Russert did not mention statement from Salmon Press co-owner regarding Clinton's comments on Reagan
SUMMARY: On Meet the Press, Tim Russert asserted: "[T]he Salmon Press in New Hampshire, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, cited as one of the reasons, that when they talked to her in the interview, she listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents." However, neither Russert nor his guests noted a January 18 statement from the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that."
On the January 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asserted: "[T]he Salmon Press in New Hampshire, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, cited as one of the reasons, that when they talked to her in the interview, she listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents." Russert was referring to a December 12, 2007, Salmon Press editorial, which stated that Clinton's "list of favorite presidents -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan -- demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list." However, neither Russert nor his guests -- former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and National Public Radio host Michele Norris -- noted a January 18 statement from David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that."
From Cutler's statement, featured on Clinton's website:
The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.
From the January 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Interestingly enough, the Salmon Press in New Hampshire, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, cited as one of the reasons that, when they talked to her in the interview, she listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.
A high school journalist would have called Salmon Press to fact check to make sure their article was correct. Apparently Russert doesn't have the skills of a high school journalist.
Either that, or Russert knew the truth and lied anyway.
Another shark is jumped. A small shark I suppose.
This is not what I would call a sincere compliment on the part of Mr. Russert.
I am seriously stupid and battleship, Uh! Batshit crazy...WTF am I crying about?...
I'm crying cause All my post are so moronic. And... I'm sooo desperate and needy too! I can't seem to get no F-ing respect here. What wrong with You People?
- THE STRANGER / Sunday January 20, 2008 7:14:22 PM EST
I decided to hold a mirror up to your post so you can take a good look at how ugly it is. I hope you will begin to make your comments more respectable Strange One.
If I was a Conservative I would pay you the big bucks to clean up your act. But I'm a non-partison and glad that you're here to display how horribly ugly your side can be.
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.
..but she did say that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents and his communication skill was the reason...
...seriously...you people are batshit crazy...and stupid...WTF are you crying about?...
This whole post is moronic. Are you peolple that needy?
“.but she did say that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents and his communication skill was the reason...”……............…….you people are batshit crazy...and stupid...WTF are you crying about?.”--S
The point of the article is that the five writers and journalists were either too unprofessional or too biased to say the paper has since stated that they made a mistake, that she in fact did not say he is one of her favorites.
Stranger
I agree. Talk about splitting hairs. She said what she said. Must be a slow news day to attack Russert for that!!!!!!
I admire the way in which the Stranger plugs along regardless of the veracity of his posts. But I do do not admire the Stranger for using profanity and posting bull crap, horse hockey and cow pies (have to keep up the scatological references).
I admired the relationship that Reagan had to Nancy, but that's it. Had to love that drugs for arms deal though. Did Clinton do anything even close to that level of mischief? Do Democrats in general do anything close to the breathtaking stunts pulled by Republicans? You do have to admire their cojones.
I admire the way in which the Stranger plugs along regardless of the veracity of his posts
Interesting tactic on your part JJ. Give examples. It's like the claims against the Swift Boaters...the leftist niwits keep saying the Swifties were liars...but they can't give any examples.
BTW, John Kerry, the self-avowed war criminal, still hasn't responded to T. Boone Pickens offer to give $1 million to the charity of Kerry's choice if he can show one instance of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth not actually telling the truth
Yeah he has, you idiot, but Pickens keeps moving the bar and is clearly not at all interested in actually living up to his promise, never expecting that Kerry could prove a negative. Way to keep up with current events.
Jesus, I forgot for a moment who I was talking to. I should be congratulating you for taking your finger out of your nose long enough to turn your mom's computer on.
Moving the bar? All he has to do is come up with proof that the Swifties lied. He says he can. So why doesn't he just do it?
My guess is that he tried to pull one out of that magic hat of his.
Just think...ih he actually is able to come up with a lie by the Swifties...it would be seared...seared into his memory.
Get someone to read FirstRepublic's reply to you. Not that it will do any good- morons like you are immune to facts when they get in the way of your fantasies.
Get someone to read FirstRepublic's reply to you. Not that it will do any good- morons like you are immune to facts when they get in the way of your fantasies.
I have. It's nothing more than a rehash of the same old lies.
1st Republic gets a little wordy in his posts. Maybe that's what confuses you.
I typed too fast, didn't I? It's pretty hard lowering myself to your level. I'm looking for a cartoon that rebutts your phony claim now. But I'm not surprised, like I said up front, it was far beyond your reading comprehension...
The press release did not say Reagan was her favorite President, only one of her favorites. That press release has been on Hillary's website and still is, since 12/12/07. If Hillary had a problem with any of it why didn't she ask for a correction immediately?
Tim Russert did not say Hillary listed Reagan as her favorite President, just one of her favorites.
Do you think the sudden need to clarify all of this has anything to do with the Clintons jumping all over Obama for his somewhat positive remarks of Reagan?
I do.
The timing is the key. Why now instead of last month when the press release first appeared on Hillary's website? Seems Hillary must know she'd be viewed as a hypocrite for being critical of Obama when she too had something positive to say about Reagan.
"that is a whole different issue than obama's praise of reagan, and his statement that republicans have been the "party of ideas" for the last 10 or 15 years."
I'm not too keen on what Obama did or is doing either. How could a Democrat praise Reagan and republicans without mentioning the destructive path they put us on?
i doubt that hillary sits there approving each and every thing that goes on the websites.
Of course she doesn't, BUT are you suggesting her staff doesn't??
, the issue now becomes what she actually said to the paper, not what someone wrote it down as claiming what she said.
Funny how that wasn't an issue till after she & Bill drilled Obama? Mmmm, maybe not funny at all. Again, the Clinton camp had no problem with the press release till after Hillary & Bill slammed Obama. TIMING IS EVERYTHING.
If someone in Hillary's camp had seen a problem with it, are you telling me it wouldn't have been brought to Hillary's attention? And your suggestion that they just saw "endorsement" & immediately linked it to their site without scouring & vetting every word is ridiculous. The Clintons & their staff are seasoned campaigners.
I think what happen here is once Bill & Hillary went after Obama & this press release made her appear to be a hypocrite, the Clintons went in to spin drive.
BTW, I'm pretty sure if the shoe was on the other foot & I tried to claim a Republican candidate & their staff were clueless about a press release you'd accept that. Nah. I don't think so.
And quite frankly I don't care if Hillary & Obama get into a fist fight about this. I'm just looking at it from a neutral perch.
My sweet Julia,
I don't believe I said Obama & Hillary were having a fist fight. I believe I said I didn't care if they did. Don't be putting words in my mouth....
One doesn't need to watch "pundit shows" to hear/read the barbs being traded back & forth between the two camps. It's real.
J2, please let me know, boxers or briefs. Ya know..... just so I know which are getting in a bunch once you take in all the pundit blather ;-0) You should have seen Jon's Stewarts show a few days ago when he played some of the over the top teasers from cable - about the WAR between the Dems, It was funny. They haven't used Armageddon yet, but I'm sure that is coming.
I kid, because I love. Bill Maher
Julia, you're sweet. I can just tell. You're feisty too. I like that :-)
As far as what you don't want me to "get in a bunch", well I'm not sure Mr. Brock would approve so I better only give you a tiny peek
http://www.gclooney.com/oos130.jpg
Sorry but anything more revealing might get us both banned ;-)
Now back to the topic...
I think the bickering between the two camps is real. Is it being blown out of proportion by the media? Probably. But what else is new?
I'm gonna go check out Jon's Stewarts website & see if I can find that War Between The Dems video...sounds like something I'd enjoy. Hehehe.
Julia,
I just watched the "Gloves Off" video over at Stewarts website, funny stuff, is that the one you were referring to?
BTW, I didn't get a chance to watch the Dem debate tonight, but I heard it got nasty between Clinton & Obama. Also I'd say things are heating up when Ted Kennedy & others are telling Bill to cool it, & Obama comes out & accuses Bill of lying.
I dunno Julia, I don't think the pundits are driving this story as much as the candidates & Dems are.
Nice pic! I'll just use my imagination then.
I didn't see the debate either. I was watching Oprah's MLK day special. It was good. Jon Stewart has a way of breaking things down to their essence. I really like him. Glad you enjoyed the bit.
They had no reason to clarify it because no one thought it would be an issue of contention. Now that it has, a clarification has been issued.
And I don't see anything wrong with the Clintons attacking Obama for his comments.
Obama's comment was that they were the party of ideas in "challenging the conventional wisdom". That's not policy, that's politics. It's about appealing to people outside the base, and so is Hillary's admiration of Reagan's communication skills.
It's hypocritical. Since she's praised Reagan without supporting his policies, she should recognize that Obama can do the same thing.
This is what he said. Hillary Clinton essentially said Reagan has great hair or good teeth.
And where does Obama talk about his policies? He's talking about his appeal, how he tapped into the national mood. Again, that's politics, not policy. Hillary said that he was one of the Presidents she admired most, which goes a little bit beyond hair or teeth. Wouldn't you agree?
And where does Obama talk about his policies? He's talking about his appeal, how he tapped into the national mood. Again, that's politics, not policy.
It sounded to me like he was happy with the direction Reagan put us on. His lack of mentioning Reagan's distructive policies is what sealed the deal for me.
Hillary said that he was one of the Presidents she admired most, which goes a little bit beyond hair or teeth. Wouldn't you agree?
She said he was a good communicator which is like saying you have great hair.
"It sounded to me like he was happy with the direction Reagan put us on. His lack of mentioning Reagan's distructive policies is what sealed the deal for me."
