, he'd have filed suit by now to show everyone they were lying. Nice try though.

[Blueflame]

Actually I've never said anyone's claims were 100%, but I've always said they can't be totally lying if Kerry can't keep his story straight and is always changing it. You're the one that swallows any claim that supports Kerry as hook, line, and sinker such as the new guy today who was simply a witness just like the SBVT all were, but his claim is somehow 100% true.

His campaign has been preoccupied with going after SBVT for a couple weeks now and the ads are costing him voters in a close election, you'd think that if they were libeling him, he'd have filed suit by now to show everyone they were lying. Nice try though.

Uh-huh... I'm sure a Kerry refutation of Thurlow's claims would have carried the same weight if it had been issued weeks ago (as a "he said vs he said")... before the FOIA request for his military records provided ironclad proof of his lies. Waiting for the documentation made a much heavier impact. This week's polls are too soon to reflect much of the swiftlie discreditation.

Gathering all the information for a solid rebuttal takes time.

I've read that Kerry's military records/postwar activities have been made an issue in every campaign he's experienced... and that he's always... always come out ahead on that score. And it does open the door for more scrutiny of Bush's (incomplete) military records, particularly his missing discharge paperwork.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I've read that Kerry's military records/postwar activities have been made an issue in every campaign he's experienced... and that he's always... always come out ahead on that score. And it does open the door for more scrutiny of Bush's (incomplete) military records, particularly his missing discharge paperwork.

If you want to believe that winning in liberal Massachusetts that was vehemently anti-Vietnam is the same as winning nationwide with a lot of those who served against you opposing you, then more power to you.

[Blueflame]

If you want to believe that winning in liberal Massachusetts that was vehemently anti-Vietnam is the same as winning nationwide with a lot of those who served against you opposing you, then more power to you.

And if you want to believe the choice to throw rocks from a glass house is a brilliant PR move, then more power to you.

This campaign is a marathon; not a sprint, and I fully expect the swiftliars to backfire... then backlash... on Bush bigtime as the myriad lies... and connections to the Bush campaign... continue to be exposed.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

This campaign is a marathon; not a sprint, and I fully expect the swiftliars to backfire... then backlash... on Bush bigtime as the myriad lies... and connections to the Bush campaign... continue to be exposed.

You might want to check out the ties between the Kerry camp and Liberal 527s, those ties are just a bit more extensive then any claimed connection between the Bush campaign and SBVT. That's a fight the Kerry camp doesn't want to touch.

Oh and both the LA Times and Gallup polls had a majority say they believe Kerry's military record, yet Kerry's behind by 3 in both. Care to explain?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

The Swift Boat Goons for Bush just can't stop getting themselves caught in the snare of their own self-contradictions, can they?

When Kerry is elected in November, he can thank the SwiftLiars for their help in making Deserter Boy and the GOP seem sleazy and desperate.

[Blueflame]

You might want to check out the ties between the Kerry camp and Liberal 527s, those ties are just a bit more extensive then any claimed connection between the Bush campaign and SBVT. That's a fight the Kerry camp doesn't want to touch.

Oh and both the LA Times and Gallup polls had a majority say they believe Kerry's military record, yet Kerry's behind by 3 in both. Care to explain?

I don't think flyers for a moveon event were photographed in the window of a county democratic headquarters... LOL

I already did explain that this week's polls are too early to reflect the public exposure of most of the swiftlies. And Gallup has consistently shown significantly different numbers than all the other polls lately.

Anyway, I thought you didn't put much stock in polls this early in the campaign season? I sure don't...

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I don't think flyers for a moveon event were photographed in the window of a county democratic headquarters... LOL


Wow you're right Blue. That obviously proves it right there. LOL

But Bush doesn't have his former campaign manager running a 527.
Nor is someone sitting on the RNC's Executive Board and also running a 527.
Nor is his online contributions director also the former online contribution director for MoveOn. rofl

But like I said, the Kerry camp doesn't want to get into who has connections to who.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

And Gallup has consistently shown significantly different numbers than all the other polls lately.


As I've already detailed with the latest polls, Gallup is not different. Gallup's polling also hasn't been wrong on the winner of the election for at least the last 10. So they're running from a proven track record.

[Blueflame]

Wow you're right Blue. That obviously proves it right there. LOL

That, right there, was a clear, proven violation of federal election laws...

But Bush doesn't have his former campaign manager running a 527.
Nor is someone sitting on the RNC's Executive Board and also running a 527.
Nor is his online contributions director also the former online contribution director for MoveOn. rofl

But like I said, the Kerry camp doesn't want to get into who has connections to who.

Keyword in all those allegations is former...

Not quite the same as having a campaign aide appear in a 527's ad, is it?

