Smear Starts at White House

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Smear Starts at White House
105
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 5:26am
Everyone I know (Republican, Democrat & Independent) thinks that the anti-Kerry smear campaign on his Vietnam War record began at the White House. Not a person, I know, believes the administration denials.

Does that matter? I think it does!

C

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 5:03am

<>


It is GREAT to see you back here.

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 6:10am
Oh come one Car_al,. if he really wanted to, Kerry

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 6:44am
"These groups, who BTW Kerry has spoken out against; do not have direct ties to Kerry. "

Well. How do you know?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 6:47am
um. What evidence?

Conspiracy theory by a group of people?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 7:46am
There's no actual evidence the smear started in the White House, but a lot of people believe it did. Just saying it started in the WH doesn't make it so.

There's no actual evidence Kerry exaggerated his service in Nam either, but a lot of people believe he did. The actual evidence that exists in Navy records indicate he served well & honorably. Just saying he did doesn't make it so.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-26-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 9:48am
Just like the smears that attack the president start with John Kerry right? First of all lets get right out and say it... I believe the swift boat vets. 250 vietnam vets are lying because they are in cahoots with Bush???? No, they are mad that John Kerry is a liar. If you want to see where the smear is it's very easy to connect John Kerry to MoveOn.org that put out all of the anti-Bush commericials.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-26-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 9:50am
I couldn't have said it better.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:53am
"He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen."

I understand that none of the Vietnam vets like the idea of his comments being directed at "all soldiers", but the reality is that the atrocities he spoke of did happen. Those words, however hurtfull they are, were not "untruths." Yes he made a generalization about "all Vets" that he should have thought twice about before saying, but the generalization was not a lie. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but every generalization has exceptions, that doesn't make these statements lies.

If anything wrong was done at that senate meeting over 30 years ago, it was making a generalization that clumped all those soldiers in that catogory. Which at worst can show some ignorence, but does not constitute a lie. i.e. About 13 years ago I had an associate from a small town in VA make a statement about People on wellfare that "they all just keep having more baby's so we can pay more to them so they don't have to work." Now i'm sure he truely believed the ignorant statement he made, but that is a generalization he made based on truths he clumped together of some people. Not all people on wellfare are doing that, but it could appear to someone who only knows of these generalizations that it must be true.

There were, and still are things that go on in the military that are illegal, against the Ganeva Convention, and are considered by many "atrocities." Leting them slide by with no accusations to detest them would leave things as bad or worse then they were over 30 years ago. Our military needs to have accountability for these crimes, and that's what Kerry was trying to accomplish back then.

Venus

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-26-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:03am
Venus,

Are you a vietnam vet? Do you have first hand observations that you can attest to? If Kerry did witness and participate in these atrocities as a lietenant why did he not report them immediately? Why did he wait until it was politically expedient to do so? There are 250 vietnam vets that say Kerry is lying why should we not believe them?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:36am
<>

You all that continue to bring this up act like Kerry was the first to bring it up. I heard about this before Bush ever got in office on a talk radio station. That's what bothers me, it is important that a year of info about Bush's service shows no sign of him being in his unit. This does warrent question, because you are not legally permited to just show up for duty when you feel like it, even in the National Gaurd. He would have needed signed permission from his chain of command to be absent for that long. Everything I heard while I was in service was that if you are absent for 30 days or longer you are considered "AWOL" absent without leave unless youre absence has been approved by the military. 45 days or longer I believe the status is suppose to be changed to "deserter." Maybe I'm wrong but I knew a few people charged with being AWOL in korea for being gone more then 30 days without permission. One was convinced to return the day before he hit 45 days to avoid much worse punishment. It bothered me when I heard about it, that no one was bringing his absence up in the last election, except a couple talk shows that most Americans don't listen to. Even in a regular job a question as big as this would be important in hiring someone, it is very important in hiring a president. Had I done something like that while in service I would be locked up now, not running for a second election as president.

And come to think of it I believe you were considered AWOL as soon as you were considered a no show. There I go being like Kerry changing my stories. I guess someone should tear my record apart because I don't remember things too well, and changed my story.

Venus

Pages