So "new trajectory" means "good direction"? That doesn't follow. Reagan can take advantage of the national mood and have destructive effects at the same time.
"She said he was a good communicator which is like saying you have great hair."
It's something superficial, but which has an effect on someone's vote, is that right? Just like talking about Reagan's crossover appeal. Tell me, why is it not a dealbreaker for you that Hillary didn't say "He was a great communicator, but everything he said was wrong"?
Look, Obama wants to appeal to moderate Republicans just like Hillary does. For that purpose, he's making limited praise for him...just like Hillary did.
So "new trajectory" means "good direction"? That doesn't follow. Reagan can take advantage of the national mood and have destructive effects at the same time.
By not mentioning the destructive effects, it was praise.
It's something superficial, but which has an effect on someone's vote, is that right?
It wouldn't have an effect on my vote; I'm looking at policy.
Tell me, why is it not a dealbreaker for you that Hillary didn't say "He was a great communicator, but everything he said was wrong"?
That's like saying Reagan has good hair but that hair is attach to an evil man.
And I didn't say what Obama said is a deal breaker. I'm saying Hillary has every right to criticize him for what he said.
Look, Obama wants to appeal to moderate Republicans just like Hillary does. For that purpose, he's making limited praise for him...just like Hillary did.
I don't see the equivalence.
"By not mentioning the destructive effects, it was praise."
So why is it that when Hillary lists Reagan as one of her most admired without mentioning the destructive effects, that's not praise?
"It wouldn't have an effect on my vote; I'm looking at policy."
Meaning the general public's vote. A lot of people don't look at policy as much as they should.
"That's like saying Reagan has good hair but that hair is attach to an evil man...And I didn't say what Obama said is a deal breaker. I'm saying Hillary has every right to criticize him for what he said."
I really don't know what your fixation with hair is all about. By your same logic, you could say that Obama mentioning the destructive effects of his policies would be like saying that Reagan was a skilled politician, but was an evil man.
"I don't see the equivalence."
But "hair" and "communication skills" are exactly the same thing, and "wrong" and "evil" are identical in meaning. Neither one of them said anything about Reagan's policies. If you want to infer that a lack of explicit criticism of policy is an endorsement on Obama's part, then it's an endorsement from Hillary as well.
So why is it that when Hillary lists Reagan as one of her most admired without mentioning the destructive effects, that's not praise?
The admiration was for his communication skills.
Meaning the general public's vote. A lot of people don't look at policy as much as they should.
Who votes based on communication skills?
I really don't know what your fixation with hair is all about. By your same logic, you could say that Obama mentioning the destructive effects of his policies would be like saying that Reagan was a skilled politician, but was an evil man.
He praises Reagan and is somewhat fond of the direction he put us on.
But "hair" and "communication skills" are exactly the same thing
Saying someone has great communication skills is like saying you have great hair or you have great teeth or you have a firm handshake - things of that nature.
and "wrong" and "evil" are identical in meaning.
Alright, I'll change it to "That's like saying Reagan has good hair but that hair is attach to a man with destructive policies".
Neither one of them said anything about Reagan's policies.
Obama needed to say something; Clinton didn't.
If you want to infer that a lack of explicit criticism of policy is an endorsement on Obama's part, then it's an endorsement from Hillary as well.
There's no equivalence between what Obama said and what Clinton said.
"The admiration was for his communication skills."
And Obama's comment was about crossover appeal. Neither has anything to do with policy.
"Who votes based on communication skills?"
Are you serious? Being a good speaker doesn't have any effect on votes?
"He praises Reagan and is somewhat fond of the direction he put us on."
Wild assumption. You have no basis for concluding anything about his opinion of Reagan's direction, outside of his choice not to alienate Reagan Democrats.
"Saying someone has great communication skills is like saying you have great hair or you have great teeth or you have a firm handshake - things of that nature."
And saying someone is a good politician who takes advantage of circumstances is of the same nature. It's superficial, about getting votes.
"Obama needed to say something; Clinton didn't."
Why? As has been pointed out, the "favorite presidents" line is on Clinton's official website. If Hillary thinks that Reagan had destructive policies, then why didn't someone point that out to her? That put her in a position where she needed to clarify that she was no fan of Reagan's destructive policies.
"There's no equivalence between what Obama said and what Clinton said."
So far that is a baseless assertion.
And Obama's comment was about crossover appeal. Neither has anything to do with policy.
He gave the impression that he was fond of the direction Reagan put us on and he was justly attacked by both Clinton and Edwards.
Are you serious? Being a good speaker doesn't have any effect on votes?
Who votes based on communication skills. I don't know anyone who does that. Communication skills can only get a politician so far. And if you don't have the policy to back it up then you're toast.
Wild assumption. You have no basis for concluding anything about his opinion of Reagan's direction, outside of his choice not to alienate Reagan Democrats.
That's the impression he left with a lot of people - Democrats and republicans alike.
And saying someone is a good politician who takes advantage of circumstances is of the same nature. It's superficial, about getting votes.
And saying someone is a good politician who takes advantage of circumstances is of the same nature. It's superficial, about getting votes.
He left the impression that Ronald Reagan was somehow a hero.
Why? As has been pointed out, the "favorite presidents" line is on Clinton's official website.
Didn't you read the MMFA article? That has been clarified.
If Hillary thinks that Reagan had destructive policies, then why didn't someone point that out to her?
You're basing this on a false premise. Read the MMFA article.
That put her in a position where she needed to clarify that she was no fan of Reagan's destructive policies.
The article contains false information (unless you have evidence to the contrary).
So far that is a baseless assertion.
Likewise your assertion is baseless.
"He left the impression that Ronald Reagan was somehow a hero."
Not to me. I understood what he meant on the first try. His clarification is consistent with his original comments.
"Didn't you read the MMFA article? That has been clarified...You're basing this on a false premise. Read the MMFA article."
I did, and I have no idea what you think is in the article to change what I'm saying. Why is it nobody brought it up at the time? What false premise?
"The article contains false information (unless you have evidence to the contrary)."
So because it's false, it didn't have to be clarified? It didn't leave the impression that she had a generally favorable view of Reagan? I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
"Likewise your assertion is baseless."
What assertion?
Not to me. I understood what he meant on the first try. His clarification is consistent with his original comments.
He said Reagan restored "clarity...optimism...[a] sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing" from the 60s and 70s.
"Didn't you read the MMFA article? That has been clarified...You're basing this on a false premise. Read the MMFA article."
Did you see the part where it says she says she admired his communition skills?
So because it's false, it didn't have to be clarified? It didn't leave the impression that she had a generally favorable view of Reagan? I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
Yes, the false information in the article left the impression that she had a favorable view of Reagan.
What assertion?
You tried to claim some false equivalence in the statements by Obama and Clinton and how Clinton's attacks were hypocritical.
"He said Reagan restored "clarity...optimism...[a] sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing" from the 60s and 70s."
And he did. A "sense" of something doesn't mean that it's warranted.
"Did you see the part where it says she says she admired his communition skills?"
Yes, and...? Did you see the editorial where it didn't explain that?
"Yes, the false information in the article left the impression that she had a favorable view of Reagan."
Now we're making progress. So why is it that Clinton is under no obligation to clarify that?
"You tried to claim some false equivalence in the statements by Obama and Clinton and how Clinton's attacks were hypocritical."
The basis for that is that his commentary does not praise Reagan's performance. Reading more into it than what is actually there does not change the reality of what was said.
And he did. A "sense" of something doesn't mean that it's warranted.
If you say something like that without bashing his policies, you're gonna get attacked.
Yes, and...? Did you see the editorial where it didn't explain that?
Of course I did and like any sensible person I read the clarification at MMFA where it says the information was false.
Now we're making progress. So why is it that Clinton is under no obligation to clarify that?
It's already been clarified. We now know that the article contains false information.
The basis for that is that his commentary does not praise Reagan's performance. Reading more into it than what is actually there does not change the reality of what was said.
He does praise him for restoring the wrongs (whatever they were) of the 60s and 70s.
"If you say something like that without bashing his policies, you're gonna get attacked."
Did Obama's camp jump on Hillary for the endorsement in December? If they did, then I'd criticize them for that as well.
"Of course I did and like any sensible person I read the clarification at MMFA where it says the information was false."
I read the article just fine. You seem to be pretending that because the information was false that people knew that while reading it, even though Hillary's camp never made any effort to correct it.
"It's already been clarified. We now know that the article contains false information."
You said that Obama had to clarify, but Hillary didn't. Remember? Why was she under no obligation, again?
"He does praise him for restoring the wrongs (whatever they were) of the 60s and 70s."
He didn't say there were any actual wrongs, nor does he praise Reagan for restoring anything. All he said was that's the mood he played on.
Did Obama's camp jump on Hillary for the endorsement in December? If they did, then I'd criticize them for that as well.
Maybe the reason why he didn't jump on it is that Reagan is one of favorite presidents?
I read the article just fine. You seem to be pretending that because the information was false that people knew that while reading it, even though Hillary's camp never made any effort to correct it.
But you understand that it has been clarified now?
You said that Obama had to clarify, but Hillary didn't. Remember? Why was she under no obligation, again?
I didn't say he had to clarify anything. His words speak for themself.
What clarification would Hillary need?
He didn't say there were any actual wrongs, nor does he praise Reagan for restoring anything. All he said was that's the mood he played on.
He said there were excesses in the 60s and 70s and that it was the era of big government and little accountability and Reagan changed this.
"Maybe the reason why he didn't jump on it is that Reagan is one of favorite presidents?"
