Lively Debate

19 Responses to “Bush vs. Kerry Debate 2”

1. "Kerry's plan for iraq seems to reduce to get more allies. However, he doesn't say who these allies would be and what they would do and why they would join him and not Bush. I think the Iraq point goes to Bush."

   That may be true in a vacuum, but if you turn you question around and ask, "who can bring more allies to help us in Iraq" the answer is without a doubt Kerry. No other countries are going to help Bush. Poll after poll around the world shows an intense dislike for Bush and his policies. Spain pulled out for just this reason. Any help Kerry can bring lightens our load. With Bush, no help is on the way.

   "I think Bush also has a point with medical malpractice and the real cost being the practice of defensive medicine."

   I think the idea of "defensive medicine" may sound good, but does your doctor do that? Mine doesn't. Is it real? I don't think either candidate is pro frivilous lawsuits. I've read that medical insurance company profits were up 80-90% last year. I think the we need to tighten up the system for lawyers, doctors and insurance companies.

   "Kerry's response on the abortion question was terrible and meandering."

   If you are anti-abortion yes. If you're not he said exactly the right thing -- I'm not going to impose a belief of my religion on people who do not have my religious belief.

   I think you're right, this format was a little better for Bush. But you thought he won the last one so you have to be a pretty solid Bush supporter.

   I read your comments on the last debate and noted one thing. You pointed out "Kerry's congressional war crimes testimony." If you read it you will find it is a small part of his testimony and he is quoting others testimony. I'm not sure how much you know about the Vietnam war, but our side killed 250,000-500,000 civilians and 500,000-1,000,000 N Vietnamese soldiers. And we did plenty of bad things there, some documented like My Lai but most not. I hope you are not saying that the Vietnam war was a clean and just war.

   http://southerncrossreview.org/36/editorial1.htm

   By Christopher Thompson on October 9th, 2004 at 2:49 am

2. My understanding is that Spain pulled out because the government lied about the party responsible for the terrorist attack before the election. If I recall correctly, before the attack, Prime Minister Aznar was leading in the polls.

   The question "who can bring more allies to help us in Iraq" is still vague. Which allies and what will they do? This is the question that Kerry has not answered. Nobody is going to go to Iraq to die instead of American soldiers just because Kerry asks them to instead of Bush. The stabilization of Iraq is up to us. Once Iraq is stabilized and safer, international aid will follow, regardless of who is president. Who will stabilize Iraq faster? I think Bush because he believes in the war and Kerry doesn't. It won't be Kerry's priority. I think Kerry's priority will be to simply get out regardless of the consequences and I think that would be the wrong thing to do.

   Regarding defensive medicine. How old are you you? How healthy are you? Have you gone through a major medical episode? My Grandmother recently had cancer. I drove her to test after test after test and doctor after doctor. Scopes, scans, ultrasounds, blood tests, over and over again. Were all of them necessary? She certainly doesn't think so. I don't. Unfortunately, the doctors didn't tell us which tests where just to cover their asses and which ones weren't. You should see the bills.

   The goal should be to reduce the cost of health care (make it more efficient), not just to shift the burden of payment to the government. Tort Reform will make health care more efficient. As will drug reimportation.

   I am too young to remember Vietnam, and I am not saying that it was a clean war. However, my dad was in Vietnam (Bronze Star) and he thinks that Kerry fabricated his congressional testimony about war crimes for political purposes. I watched the swift boat vets on C-SPAN when they formed their organization and before they made their advertisement. I find them to be very credible.

   By Jeff Moore on October 9th, 2004 at 7:50 am

3. Hi.

   I don't usually comment on things political except down the pub, and I have zero expertise on US politics. However...;)

   The impression I get from this side of the Atlantic is of the god awful media coverage. There seems to me almost no real research or criticism or digging by jounalists, just fluff. For example, if it were a European election there would be questions about Bush's oil influence on policy every day of the week. We get more Haliburton stories in the UK publication "Private Eye" than I have seen on every US news site since the election started. I am not talking about the defence owned CNN or the appalling Fox news either, but the whole lot.

   I have to get my US news from blogs like yours .