[Blueflame]

As I've already detailed with the latest polls, Gallup is not different. Gallup's polling also hasn't been wrong on the winner of the election for at least the last 10. So they're running from a proven track record.

You might have a point if the election were going to be held tomorrow. But it's not. These polls are meaningless and irrelevant, just as the ones you dismissed earlier (the ones that showed Kerry ahead) were.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Not quite the same as having a campaign aide appear in a 527's ad, is it?

Do you understand that what that lawyer did was perfectly legal under election law and there are mulitple lawyers on the Dem side who are doing the same thing with Left-leaing 527s?

Do you know what a Steering Committee is and what they do?

[Blueflame]

Do you understand that what that lawyer did was perfectly legal under election law and there are mulitple lawyers on the Dem side who are doing the same thing with Left-leaing 527s?

Do you know what a Steering Committee is and what they do?

Yes, I do... and I wasn't referring to the lawyer.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You might have a point if the election were going to be held tomorrow. But it's not. These polls are meaningless and irrelevant, just as the ones you dismissed earlier (the ones that showed Kerry ahead) were.

Actually the polls I dismissed were ones that had flawed sampling groups that either over-sampled Dems in relation to the last election, or in the majority of cases under-sampled Republicans in relation to their voting % in the last election. Those were faulty polls, anyone who actually looks at polls from either side would understand the reasoning. Funny how not one person actually challenged my assertions when I made them.

You on the other hand simply dismiss them because you don't think the date matters, even though this is the time period when historical observations can be made about elections past compared to how the polls looked at this time.

[Blueflame]

Actually the polls I dismissed were ones that had flawed sampling groups that either over-sampled Dems in relation to the last election, or in the majority of cases under-sampled Republicans in relation to their voting % in the last election. Those were faulty polls, anyone who actually looks at polls from either side would understand the reasoning. Funny how not one person actually challenged my assertions when I made them.

You on the other hand simply dismiss them because you don't think the date matters, even though this is the time period when historical observations can be made about elections past compared to how the polls looked at this time.

Yeah, right... like I'm gonna buy that. rofl Truth is, you dismissed the polls that showed Kerry ahead and now trumpet the ones that show Bush with a small lead (well within most polls' MOE, btw... )

Sorry, I'm not going to be concerned about polls until a week or so before election day. And even then, the only poll that really matters is the one taken on election day.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/sourbobbleed.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What The Republicans Are Up To

Excerpts:

David Horowitz is one of the main strategists behind Karl Rove's success. He wrote a
book, The Art of Political War, that is used as a key strategy document by Republicans
across-the-board, state and local.

"Horowitz argues that it's necessary "to manipulate the public's feelings in support of your agenda, while mobilizing passions of fear and resentment against your opponent." This is best accomplished, he says, by capitalizing on the "romance of the underdog" and painting oneself as a victim."

Keeping in mind that Horowitz' book is considered the "Bible" of Republican strategists, take a look at this news story today:

"Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president."

In case you hadn't already noticed, portraying themselves as victims is an important
component of the Right's strategy.

http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_seetheforest_archive.html#1093115825546 86276

[Mile High Shack]

What The Republicans Are Up To

Excerpts:

David Horowitz is one of the main strategists behind Karl Rove's success. He wrote a
book, The Art of Political War, that is used as a key strategy document by Republicans
across-the-board, state and local.

"Horowitz argues that it's necessary "to manipulate the public's feelings in support of your agenda, while mobilizing passions of fear and resentment against your opponent." This is best accomplished, he says, by capitalizing on the "romance of the underdog" and painting oneself as a victim."

Keeping in mind that Horowitz' book is considered the "Bible" of Republican strategists, take a look at this news story today:

"Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president."

In case you hadn't already noticed, portraying themselves as victims is an important
component of the Right's strategy.

http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_seetheforest_archive.html#1093115825546 86276

:spamattac

[watermock]

Mock's Kitten came off the roof and is tucked into the comforter. He's an African Wildcat without balls or front claws. I still don't know how he is getting on the roof, but I don't even care.

I'm out talking to a neighbor and he says, "Hey your cat is on the roof". I'm not risking my neck, I have a herd of kittens out on the the farm. DNA is rampant on the farm. Scooter, (Beezlebub) is so funny. He was just a runt with his eyes glued shut among two dozen other kittens. I took him in. I cleaned him up and made him civilized, somewhat. Now he's a house leaper.

As far as this swift boat controversy goes, I could really care less. I told you people it was going to be huge last month.

Watching Kerry act like a fool isn't that hard.

If he would of just copied the Clinton diatribe he would of walked in. I still expept him to win, but now things are turning in Iraq and the convention is starting.

