On Geraldo, Coulter still lying in defense of Swift Boat Vets
SUMMARY: Responding to Media Matters, Ann Coulter again defended her new book's false claim that the Swift Boat Vets "weren't forced to retract any part of their story" by again falsely claiming -- even after Media Matters exposed the falsehood in her defense of her original claim -- that the "example" of a retraction Media Matters cited was simply a correction of William Schachte's rank. In fact, in addition to other reported retractions, the Swift Boat Vets changed their account of a 1968 mission, for which Sen. John Kerry received his first Purple Heart, to claim Schachte was aboard a skimmer with Kerry during the mission.
During the January 11 edition of Fox News' Geraldo at Large, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter defended her new book's false claim that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story" by again falsely claiming -- even after Media Matters for America exposed the falsehood in her defense of her original claim -- that the "example" of a retraction cited by Media Matters was simply a correction of retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr.'s rank. Coulter stated: "Changing a lieutenant back to his proper title from enlisted man is not a retraction." In fact, as Media Matters noted when Coulter first purported to respond to the item pointing out her falsehood, the Swift Boat Vets did not merely alter a description of Schachte's rank; they changed their account of what happened during a December 2, 1968, mission, for which the U.S. Navy awarded Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) his first Purple Heart, to claim that Schachte was aboard a skimmer with Kerry during the mission. The group's original account -- which matched Kerry's own account and that of the two other veterans who say they were on board the vessel -- made no mention of Schachte's presence on board the skimmer. Coulter initially made the false claim that the Swift Boat Vets merely fixed their description of Schachte's rank in a January 7 article on the conservative website Newsmax.com, in which she was purporting to respond to falsehoods identified by Media Matters. Media Matters pointed out that her claim was false; nonetheless, on Geraldo, Coulter repeated the claim without addressing Media Matters' rebuttal.
In her latest book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story." On Geraldo, Coulter stated of Media Matters' item documenting the book's falsehoods: "[T]heir first list of objections they put up as lies, heinous lies on my book -- claimed that I said the Swift Boat veterans had never retracted anything, and their example of that was where a website entry had to be changed because they had mentioned a lieutenant and described him as an enlisted man. Changing a lieutenant back to his proper title from enlisted man is not a retraction." Coulter's remarks on Geraldo echoed her claim in the January 7 Newsmax.com article that the "correction of the website entry was to fix a mistaken description of Schachte as an enlisted man, rather than the lieutenant that he was. That is not a 'retraction.' "
However, as Media Matters noted, the Swift Boat Vets' "correction" did not merely "fix a mistaken description" of Schachte's rank. The revision claims that the skimmer was "under the command of Lt. William Schachte" and that he and Kerry "were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor." The original, however, referred to Kerry as "commanding a small, foam-filled 'skimmer' craft with two enlisted men" and made no mention of Schachte's presence on board the skimmer. The original description matches Kerry's own account, as well as the account of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, two enlisted men who insist that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2) that Kerry was in command; and (3) that Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other people besides Kerry on the small craft.
As Media Matters also noted, several other Swift Boat Vets made statements during the 2004 presidential campaign that were inconsistent with their previous accounts, or subsequently reportedly retracted comments they made during that campaign.
From the January 11 edition of Fox News' Geraldo At Large:
GERALDO: Here's Ann, who's agreed tonight to answer questions posed by her harshest critics at the very liberal website, Media Matters. Before I get to that, here's my review: much better than the compilation books, the quote books. I thought they were a little, kind of, on autopilot. This one is thoughtful, if outrageous.
COULTER: I like that review.
GERALDO: You can -- you can quote me.
COULTER: Good. We'll put that on the paperback.
GERALDO: Now, the reason I'm letting Media Matters, with your consent, ask you questions, which you have not yet seen, is that you --
COULTER: Wait. No. These are the ones that I've already responded to.
GERALDO: When did you get these questions?
COULTER: They -- it came out that -- like the day after my book came out, and I posted my response on my webpage. They were crazy.