   I can speak about the European view though. However bad Saddam Hussein was, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on politically marshalled and mostly faked evidence is considered a crime under international law even by the man in the street. At the moment Bush (and the extreme elements of the Republican party for those who read more than tabloids) are considered the criminals, and Blair some kind of fawning lapdog. If the US people elect Bush in the face of such crass foreign policy, then the US people will be tarred with the same brush. In my lifetime I have never seen America so hated abroad.

   yours, Marcus

   By Marcus Baker on October 10th, 2004 at 9:28 am

4. Wow, marcus, Maybe I'll have to start being more inclusive of which news I post. I know I have a large proportion of non-american readers.

   Here is my guide to the election for non-americans:

   In all the elections that I have seen, I have never seen a single issue dominate the election like the issue of iraq is dominating this one. This election is a referendum on what the foreign policy of the United States will be for many many years to come, possibly several decades.

   The reason is 9/11. I don't think that the rest of the world quite realizes what a significant and emotional impact 9/11 had on us. Look at the evidence. We have had two wars and the largest reorganization of government since Pearl Harbor because of it.

   This election is really a choice between two view points regarding the response to 9/11. Bush has an offensive view point: attack them before they can attack you, a war response. Kerry has a more defensive point of view: a police response.

   If you drew a venn diagram with the following groups: Those who support the war in Iraq and Republicans, you would get a healthy overlap. The thing is that if Gore had been president and gone into iraq and you drew the same diagram with Democrats, you would also get a healthy overlap. I think that if you could separate out the decision to go to war in Iraq from party politics, you would find that the majority of Americans would support or at least tolerate the policy.

   This is why Kerry voted for the war. This is why Kerry is careful to walk a fine line when he talks about the war (some would say flip-flop). If he were to become too anti-war, he would lose support among Democrats and independents who want a continuing offensive response to 9/11.

   Also, here is the thing you have to realize. Most Americans simply don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us outside of a bullet point on a partisan political list. They have never been outside of the country, they don't follow foreign news, they don't speak more than one language, and they never will.

   Unprovoked: Remember we were still in the gulf from the first war enforcing no fly zones in Iraq (and getting shot at for a decade). The presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia provoked the 9/11 attack.

   Faked evidence: The clinton administration thought he had WMD long before Bush got there. There weren't any intelligence agencies saying before the war that he didn't have WMD (some individuals, yes). The problem is that it is very very difficult to prove the absence of something. This is why the political situation installed at the ending of the first war was inherently unsustainable.

   Regarding Haliburtan, in the two party system the out party goes to work in private industry until they come back into government. Its called the revolving door. Where do you think Al Gore is now? When Cheney came back into goverment, he had to divest from Haliburton. For this to be a bigger story here, there needs to be some non-coincidental evidence that Cheney influenced the contract. Even then, its may be unseemly, but its not illegal. Until some actual evidence emerges, the story is too partisan for the major news organizations to cover and still keep the appearance of objectivity. There is a good treatment of the subject here.

   By Jeff Moore on October 11th, 2004 at 11:25 am

5. "I can speak about the European view though. However bad Saddam Hussein was, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on politically marshalled and mostly faked evidence is considered a crime under international law even by the man in the street. At the moment Bush (and the extreme elements of the Republican party for those who read more than tabloids) are considered the criminals, and Blair some kind of fawning lapdog. If the US people elect Bush in the face of such crass foreign policy, then the US people will be tarred with the same brush. In my lifetime I have never seen America so hated abroad."

   I think that pretty well sums up how many Americans feel but you don't hear it because the government and media are well right of Europe's.

   Jeff talks about 9/11's effect on America, he says "Look at the evidence. We have had two wars and the largest reorganization of government since Pearl Harbor because of it." That is the evidence of what Bush did with natural support he got after 9/11. He made changes equivilant to those made because of being attacked by the Japanese Fleet. The reality is that it was 19 guys with box cutters hijacking airplanes. I don't want to diminish the horror of 9/11 and I an still very angry because of it. But the truth is that there were no WMD's and no military involved in that attack.

   America was looking for an easy target because we wanted to kick someones ass to make us feel better. Iran and N Korea were too tough; Iraq was about to collapse anyway. So Iraq. Bush and the neocons saw they could control oil, get new Middle East bases, help Israel, beat the guy who made his father look bad. Everything lined up for them.

