Kerry Caught In Lie About V.P. Cheney

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Kerry Caught In Lie About V.P. Cheney
99
Fri, 09-03-2004 - 9:53pm
I have been watching the talk shows today and I noticed that John Forbes Kerry, and all of the Democrat spokespersons have said that V.P. Cheney said in his speech to the RNC that Kerry was "unfit for command", then they go off into a tirade "This from a man.. yada yada who never went to Vietnam"... Have you guys heard this?

Well I watched V. P. Cheney's speech and I did not recall him saying that John Forbes Kerry was "unfit for command". So I went to a transcript of the speech and found that he didn't say anything of the sort! They just made it up so they could lead into the slam they had planned for Cheney, lol.

Here is everything that Cheney said about Kerry:

"And so it is time to set the alternatives squarely before the American people.

The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe — yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations." During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America — after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it — and that includes the use of military force.

Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve — as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.

Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief — and that is to support American troops in combat.

In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate — and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation. But a president — a president — always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs — and America has — a president we can count on to get it right.

On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and- forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act — and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement — and against it. He is for the Patriot Act — and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual — America sees two John Kerrys."



So, they just made this up that Cheney had said something that he didn't say so that they could lead into the "All this from a man who didn't go to Vietnam, yadda, yadda, yadda as if anybody cared if Cheney ever went to Vietnam. These guys are completely clueless. If they would lie about something so stupid they would lie about anything.

Pages

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 10:05am
I've heard otherwise from people I know who live in Georgia. I think the length of time he was in office speaks for his popularity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

""This is certainly an opportunity for Republicans," said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University. "Presumably, George Bush will be at the top of the ticket in 2004 and if he is still as popular as today, he will be a huge asset for any Republican candidate.""

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-01-08-miller_x.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Zell Bryan Miller... is a Democratic politician from the U.S. state of Georgia. He was Lieutenant Governor of Georgia from 1975 to 1991, Governor from 1991 to 1999, and has been a United States Senator from Georgia since 2000."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller




iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 10:12am
Be careful, refuting untruths from liberals = trashing them. ;)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 12:48pm
All right...I'm game.

There’s a reason you were asked to find people who “served with him” to account for his presence – reports from his lady friends (1) or people who worked with him on the congressional campaign (2) were obviously not present on the Dannelly Air National Guard base. It’s also in question whether he told people on the campaign he even had National Guard duties he should have been fulfilling. (3) So your first two paragraphs are really just filler. Let’s look for the meat.

In your third paragraph you set out to prove that General Turnipseed – who G.W. should have reported to at Dannelly – doesn’t remember him either. How does that support your argument? Futhermore, the former General has changed his story since the 2000 election on exactly why he doesn’t remember G.W. at the base. You’ve quoted him as saying “"George Bush wasn't even famous back then, so why would I notice this outsider showing up at a couple of meetings. I just wouldn't." But in 2000 he said that he definately would have noticed Bush’s presence, but not because of his “fame”: ''Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,'' Turnipseed said. ''I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.'' (4) Is someone pressuring this poor man?

Finally, in your fifth paragraph, you set out to answer the question at hand. You claim there are “a couple” of guardsmen who do remember G.W.”turning up that summer” although you produce just one person – John B. Calhoun. Calhoun seems to be the magic bullet – a guardsman, present at Dannelly during the time G.W. is supposed to have served, who vividly remembers Bush there from May until October, 1972. Here’s what you offer up about Calhoun: “"Calhoun estimated that he saw Bush sign in at the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group eight to 10 times for about eight hours each from May to October 1972.”

There’s just one problem with Calhoun – G.W. Bush was not assigned to the 187th until September of ’72. How could he possibly remember Bush being there four months early? These are the dates one would get from reading incomplete media reports – not the dates one would come up with from their own personal recollections. In a complicated series of events often glossed over in the media, Bush moved to Alabama in May of ’72, but he didn’t sort out exactly where or how he would fulfill his national guard duties until September.