GERALDO: Oh, no, these are -- they gave me new ones. They gave me new questions.
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no, no.
GERALDO: Then I'm going to ask you them anyway.
COULTER: No, but -- as Einstein said, "Never memorize something you can look up."
GERALDO: OK.
COULTER: They did this the first time. They were crazy. They were so crazy that you don't get --
GERALDO: Question number one.
COULTER: No, you don't get a second bite at the apple. When your first 12 questions --
GERALDO: On the Today show, you claimed as evidence of your contention --
COULTER: No, no, no, no.
GERALDO: -- that you were banned for life by NBC, that the Drudge Report has never had to retract anything -- he has, though, many times -- how can we trust your research given your faith in the Drudge Report?
COULTER: [snoring] OK. I think the more important point is their first list of objections they put up as lies, heinous lies on my book -- claimed that I said the Swift Boat veterans had never retracted anything, and their example of that was where a website entry had to be changed because they had mentioned a lieutenant and described him as an enlisted man. Changing a lieutenant back to his proper title from enlisted man is not a retraction.
GERALDO: But do you agree as we sit here tonight that Drudge has had to retract things over time -- and we all do.
COULTER: He never promoted -- no. There's a difference between a mistake, as Media Matters did in the first round -- and I'm not going to take some new things being sprung at me now. No, no, no. I did not agree to that. I've answered the first 12 they came out with. Sometimes, you have to look something up to see what it is they're talking about.
GERALDO: All right. All right. You recently said --
COULTER: Another -- wait -- wait a second because this is all [inaudible] Fox News. One of their alleged mistakes --
GERALDO: Who are you talking about now?
COULTER: Media Matters. That's what we're talking about.
GERALDO: But let me ask you the questions.
COULTER: OK. Media Matters said --
GERALDO: You can handle these questions.
COULTER: I can handle -- I can -- but I can give you details on the ones that they did when the book first came out. They can't be proved completely wrong --
GERALDO: She's taking my questions?
COULTER: -- on the first 12 and then come back with another 12.
GERALDO: Are you as --
COULTER: Wait a second. Let's do the retraction --
GERALDO: Let me ask you a question.
COULTER: Hang on. They said the same thing about Fox News that they're saying about Drudge now? I'd talked about NBC's --
GERALDO: You're blaming liberals as victims and -- but they say that you are --
COULTER: I pointed out --
GERALDO: -- portraying yourself as a victim by saying you're banned for life from NBC but you've been on NBC 100-odd times.
COULTER: OK, that's the kind of reporting you get from liberals. I didn't say I was banned from life [sic]. That was what the Drudge headline was on it. That's like an article on Sarah Palin and whatever The New York Times headline one -- was is: "Palin says." No, that's a headline from Drudge. I didn't say that. Anyway, they said the same thing about Fox News having to retract --
GERALDO: Are you or are you not banned for life from NBC?
COULTER: Not since the Drudge Report ran.
GERALDO: OK. All right.
COULTER: That was rescinded after eight hours.
GERALDO: Good. Third and final question, which I've memory [sic].
COULTER: I want us to get back to Fox News and the [inaudible] retraction.
GERALDO: I'm going to get to Fox News. I have something to say about that. The --
COULTER: You know what I'm talking about?
GERALDO: The last thing is that you said that -- wait, I'll get to it. Minnesota recount -- that [Al] Franken is stealing the election.
COULTER: I've been writing about that repeatedly since the election.
GERALDO: Do you think Franken -- but there's no evidence. Is there any evidence that he's stealing it?
COULTER: Yeah. Of course, there is. Read my columns. AnnCoulter.com.
GERALDO: But the --
COULTER: I've been predicting it since -- it's the exact same happened -- that happened in Washington state.
GERALDO: You believe as you sit there tonight that Franken --
COULTER: And that is not in my book; that is on my website. But you know what else is on my website? The response to the first 12 lies, lies --
GERALDO: All right.
COULTER: -- lies, that Media Matters claims are in this book.