   Jeff gives the Republican view of the differences when he says, "This election is really a choice between two view points regarding the response to 9/11. Bush has an offensive view point: attack them before they can attack you, a war response. Kerry has a more defensive point of view: a police response." The Democrats say Bush's view point is: let's do all the stuff we have wanted to do for a while under the guise of the "war on terrorism." Kerry says: let's go after the terrorists.

   Jeff says there things you don't realize about America. And he proves it because you know quite well that Europe and the rest of the world know that Americans are ignorant about history and the world, uncompassionate, warlike, and dangeriously nationalistic. We haven't cared because we had the wealth and natural resources to not have to. And as we are forced to care our ugly side shows -- and though that ugly side is obvious to outsiders, many Americans still have their heads buried in the sand.

   Jeff talks about the "swift boat" guys above. They are Repubican partisians who are part of a small group of veterans who cannot let go of the fact that we lost in Vietnam and that it was an unjust war. They hate being associated with it. They cannot separate their duty from the government making terrible mistakes.

   The "Faked evidence" part is central to the Republicans rationalizing the war. The real point is that the world has had lots of information about Iraq for a long time but no one but Bush and the Neocons thought is was worth going to war. That is still the truth.

   And again with Halliburton, lots of politician move from business to government and back. But again, very few grant huge, no bid contracts directly to companies the were just CEO of. If you present only half of a story it looks reasonable.

   I think the one thing that you may not understand about America actions in Iraq and elsewhere is the power of fundamentialist Christian belief about things like Biblical prophesy, Iraq and Israel, and Armageddon. These beliefs are one of the driving forces behind America's actions.

   By Christopher Thompson on October 11th, 2004 at 2:09 pm

6. Yup. There is this sense that wealth means you are good. That more wealth means you are more good. There is this belief that all good people eventually succeed. There is this belief that the entire world wants to become like the USA. There is this belief that the ultimate goal of any society is to become like the USA.

   So if we kill a few non US citizens to safe any number of US citizens its all ok. Its not quite clear what those numbers are but I assume killing 100 random afghans is ok over saving 1 single american. Same .. or even more is ok for iraqis. After all the effort of converting a single non american are quite high ("In every vietnamese there is an american just waiting to come out.").

   I have lived in the states for quite a bit. It made me understand that even western countries work so much different. And that is ok. I have seen "good" things and I have seen "bad" things in the states. Of course "good" and "bad" are quite relative. The only problem is that alot of the "bad" the world has to endure.

   I too realize the horror of 9/11. But I also see this as the result of a limited number of people who have managed to get their foothold by western government toying with the middle east. Instead of working to solve the issues the solution is to worsen the situation. Extremist have more argument thans ever to recruit new terrorists. Why dont the realize that the terrorist will only be willing to kill themselves while they have nothing to loose?

   By Lukas on October 11th, 2004 at 2:58 pm

7. Hi...

   This is kinda fun so one more post (besides I cannot get down the pub because of the baby).

   The faked stuff was the connection between Iraq and 9/11. Everything else is hopelessly politicised. For example the phrase WMD (invented by the current administration?) is deliberate propoganda. It lumps mustard gas in with nuclear bombs quite deliberately. Now gas is a nasty nasty weapon, but it's potential impact on the world is negligible compared with nuclear armaments, DU rounds or landmines. No more a weapon of mass destruction than FAE weapons ("vacuum bombs" used in Chechnaya). Halabja was sprayed with cyanide and action wise it was a non-story, but now the threat from Iraq is so great it requires invasion? The current regime wanted a war with Iraq before they even entered office and "WMD" and "9/11" was the only excuse they had.

   The US psyche hasn't always been like this. There was a real resistence to entering the second world war barely three generations from 1865. I think a nation carries it's scars at least as long as it's grandparents are alive, because war still fills us with horror. And this is in the UK which got off comparitively likely. I can understand the position of French on this issue.

   In comparison with a real war, 9/11 is a pinprick to the USA. Most people's only contact will have been through TV. 300 Britains were killed (Morgan Stanley had a HQ there) and yet the British people opposed the war to the point of the biggest demonstration ever held in this country, and by a factor of two. It all seems to have more to do with a cleverly manipulated domestic pride than long term strategy or threat. Something straight out of George Orwell.