Outside of being ridiculous speculation, so what? Whether he agreed with it or not has nothing to do with whether he would criticize Hillary for it. You said that you would get attacked for making such praise, period.
"But you understand that it has been clarified now?"
I've always understood that. It's never been relevant.
"I didn't say he had to clarify anything. His words speak for themself."
Obama needed to say something; Clinton didn't.
"What clarification would Hillary need?"
That Reagan wasn't one of her favorite presidents, since he is the antithesis of what most Democrats believe. She could have had a simple statement at the bottom of the endorsement.
"He said there were excesses in the 60s and 70s and that it was the era of big government and little accountability and Reagan changed this."
He said he thought that's what people thought. Further, where did he say Reagan "changed" anything outside of national mood?
You said that you would get attacked for making such praise, period.
Alright, let me clarify: it would be just if someone attacked you for it.
Who knew what was said in the article before some people wanted to call her a hypocrite?
Obama needed to say something; Clinton didn't.
Obama needed to say something about Reagan's destructive policies when he was praising him. He can't do anything about it now.
That Reagan wasn't one of her favorite presidents, since he is the antithesis of what most Democrats believe. She could have had a simple statement at the bottom of the endorsement.
But she didn't say he was one of her favorite presidents.
He said he thought that's what people thought.
He says this is how he and other people felt. Read it again.
"Alright, let me clarify: it would be just if someone attacked you for it. Who knew what was said in the article before some people wanted to call her a hypocrite?"
Then it would have been just for Obama to jump on Hillary for it. We don't know specifically who knew it, but it's her official site, someone who is control of it can reach her, I'm quite sure.
"Obama needed to say something about Reagan's destructive policies when he was praising him. He can't do anything about it now."
So there's nothing that he can do to make you understand that he wasn't praising Reagan's policies, even though he didn't praise Reagan's policies? How open-minded of you. Maybe he didn't think he had to clarify it until someone made a big deal about it, the same way you say Hillary didn't have to do anything about the misrepresentation of her on her own website.
"But she didn't say he was one of her favorite presidents."
This is as bizarre an argument as I've seen from any right-wing troll. The correction would exist on the website so that people would know that she didn't actually say that. What difficulty are you having with this concept?
"He says this is how he and other people felt. Read it again."
I did. Where did he say that?
Then it would have been just for Obama to jump on Hillary for it.
Of course. And she could have said the information presented in the article is false.
We don't know specifically who knew it, but it's her official site, someone who is control of it can reach her, I'm quite sure.
All they were looking at is the endorsement.
So there's nothing that he can do to make you understand that he wasn't praising Reagan's policies, even though he didn't praise Reagan's policies
He praised Reagan and the direction he put us on. Short of him saying a Reagan supporter put him under hypnosis, I don't know how he could clear this up.
Maybe he didn't think he had to clarify it until someone made a big deal about it, the same way you say Hillary didn't have to do anything about the misrepresentation of her on her own website.
They we looking at the endorsement. If the Hillary campaign was trying to relay the message that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents, they did a piss-poor job. I didn't know about it until people wanted to call her a hypocrite and none of the blogs I visit ever mentioned it. Maybe she was doing it secretly?
The correction would exist on the website so that people would know that she didn't actually say that. What difficulty are you having with this concept?
They endorsement is what matter. Again, if they were trying to leave the impression that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents, they did a piss poor job.
I did. Where did he say that?
"Of course. And she could have said the information presented in the article is false."
But earlier you said she didn't have to clarify anything, because she was talking about something like his hair. If she could be justly attacked for something, then obviously she needed to clarify it. Or is she not accountable for her own campaign?
"All they were looking at is the endorsement."
The misinformation was in the endorsement. Nobody read it at all, really?
"He praised Reagan and the direction he put us on. Short of him saying a Reagan supporter put him under hypnosis, I don't know how he could clear this up."
He did no such thing. That's your interpretation, which is your opinion. For most people, a clarification should alter the perception, considering it was ambiguous at worst.
"They we looking at the endorsement. If the Hillary campaign was trying to relay the message that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents, they did a piss-poor job. I didn't know about it until people wanted to call her a hypocrite and none of the blogs I visit ever mentioned it. Maybe she was doing it secretly?"
I really have no idea what your point is here. So they didn't advertise it. So what? If Reagan is such poison to Democratic candidates, then she shouldn't have mentioned his name at all. Just because nobody slammed her for it at the time doesn't change the fact that she said it.
"They endorsement is what matter. Again, if they were trying to leave the impression that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents, they did a piss poor job."
Again, I'm not saying she was advertising it. She could still put a comment on her own webpage about it.
As for the Obama quote, where does he say anything about himself? "...He just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity..." The "we want clarity" and all of that is what he's attributing to "people". If he was including himself in that, then it would be "...WE felt with all the excesses...he just tapped into what WE were feeling...". The transcription should actually put quotes around part of this, starting with "we want clarity...".
"He gave the impression that he was fond of the direction Reagan put us on and he was justly attacked by both Clinton and Edwards."
Sorry, but you're not seriously using the attacks by his political rivals as evidence that those attacks have merit, are you? Give me a break. Taking a lack of criticism about something and claiming that to mean praise is not reasonable.
"Who votes based on communication skills. I don't know anyone who does that. Communication skills can only get a politician so far. And if you don't have the policy to back it up then you're toast."
And that's why Reagan, who sounded good when he talked but made hundreds of misstatements, and whose policies were a disaster, was voted out of office in 84 and is still a major embarrassment to his party. Oh, wait, that's not what happened. How did Reagan "back it up" with his policy, which was so terrible?
"That's the impression he left with a lot of people - Democrats and republicans alike."
Who have a stake in hurting Obama's campaign, from all I've seen. A few seconds worth of thought should make anyone realize he didn't say anything positive about Reagan's policies.
Sorry, but you're not seriously using the attacks by his political rivals as evidence that those attacks have merit, are you? Give me a break. Taking a lack of criticism about something and claiming that to mean praise is not reasonable.
I'm using that as evidence of anything. I said the justly attacked him for praising Reagan.
And that's why Reagan, who sounded good when he talked but made hundreds of misstatements, and whose policies were a disaster, was voted out of office in 84 and is still a major embarrassment to his party. Oh, wait, that's not what happened. How did Reagan "back it up" with his policy, which was so terrible?
A lot of people didn't find his policies so terrible and Obama seems to be one of them.
Who have a stake in hurting Obama's campaign, from all I've seen. A few seconds worth of thought should make anyone realize he didn't say anything positive about Reagan's policies.
I actually think Obama was trying to appeal to republicans with his praise for Reagan.
"A lot of people didn't find his policies so terrible and Obama seems to be one of them."
"I actually think Obama was trying to appeal to republicans with his praise for Reagan."
If that was Obama's purpose, then how can you possibly read any sort of approval beyond that? You have the motivation for the comments right there, yet you feel the need to read beyond that. Why?
If that was Obama's purpose, then how can you possibly read any sort of approval beyond that? You have the motivation for the comments right there, yet you feel the need to read beyond that. Why?
It was a very stupid reason to praise Reagan [if that's why he did it] and he should be attacked for it.
Attack? No matter what Obama's reasons where, why should he be attacked for saying what he sees as the truth? How ridiculous, typical Clintonian methods, no wonder you're defending her so vigorously here.
Attack? No matter what Obama's reasons where, why should he be attacked for saying what he sees as the truth?
He's running for the Democratic nomination. Reagan is the antithesis of what most Democrats stand for. Therefore he's going to get attack. Likewise, if someone on the republican side praised [Bill] Clinton I'm sure he would be attacked.
And how did you get into this anyway? Go argue with Jeter.
Why should he be attacked at all for speaking his mind and offering his personal opinion?
Why do you care?
In other words, why do I care about anything that is not in direct line with some ideology or political affiliation on my part? As I said, never mind.
No. Simply why do you care?
Tommy, how dare you give your opinion on an opinion forum!
Loonz is too funny, or....
He can give his opinion - there's space at the end.
Then it was stupid for Hillary to leave that endorsement on her site without any clarification. Did her staffers really think that Reagan is popular with Democrats, or what?
Welcome to politics. Both of them want to play to moderate Republicans, but don't want to alienate Democrats by praising anything specific or substantive to policy.
Then it was stupid for Hillary to leave that endorsement on her site without any clarification. Did her staffers really think that Reagan is popular with Democrats, or what?
Yeah it was stupid but we now know the information was false. The paper endorsed her and that's what these candidates running for president are looking for -what was said was about Reagan was irrelevant to that until the attacks came, Clinton then issued a clarification.
So what if the information was false? People didn't know that when they read it. Listen, if you're going to play up how awful Reagan was (and believe me I agree with you), then take a look at what Hillary actually did. The question was about whose pictures she would hang up on the wall, who she most admired. Why could she not be "justly attacked" for that, no matter how she qualified it? Why would she want the antithesis of what most Democrats believe up on her wall? You would think that the "whose picture would you put up" question would have put Reagan squarely out of her mind for any sort of praise.
Brab I give you credit for trying to get through to Loonz. I simply don't have the patience to deal with someone so closed-minded.
BTW, you did an excellent job all the way around.
Give me a break. I've agreed with any number of items that talked about misinformation about Hillary and about Obama as well. In fact, I agree that Russert should have been more accurate in what he said.
All we're saying is that Dems play politics, just like anyone else, and they can be hypocrites too. It enhances our credibility to recognize that, I think.
So what if the information was false? People didn't know that when they read it. Listen, if you're going to play up how awful Reagan was (and believe me I agree with you), then take a look at what Hillary actually did.