GERALDO: The Fox News --
COULTER: The Fox News claim --
GERALDO: But, wait. But let me ask you a question about that.
COULTER: -- with the exact same sort of "retraction" --
GERALDO: Fox News -- it seems to me, you're portraying Fox News as --
COULTER: [inaudible]
GERALDO: -- ultra-liberal with a couple of conservatives sprinkled in between.
COULTER: No, as I say in the book, that it is shocking, but people have gotten so used to this Orwellian world of a left-wing media. It is shocking that none of the Democrats --
GERALDO: It is number 16 --
COULTER: Are you not --
GERALDO: -- on Amazon as we sit there tonight. It's another best-seller for Ann Coulter. Love her or not, she knows how to sell books.
COULTER: Although I prefer to talk about my book.
GERALDO: Next time.
Should have seen her with Huckabee last night. Even the " loyal audience ' booed her and immediately went to commercial. Ailes must be getting something out of this turnip to keep her on.
Did you happen to see her on Huckabee last night? He confronted her with several misstatements from her book, Guilty. Very directly. She refused to admit she was wrong. I was reminded of a clip I saw recently where she tries to claim to a Canadian journalist that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. ("I think you are wrong," she kept repeating.) On the other hand, Lou Dobbs was effusive in praising Coulter. So much so, I had to wonder: does CNN have a financial connection to her publisher?
No, CNN has a financial connection to the Republican status-quo.
Good to see Media Matters calling this "lying" on Coulter's part.
One point I'd like to make is how the mainstream media describes MMFA. For instance, Geraldo calls MMFA "ultra-liberal" – and compared to O'Reilly and their ilk, that's pretty soft. Anyway, is pointing out conservative misinformation immediately put you on an "ultra" scale? I've always found this site to be a somewhat moderate voice, clearly mapping positions by pointing out the hyprocrisy of the term "liberal media." It's more of a truth-telling site.
Hahahaha... You made my day!
Having low standards can make you think so.
Geraldo is to liberals and progressives what Clarence Thomas is to blacks.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
geraldo has no idea what "ultra" means. this is bad, however last year when the nazis came from Chemnitz to play F.C. St. Pauli? The bus was ambushed. Nazis were pulled off the bus and beaten. After the bus was emptied? it was set on fire.
i'm just saying. Ultra Sankt Pauli. (not that it's a good idea)
They have no idea.
Very well said. Anyone who would disagree with your post is either blinded by ideology, to the point of insanity; couldn't recognize a logical arguement if bit them in the acetabulum; or is simply ignorant and has never visited the site. (Just talking their cues from Rush, Bill-O, etc...)
The best RW watchdog sites can do is point out BIAS - the truth of which depends on your own bias. MMFA, for more often that not, points out FACTUAL MISTATMENTS, backing those up with accurate, typically un-biased sourced. (How many times has the source been a prior statement made buy the very speaker or publication being called out?!)
Rarely (if ever) are any policy recomendations made. They point out clear violations of journalistic ethics that benefit the right, and clear violations of the TRUTH and the FACTS. The only "opoinons" enter into the items that counter the "liberal bias" accusations of the right. I won;t go so far to say "myth" of "liberal bias", but MMFA does a fair, and intellectually honest job of combating that accusation.
AA - you have failed time and time again to prove otherwise. You're post adds nothing to the discussion.
NGE,
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else including MickD.
However to say MMFA is "fair and intellectually honest", when it in fact is an agenda driven operation that among other things, many times does not follow it's own mission statement, and in other cases, presents opinion as fact, and in most cases makes unfounded claims of falsehood, is in my opinion, laughable.
That was quite a sentence. First off, "agenda driven" doesn't say anything about whether it's fair or honest or anything else. I'm not sure where you think they've presented opinion as fact. Do you believe that every item here is supposed to be about a "falsehood"? That might somewhat explain how you would think "most cases" were unfounded, otherwise that's quite a stretch.
