Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Again, although the Bush campaign and its sycophants keep trying to turn
this as a 527 issue, it is not. The issue is the president refusing to
denounce an ad in which the overwhelming evidence shows as lies.


What evidence shows it to be lies?

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
portraying
Bush as an immoral slanderer.


Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
do with them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/po...n/20swift.html


There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
anything to do with those ads.

No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.


And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see
kerry
condemning them?

What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
negative or financed by partisan supporters.

What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
group is not relavant.

Got it?


--Mike

You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations against
Bush?


If such ads existed and were shown by the vast majority of the evidence
to be false, then yes. However, we haven't seen such ads yet.


--Mike

From: Michael Wise
Date: 8/24/2004 7:37 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
portraying
Bush as an immoral slanderer.


Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
do with them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/po...n/20swift.html


There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
had
anything to do with those ads.

No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.


And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see
kerry
condemning them?

What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
negative or financed by partisan supporters.

What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
group is not relavant.

Got it?


--Mike

You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations
against
Bush?


If such ads existed and were shown by the vast majority of the evidence
to be false, then yes. However, we haven't seen such ads yet.


--Mike

You haven't been looking. I saw one last night where they accused Bush of
spending money on Iraq and Afghanistan instead of on schools here. He isn't the
one who disburses those funds, Congress is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...

How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

Because I went back to the primary sources and read them and the quote
was not there. This was a transcript of the testimony provided by an
Anti-Kerry group that had an entire article bashing Kerry for what he
had said, and said article did not mention any such quote either, and
the format and font match GPO documents from that time period
precisely. I posted links to both, should you care to examine them.

And then I did find the quote on a Meet The Press from a few days
before his Senate testimony. And Kerry agreeing that he had said the
quote on Meet the Press back in 1971. Again, I have presented my
evidence, posted links to both the original and a transcript of the
recent Meet the Press, which you have not addressed.

Would you prefer if I said "The Boston Globe's attribution is wrong"?
Because, from everything that I can tell, it is. Like Mr. Brooks, I
have read the transcript as provided by the GPO. The quote you
reference isn't there. He did say it on Meet the Press. This an
incorrect cite, and nothing more. Let's stop talking about this.

Chris Manteuffel

"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

Because I went back to the primary sources and read them and the quote
was not there. This was a transcript of the testimony provided by an
Anti-Kerry group that had an entire article bashing Kerry for what he
had said, and said article did not mention any such quote either, and
the format and font match GPO documents from that time period
precisely. I posted links to both, should you care to examine them.

And then I did find the quote on a Meet The Press from a few days
before his Senate testimony. And Kerry agreeing that he had said the
quote on Meet the Press back in 1971. Again, I have presented my
evidence, posted links to both the original and a transcript of the
recent Meet the Press, which you have not addressed.

Would you prefer if I said "The Boston Globe's attribution is wrong"?
Because, from everything that I can tell, it is. Like Mr. Brooks, I
have read the transcript as provided by the GPO. The quote you
reference isn't there. He did say it on Meet the Press. This an
incorrect cite, and nothing more. Let's stop talking about this.


Fine with me. But I do find it odd that anyone that strives for accuracy,
as your and Brooks' research indicates you both do, would take offense at
someone else's desire for accuracy.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
news

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

You know what Steven? I am a pretty firm supporter of Bush, but your
continued catterwalling about this is beginning to make me rethink the
situation...(not really, but if this is how you handle the folks who
are
anti-Kerry, then you might want to rethink your strategy or lack
thereof).


Whoa, there. Go to your happy place. Count to ten. Calm down. These
are
simple questions, they have simple answers.

Here is your simple answer:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/in...opic=Testimony
I did the hard part for you, finding a complete transcript of the
testimony--now all you have to do is wade through the 32-pages of it.
Guess
what? You won't find the quote in question. But, if you go to:
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/, you will find a copy of the transcript
of
Kerry's April 2004 appearance on "Mett the Press" with Tim Russert, and in
there you will further find a snippet from the April 1971 show where Kerry
*did* make the statement in question. Simple enough for you?




Yes, it was a complete transcript of his testimony, from gavel to
gavel,
to
include the questioning posed to him by the committee members. If you
are
really interested in reading it yourself, do a Google on "Kerry
Vietnam
testimony transcript" and you should be able to find it yourself.


There are several sources that attribute that quote to the committee.
You
come along and say it didn't happen there, it happened somewhere else.
If
you're a serious researcher you'll understand my questions and not take
offense at them.

You are about as bright as a brick today, Steven. I have given you links
to
the transcripts required. All you have to do now is READ them--you can do
that, can't you?




Go and dig up your own trnscript and read it, then go and read a
transcript
of his 18 April 71 "Meet the Press" interview; you will find the quote
of
interest in the latter, and not the former. When you have found said
transcript, see if YOU can find the quote in question--if you do, get
back
to me and I'll happily apologize (I'd be just tickled if he could be
shown
to have made that statement in his testimony as well as on national
TV).
If
you can't you owe me one, OK?


Owe you one what?

An apology, for being dense as a rock if nothing else.


Well, even if I was as dense as a rock, why would I need to apologize to
anyone for that?

I believe you were the guy who kept doubting my word on this, and was
too lazy to do your own Google--now put up or shut up time is here.
Read the transcripts provided, then come back and say, "I was wrong,
Kerry did not say that in his testimony, he said it in the TV
interview." Or do you have the huevos to dare admit you were in error?




Now toodle off and do your homework and get
back to me. Stop acting as if this is the first time a newspaper has
screwed
up in regards to the details. And that is all you are arguing--the
details,
since I have already told you that yes, he did say it, but in a
different
forum from what you though it to be.


Oh, I know newspapers screw up. I see it all the time. But I don't
conclude that the newspaper has screwed up without good reason.

I gave you the good reasons--now go read those transcripts and stop
whining.


Couldn't you have done that the first time I asked?

I told you the first time, and the second time, etc. You were just too
lazy to look up and compare the two transcripts for yourself, so
instead you just had to keep questioning my word on the matter even
after I pointed you in the right direction--have you been taking
lessons from Art?


Why do you need to make an ass of yourself in a public forum?

I generally try to leave that up to you and your
one-word-smart-ass-answers for which you are so well known.

Adios, and if you try really hard, you might be able to work your way
through those transcripts with a minimum of lip movement.

Brooks

In article ,
Fijian watermelon wrote:

For what? I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've
provided
none.

Because... because... oh waaaaaahhh! Quit picking on us!

No.

Nice quote editing. What're you in, 8th grade?

In article ,
Fijian watermelon wrote:

But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

--
Huh?

At least your truthful about yourself with your sig.

Eighth grade, right?

"BOB" SD wrote in message ...
Gactimus wrote in :

Elmo wrote in :

If Kerry was awarded five or six medals
that Republicans now claim he didn't deserve

What Republicans?

All of them.


Why bother with this if you don't want to be taken seriously?

"BOB" SD wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"forge" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to
fight
a
vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --


But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

Uh.

Huh?


What part did you not understand?

Illuminate us please, how we aren't "less safe" now that we've proven
to most of the entire Muslim world what warmongering fools we are.


We haven't done that.

You are right.


I know.



"We" haven't but the Bush regime has.


No, Bush hasn't done it either.