Hey what a great time to visit New York. They are allready cracking skulls for good times.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha.

For MHS, it's "see no evil, hear no evil..."

Good bush ostrich!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Conservatives Repent

We were bound to get at least one good laugh out of Swift Boat Veterans for Humongous Lies, and what a pip it is. Upon being identified as the lawyer both for the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Swift Boat Liars, Benjamin Ginsberg bravely offered his resignation to the campaign, which has said repeatedly it has NO connection to the Liars.

He made the following poignant argument in a letter to the president, which I know will touch you as deeply as it did me (emphasis added): "I cannot begin to express my sadness that my legal representations have become a distraction for the critical issues at hand in this election. I feel I cannot let that continue, so I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focused."

Don't you love it?

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17542

http://www.bartcop.com/maxing-out.jpg

[Raider Bill]

Oh lookie here. A retired REARADMIRAL not affiliated with the Swiftvets supports one of their claims.


ENEMY NEVER WOUNDED KERRY: ADMIRAL

By ANDY SOLTIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27619.htm

Email Archives
Print Reprint



August 27, 2004 -- An officer who served with John Kerry yesterday finally broke his silence about the Swift vets controversy - and said Kerry accidentally wounded himself before requesting his first Purple Heart.
In a detailed new account that is certain to fuel the growing controversy, eyewitness William Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral, told columnist Robert Novak for today's papers that he was "astonished" to hear Kerry's version of the events of Dec. 2, 1968, when Schachte was in command of Kerry aboard a skimmer boat on the Mekong River.

Schachte said that Kerry:

* Wasn't wounded by hostile fire.

* Wasn't even under fire by the enemy.

* "Nicked" himself with a grenade launcher and "requested a Purple Heart" afterward.

If Schachte's version is accurate, Kerry would not have been eligible for the award, the first of the three Purple Hearts he received.



To win a Purple Heart, military personnel must have a wound that requires medical treatment, and it must have been received during the course of an engagement with the enemy, even if the wound was not a result of hostile fire.

What happened that day on the Mekong River became an issue after some of Kerry's fellow Vietnam War officers charged in a book, "Unfit for Command," and in TV ads that he didn't deserve his medals.

Two former enlisted men who are supporting Kerry have said they were with him in the boat that day — and that Schachte was not.

But Schachte, then a lieutenant junior grade like Kerry, told Novak he was in command of the boat that day, which was Kerry's first combat mission in Vietnam.

They were aboard a small boat called a skimmer, or Boston Whaler, he said.

Schachte, now living in Charleston, S.C., said the boat fired a flare to flush enemy forces from the shoreline.

Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, so he picked up the M-79 grenade launcher, Schachte said.

"I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," Schachte recalled.

Schachte's former superior Grant Hibbard said he told Kerry to "forget it" when Kerry came to him the day after the incident and asked for a Purple Heart.

Schachte is not a member of the anti-Kerry Swift boat vets, hasn't been contacted by the Bush campaign, and told Novak that he has backed candidates from both parties in past elections.

The retired rear admiral said he hadn't spoken out earlier because "I didn't want to get involved," but changed his mind after his own role in the incident was disputed on TV

[Blueflame]

hehehe... How's that Kerry-Gephardt ticket doin', Njbil? Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The core dynamic driving the 2004 campaign is this: George W. bet his presidency on two dubious, high-risk propositions, and he lost on both. First, he assumed that top-down tax cuts and other regressive, wealth-shifting measures would be sufficient to restore a prospering economy. Second, he decided after 9/11 to become the President of permanent war. As recently as nine months ago, this looked like a sure winner to the White House. Republican insiders assumed an easy re-election would be buoyed by the return of "good times" at home and patriotic fervor for triumph in Iraq. Wrong on both fronts.

When the opposite occurred, Bush was trapped by his own concocted image of Churchillian tough guy. It's too late to change, so Bush's best shot now is destroying Kerry. The President cannot acknowledge the disappointing results in Iraq or the struggling economy without diminishing himself. Plus, a lot of people have figured out that the man tells lies--big lies--or, worse, is not capable of handling hard facts and adjusting his policy accordingly.

[azbronco]

The core dynamic driving the 2004 campaign is this: George W. bet his presidency on two dubious, high-risk propositions, and he lost on both. First, he assumed that top-down tax cuts and other regressive, wealth-shifting measures would be sufficient to restore a prospering economy. Second, he decided after 9/11 to become the President of permanent war. As recently as nine months ago, this looked like a sure winner to the White House. Republican insiders assumed an easy re-election would be buoyed by the return of "good times" at home and patriotic fervor for triumph in Iraq. Wrong on both fronts.