However to say MMFA is "fair and intellectually honest", when it in fact is an agenda driven operation that among other things, many times does not follow it's own mission statement, and in other cases, presents opinion as fact, and in most cases makes unfounded claims of falsehood, is in my opinion, laughable.
There is about one really good "WITH?" item per week these days, based on my informal survey. That's a pretty small rate, copnsidering that they're usually stated by the con posters. And most of them (not all - I've WITH'ed a few myself, and occasionally agree with the WITH'ers) are defended pretty well by the the lib posters. You may disagree with the sentiment, or the implication, but it's pretty rare that any item demonstrably failes to follow [MMFA's] mission statement.
As for: "presents opinion as fact"... Outside of County Fair and the Boehlert/Foser/Alterman columns... WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
And for: "And in most cases makes unfounded claims of falsehood"... Again: WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
The say "X misquoted Y" and the provide a link to the original quote. The say "X used a racial stereotype" (stereotyping is a form of falsehood, whether you share the opinion or not) and they show they transcript. They say "Xclaimed to be taken out of cotext" and then provide a FULL TRANSCRIPT and/or ADIO/VIDEO links! EVERY claim of factual falsehood is backed up. The exception to this is very rare. You disagree? Please share some examples. I've been pretty happy with my ability to cross check MMFA stories, and it's extremely rare that they can be proven wrong. (Unless you reason like most conservatives do: if the conslusion sounds liberal, then the argument MUST be wrong.)
Now compare the the conservative 'watchdog' sites - THAT'S where you'll find opinion presented as fact (it's not a fact just becuse you agree iwth the opinion!) and "unfounded claims of falsehood" which is rarely more than "they're take on the story wasn't sufficiently conservqative for my tatstes, so therefore it's either false or liberally biased. I've been extremely disappointed that I've been unable to find a right-leaning sight that even approached MMFA's level of depth, honesty, and cross-referencing, as well as they're ability to write a well-reason column based on PRINICIPALS reather than strickly partisan talking points, taken as fact.
You are also entitled to your opinion, but you'll get no points conceded by me (or many others) on the points you mention.
Exactly. From what I've seen, the MRC basically argues that if the media doesn't present stories from the perspective of the right, it's liberal bias. My favorite was their complaint over the citation of a poll which suggested that the American public leaned left on gun control. That's it. No "out of context", no "shoddy methodology", no "out of nowhere", nothing of the sort. Regardless of whether the numbers were accurate or relevant to the subject or not, it was liberal bias to cite them. Like you say, not every item is a home run here, but I've never seen anything anywhere close to those depths of blind partisan hackery.
Cripes this woman's a hard interview. G couldn't even ask her a simple bloddy question! Absurd.
I know what you mean, I couldn't tell who's show it is.
I remember that. It was on John Gibson's show. Ironically, he no longer has a show on FOX NEWS CHANNEL anymore, it was cancelled in early 2008. He was kicked out of Iraq for doing that. Drawing a line in the sand and saying on International television where U.S. Troops would be. On the Daily Show shortly after that, I remember Jon Stewart making a joke that Geraldo was asked to leave Iraq, and the only other people who were asked to leave Iraq were Saddam Hussein and his two sons, Uday and Qusay.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Schachte, himself, designed those skimmer missions as "training" exercises for newly arrived officers. As "orientation" exercises, an experienced officer would introduce a new arrivee to numerous elements of Swiftboat operations such as (but certainly not limited to) intelligence assessment, command and control, tactical procedures, communication and on and on.
It simply strains credulity to suggest that ANY new officer would be tasked with command responsibility for and entrusted with the lives of 2 enlisted men in an unsupervised exercise designed to INSTRUCT.
Schachte's testimony has credibility. Kerry's does not. It's that simple.
So, which of Schachte's conflicting accounts would you say has more credibility. The one where they encountered enemy fire, or the one where they didn't? The one where he was actually in the skimmer, or where he was observing from the Swiftboat?
Bingo
Sure, and Poland invaded Germany on the morning of September 1, 1939 and the Holocaust was a hoax that never happened.