Who actually read it? If anyone knew about the contents of the article other than another paper endorsing Hillary she probably would have been it. If she would have played it up, I would have attacked her.
That should be:
"she probably would have been [attacked for] it"
Holy cow. So now the fact that she wasn't attacked just means that nobody knew about the endorsement?
So if you would have attacked her if she "played it up", then how are you denying the hypocrisy? Did Obama take out a national ad about this, or did he just make a comment to a newspaper?
On the Hillary site, it said that the Obama campaign was circulating the endorsement. Obviously either someone there knew about it, or just happened to find it immediately after Hillary attacked Obama. Which is more likely?
Holy cow. So now the fact that she wasn't attacked just means that nobody knew about the endorsement?
Alright, since you seem to know, tell me.
So if you would have attacked her if she "played it up", then how are you denying the hypocrisy?
If anyone had mentioned it, I would have attacked her and the left blogosphere would have attacked her.
Did Obama take out a national ad about this, or did he just make a comment to a newspaper?
It was all over the left wing blogosphere and that's how I found out about it.
Which is more likely?
Take your best guest. Apparently they're the only ones who knew about it.
"Alright, since you seem to know, tell me."
I'm not saying I know. I'm saying it's not evidence that people didn't know about it but chose not to attack her over it.
"If anyone had mentioned it, I would have attacked her and the left blogosphere would have attacked her."
Then if she could have been criticized, she doesn't have any grounds to criticize Obama.
"It was all over the left wing blogosphere and that's how I found out about it."
So Obama didn't publicize it either. So how is it relevant that Hillary didn't publicize her own comments? What difference does it make?
"Take your best guest. Apparently they're the only ones who knew about it."
My guess is that they figured she didn't really mean it and so it wouldn't be an effective maneuver. But when she attacks Obama, then of course they're going to then point it out to show the hypocrisy.
I guess I'm scratching my head a little bit trying to figure out why Hillary's comment about Reagan would be perceived to be such a terrible thing. Reagan's legacy has stood up pretty well with the general population, he won 49 states in his re-election bid in 1984 and I think he was overall pretty popular. This list from Wikipedia puts him 15th all time, ahead of any other president in the past 40 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/performance.asp
http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5079
Every poll I have looked at puts Reagan in the top 15 and some put him in the top 10 that I didn't link here. He finishes ahead of every President since 1970 consistently. If Obama or Clinton acknowledge that they are only mirroring public opinion.
That third link looks like a very right-wing link so that one is meaningless. I didn't catch that the first time through.
The press release did not say Reagan was her favorite President, only one of her favorites. That press release has been on Hillary's website and still is, since 12/12/07. If Hillary had a problem with any of it why didn't she ask for a correction immediately?
On her website it says:
It was a question of admiration and she said she admired Reagan's communication skills. I don't remember too much of Reagan's presidency (I'm too young) but I heard he was a great communicator even though what he communicated was garbage.
Loonz,
You're missing the larger point:
If Hillary had a problem with any of it why didn't she ask for a correction immediately? Like back on Dec 12, 2007...
Whether Russert had included the Jan.18th statement from the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that." wouldn't have changed the fact that no one, not Hillary or anyone from her camp had a problem with the original press release until AFTER Hillary & Bill were critical of Obama.
Sorry, but this sudden need to clarify what's been on her website for over a month smells just a tad fishy to me.
But believe whatever you'd like.
If Hillary had a problem with any of it why didn't she ask for a correction immediately? Like back on Dec 12, 2007...
Why didn't Russert mention this on Dec 12, 2007? If he had done that, she would have cleared it then. Anyway, it has been clarified now. It was a question of admiration and you're trying to spin it into something else.
So now this is Russert's fault?
Good grief, I've heard everything now...
So you believe Russert should have brought up the press release from 12/12/07 back when it first appeared on Hillary's website & gone after Hillary for mentioning Reagan? And because he didn't this is all Russert's fault? I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion...
BTW she also named Bush One.
Ok then ::eye roll::
So you believe Russert should have brought up the press release from 12/12/07 back when it first appeared on Hillary's website & gone after Hillary for mentioning Reagan?
Yeah, it's been on her website for more than month. Why go after her now?
And because he didn't this is all Russert's fault? I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion..
So you're defending Russert's presentation of false information? I thought you were one of the good right-wingers.
BTW she also named Bush One.
I would say Bush has been one of the most effective presidents (in terms of getting what he wants) in our history even though I considered him the worst president in our history and a war criminal.
again you are assuming she knew what was on there, and personally vetted each article. to me it just looks like one of those situations where someone just pastes something like an endorsement. if you look at this link, there were five press releases that day and a dozen the day after. not to mention links to video and speeches. this is all in the middle of constant campaigning in iowa. since there is no direct quote of what she said, you have to go with what the editor said she said. on the other hand, you have obama's direct quotes about reagan and republicans.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/archive/
I already addressed this in a post above
- jeter2 / Monday January 21, 2008 11:51:22 AM EST
Hey Jeter, being a Federal Employee I have the day off so I've been listening to the greatest radio show out there which is the Ed Schultz show on Air America radio. Here's what I learned today and why this is the greatest show on the radio:
Ed Schultz proclaimed Bill Clinton to be "the Carl Rove of the Democratic Party" (What would MMFA do with that had a conservative said it?)
Jonathon Alter was a guest and said that Bill Clintons attacks against Obama were "unprecedented in American politics".
Paul Begala came on the program and defended the Clintons, slamming Obama for his Reagan comments saying no Democrat should be praising Ronald Reagan.
A caller said that Bush and Codaleeza Rice were definitely having an affair. It's common knowledge.
But the best moment of the show was when a caller said that if Obama's spouse were married to Clinton's spouse, Bill would need to get ahold of John Bobbit's doctor.
Now that's entertainment.
What would MMFA do with that had a conservative said it?
Bruce, I'd send all that info to MMFA Tips and see what they do with it. I'd guess ignore it Haha!
According to what many here claim MMFA allegedly will highlight even a Democrat/Liberal if they write or utter the enemy line.
I gotta check out Shultz's program. I've gotta figure AirAmerica must be available on some Boston station.
I probably should! The hilarious thing about all of this is that the Obama/Clinton camps are really going after each other with the gloves off and this site continues to try to blame the media for it while ignoring what the candidates or surrogates are saying. And then they interpret what the candidates actually meant for me. Well, thanks. I wonder how they will interpret Obama's comments from today???
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1
Hello McFly?
the little bonmot that you just posted calling Kerry a self avowed war criminal
Do you ever...ever read or watch news? How the hell did you ever miss this one?
Meet the Press, 5/6/01, John Kerry said, in an audio tape Tim Russert played from April of 1971, "yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."
Guess you ignored your own posting, in which Kerry states he was "instructed to do these things. Bet you've never been in combat, have you? Never had to obey orders from superiors, then questioned them and spoke up.
Don't think you'd measure up. You'd rather try to bear false witness and try to take someone else down. Still racking up the bad karma.
I suggest that you go here. Here. Here. And here.
I suggest also that you go here and review John Kerry's performance appraisals. ALL of them indicate that he was a dedicated officer with sound judgment, maturity beyond his years, physical, mental and emotional courage, and a willingness to always place the needs of his subordinates above his own. In short, you couldn't ask for a better officer.
Why hasn't Boone Pickens paid the million dollars for disproving a So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claim? One word. Calvinball.
Rule 1.2. Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game (Figure 1.2)...Here's the deal: Pickens said he'd pay a million dollars to anyone who could disprove even one So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claim. Kerry accepted. Pickens then changed the rules -- he gets to decide where to send the million, and to collect Kerry has to meet a set of preconditions that didn't exist when the original challenge was issued. Do you doubt that if Kerry overcame every obstacle that Pickens laid down, Pickens would simply lay down more? Like I said, Ccalvinball.
John Kerry performed admirably in Vietnam in a dangerous, demanding assignment for which he volunteered. Pickens and others of his ilk spent millions to ruin that reputation for the most crass of reasons. But the documentary record and the eyewitness accounts are clear. Kerry was an honorable combat leader who performed effectively and was admired by superiors, peers and subordinates alike. Now that I have provided you clear, unassailable FACTS, if you again claim the So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have not been disproved, I'll no alternative but to conclude that you're a liar.
Interesting...none of the links you provide show the Swifties lied..I'm shocked!
Oh...and about that bet, Pickens through the offer out to pay anyone $1 million to prove the Swifties lied. The idiot Kerry decided to jump into himself. The thing is...Pickens actually wants proof. Imagine that.
Kerry had said all along that the truth is in his military records. So, of course, Pickens said...OK...let's see that proof you self-avowed war criminal you...release your records and settle it all..
...you can guess what happened...the self-avowed war criminal crawled back into his hole...all warm and safe and cozy in his little nest of lies..
I knew it was a waste of time for FirstRepublic to reply to you; you actually have to be able to READ to understand the links. It's obvious to me though that you didnt even bother to go to them.
Hey The Stranger, I think you are a serial pedophile. I'll give you a million dollars if you can prove me wrong. Start now.
It's obvious to me though that you didnt even bother to go to them.
Sure I did. The first link was to a site that was nothing but a link to other sites repeating the same lies that had already been debunked.
The second was to that discredited article by Rood,.who was forced to conced he had his "facts' wrong when challenged.
The third was by Rassman, who technically was pulled into the boat by Kerry, but not as he described. There was no gunfire. being scared shitless, Kerry had actually ran off left Rassman in the water at first. he didn't come back until he knew it was perfectly safe.