   At least that's what it looks like from here .

   yours, Marcus

   By Marcus Baker on October 11th, 2004 at 4:35 pm

8. Christopher, your post confirms my point. "19 guys with box cutters hijacking airplanes" suggests a crime, not an act of war. Kerry recently compared terrorism to prostitution and gambling. This is the language of crime. It illustrates the philosophical differences between the candidates positions on 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq.

   You say there was no military behind this, but there was. These men did not act alone. The military organization they belonged to was responsible for a string of attacks against the United States: the blackhawks in somalia, the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, and the bombing of the USS Cole.

   There is a real difference in philosophies in this election. A crime or an act or war? This is why the debates are so good.

   Marcus, regarding "The faked stuff was the connection between Iraq and 9/11." Bush has never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Even before the war, he explicitly said the opposite.

   The connection is that just as Pearl Harbor shattered our isolationism, 9/11 shattered the idea that we can wait until after the attack to deliver retribution. The Bush doctrine is that we cannot wait until after a WMD attack occurs here. We must prevent it before it happens. Iraq was attacked on this principle and this election is a referendum on the Bush Doctrine.

   Christopher, you say "Iraq was about to collapse anyway." I think that is far from the truth. it is the sanctions that were about to collapse. Witness the corruption in the UN oil for food program.

   There is no non-coincidental evidence that Cheney picked Haliburton for those contracts. Frankly I don't think Cheney is that stupid. This is a conspiracy theory argument and thats why it gets no press here.

   Regarding the swift boat vets, I watched the 2 hour press conference where they formed their organization, a half hour talk on the "Unfit for Command Book" on CSPAN, the 1 hour debate between O'neil and Kerry from the 70's, plus a bunch of interviews and such from various news sources. Viewing them speak drectly, I find them credible. I do not believe they are Republican operatives, but even if they are, labeling them as such doesn't make them wrong.

   The real tragedy here was how poor our intelligence was. We completely over estimated the WMD programs in Iraq, but yet when Libya disarmed, we found out that we underestimated their WMD programs. Our intelligence didn't predict the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think the moral of this story is that our intelligence capability has been broken for decades.

   By Jeff Moore on October 11th, 2004 at 5:37 pm

9. Hi.

   Hm, and I said I wouldn't post again .

   Bush, Runsfeld, etc, equated the war on Iraq with the "war on terror", which at that time meant Alkeida. There was no attempt to say the "opposite", far from it. The whole thing was a put up job from top to bottom, and a blatant one at that. Neither did any intelligence agency list Iraq as a threat to the UK or the USA before it became a political issue. Hussein was completely preoccupied with maintaining his own regime and incapable of defeating the Kurds, never mind the United States. To claim that Bush said the opposite sounds, well, faintly ridiculous.

   More worrying though is if this presidential "debate" equates world politics with a playground fight. "Retribution" is not a morally legitimate aim of foreign policy. Punishing an entire people for the act of nineteen men is both ignorant and barbaric. It's as if after the Harrods IRA bomb in London, Britain had carpet bombed Dublin.

   Worse is that the most effective anti-terrorist weapons are effective policing and bringing economic hope to the disenfranchised. This is not just the correct moral response, but also the pragmatic one. We've seen this have an effect almost instantly in Northern Ireland.

   Preemtively going to war is the most serious act a nation can undertake, and international law allows it only under the threat of the very nation itself. People die in war. Innocents get shredded and burned and maimed on an industrial scale. To go to war on the inability to prove the existence of an ineffective weapons system is a cynicism and brutality we haven't seen in a western power in living memory. It's as if the likes of Edward Teller have finally taken over the asylum.

   This is the crime I am talking about, but one I doubt anyone will ever answer for. There is an arrogance of power seeping across the Atlantic, one that does indeed allow a Haliburton to blatantly swallow contracts without even a hint embarressment.

   Now I am not in anyway left wing, although I would surely be a "liberal" by US standards. Outside of the US this view is so commonplace that we just groan when we hear Bush's or Rumsfeld's garbled rhetoric. It used to be funny, but not any more.