Enjoy the last 8 days of the 43rd reich, little factose-intolerant fella.
Factose intolerant. Beautiful...
Kerry's account conforms with those of Zeldonis and Runyon.
"Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three."
Kerry defeats the Swiftboat Liar 3 to 1.
Not so fast. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no proof, other than their own testimony, that Zaldonis and Runyon were actually in the boat that night.
Not so fast, but Schachte's testimony has no hard proof either, other than, himself, and his own testimony is conflicting. Let me quote from Kyle Broflovski:
"So, which of Schachte's conflicting accounts would you say has more credibility. The one where they encountered enemy fire, or the one where they didn't? The one where he was actually in the skimmer, or where he was observing from the Swiftboat?"
So, do we believe the three men who have told a consistent story and have no motive to lie, or the one man whose story has changed and who does have a reason to lie.
If the question is CREDIBILITY, the answer is obvious.
What pray tell is Schatche's reason to lie? Why did the Runyon/Zaldonis account come to light during the election? Zaldonis remember's Kerry during his anti-war fame and followed his career. Kerry did not remember who Zaldonis was. Runyon and Zaldonis remained friends.
The first account says nothing of Kerry commanding that ship that night. I see no contradiction by Schatche.
It could be that Runyon and Zaldonis are mistaken about who was leading that patrol that night. Both Runyon and Zaldonis were classified to repair engines, not fire m60's. Why would anyone put the two on the same boat when there were others who were trained.
Besides that, the whole account leaves out the question that the officers in charge denied Kerry his Purple Heart for what they say was a self inflicted scratch. How did Kerry finally get the medal?
As an officer in command (OIC) in training, Kerry reported during this mission to William Schachte, who eventually retired as a Rear Admiral. Schachte flatly contradicts Kerry's claim to have been wounded by enemy fire, saying that after his M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade that exploded too close to the boat, causing a small piece of shrapnel to stick in the skin of his arm. Kerry himself did not report receiving hostile fire that night, which would have been required, and there is no record of hostile fire for the mission. (sbvt snippet)
So, you can believe Runyon/Zaldonis if you want, it cannot be proven at this point, either way.
What is proven is that Kerry got this Purple Heart under suspicious circumstances.
Why does the man have two different stories, AA?
From: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,103119,00.html
Skimming the Skimmer Wade Sanders | June 27, 2006 “If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- from Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll.
When faced with the continuing attacks on Senator John Kerry's honorable military service, those of us who have taken the time and extended the effort to educate ourselves as to all the evidence concerning that service, including the official Navy record, have often felt as though we were, like Alice in Wonderland, living in a world of half-truths and flights of fancy. It has become crystal clear that those fixated on the destruction of John Kerry at all cost continue to live in parallel universe: a universe where up is down and down is up and everything is nonsense.
Even when confronted with the vast body of credible evidence, and the vast majority of eyewitnesses, they continue to dissemble the facts and rely on discredited sources. The fictions concerning John Kerry's participation in a winter 1968 skimmer operation, during his brief assignment to Coastal Division Fourteen, is a prime example of the fantasy land they have created. Their prime witness: William Schachte, a retired Admiral, Republican activist, and supporter of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (“Lies”). Recently, Schachte publicly declared his desire to set the record straight on this incident. However, despite repeated written invitations to met with representatives of his home town press, John Kerry and the other gentlemen who participated in that operation to discuss the facts, he has retreated into the shadows from whence he came. Fortunately for those of us who cherish truth, justice, and the American way, Schachte is completely undone by both by overwhelming unrefuted evidence and even his own past words.
In March 2003, Schachte gave the Boston Globe (then preparing an extensive biography of Kerry) an account of the skimmer mission that flatly contradicts the subsequent story hawked by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 and continuing to this day by their followers. In this original account, Schachte stated forthrightly that Kerry was involved in a “firefight” during the mission and that “he [Kerry] got hit.” According to the Globe, “Schachte did not challenge Kerry's Purple Heart” during his 2003 interview -- an astonishing omission, but to be expected, especially since Schachte (a strong Republican and political activist) had no factual basis upon which to challenge Kerry's award prior to the presidential election
year of 2004.