From the same Boston Globe 2000 report:

“On May 24, 1972, after he moved to Alabama, Bush made a formal request to do his equivalent training at the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Two days later, that unit's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Reese H. Bricken, agreed to have Bush join his unit temporarily.

In Houston, Bush's superiors approved. But a higher headquarters disapproved, noting that Bricken's unit did not have regular drills.

''We met just one weeknight a month. We were only a postal unit. We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing,'' Bricken said in an interview.

Last week, Lloyd said he is mystified why Bush's superiors at the time approved duty at such a unit.

Inexplicably, months went by with no resolution to Bush's status - and no Guard duty. Bush's evident disconnection from his Guard duties was underscored in August, when he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical.

Finally, on Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report to Turnipseed, the unit's commander.

http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm

Here’s a link to Bush’s request to serve at the 9921st – please note it’s dated May 24th 1972, after he’s already moved to Alabama and is working on the Blount campaign (proof he didn’t sort this out before moving…) http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc7.gif

Here’s a link to Bush’s request to serve at the 187th. It’s dated September 5th 1972. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc2.gif

Here’s a link to the approval to serve at the 187th. It’s dated September 15th 1972. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif

But what of Calhoun’s fond memories of eating sandwiches and reading safety manuals with the future president? Isn’t it possible that Calhoun just remembered the dates wrong? Here’s what two pilots from the 187th during the time period in question, have to say about G.W. Bush and Calhoun:

“Recalls Memphian Mintz, now 62: “I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was somebody with political influence. I was a young bachelor then. I was looking for somebody to prowl around with.” But, says Mintz, that “somebody” -- better known to the world now as the president of the United States -- never showed up at Dannelly in 1972. Nor in 1973, nor at any time that Mintz, a FedEx pilot now and an Eastern Airlines pilot then, when he was a reserve first lieutenant at Dannelly, can remember.

“And I was looking for him,” repeated Mintz, who said that he assumed that Bush “changed his mind and went somewhere else” to do his substitute drill.”

““I talked to one of my buddies the other day and asked if he could remember Bush at drill at any time, and he said, ‘Naw, ol’ George wasn’t there. And he wasn’t at the Pit, either.’”

The “Pit” was The Snake Pit, a nearby bistro where the squadron’s pilots would gather for frequent after-hours revelry. And the buddy was Bishop, then a lieutenant at Dannelly…”

http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2837&onthefly=1



Bush was assigned to non-flight duty at the 187th, so maybe, you might ask, it’s not odd that the pilots didn’t see him. The same thing crossed my mind, until I read what Mintz and Bishop said in response to Calhoun’s public statements:

“I’m not saying it wasn’t possible, but I can’t imagine Bill not introducing him around,” Mintz said. “Unless he was an introvert back then, which I don’t think he was, he’d have spent some time out in the mainstream, in the dining hall or wherever. He’d have spent some time with us. Unless he was trying to avoid publicity. But he wasn’t well known at all then. It all seems a bit unusual.”

Bishop was even more explicit. “I’m glad he remembered being with Lt. Bush and Lt. Bush’s eating sandwiches and looking at manuals. It seems a little strange that one man saw an individual, and all the rest of them did not. Because it was such a small organization. Usually, we all had lunch together.

“Maybe we’re all getting old and senile,” Bishop said with obvious sarcasm. “I don’t want to second-guess Mr. Calhoun’s memory and I would hate to impugn the integrity of a fellow officer, but I know the rest of us didn’t see Lt. Bush.” As Bishop (corroborated by Mintz) described the physical environment, the safety office where the meetings between Major Calhoun and Lt. Bush allegedly took place was on the second floor of the unit’s hangar, a relatively small structure itself... It was a very close-quarters situation “ It would have been “virtually impossible,” said Bishop, for an officer to go in and out of the safety office for eight hours a month several months in a row and be unseen by anybody except then Major Calhoun.”