   Sorry mate . I don't want to have a go at your politics (honest), just to convey that the election to us has a sense of unreality. Your journalists are on strike.

   yours, Marcus

   By Marcus Baker on October 11th, 2004 at 6:57 pm

10. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were discredited a long time ago in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other print media. However, I suspect that the TV media did not bother with a thorough analysis of their claims.
    Do you really believe that Kerry didn't earn those medals and that he really gamed the system in each of the four incidents that led to a medal, despite the claims of his crew and the official navy documents (many of which were written and signed by George Elliot, who was the SBVFT member who later retracted his attack on Kerry)?
    Do you believe the statements of the 9/10 of the crew who served with Kerry (5 on 2 boats), which have remained consistent for over 30 years, or do you believe the latest revisions of the stories of the SWVFT, many of which contradict their earlier praise for Kerry?
    Do you believe the doctor who says he recalls treating Kerry's "superficial" wound even though he is not the doctor on record as having treated Kerry?
    Do you believe that Kerry's tactic of attacking the ambush, which led to his silver star, was reckless as the SBVFT say, despite William Rood's recollection of it?
    Do you believe that the SBVFT group is sincere despite their obvious interest in discrediting Kerry (since his biography is often critical of them) and their Republican backing?
    The problem with SBVFT is that so many of their statements are full of easily verifiable bullshit, such as their assertion that Bush had released all of his military records (he hadn't).

    By David Moore on October 11th, 2004 at 7:42 pm

11. Marcus, I would be the first one to admit that Journalism here leaves much to be desired.

    The war on Iraq was not punishment for 9/11. It was an attempt to prevent the possibility that Iraq could give WMD to terrorists (not the only reason). It was 9/11, however, that birthed the doctrine that the US should be preemptive.

    Hi David.

    Well, the tv media coverage of the issue has been poor at best. But most of the video that I have seen has been on C-SPAN, where you are left to make your own decision. I watched these people. They look like they believe what they are saying and they certainly don't say it in a way that makes them look like republican operatives. The initial press conference on C-SPAN was especially believable (before they made a commercial, before they had any funding, and before any of the press covered the issue).

    I have also followed some of the print media (NYT, etc) coverage of the issue and a tremendous amount of blog coverage of the issue. For the most part the refutations take the form of questioning the motives and funding of the group. This does not make what they say untrue. I have also seen refutations of the refutations where the Swift Vets reconcile how different people could believe different things about the events that occurred.

    You ask "Do you really believe that Kerry didn't earn those medals." I don't think he earned all of them as they were intended. As I understand it none of the three times Kerry was injured resulted in him missing duty. These were minor wounds at best. I don't think that the 3 purple hearts and you go home rule was intended for this situation.

    The swift vets make a lot of claims. I'm not sure that all of them are true, or even important. I do think that it is likely that Kerry shouldn't have earned all 3 purple hearts and shouldn't have gone home after 4 months.

    One last thing. Kerry HAS NOT released his military records. There is a form which you can fill out and give to the military that will allow the press free access to your records. Bush has signed this form. Kerry has not. Instead, Kerry has requested the records himself and the released them to the press. There are still documents he hasn't released.

    The difference between signing the form and not is that the press can get Bush's records directly from the military, while the press can only get Kerry's records from Kerry.

    Kerry has not fully disclosed his military records. Kerry could end this issue by simply signing the same disclosure form that Bush signed. Why doesn't he?

    By Jeff Moore on October 12th, 2004 at 12:55 am

12. oh, marcus, I almost forgot.

    What Bush said was that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. He also said that Iraq was a part of the war on terror. These are not contradictory statements under the doctrine of preemption.

    By Jeff Moore on October 12th, 2004 at 1:04 am

13. A lot to comment on...

    First the comment "Christopher, your post confirms my point. "19 guys with box cutters hijacking airplanes" suggests a crime, not an act of war." -- It suggests neither crime nor war. It is a description of the what acturally happened. It is terrorism. In crime only the police are involved. In war only the military is involved. In terrorism both can be involved. I don't see how 9/11 is any more an act of war than Oklahoma City bombing. Calling it a "war" is political labeling just as the "war on drugs" was. I almost get from your "suggests a crime, not an act of war" that crime less of a problem or somehow better than war. There are 20,000 homicides in the US every year.