Every other account ...and there are dozens...blow his story out of the water.
the fourth link was an article by some guy named Sanders who tried to set up a ridiculous strawman argument about the Silver Star that Kerry got but didn't deserve according to his commanding officers.
The third was by Rassman, who technically was pulled into the boat by Kerry, but not as he described. There was no gunfire. being scared shitless, Kerry had actually ran off left Rassman in the water at first. he didn't come back until he knew it was perfectly safe.
Every other account ...and there are dozens...blow his story out of the water.
I'm gonna conclude they're all liars. This all should have been dealt with 20 to 25 years ago, not in 2004.
Stranger:
Do you understand what a straw man argument IS? Please examine the claims of "truth" from the Swift Boaters and re-examine "straw man." If you are incapable of accepting that a group that has admitted their own dishonesty (the Swift Boaters) is dishonest, then everything you say is essentially meaningless.
Kerry was an honorable combat leader who performed effectively and was admired by superiors, peers and subordinates alike.
Anyone have a clue bat? Who do you think John O'Neill and the Swift Boaters are?
Riiiight...now you're getting it...they're his superiors, peers and subordinates..
...amazing
Kerry is nothing but a punk who was afforded opportunity by a rich aunt who had to donate heavily to get him into prep school and college...where he was a D student .
He built a political career on the backs of the men and women who served honorably. He has been in the Senate for nearly two and a half decades and hasn't done shit.
He was actually in meetings where there were plans discussed to assasinate US senators. That alone should have him rotting in prison
God what a hopeless loser you are. I hope this is fun for you. There's a special ring of hell reserved for those who smear the honorable service of Patriots. Send me a postcard from there when you arrive.
You are the poster child for why women should NOT drink while pregnant.
By the way, 1stRepublic is a three-decade veteran of the Armed Forces. Watching the likes of you attempt to argue with him has been truly funny. And seriously, you aren't worthy to carry John Kerry's jockstrap.
There's a special ring of hell reserved for those who smear the honorable service of Patriots
What's this have to do with Kerry?
Watching the likes of you attempt to argue with him has been truly funny.
Don't make too much fun of 1st Republic. He is trying...ya gotta give him that.
Oh, look, somone let the kid out of the cradle again! As childish as you are, I'm sure this piece of garbage is right in line with your way of thinking...
He was actually in meetings where there were plans discussed to assasinate US senators.
Where did you get that manufactured "fact" from - red state, or mein kampf?
He was actually in meetings where there were plans discussed to assasinate US senators.
Where did you get that manufactured "fact" from - red state, or mein kampf?
Are you really saying that you've never heard this...or are you lying about not knowing this?
Go ahead and Google it.
Back in 1971 Kerry...who was one of the leaders of the VVAW...was invloved in a discussion, during a meeting of the VVAW in Kansas City,about assasinating US Senators John Stennis, John Tower and Strom Thurmond. It was called The Phoenix project.
When this was uncovered several years later, Kerry lied and said he wasn't there. However, dozens who were there came forward and said...yep, the self-avowed war criminal John Kerry indeed was there...and participated in the discussion to assasinate the senators..
...the FBI was watching this little tea party of theirs too...and guess what...their records show he was there also.
I had a dog named Snoopy when I was a kid. He was kind of stupid.
To be honest, I sincerely hope this little delusion of yours isn't based - entirely and solely - on the Sun story Lipscomb wrote. You have, you know, links to the supposed FBI docs relesed by the FOIA request. Right?
Or is your supporting evidence as empty as your argument?
Back in 1971 Kerry...who was one of the leaders of the VVAW...was invloved in a discussion, during a meeting of the VVAW in Kansas City,about assasinating US Senators John Stennis, John Tower and Strom Thurmond. It was called The Phoenix project.
What did Kerry say during the meeting (I never heard this before)?
You false witness bag is overflowing. As you well know, only right wing sites are flogging a story that Kerry was present at a meeting of vets where assination of war hawk senators was discussed. But even those sites don't lie as horribly as you do. Those sites claim that Kerry spoke out against any such plot and resigned because of the discussion.
Naturally you don't even have the decency to report that.
Stranger, I told you I'd do this: you're a liar.
If you followed the link I twice gave you, here's what you'd find:
3 Purple Hearts for wounds received in action on Dec. 2, 1968, Feb. 20, 1969, and Mar. 17, 1969.
You think Kerry faked his way to these awards? I'll tell you from first hand experience that they're very difficult to get. Two years after my deployment to Iraq, I'm still trying to gather documents to prove Purple Heart eligibility for soldiers who have undergone numerous surgeries for wounds sustained in improvised explosive device detonations. The approval process is extremely difficult and has the effect of weeding out unsubstantiated claims.
The Silver Star for displaying "courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism" while acting as the Officer in Charge of a Tactical Command on Feb. 28, 1969.
You think Kerry lied to get this? Then why did Admiral Zumwalt, the approval authority, say he wanted to give Kerry a HIGHER award? Zumwalt settled for the Silver Star because he wanted to give the highest award he had approval authority for so it would have an immediate impact, rather than waiting weeks or months to receive Pentagon approval to award Kerry a Navy Cross.
The Bronze Star Medal with "V" for Valor device for "professionalism, great personal courage under fire, and complete dedication to duty" in rescuing, while wounded, a man overboard following a mine explosion, directing his gunners to provide supporting fire for the rescue, and towing a damaged boat to safety under enemy fire on March 13, 1969.
You think this award was for a phony incident? You'd better read the editorial of Jim Rassmann, for which I gave you the link. Rassmann recommended Kerry for this award after Kerry saved his life by pulling him from the water while under enemy fire, and after Kerry had been wounded. Before you claim this is a phony incident, you need to know that Larry Thurlow, one of Kerry's So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accusers received the Bronze Star Medal with "V" for the same incident, and his citation also says they were under fire. Thurlow has made no effort to return his award or have it amended or corrected, so it must be true. If his is true, then so is Kerry's.
I'll tell you from my own experience that the Bronze Star Medal approval process is also quite arduous. I received one for service (not valor) in Iraq. It was 18 months after I returned home before that award recommendation was acted on, and I can assure you that the approval process for the Bronze Star Medal for valor is even more difficult than it is for the Bronze Star Medal for service.
Again, I suggest that you read Kerry's performance appraisals. He routinely received the highest marks possible, and his superior positive character traits are mentioned as a matter of routine. I can tell you from more than 25 years of first hand experience that military officers do not receive fitness reports like this unless they habitually perform to a higher than required standard.
If you're not going to read the documents, then you have no right to suggest that Kerry's lying or that I don't know what I'm talking about. Start reading and stop lying.
Liar...who me? Huh?
All three of the Purple Hearts were so minor that all the wounds needed were a little Bactine and a bad-aid. I heard Kerry asked for ones with Snoopy cartoons on them.
Two of those were self-inflicted, One when he shot a grenade into a cliff and a piece of shrapnel the size of a rice kernel...that's according to the doc that treated him...got kinda stuck by a little bit in his arm.
Another is when he threw a grenade into a rice bin and got some rice stuck in his ass. He lied about this one too. he said his boat hit a mine.
About his Silver Star...his CO came out and said if he knew the real facts of the incident, that he would never have recommended Kerry. the reason he didn't know the facts is because Kerry wrote up the report...and more than a little bit embellished it.
As far as the Bronze Star..that's the biggest doozy.
A patrol of sveral boats was out on patrolWhen one of the boats hit a mine, one boat took off to run and hide...the others stayed around to defend the disabled boat and to protect and and attempt recue of the men in the water.. the one that took off...yep you guessed it...Kerry's. Kerry came back after it was determined that there was no enemy fire.
He did pull Rassman out of the water, but since the recommendation was based on his own after action report...he got himself a medal.
every single one of the other officers present contradict Kerry's account
Hahahahahahh!
It's like taking on wile e. coyote. really...
How many purple hearts do you have? You pathetic side line cheerleader. How about learning about relationships in combat. Do that and then take into account the stories of his crew and Rassmussen. Once you do that you will see that those who are closest to you in combat are the ones who know your character not those who knew you in passing. You inane idiot, for you to smugly attack someone's bravery and commendations when you were not there is beyond reason. I feel sorry for you. I should hope that if you have children you teach them to act differently than yourself. I hope your children are never called to combat and then called cowards when they return by those who never had the balls to go themselves, but then again if that did happen to you it would be the ultimate lesson in humility that you so deserve.
QUIT QUESTIONING THE PATRITOTISM AND COURAGE OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED THIS NATION IN COMBAT. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT.
I'm so tired of people who weren't there questioning the patriotism of people who've served.
For years those on the right have criticized anyone who doesn't support the present war and have equated opposition to the war to opposition to those we've sent to fight. These same people are usually the ones to drag the honor of Vietnam Vets through he mud because they don't agree with their politics.
If history is an judge, it's only a matter of time before the combat vets of Iraq and Afghanistan will have their patriotism questioned by those wishing to advance their own political agenda.
Worrier and AChris:
Amen. And I notice that Stranger had not responded...
If history is an judge, it's only a matter of time before the combat vets of Iraq and Afghanistan will have their patriotism questioned by those wishing to advance their own political agenda
It will be a matter of time before that happens?.. THE LEFT IS ALREADY DOING IT TO THE MILITARY
Only idiots conflate support for this questionable war with support for the troops.
I'm not aware of any Americans not supporting those we've sent to fight. Those of us who have criticized the prosecution of the war have been as supportive of the men and women fighting the war as anyone else in this country.
It takes a lot of balls to call someone's service cowardly when you yourself have not witnesses the incidents in question. I've counted at least three Vietnam Vets in this thread arguing with you.