So I would say your only real "witness" is seriously in question. No meat here. Your post was definatley just a souffle.


••••••••••footnotes:

(1) Yes,there were more than one, which makes anything Bush told these young women about his whereabout a bit suspect. “Holcombe, who ran the Blount campaign headquarters in Montgomery, said Bush was basically a nice, likable guy. "He was very well accepted by everyone in the campaign," Holcombe said. "In fact, he dated some of the girls in the campaign."

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1077963426278660.xml

(2) His coworkers there gave him the nickname “The Texas Souffle”, because he “looked good on the outside but didn't have much inside.” http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1077963426278660.xml

(3) The Allison’s – Bush family friends who were running the Blount campaign and who got G.W. his job there - were unaware he had any National Guard duties he should have been fulfilling: “Asked if she'd ever seen Bush in a uniform, Allison said: "Good lord, no. I had no idea that the National Guard was involved in his life in any way." Allison also confirmed previously published accounts that Bush often showed up in the Blount campaign offices around noon, boasting about how much alcohol he had consumed the night before.”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index.html

(4) From the Boston Globe story in 2000 which temporarily revived questions about Bush’s service. http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 1:54pm

So sorry, but all posts in a public forum like this are free to be responded to by anyone who would like to respond. You may, however,

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 8:01pm
I know next to nothing about fighter jets, but I looked some stuff up. (Although I feel this debate is getting far astray from the real point, which is that Kerry never actually voted against ANY of these systems, while Cheney, as Secrety of Defense definately was pushing to cut alot of programs to get the budget under control...I'm gonna start a new thread about that one though...)

You say that it's okay to vote against an antiquated weapon and bad to vote against a "modernized" one. You also say that Cheney voted against the F-14D (which is okay with you) while Kerry voted against the "modernized" F-14A (which is, in your eyes, wrong, since it's so modern.)

Anyone in the Air Force or Navy should pipe up on this one (please) but it seems that the F-14A is the original Tomcat, that was designed in the late 60's. It has since been modernized, mostly to correct some very bad engine problems (although they couldn't do as much as they hoped without a complete redesign) and to add high tech safety features. On the other hand, the F-14D (which Cheney wanted to end) is the newest, fastest, most "modern" - if you will - version of the F-14. It began production in '88.

From a website that has waay more info on F-14's than I want to know:

"The F-14D is the largest, fastest, and most powerful fighter aircraft in the United States military inventory. It is powered by two General Electric F110 engines which produce up to 30,200 pounds of thrust EACH at maximum afterburner on the deck at 0.9 Mach. These engines enable the F-14D to reach a top speed greater than Mach 2.0 or about 1 mile every 3 seconds. Their superior thrust and quick response also provide superb safety and control in the aircraft carrier landing environment. "


On the F-14A:

" the late 1970s the Defense Department experienced very substantial engine problems both with the F-14 with the TF-30 engine, and with the F-16 and the F-15 with F-100 engines. They were so serious that there was consideration given to developing new engines for the aircraft, which would have been an enormously difficult undertaking. It was decided instead to make upgrades and improvements in the engines. The engines in the later models of the F-14 are entirely adequate for the purpose. The engines in the F-14As have been improved so that they are also effective, although they are not the engine the Navy would have put in the airplane from the beginning if there had been a more powerful engine design then. In the mid-1990s one change that was made in the F-14 was the introduction of a Digital Flight Control System to the F-14 to prevent the pilot from making an unsafe or unauthorized maneuver, reducing the burden on the pilot to remember what cannot or should not be done under certain conditions. Funding for the new Digital Flight Control System -- about $80 million -- was obtained by reprogramming money in Fiscal 1996."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-variants.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-06-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 9:31pm
It's plagiarism when you copy someone's words and use them as your own - yes. But I point you again to the attributions at the end of the paragraphs. I certainly didn't put the tidbits out there as my own thoughts or words.

