| Author |
Message |
    
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 569
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 8:31 pm: |     |
I am confident the Kerry supporters on MOL are saying the same as Joe Lockhart (now that he has egg on his face) - which is, "who cares what happened 30 years ago, let's talk about the issues of today."
It's all they wanted to talk about until they were caught forging the evidence. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 370
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Burkett in the Star Telegram said that Joe Lockhart tried to convince him to turn over the documents.
No, actually, he didn't.
Posted on Sat, Sep. 25, 2004
CORRECTION
Star-Telegram
Bill Burkett, the source of CBS' discredited report on President Bush's National Guard service, was referring to conversations with CBS when he said, "They tried to convince me as to why I should give them the documents." An article about Burkett on Friday incorrectly reported that he had discussed the documents with Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/9759052.htm |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2488
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
Duly noted. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 582
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Lockhart has admitted to talking with Burkett, but not about the memos, of course. Lockhart was taking campaign advice on how to handle the attack of Kerry's vietnam record, but not about the memos, of course. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 973
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
The kerry campaign forged them, planted them, and then tried to get them?
I mean, if Lockhart did ask for them, wouldn't it just prove that he didn't know anything about the forgery? Not that he did, apperently. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2490
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
If Lockhart did ask for them, why lie about it?
It's incredible on it's face that Burkett didn't bring up the documents or Lockhart ask about them. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 861
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Great point themp...
I mean, if you were Lockhart and knew that you were launching "Operation Fortunate Son" and were desperately looking to counteract the Swiftboat group, Wouldn't you LOVE to get your hands on Docs like the ones that Burkett was describing?
Why wouldn't he at least want to see them?
I mean a CBS producer set up the call. Unless he knew they were forgeries (and how could he know that?), Anyone would want to get their hands on these. Why didn't Lockhart? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 373
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
1) Operation Fortunate Son is the work of the DNC, not the Kerry campaign. A subtle difference, but an important one.
2) Why would Burkett tell Lockhart about the docs when they were a) already on their way to CBS and b) supposed to come from an anonymous source?
3) If they didn't discuss the docs, how was Lockhart supposed to know to ask about them?
4) There was nothing in the docs, as far as I could tell, that was new information. Was there? If so, has it been proven to be false? I tuned in to the report thinking, wow, there must be something huge in here. When the story was over, I remember thinking "What a bust." |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 976
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
"There was nothing in the docs, as far as I could tell, that was new information. Was there? If so, has it been proven to be false? I tuned in to the report thinking, wow, there must be something huge in here. When the story was over, I remember thinking "What a bust.""
Yeah, there hasn't been a huge denunciation of the content by the white house, just the docs themselves, has there? W never really responded to the content at all, in that same way that he never comes up with any real evidence or details about completing his guard duty. I was six in 1972, but I can remember a little bit of who I "trained" with and what snack time was like.
Also - I tuned in for the interview. I didn't even know about the docs. I thought that was interesting on its own, but it's like it never happened. No one can really dispute that he had help getting in. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 329
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
This is like the OJ trial. There is overwhelming evidence to support the conclusions in the CBS story. You can find similar stories in US News and Salon, and they did not rely on any of the memos in question. But some fake documents turn up, and it's like the bloody glove in OJ's yard. Just because Mark Fuhrman may have planted a glove on OJ's property, it didn't make the defendant innocent.
Same here, except now people are yelling "If the memos ain't legit, you must acquit!" |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2493
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
Bush detractors have no proof Bush didn't complete his service with the National Guard. LIkewise, the Swiftees don't have any proof that Kerry didn't deserve to win his medals. Both Kerry and Bush rely on military documents (Kerry's citations except for Cambodia, and Bush's honorable discharge) to back up their claims that they served completely and honorably.
I'm not aware Bush had a hand in personally writing his paper trail, but the paper record backs up both candidates nonetheless. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 330
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
Wrong.
Bush's records are incomplete:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/archive/bull040907i.htm
Kerry's citations are well-documented. That's the main difference between these two stories. The Swift Boat Vets accusations are contradicted by Navy records. On the other hand, accusations that Bush did not fulfill all his service requirements can not be refuted by records.
I still don't believe any of this should be relevant in 2004, however. And the Swift Boat vets accusations are especially slimy, because every piece of documentation that exists says John Kerry earned his medals. This sort of accusation, which is essentially saying that military citations can be earned through fraud (perpetrated by high-ranking officers, no less), is a smear against every decorated military veteran. It calls into question the legitimacy of all veterans' awards. And that's shameful. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 331
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
And what's in Bush's files indicates that he did not fulfill his duties (at least according to US News, which has never to my knowledge been accused of "liberal bias"):
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 591
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:38 pm: | |
Check your facts Maple:
The U.S. Navy released documents Wednesday contradicting claims by Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry that all of his available military records have been released.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5 C200409%5CSPE20040916a.html
Kerry is releasing only what he wants us to see. He has not signed off on the release of all documents. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 333
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
All the documentation for his medals is available to you on Kerry's website. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 593
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:50 pm: | |
Why won't he release all his records? |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 334
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
He's not releasing medical records. He might have had treatment for an embarrassing medical condition. Do we really need to know whether or not John Kerry picked up something in 1968 that he'd rather not reveal today?
The wing nuts think that means his Purple Hearts are fraudulent. But the casualty reports posted on the site do have descriptions of the circumstances. So to think the medical records would show something here would mean you'd have to believe the Purple Heart documents were frauds. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 594
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:03 pm: | |
Um. Ok. Sure. That's the reason. Don't want anyone to know he may have caught the crabs.
Good answer. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 335
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
whatever the reason, what you are implying is that military citations were given to him fraudulently. what else would these people expecting to be in Kerry's medical files?
Do you think that naval officers were in the habit of handing out undeserved Silver Stars and Purple Hearts?
And I stand by my statement that such accusations are a smear against all decorated veterans. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 595
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:34 pm: | |
It's decorated Veterans who are asking to see them. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 336
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
and that's what makes it even more shameful.
what they're saying in essence is that if a serviceman hasn't lost part of an arm or leg, or been similarly maimed, you don't deserve a Purple Heart.
I've never been in the military, but I would never presume to question someone's citations. It burns me that armchair warriors like Hannity or Limbaugh demean Kerry's medals. As if getting shrapnel in your arm or leg is a picnic. If it is, which of you guys who think Kerry is a pansy will volunteer to have a piece of white hot metal shot into your flesh? |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 597
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:47 pm: | |
I think they're trying to expose that Kerry had VD if you want my opinion. It's not about the medals. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 377
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
I'd be interested in seeing Bush's medical records from the period, especially any blood or urine tests.
Oh, wait. He skipped his physical. What an odd coincidence. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 598
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:56 pm: | |
LOL! Good one Madden. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 338
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 11:10 pm: | |
Bush's medical records were released, including this helpful observation from the White House:
quote:Bush's medical records -- dozens of pages in all -- were opened for examination by reporters in the Roosevelt Room, but the material was not being distributed publicly...
His medical checks, from 1968 through 1971, show no signs of illness at the time except for a brief episode of hemorrhoid symptoms.
Thank god we have that revelation to add to the information we're basing our vote on.
Sometimes the depths to which our political discourse falls is despairing. Karl Rove is lovin' it. Even discussion of hemorrhoids is preferable to a consideration of the miserable failures of the Bush Administration.
 |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 381
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
There you have it. Records show that George Bush is a pain in the •••. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page