The central fact is this: the two enlisted men on the skimmer mission with Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Pat Runyon are one hundred percent certain that mission consisted solely of themselves and Kerry and that Schachte was not aboard the skimmer. Schachte was thus in no position to have eyewitness knowledge of anything that happened to them or Kerry that night on the skimmer. Zaladonis and Runyon, who were close friends at the time, have been absolutely consistent on this (unlike Mr. Schachte's changing story), and certain that this was their one and only skimmer operation, so it's not possible they're confusing this night with some other similar mission.
"Suspicious Circumstances" to you apparently means "I don't like John Kerry."
Look, I'm a currently serving member of the military with 26 years experience. I served in Iraq. One of my specialties is Human Resources, and within that field my main area of expertise is awards and decorations. I've prepared Purple Heart recommendations for several individuals who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know enough about awards to know there's nothing unusual or suspicious about John Kerry's awards, except that he received a Silver Star when Admiral Zumwalt would have preferred to present a higher award, the Navy Cross. (Zumwalt decided to give the Silver Star because he could award it himself, giving it an immediate impact.)
It wouldn't occur to me to denigrate the military service of Ronald Reagan, who joined the Army Reserve in the 1930s and served in California throughout WW II, or George H.W. Bush, who became a Navy fighter pilot and saw combat before he was 20 years old. (I will denigrate George W. Bush, though, because he couldn't even be bothered to show up for drill after he joined the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam.)
It's a damned shame that people like you who oppose John Kerry politically have smeared Kerry's honorable service simply because his ideology doesn't mesh with yours.
Excellent response. You must remember that Another Un-American has proven time and time again on this site that he prefers to believe lies. Kind of sad, really.
Ugly Amerikan has been spewin' the same gop-slop nonsense since he got here. Don't confuse him with the facts. He's in the bunker for the duration and he's goin' down with his fuhrer and the 43rd reich and that's all there is to it
Works for me.
This is hilarious. I think AnotherAmerican is retired, but I wonder what he did for a living where this sort of thinking allowed him to feed himself. Imagine him in the legal world, as a judge maybe--
"Hmmm... the three witnesses for the prosecution seem to corroborate each others stories, and I don't see any motive for them to lie. But the defendant, who is also my lover, has two conflicting accounts that both seem very credible to me. I'll have to accept his version until the prosecution can prove that one of his stories isn't true"
Whatta nut.
Thank you.
Yeah, right. His Commanding Officer threw Kerry out of his office when Kerry SOLICITED a Purple Heart (the mental image of which should make any vet nauseous, no less a purported A&D officer). That scenario is uncontested. Some 3 MONTHS after the fact, Kerry (after reportedly threatening his unit command with congressional intervention) receives a Purple Heart with no supporting documentation other than a medical dispensary's report of a splinter of shrapnel, source undocumented and treated with a bacitracin...and on THAT award he abandons his assignment in Vietnam 8 months short of a full tour...and somebody took his billet.
Prove it, Bingo. Do you think the article I sited from military.com is full of lies, if so, debunk them.
I'll leave that particular exercise to historians worthy of the name. That being said, a quote from one of MMFA's more popular resources will serve quite nicely...
Indeed, history has a way of cutting thru the chaff and getting to the truth of a matter. I suspect it won't be very kind to John Kerry.
I say the sky is blue over Iraq. You say it's green. It's an easy cop out for a third party to say both sides are equally credible and no one can know sure.
But you CAN know for certain what happened to John Kerry in Vietnam. Not only does the written record support him, but so do the statements and recollections of others who were there. Admiral Zumwalt's statement that he wanted to give Kerry a Navy Cross (higher that a Silver Star and second only to the Medal of Honor) ought to convince you. Jim Rassmann's statement ought to convince you -- he was knocked off Kerry's boat under enemy fire and if a wounded Kerry hadn't pulled Rassmann onto Kerry's boat, Rassmann himself says he would have been killed. William Rood's editorial account of the circumstances that led to Kerry's Silver Star ought to convince you.