We, like you were not witnesses, but when you question anyone's behavior, you're denigrating the sacrifice made by more than two and one half million of us.
You do have the right to say whatever is on your mind just as I have the right to say that you're a coward and a disgrace to this country.
QUIT QUESTIONING THE PATRITOTISM AND COURAGE OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED THIS NATION IN COMBAT. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT.
I have every right and reason to question Kerry's "service"
Chris:
From the Stranger's posts, he apparently has never served, will never serve, and he is perfectly willing to SEND others to serve--but only as long as he doesn't actually have to do anything himself. His ability to recite talking points and inability to understand facts (perhaps he thinks that facts have a left-wing bias?) all reveal him to be the perfect follower. He is clearly incapable of critical thought or independent reasoning. You are completely correct, but I suspect that the Stranger cannot process anything so contrary to his version of reality. You must have more patience than I do to point out his contradictory "reasoning."
Stranger,
Check your facts.
Saying you "admire" a quality in someone is not the same as saying the person having that quality is one of your favorites. I can admire President George Walker Bush's ability to advance the interests or his constituency, but that hardly makes him one of my favorite presidents. I can admire Stalin's organizational abilities, but that doesn't mean he's one of my favorite world leaders. I can admire Barry Bond's ability to block out the press and all of the other distractions around him and continue to perform on the field, but that hardly makes him one of my favorite ball players.
I suppose the most telling thing is that Cutler states that what he wrote was wrongly reported. That Clinton did not call Reagan one of her "favorites".
The issue is not what's on Hillary Clinton's web site. The issue is that Russert claimed:
"[T]he Salmon Press in New Hampshire, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, cited as one of the reasons, that WHEN THEY TALKED TO HER IN THE INTERVIEW, she listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents."
Russert did not mention that the owners of The Salmon Press issued:
a January 18 statement from the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that."
So the issue is not what's on Hillary Clinton's web site -- it's that Russert relied on an account from The Salmon Press that the publication retracted two days ago.
Right, but good luck explaining that to the "Why Is This Here?" brigade, who aren't at all interested in the facts of this or any other case.
While we are at it, SuperHero Demigod John McCain won an overwhelming victory in South Carolina, Obama actually beat Clinton in Nevada, Up is now Down and Down is now Up.
When a candidate issues any press release, all members of the mainstream media are IMMEDIATELY notified. This press release was given to the media TWO days ago.
An example: after Bob Johnson made his controversial comments, he issued his "clarification" through a release on Clinton's website and ten minutes later the media reported it (and proceeded to laugh at him for basically denying he said anything bad).
Russert obviously knew about this Reagan thing and chose to ignore it deliberately to make Clinton look like an idiot. Gimme a break. This guy is simply a corporate watercarrier and a major league a-hole.
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Summary: On Meet the Press, Tim Russert asserted: "[T]he Salmon Press in New Hampshire, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, cited as one of the reasons, that when they talked to her in the interview, she listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents."
However, neither Russert nor his guests noted a January 18 statement from the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that."
No she didn't , and the Press release didn't either, it simply said she'd listed him as one of her favorites, so why the sudden need to clarify something that was never said in the first place by Hillary or the press release? Curious...
Russert did NOT say Reagan was her favorite President. He said one of her favorites. Big difference. The press release dated 12/12/2007 Eleven Salmon Press Weekly Newspapers Endorse Hillary Clinton For President remains on Hillary's website. IF Hillary had a problem with this assessment back when it was given why didn't she ask for a correction then? Why are folks scrambling now to make some sort of distinction? Could it be because she & Bill jumped all over Obama for his positive comments about Reagan? Ha! There ya go!
I've stayed out of the argument carried on here by some that MMFA is an advocate for Hillary Clinton. But this thread has me wondering...
If I'm missing something here I'd appreciate someone willing to point out what that might be, in a reasonable & polite manner of course ;-)
I think the only thing you're missing is the phrase "She didn't say anything close to that". That means she didn't say anything similar to it. That would include "one of her favorites', obviously. Considering the press statement came out only two days previously, Russert could have incorporated that into his commentary.
That being said, if I was asked for a list of Presidents to put on the wall, Reagan would not be among them, whether he could communicate or not. If Hillary wants to criticize Obama for saying Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" (which says nothing positive about his policies), then she shouldn't be talking about putting his picture up on the wall either. And if she had a problem with the paper's wording, she should have had it corrected at the time.
The timing is interesting, yes. On the HillaryHub site, it says that Obama was pointing out the "one of her favorites" article in response to her criticism of him. He's got a point. Even if she didn't use that phrasing, she recognized that she could say something positive about Reagan without it being an endorsement of his policies.
Back to Russert, I think he tried to cut through all the BS and determined that there wasn't a big difference there. "She'd put his picture on the wall" = "one of her favorites". When asked "Who do you admire most?", she thought of Reagan, for whatever reason. The problem is just that "one of her favorites" does imply an opinion about performance and policy, so it does convey the wrong impression. However, the entire thing seems disingenuous to me, like she was just playing to Republicans by mentioning Reagan as someone she admired. If that's the case, then she took the risk of people making those interpretations.
I think the only thing you're missing is the phrase "She didn't say anything close to that".
Agreed. Yet the press release with the endorsement by Eleven Salmon Press Weekly Newspapers says: "Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."
Now what I find odd is that this press release from 12/12/07 was put up on Hillary's website without a peep from her or her camp. Did they voice a problem with it? No. Nor did they suggest she'd been misinterpreted. However, after she & Bill criticized Obama there appears to be a need to clarify/correct what didn't seem to be problematic before. Disingenuous? I'd have to say yes. There really is no other explanation that makes any sense.
Now I'd agree Russert should have included the January 18 statement from the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that." But quite frankly I don't think that would have helped her. Again the original press release by Salmon Press Newspapers has been displayed on Hillary's site for over a month & neither Hillary or anyone from Salmon felt the need to amend or explain a thing. Till after Hillary & Bill jumped all over Obama.
However, the entire thing seems disingenuous to me, like she was just playing to Republicans by mentioning Reagan as someone she admired. If that's the case, then she took the risk of people making those interpretations.
Excellent point Brab, & I think you're probably correct. What she didn't count on was that it could come back to bite her when she & Bill decided to go after Obama.
No spin from me, but you must be getting dizzy.
Fact: The press release has been on Hillary's website since December 12, 2007. No one from Hillary on down complained about what was written or asked it be amended.
Fact: Bill & Hillary pounced on Obama for voicing a positive but fairly innocuous remark about Reagan.
Fact: SUDDENLY a month later & after Bill & Hillary jump on Obama, Salmon Press attempts to rectify what they first wrote & what Hillary didn't seem to have a problem with until now..
If you can't connect the dots...
I think everyone is missing the big picture.
After reading the editorial by Salmon, would you assume they had endorsed Hillary because she listed Reagan as one of her favorite presidents? No. That is the way Russert characterized it and it was far off the mark. He could just as easily have said that Salmon endorsed Hillary because she listed Bill Clinton as one of her favorite presidents.
The little point of if Reagan was her favorite or one of her favorites doesn't matter. The whole thing was mischaracterized by Russert. Salmon did in fact mention a whole lots of reasons they endorsed Hillary. The listing of her favorite presidents went more to the "way she thinks" than anything else. She has said repeatedly that she would include Democrats and Republicans in all processes in our government. But again that was not THE reason (and since they offered a correction maybe not even on the list) of why they endorsed her.
The problem here is that Russert was taking something and making hay of it for his own agenda. He was characterizing it in a false way to bash her for her comments on Obama.
He did say it was one of the reasons that they endorsed her, not the only one. It seems odd to say that it's just as likely they're endorsing her because she admires a Republican president as her admiring her husband as president. Of course she's going to list her own husband, so that's not a reason to endorse or oppose her.
Whether she admires his communication skills or holds him as one of her favorites, the point is valid. She shouldn't be criticizing Obama for admiring Reagan's appeal when she's made any positive comments about him.
She shouldn't be criticizing Obama for admiring Reagan's appeal when she's made any positive comments about him.
I disagree. Her comments were not akin to what Obama said and she has the duty to criticized him.
Do you agree this?
I'm impressed with your mind-reading abilities. As if people weren't looking for a message of optimism after the turmoil of those decades, as if Carter himself hadn't talked about the "crisis of confidence" in our country?
Normally I think you make good points but you seem to be going off the deep end on this one.
I'm impressed with your mind-reading abilities.
No, just a little common sense. This is what he said:
That's him describing the 60s and 70s and that's the way he saw that era and he projects it on others. And:
And this is what he says Reagan restored.Barb, you are correct. Obama's comment on Regan was he did change the trajectory of this country. Obama did not say for the good or bad he simply made a statement. In the 1960's and 1970's we had civil rights, riots, the death of MLK & Robert Kennedy and the birth of affirmative Action and forced busing and more. When Regan came along, he came with the old "southern strategy" of anti affirmative action, anti government assistance and more. Since he was in office for 8 years and George Bush followed for another 4 years that's 12 years of changing the direction of this country, which Regan did.
His statement:
"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating," Obama said. "He just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
And Jeter is correct. Clinton realized that she needed to cover her own a** after jumping all over Obama for his comments.
Please get the larger point here. Forget Bill Cinton in my example. It could have been one of the Roosevelts. And I didn't see this as "one" of the reasons or even "the" reason they endorsed her. Did you read the editorial? And if you did, did you get the opinion that they endorsed her because of listing Reagan as one of the favorite presidents? I certainly didn't get that.