And wow, kudos for finding me out - I read! What a horrible thing for me to do. However, I also subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and read townhall.com - which means I must be right-wing, I suppose. But wait - there's more... I live in Manhattan and I kept my maiden name when I got married - left-wing, right? But what if I tell you I go to church every week (twice if you include my fellowship group) and that I grew up in Alabama? How about I toss in that I don't support the Equal Rights Amendment, Hillary for president or labor unions? Plus, I'm rich. Does that settle it all in your mind about where I belong on your "left-wing evil, right-wing perfect" spectrum? You might want to try reading something sometime that doesn't parse exactly with what you believe and not get angry about it. I find things in both right-wing and left-wing publications that I agree with and things I don't. And I don't mean to just pick on you about this - it's rampant on these boards and the Web in general. I originally came to ivillage to get advice on how to deal with problems my elderly golden retriever is having and just happened upon the political boards. What I've found here isn't encouraging. It's kind of a crazy place -- with these blanket statements and this weird tendency to cling to the belief that one side is absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong. Many good people who are Republicans have worked with John Kerry and co-sponsored bills with him, so I imagine they don't believe him to be the devil incarnate. And from all reports, Dick Cheney was well liked personally on both sides of the aisle when he was in Congress, so I think we can stop searching for his pitchfork too. (Again, focusing on Kerry and Cheney because they're the topic - not because I'm obsessed with Cheney).

I would love it if everyone who has picked a side would admit that there's at least one thing that her candidate believes in or does that she doesn't support. These people are human beings - no one's infallible and no one's pure evil (except an old boss I once had, but she's not running for office - thank goodness!). As much as people don't want to believe it, politics are complicated and politicians sometimes do things for political or personal expediency that might not play into the view we'd like to have of them. But luckily for us, we are free to read many different views of the same situation, dig beyond the propaganda that comes out of the campaign ads and Web sites and conventions, and find the candidate that we feel most comfortable supporting. And then we can go online and rake people over the coals for believing something different or even daring to point out that a blanket statement might have a few moth holes in it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 9:39pm
Hear, hear Alex!!!!! Great post, and I agree. Even though I'm a Kerry supporter, I would freely admit he isn't perfect, he wasn't my original choice (dh and I are/were Deaniacs), but like you said, he's the one I'm most comfortable with and who represents my views, issues and beliefs better than any of the other candidates. And you're right, no one is pure evil.........well, except maybe John Ashcroft----but that's for another post... ;-) (just kidding........sort of!)
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 12:56am
Renee,

I totally undestand if someone wants to write back to me with something other than hateful spew,I live in GA I know what a crazy person Zell is, Do you live in GA? have you ever stayed any length of time there?You can not base your total opinion of someone by reading the news, try living with the guy running your state, he is a raciest, he was supose to be in for civial rights but has barbacue with the good old boys of the KKK, he is a Homofobe, and he bases his deeds for a state on his christian beliefes, there is supose to be seperation of church and state but not in the good old south, Don't get me wrong, i am a christian, and I love my state, but zell is a lier, and in the end he will be shown for what he tryly is, don't judge someone if you have never lived where they have or seen what they have,Also i hope my statment did not offend you, but i have seen other post and I think for a person that is a CL that you make personal attacks on people because their beliefs are not the same as yours.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 1:02am
my statement was not for you so why would you write that to me? Are you one of those people that have a problem with someone who has a diff opinion than you? do you know Zell well? do you live in Ga has his decisions affected you? His decisions have affected me and my family, so I believe that I have a right to say what I have said about him, he is a right wing nut job, that is a good ol boy that has good friend in the KKK, I guess that is something to be proud of huh? so please in the future if you have nothing educational or something to add leave me alone!I will not be run over by the REP on this board I have a right to my opinion just as you do!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 1:07am
You tried to pass this work off as your own. For that you get an *F* on your essay for plagiarism. If you wish to contest this decision, have your mother sue the school board.

Your huffing and puffing doesn't disguise anything. What you are speaks louder than what you say.

Pages