The only conclusion is that you don't want to be convinced. You're happier simply BELIEVING whatever you want to, regardless of facts and evidence.
Well, there are things that can be KNOWN. The sky IS blue. San Diego is NOT German for "a whale's vagina." (Google it.) John Kerry did perform commendable military serice. History will show that John Kerry's service was denigrated by partisans who had no evidence. Of course, you'll choose not to BELIEVE it, but then again, you're delusional.
Why not? He won those awards, and performed his duties as required of him. It's not like he could give himself awards.
Bingo,
In other words, you've got nothing. The SBVT having changing stories. Show me some consistency.
The fact is, not a single substantive claim they made about Kerry's military service has been proven. After all this time, with all this publicity, not a single one has been proven.
Eecee,
O'Neil has changed his story. Schachte has changed his story. Kerry has not. Runyon has not. Zaladonis has not.
Why did their stories change after so many years?
Good question.
Hmm, so history will "get to the truth of the matter" even though there's no way to resolve" which stories are closer to the truth after all this time.
That's a pretty silly cop out even for you, B.
<blockquote>
Hmm, so history will "get to the truth of the matter" even though there's no way to resolve" which stories are closer to the truth after all this time.
</blockquote>
While FactCheck.org may have elected ("at this time"...and for whatever rationale) to characterize questions of fact as being impervious to their particular brand of truth-finding, and despite (cough) "sourcing" that reads like a laundry list of Kerry sycophants (go ahead...look), they nonetheless declared the issue to be unresolved.
FactCheck.org editors may "see no way" to further resolution of fact, but I trust historians (capital "H") will be just a bit more circumspect in their sourcing than the editors of FactCheck.org.
And while we're on the subject of "Historians"...
<blockquote>
<B>Historian's 'Duty': PR for Kerry?</B>
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | April 29, 2004
What kind of a historian is Douglas Brinkley anyway?
<snip>
Brinkley and publisher William Morrow plan to release a revised edition of "Tour of Duty" in two weeks. "I started realizing, `I've got to fix this,' `I've got to fix that,' " Brinkley says. "Nobody believed we would get to this point where every aspect of the book is being dissected."
Call me old-fashioned, but I can remember a time when historians wrote books that didn't have to be revised after sitting on the shelf for just four months.
Boston Globe
</blockquote>
Perhaps Mr. Beam might also remember a time when the debut of a much-ballyhoo'd "feature film", already "in the can", wasn't delayed several weeks by recently mandated contributions to the cutting-room floor.
So in other words, the FactCheck quote only "served quite nicely" as a cop out.
As I said, it was pretty silly, even for you.
Receiving a Purple Heart takes more than just one dispensary report. A recommendation to award it must include:
1 -- Proof that a combat action took place. This is usually an after action report, a situation report, an activity log, or some other unit record.
2 -- Two eyewitness statements (not from the individual being recommended) that the individual being recommended was present and was wounded.
3 -- Proof that the wound required contemporaneous medical treatment.
Kerry's first PH was for the action that included Runyon and Zaldonis. There were plenty of other people in the vicinity who observed it. There's no mystery as to how Kerry was wounded -- his rifle jammed, he bent down to pick up another, and he was hit in the arm by shrapnel.
The severity of the wound doesn't matter. Any wound resulting from combat with the enemy qualifies. In fact, what really matters is INTENT. If a friendly soldier throws a grenade at an enemy position, and a piece of the shrapnel hits the friendly soldier, he qualifies for a PH because he intended to inflict damage to the enemy.
I've recommended people for the Purple Heart even for wounds that didn't draw blood, including permanent partial hearing loss, concussion, dislocated shoulders and injured spinal discs. The fact that the hearing loss wasn't recognized as permanent or the effects of the concussion (hearing loss, memory loss, etc.) weren't recognized or the dislocated shoulders weren't surgically repaired until after the deployment is irrelevant. What matters is whether there was combat, if the individual being recommended was in it, and whether that individual was wounded as a result of the action.