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
Listing Republican presidents supports their contention that she would cross party lines. So of course that's one of the reasons they're endorsing her. Pointing out her support for FDR, for instance, doesn't support that concept whatsoever.
Listing Republican presidents supports their contention that she would cross party lines. So of course that's one of the reasons they're endorsing her. Pointing out her support for FDR, for instance, doesn't support that concept whatsoever.
I mentioned that in my post. That her thinking was to cross party lines and include Democrats and Republicans as well. I did not get the impression that listing Reagan as a favorite was THE reason or even one of the reasons as Russert made it seem. And then the Salmon people issued a correction that she said nothing like that (the way Russert characterized it).
If listing Reagan is evidence of her bipartisanship, and that's one of the reasons they endorsed her (surely it is!), then why is it that listing not "one of the reasons" they endorsed her?
This seems like a strange distinction. Please elaborate.
I am simply asking you to look at the forest, not the trees. When I read the editorial my first, second or third and forth impression was not "gee, they endorse HRC because she listed Reagan as one of her favorites" (which now seems like it did not happen anyway).
That's just me. I guess Russert read the whole thing and saw, hey one of the reasons they endorse her is because she lists Reagan as one of her favorite presidents. Russert and apparently others made a characterization that I don't agree with. And then Salmon releases a press report that says she said nothing like that.
You and I are seeing that the endorsement is about many things, some of which are her bipartisan intention to include Republicans. But Russert was NOT making any such claim. He was using a sparse snippet of (now proven to be false) information to make a large mischaracterization.
Not sure I can be any more clear. I'm sorry if that explanation wasn't satisfactory. I see a difference and a clear mischaracterization and you don't.
To belabor just a bit further, the idea of including Republicans could have been made just as easily without Reagan even being on the list. It wasn't specifically because he or any other specific Republican was on the list. Russert chose him out of the list not to illustrate any bipartisan attempt on HRC's part, but to claw at this small thread of the media's current favorite narrative (that HRC and Obama are having a war).
Well, Obama made a perfectly understandable statement about Reagan and Hillary's camp jumped on it. That is relevant here, and it does play into an impression of a battle between them. I think it's fair for anyone to comment on the whole thing.
Again, he did say that was "one of the reasons" she got that endorsement, and I think that's fair. You seem to be creating an impression in your own mind that he said more than that, like it was the big reason or something. I've read the editorial and then read what Russert said and I don't see how it's blown out of proportion or leaves the wrong impression or anything else. I do agree he should have been more accurate, even though he would still have a valid point about Hillary.
I'm not into the arguments back and forth. We'll have to disagree. That's all. It's Russerts job to have accurate information in any case. and apparently he didn't bother. It's still my contention that he stretched this one pretty thin, but I haven't made up my mind who I like yet so I'm not going to get into a death match here.
He doesn't know about anything.
He was either making it up just to 'get' Clinton, or he's plain stupid, because nobody in their right MIND would even begin to think that Hillary would make such a statement, let alone believe it.
These people are unbelievable. And I love it when they credit Clinton victories to her "organization," but Obama victories (and everyone else's) to "the voters."
He doesn't know about anything.
He was either making it up just to 'get' Clinton, or he's plain stupid, because nobody in their right MIND would even begin to think that Hillary would make such a statement, let alone believe it.
These people are unbelievable. And I love it when they credit Clinton victories to her "organization," but Obama victories (and everyone else's) to "the voters."
I once heard an interview with Russert when he was asked about his interviewing "style". He explained how he had to be a tough interviewer yet had to be careful not to appear to be badgering the guest, as he did not want to come off as mean-spirited (not exact words). Apparently he has changed his style. He took Bill Clinton's quote saying "This whole thing is a fairy tale" (referring to Barack's changing position on the war) out of context. He implied that Clinton was referring to Barack's candidacy with racial undertones. When Hillary aggressively tried to respond and abruptly set the record straight, Russert even more aggressively interrupted and slightly changed the subject, thus preventing her from doing so. He apparently did not want to hear the truth or have the record set straight or he would have played the entire quote to begin with. Towards the end of the interview he had the gall to ask her what she had learned from her "biggest public adversity", knowing damn well what that "adversity" was! Exactly what was she supposed to have "learned" from that? That's like asking someone what they "learned" from the death of a loved one! I have never heard Russert question anyone else that aggressively. Why didn't Karl Rove get that treatment? He couldn't help but ask her about the pardon of Mark Rich, as if that had a significant impact on the country. I guess if Scooter Libby had cheated on his taxes he would be in jail, but hey tax evasion, treason, what's the difference!
It seems to me as if MSNBC tries to appear to be kinda fair until right before elections, when they suddenly begin skewering coverage to favor the party who is going them unfettered access to further rape and pillage the minds of Americans to serve their own interest of gaining more power/wealth. Power and wealth must be one hell of a drug!
I MIGHT HAVE MORE SYMPATHY BUT DIDN'T SHE DO THE SAME THING TO OBAMA . I WAS ALWAYS TAUGHT WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
Rassmann recommended Kerry for this award after Kerry saved his life by pulling him from the water while under enemy fire, and after Kerry had been wounded. Before you claim this is a phony incident, you need to know that Larry Thurlow, one of Kerry's So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accusers received the Bronze Star Medal with "V" for the same incident, and his citation also says they were under fire. Thurlow has made no effort to return his award or have it amended or corrected, so it must be true. If his is true, then so is Kerry's.
All lies. Thurlow says if being under enemy fire is required to earn the medal, he will give it back. He was not clear on all the requirements to deserve the award.
Quote from Thurlow:
"I knew it was false. But nobody else was going to see it. I accepted it because I felt at the time I'd been given the thing because I'd saved the wounded on the boat and saved the boat," he says.
More from Thurlow:
But Thurlow, two other swift boat skippers and an enlisted man are now saying there was no enemy fire.
"We took no enemy fire from either bank. There's not one man wounded. There's not a bullet hole that day in any boat," says Thurlow.
A battle damage report from Kerry's boat does not show any bullet holes, but one from Thurlow's boat notes "three .30-caliber bullet holes." Thurlow claims that damage was from a sniper the day before.
Anything else you want me to clear up for you?
Sometimes it's amusing, like using a laser pointer to play with a cat for a while. But even a cat eventually "gets it" and gives up. Because cats have some capacity for learning. The Stranger, clearly, does not.
I've had a problem with Tim Russert for a long time. He seems to pride himself on remaining above the fray, but when he opens his mouth, it's obvious he's a right wing hatchet man. I think there's a word for that sort of thing. What is it...oh yes, HYPOCRITE! But then again, to be associated with the conservative movement in the US requires you to be a lying, cheating, fear mongerring hypocrite. Did I say that....yes I did, because it so very true. Tims Russert can stick his sactimonious shill show up his backside!
The Stranger, I notice that you haven't responded to my challenge to prove that you are not a Serial Pedophile, despite the million dollars waiting if you do. I'll use your own standard and take that as a confession that you like to molest little boys and girls. After all, if you weren't constantly trying to invade the pants of minors, you would have provided evidence to the contrary by now, right?
Oh, and you have been in secret meetings with other Pedophiles in which you describe and plan your future exploits. You know you have, because if you haven't, you'd prove it. You are a thoroughly disgusting blight on society. Just stay out of my neighborhood,, that's all I have to say.
All three of the Purple Hearts were so minor that all the wounds needed were a little Bactine and a bad-aid. I heard Kerry asked for ones with Snoopy cartoons on them.
That's just stupid.
When it comes to the Purple Heart, there's either wounded or not wounded. There's no category called "wounded, but so minor it doesn't count."
It's really not fair to expect The Stranger to know anything about actual Service. It's clear that everything he knows about John Kerry he learned from Sean Hannity and Michael Savage Weiner.
You really can't reason with a admitted serial Child Molestor, which The Stranger clearly is.
Two of those were self-inflicted, One when he shot a grenade into a cliff and a piece of shrapnel the size of a rice kernel...that's according to the doc that treated him...got kinda stuck by a little bit in his arm.
Another is when he threw a grenade into a rice bin and got some rice stuck in his a**. He lied about this one too. he said his boat hit a mine.
First, if this WAS true, it wouldn't matter -- if you wound yourself, but your intention had been to attack the enemy, that meets the criteria for award of the Purple Heart.
Second, your account of the circumstances that led to these awards is simply a lie:
The Third Purple Heart:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further say Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."
The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third Purple Heart according to official documents.
Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my a** from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.
According to the Navy casualty report for this incident, the third Purple Heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.
William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore. Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.:
Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a h**ch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.
With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the h**ch when I heard gunfire nearby.
Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the h**ch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.
Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."
As far as the Bronze Star..that's the biggest doozy.
A patrol of sveral boats was out on patrolWhen one of the boats hit a mine, one boat took off to run and hide...the others stayed around to defend the disabled boat and to protect and and attempt recue of the men in the water.. the one that took off...yep you guessed it...Kerry's. Kerry came back after it was determined that there was no enemy fire.
He did pull Rassman out of the water, but since the recommendation was based on his own after action report...he got himself a medal.
every single one of the other officers present contradict Kerry's account
First, none of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat liars group actually served on Kerry's boat.
Second, Kerry did not recommend himself for an award.
Third, there are statements from people who were there that support Kerry’s account:
Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard.
Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."
On August 22, 2004, the Washington Post quoted another eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.”
Del Sandusky, the pilot of Kerry’s boat had this to say in 2004:
“Captain Rassman, a special forces officer who was rescued by John Kerry, recommended the Silver Star. Commander Elliott put John Kerry in for a Bronze Star for that action.
I was there. I saw the bullets skimming across the water.”