    Even if it is a war, there was and is little or no reason for attacking Iraq. The facts are all in plain view. The distortions are also clear. Cheney still calls "a few meetings over 10 years that led to no cooperation" a "10 year relationship." The truth is that pretty much everyone on Earth except US Republicians did not see and still do not see a case for the Iraq war.

    As for the swift boat guys, they have been generally discredited and are really not reported on much at this point. Again the reality of the situation is not in the tiny details of each candidates service, much as the Bush campaign wants it to be. The real point is that Bush flew jets in an outfit that was safe from ever seeing combat and Kerry captained boats in a outfit that went to Vietnam and saw combat. I think Bush's drug use and Kerry's anti-war efforts are among the related questions that keep this thing alive.

    Regarding the "doctrine of preemption" the fact is that the US has always had a doctrine of preemption. What changed is Bush's definition of our "core values." Most agree that attacking Al Qaeda in Afganastan followed America's core values, and at least half of Americans think the Iraq war did not follow America's core values.

    Finally regarding, "What Bush said was that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. He also said that Iraq was a part of the war on terror." -- Again Bush has only had to make those statements after each report after report has come to the same conclusion. And you carefully said "responsible." And Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield, etc. have all repeated misleading statements to keep the idea alive. I am interested in how "Iraq was a part of the war on terror." Giving aid to Palisinians like Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries do? Giving exile like Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries do? Allowing a Al Qaeda group in our northern "no fly zone?" Maybe it was their supression of Islamic extremeists we didn't like? We are going to spend Half a Trillion dollars on Iraq out of the taxpayer's money for fighting Al Qaeda and terrrorism.

    By Christopher Thompson on October 12th, 2004 at 11:54 am

14. "For the most part the refutations take the form of questioning the motives and funding of the group. This does not make what they say untrue."
    The refutations do debunk the SBVFT claims. Most of what I read was specifically about Kerry's bronze and silver medal performances.
    The SBVFT had some claim about every major aspect of Kerry's service, including his character. I'm sure they sounded pretty confident on TV, but they had no evidence of any kind -- just hearsay from a few people near Kerry, but not from either of his swift boats. Many of their claims were from people who were later forced to admit that they weren't there.
    It's true that the SBVFT story has evolved to cover nearly all of their inconsistencies with some explanation, however implausible.
    However, to believe the latest revision of the SBVFT story, you need to believe that Kerry was able to manipulate several of his superiors and the after-action reports several times during his short career (even though Kerry was nobody then -- neither rich nor a senator). You also need some reason to doubt all of Kerry's crewmates plus William Rood. You also need an excuse for some earlier SBVFT statements that contradict later SBVFT statements.
    This complex premise forms the thread by which SBVFT believers still hang. The evidence for SBVFT is no match for the evidence against them. They are not "very credible".
    "Kerry could end this issue by simply signing the same disclosure form that Bush signed. Why doesn't he?"
    I don't know why Kerry doesn't sign that release. Maybe he doesn't trust the Navy to handle his records. After all, the Texas Guard destroyed some of Bush's records "inadvertently" and then they had a lot of trouble finding the others. A similar incident would look bad for Kerry if it happened to him. Maybe he fears that the records will be tampered with now that he is Mr. bigshot. Who knows?
    Anyway, there has never been much reason to doubt Kerry's records. All independent records, such as those of SBVFT member Thurlow, are consistent with Kerry's and plainly contradict SBVFT.
    "I do think that it is likely that Kerry shouldn't have earned all 3 purple hearts and shouldn't have gone home after 4 months."
    Kerry may have been a little opportunistic with those purple hearts, although it wasn't like the blatant and pervasive manipulation of the system that Bush pulled off in the Guard.
    I'm sure that Kerry was happy to leave the Mekong Delta. It was particularly dangerous duty. Overall, his experience in Vietnam should be an asset to him in office next term.

    By David Moore on October 12th, 2004 at 7:20 pm

15. David, you know that dad was stationed at Cam Ranh Bay, the same place as Kerry, although not at the same time as Kerry. You should ask him what he thinks of Kerry's medals, who got medals, how they got medals, and why they got medals. You know that dad was awarded a bronze star, don't you? I'm just curious about how much you have talked with dad about his experience in vietnam.