When the opposite occurred, Bush was trapped by his own concocted image of Churchillian tough guy. It's too late to change, so Bush's best shot now is destroying Kerry. The President cannot acknowledge the disappointing results in Iraq or the struggling economy without diminishing himself. Plus, a lot of people have figured out that the man tells lies--big lies--or, worse, is not capable of handling hard facts and adjusting his policy accordingly.

Thankfully, the IQ required to turn on a computer and navigate to this site filters out the crowd that would believe the constant crap that you spew labia. Unfortunatly, there may be a few shills that wander up to a computer that someone stepped away from that are on your side. Spew on.

[Blueflame]

Thankfully, the IQ required to turn on a computer and navigate to this site filters out the crowd that would believe the constant crap that you spew labia. Unfortunatly, there may be a few shills that wander up to a computer that someone stepped away from that are on your side. Spew on.

I notice that you didn't address the substance of his post, AZ... since you went for the personal attack rather than a refutation, perhaps you'd like to highlight for us some of the positives Bush might be focusing on instead of the unrelenting negativity of his campaign.

[OrangeDoofus]

Oh lookie here. A retired REARADMIRAL not affiliated with the Swiftvets supports one of their claims.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Schachte is the law partner of one of the guys running the Republican Convention:

http://www.blankrome.com/attorneys/attydetail.asp?AttNum=681
http://www.blankromegovernmentrelations.com/bios/norcross.html

You're welcome to believe he's not affiliated with the Bush campaign if you like.

[Blueflame]

As I pointed out in the other thread, Schachte is the law partner of one of the guys running the Republican Convention:

http://www.blankrome.com/attorneys/attydetail.asp?AttNum=681
http://www.blankromegovernmentrelations.com/bios/norcross.html

You're welcome to believe he's not affiliated with the Bush campaign if you like.

It's a pretty sure sign of desperation on the part of the swiftliars when they resort to trotting out a "witness" with such easily-traceable Republican connections.

Thanks for the info, O.D. :thumbs:

[watermock]

Here's what I'm talking about (for those who are reading comprehension challenged) - Ever been on a boat? Now let's say you're on this boat going up a river and you know, from the charts, that the river goes into Cambodia. Unless you've got SATNAV or something, at what point do you enter Cambodia? Do they have a little arched sign over the river saying "Welcome to Beautiful Cambodia?" Are there little mile markers along the riverside? Are there little Cambodians throwing flowers at your boat as you enter their country? (Whoops, no, that would be Iraq)

Ok. Yeah, I am quite qualified to run any boat. I can even set flaps on a plane, altho I terrify people when I roll planes cause I have no clue.

My brother took it out of the roll. I never got the stick again tho.

Anyway, Chart this Chart that. What a line of crap. They had maps. No, there were not signs like "Welcome to Las Vegas".

It's not the Republicans obligation to validate this clowns lies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I notice that you didn't address the substance of his post, AZ... since you went for the personal attack rather than a refutation

Personal attacks and non-refutations are all AZwipe and his ilk have got. (See Swift Boat Chumps for Bush.) This is because they know they can't point to anything positive about Deserter Boy's record as pretzeldent.

Bob Dole Called KERRY a HERO! (oops -- last February -- times change)

The Wall Street Journal
COMMENTARY

On Fox News recently, my friend John Kerry stated: "I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard."
Sen. Kerry did make a judgment, in 1992, when Bill Clinton -- who did not serve -- was running against Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran. After Bob Kerrey criticized Gov. Clinton, John Kerry said, "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." He should stick to his previous position by acknowledging the honorable service of President Bush and the hundreds of thousands of other National Guard members defending America every day. The president piloted an F-102 in the National Guard and received an honorable discharge when his requirements were met.

Then Bob Dole says:

“Sen. Kerry is a war hero, but if campaigns were about war records, I would have won easily in 1996. Campaigns are about issues, and the candidates of both parties owe the American people a compelling vision for the future of America.”

Mr. Dole, former Senate majority leader and a decorated World War II veteran, was the 1996 Republican candidate for president.

How come Mr. Dole sold out to Karl Rove?

http://www.bobdole.org/issues/article.php?id=2

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Vets protest swiftliars backer

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veterans_group_perry_2

Nearly 40 protesters gathered Saturday at the home of the chief financial backer of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose ads criticize Democrat John Kerry's military record.

"We deeply resent what he's doing to the veterans," said Richard Zaner, 70, a Korean War veteran who lives in the same suburb as Perry, a wealthy homebuilder.

And the most important sentence:

Bush denounced the ads Monday after they were no longer on the air.

Bush waits until the damage is done and then comes out and pretends to be all noble. What a slimebag.

[watermock]

Nearly 40 protesters?

That is only a few clips.