-----
So, every point you raise, I knock down with facts. Rather than admit that you’re wrong, your tactic is to then shift ground and raise a new set of So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth talking points. In other words, you’re playing Calvinball. It’s clear that no document, eyewitness account, picture, movie or other evidence will cause you to acknowledge your lies.
Question for First Republic. I'm not on this particular thread to argue, and really did not follow the "swift boat" story much back in 2004, mostly because I was under the impression that it was all 'he said, she said' and I'd learn nothing from it.
I just quicky read over your comments, and they are convincing. My question is --- is it true that none of the swift-boaters who accused Kerry of lying had actually served with him during the events about which they claim he's lying?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are by and large people who served in Kerry's proximity, but necessarily with him. Some, like O'Neill, served in the same place after Kerry had left, or for only a short period of overlap before Kerry departed. Some, like Captain Elliott, served with Kerry and were his defenders until 2004, which makes you wonder what happened to make them change their stories. Some are just lying. Kerry's crew supported him almost to a man -- eight out of nine, and no one knows for sure about the ninth:
Of the nine surviving crewmen, seven, including Mr. Sandusky, have made campaign appearances for Mr. Kerry. Another, Mr. Sandusky said, supports Mr. Kerry but wants nothing to do with politics. The crew has lost touch with the remaining man.Correction:
but NOT necessarily with him.
With 10 Purple Hearts and one Medal of Honor...
For your endurance, patience and persistence in a War of Words to defend Truth, Justice and Respect for a man who served his country proudly. Job well done Republic Star. But...
You're engaging your great efforts with a foolish, stubborn, idiotic, moronic, hateful liar who has no regard or respect for War Service to our Country. This WebSite is the only place on Earth where a sane human being will bother to speak to this person. But still, I'm delighted that you and others have made the VAIN effort.
I have proudly served my country ('Not My Government' - Mark Twain - ) and I would NEVER cut down the service of a fellow Vietnam or any Veteran no matter what his affiliation is. I fought 5 tours in War Zone so that this Strange One can come here with his FREEDOM to spill out all his hatred and lies.
THE STRANGER must not have ever served this country, but... Any way you look at it the Strange One is an Ugly Piece of Work.
And finally, to end this discussion of John Kerry's Navy record, if The Stranger had followed the link to Kerry's fitness reports, here's what he'd have found:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature and rich in educational background and experience, Ensign Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising. Polished, tactful and outgoing, this officer is a brilliant conversationalist who can contribute much worthwhile comment to any discussion... He is recommended for accelerated promotion.
-----
A most capable officer who demonstrates a high degree of maturity beyond his age and experience...
His enthusiasm for the Navy and his work is contagious, and his men are ardent supporters of him...
...is highly recommended for promotion to Lieutenant Junior Grade now, ahead of his contemporaries...
-----
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed...
Lieutenant Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader of his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach...
-----
...exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment...
-----
Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry is one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career. His combat record prior to becoming my aide speaks for itself and is testimony to his competence and courage at sea...
In every instance he has displayed tact, judgment, foresight and energy...
Ahem...this from a very senior career military officer with regard to the evaluations of self-avowed war criminal and plotter of assasination of US senators John Kerry:
The media has failed to take into consideration one of the “dirty little military secrets” concerning officer evaluation reports. They are extremely inflated. All of the military services realized that they had a problem because almost all of the officers received top overall ratings. It was no longer possible to distinguish between officers. A civilian reading Kerry’s fitness report would see him with an “overall evaluation” as “one of the top few” and would reasonably conclude that he must be the best officer in the unit. He must be “one out of a hundred.”
To combat rating inflation, a process began called senior rater profiling. This required the disclosure as to how many officers in that particular grade received the various overall ratings from that rater. This was a tool specifically designed so officers could be fairly compared to one another.
We are fortunate that this process was in effect when Kerry began his tour in Vietnam. Kerry’s first Vietnam evaluation was from November 8, 1968 until December 6, 1968. The rater was LCDR Hibbard. In Block 18 of the evaluation form, “Overall Evaluation", there is “Not Observed” along with five rating categories ranging from “One of the Top Few” to “Unsatisfactory.” During this initial rating, Kerry received a “Not Observed.” The first significance of the report however, was that LCDR Hibbard had rated a total of 13 officers of the same grade to that date. Of the 13, 2 were “Non Observed” (one being Kerry), 6 were “One of the Top Few", 5 were “Excellent” and there was not a single “Fine", “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory Officer.” The unique position of “one of the top few” is filled with half of the units officers. This is the rating that is referenced by the above mentioned Bloomberg article. The second significance is that Kerry received his first Purple Heart on December 2, 1968. Yet, Kerry’s senior rater LCDR Hibbard was still only able to provide an overall evaluation of “Not Observed.” How do you earn a Purple Heart, engaged in combat against the enemy, and your immediate commander is only able to provide a “not observed” overall rating?
Kerry’s first and only Vietnam evaluation with a profiled “Overall Evaluation” was December 14, 1968 to March 26, 1969. The rater was LCDR Elliot. Kerry was rated as “One of the Top Few.” The “dirty little secret” was that LCDR Elliot had rated 15 officers of the same grade and amazingly almost 50%, 7 out of 15 (including Kerry) were “One of the Top Few.” The remaining 8 all were rated “Excellent” and not a single officer was rated in any of the lesser three categories. Not a single officer was “Fine” or even just “Satisfactory.”
The next evaluation report is when Kerry leaves Vietnam. This is from March 27, 1969 to July 31 1969. During this time period there are two weeks of leave. The interesting point is that the rater, RADM Schlech is unable to rate Kerry because he is “Not Observed.” Further examination of the evaluation reports shows that many of the performance evaluation categories are also “Not Observed” to include the category “Management.” Considering that we are examining these records to determine “fitness” to be President, I am less concerned that he may have “Outstanding Performance” in “Shiphandling” than I would be with his “Management” skills as being “Not Observed.”
Concerning the written phrases by the raters in the comments sections, there are guides in every Post/Base Exchange that detail “how” to write “effective” officer evaluation reports along with hundreds of phrases that are intended to be copied with slight word changing to fit the situation. If you were to compare the evaluation reports of LT(JG) Kerry with other officers in his unit you would find comments that mirror, almost identically, one another. However, there is one unique comment that sticks out concerning Kerry, “He is impressive in appearance and always immaculate.” ***Go back and reread 1st Republic's post. It fits right in)
The key point of my observation is that Kerry, as an officer, was simply similar, most likely identical, to the rest of the officers in his unit. The evaluated record of John Kerry is being distorted by making him into something that he was not. I could rightly claim, that you could pick any record of any other swift boat officer serving alongside Kerry and it would be very similar. If John Kerry is qualified to be President based on this time period, then any of the other officers he served alongside with are equally qualified. The key point is that John Kerry?s service was not unique for that grade and position at that time
You need to stop.
Not only am I a veteran of more than 25 years who has been deployed to Iraq, one of my specialties is Human Resources. Within that field, my two areas of particular expertise are awards and performance appraisals. I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.
Kerry's got the documents and eyewitnesses on his side, so the other guys simply make stuff up. "Well, yeah, he's got good performance appraisals, but that doesn't mean anything." Of course, if the performance appraisals called Kerry a liar or a dishonest officer or a poor leader, THAT would be proof of your anti-Kerry claims. With you, proof is a one way street.
It's clear that NOTHING will convince you that the So-Called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are lying. You're in the position of trying to make Kerry prove a negative -- it's not enough for him to prove what he did, he also has to prove that he DIDN'T do what someone else accuses him of.
The problem is that you don't hold his accusers don't have the same burden -- they can make the wildest, most outlandish allegations possible, and you presume them to be true.
You are so welcome my dear girl. You're one of my favorites. Also uplifting was Holly with her "Holly Chips". I miss her so much. Thank You for addressing me as...
-Sam I Am-
And if you notice MSNBC did get a big Obama add buy....Good news is people are getting it, they know the Clintons and see the bias, the lies, the faux attacks, the creation of political gossip so it can be used in the debate watch tonight on CNN the current reason Obama lost is the mean lying Bill story line who is not entitled to support his wife over Senator Obama for some odd reason. And Suzanne M. Nancy threw the terrorist a big wet kiss WH opinion writer. There was a great article in the Washington Monthly I think, about Russert and his Sillyballs...and it is so true and with that face all scrunched up looking all knowing. I believe the problem is actually a Newsweek Alter what planet is this guy from advice column to Dems on how to lose, Wapo then MSNBC- NBC Tweety channel outlet for the boys club who are apparently just all wet about themselves…they really need a creditable journalist that is also female…On improving our World & Giving Peace a Chance!
On helping with issues for the people here and abroad. Extending Healthcare to all & Education including college to kids who can't afford it. Delivering equal opportunities to all.
On Staying on the sunny side of life.
On working to improve OUR Media Outlets.
On keeping the pressure on elected officials until they realize that we Will Never Give Up until they act on these critical issues ... - AND -
To get all this done I'm now starting the exploratory process. I Hereby proclaiming my candidacy for President of the United States of America. Dream On Sam I Am!
Vice Presidents ... Julia Jayne - Mr. W. King - Solon - 14th Star
Secretaries of Peace... Achrispage & HBL
Heath & Education... Clevenative - Brabantio
Other Cabinet Members - Jetter-2, Tommy, JJamele, Holly, Snoopy, Clams, Mary, Sue and many others.
Get Out and VOTE!
Who in the world like Hillary Clinton except Media Matters for America?
Wonder if there is any bias in this great sites idealogy?
Good Luck