    Do I believe everything that the swift boat vets say? No. I said that before. Do you really believe that the Kerry's version is 100% accurate and that the swift boat vets are 100% liars? Perhaps the truth of the situation is somewhere in between?

    Saying that the swift boat vets weren't on Kerry's boat doesn't refute them. They didn't say they were. They were at the same place at the same time during the incident where Kerry got his silver star. Their eyewitness testimony (not hearsay) suggests a different point of view than Kerry's. Is that so impossible?

    However, overall, I think they present a preponderance of evidence that paints a picture of an opportunistic politically minded Kerry that no one much liked. You are right that the swift boat vets question Kerry's character, but then they knew, worked, fought, ate, and slept with the man. I think they are qualified to discuss Kerry's character at that point in time.

    I also think that its very unseemly to question his medals and they wouldn't have mattered much if he hadn't bragged about them so much. Notice how Kerry never speaks about Vietnam any more. He mentioned it once or twice in the first debate and not at all in the second.

    The Navy says they have about 100 pages of Kerry military records that have not been released. If these records contradicted what the swift boat vets say, don't you think Kerry would allow them to be released?

    Please don't make lame excuses for Kerry's political filtering of which military records he wants to you to see and which ones he doesn't.

    Marcus mentions that the Press is not doing their job in this election. I agree. I think they should make a bigger deal out of Kerry's failure to release his records. (He pledged a FULL release on Meet the Press. I watched him say it.)

    By Jeff Moore on October 13th, 2004 at 11:43 am

16. I think that SBVFT "present a preponderence of evidence" that they are willing to say anything about Kerry and then see what sticks. If they have legitimate points to score, then why do they have to lie so much about the other things?
    I wasn't thrilled about Kerry brandishing his military record during the convention, but there may have been a reason for it. Quite a few who criticized the wars after 9/11 were tarnished as pro-terrorist anti-Americans. It's only within the last 18 months that the press has dared to be critical again. I can hardly blame Kerry for anticipating the usual virulent character attacks from the GOP. So their theme this time is "flip-flopper", facts-be-damned.

    By David Moore on October 13th, 2004 at 5:59 pm

17. I have to agree that the swift boat vet's broad spectrum complaints are at best unseemly.

    I think that they would do much better picking a handful of points to focus on. And yet, I think this is part of what adds to their credibility. If they really were republican party political operatives, I don't think they would be so sloppy and amateurish.

    When I watched their formation press conference, they had technical and organizational trouble. When I went to their web site, I got a "bandwidth exceeded" message. This just doesn't appear to me to be the handy work of seasoned political operatives. They really do appear, at least to me, like a bunch of guys who feel wronged and have a long list of grievances

    Also, the GOP has no monopoly on character assassination, as the Cheney Haliburton and Bush National Guard story mentioned earlier show. The Haliburton story relies purely on coincidental evidence and the Bush National Guard story relies on forged documents and the desire to believe.

    I dismissed those as the stuff of conspiracy theory and I would do the same to the swift vets, if it weren't for the fact that they are offering eyewitness testimony among their other claims and opinions and the failure of Kerry to release the military documents which could refute or confirm their claims.

    By Jeff Moore on October 14th, 2004 at 9:17 am

18. here's who really won the debates: http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/articles/ijc_041013_debate.html
    ;)

    By fateslieutenant on October 14th, 2004 at 9:48 am

19. Nightline Demolishes Anti-Kerry Swift Boat Story

    ABC News Nightline went to Vietnam and interviewed villagers who
    witnessed the firefight in February 1969 that led to John Kerry being
    awarded a Silver Star. The incident is a center piece of the allegations
    made by the so-called 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth', whose leader John
    O'Neill has claimed that there was no firefight and that Kerry shot dead
    a fleeing teenager. Nightline's detailed interviews with the villagers,
    including former Viet Cong fighters who took part in the incident,
    verified Kerry's account of events. When confronted by Nightline's Ted
    Koppel, a clearly rattled O'Neill refused to address the content of the
    report. Read more here:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1

    By Christopher Thompson on October 18th, 2004 at 3:50 am

Leave a Reply