I'm just stunned that Republicans insist on continuing to maintain this "Kerry is a self serving coward" delusion. You accomplished your mission of denying Kerry the presidency. What possible reason could you have to keep this up, except to avoid confronting the shame you ought to feel for the lies that you told?
Methinks republicans like bingo watched one too many "commando" movies. Apparently only republicans are capable of invading a tropic island dictatorship armed with a machine gun and two uzi's and proceed to kill off 100+ well armed soldiers before liberating said island.
Bob Dole's first Purple Heart was for a minor wound, that was self-inflicted. It was, for sure, a properly awarded Purple Heart . . . . . as was Kerry's. And Kerry's seems to not be self-inflicted, as Kerry never mentioned using an M-79. Furthermore, Runyon and Zaldonis say they definitely didn't carry an M-79 on the skimmer.
But, even if it was self-inflicted, it still qualifies.
The Swift Boat Veterans for "truth", and their lackeys (one of whom has contributed in typical fashion to this thread) have disparaged Kerry's service at every twist and turn. Shame on them.
And while I'm here . . . . I'd really like to see coulter come forth with the names of the 11 enlisted guys she claims were present for the Bronze Star incident who have said there was no return fire -- even the source would be nice. I have never heard such a lie, even from the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" (they claim something like three enlisted guys). She's breaking new ground on the lying front.
Doug Reese
Doug, don't forget that Hibbard was perfectly aware that Kerry was firing on the enemy at the time. He said in "Unfit for Command" that he'd been told Kerry and the enlisted men had fired on VC running on the beach.
You are also correct that the injury need not be inflicted by enemy fire in order to qualify for a PH. A friendly fire injury will qualify, for example, if "the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."
http://www.usmcvta.org/pheart/phcriteria.htm
Hibbard of course had to be aware of this, unless he was a total incompetent. As it was, plenty of Swift Boat guys received PH at the time under very similar circumstances:
Thanks for the excellent summary of PH requirements, 1stRepublic.
In addition, here's the conclusion reached by the Navy inspector general in 2004, which I've also posted elsewhere in this thread:
What you mean is that scenario is unsupported. No one but Hibbard makes such a claim, and his story is full of contradictions. Not one witness to that supposed encounter has stepped forward to verify it.
Oh yes, that "report" of the threat of congressional intervention comes from none other than Tedd Peck, who also claims the entire event took place a week before anyone else says it did. A report, by the way, unsupported by a single other SBVT member or even Schachte himself.
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Mailbag/mail.html
Of course there has to be "supporting documentation" or a PH will not be awarded. As a matter of fact, the Navy inspector general said ALL of Kerry's medals were properly awarded according to proper procedures:
Despite the minor nature of the injury, Kerry still requested a Purple Heart from Division Commander Grant Hibbard. Commander Hibbard denied, noting that there was no hostile fire involved in the incident, no casualty report, and no after—action report — all requisites for a Purple Heart medal.
Still, somehow Kerry circumvented the system and somehow was awarded the Purple Heart some three months after Lt. Commander Hibbard denied the award. [emphasis added] Who initiated the award remains a mystery and will remain so until Kerry authorizes the full release of his military and medical records, complete and unaltered.
(Roy Hoffmann, a retired Navy Rear Admiral and the founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)
-
Who finally authorized that Purple Heart? Why do we not know? Why can we not see the actual documentation? "properly delegated authority"? Why no names? Oh yeah.. we have to accept it at face value because someone defended Kerry.
The saddest part is that Kerry is now Chairman of the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee. God Help us all.
(Roy Hoffmann, a retired Navy Rear Admiral and the founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)
Again, AA you demonstrate that you will take as truth the words of the leader of a proven group of liars. Why to you like lies so much?
Those are probative questions that should have been asked (and answers DEMANDED) by traditional media during the campaign. They simply did not want to know. History will do a more thorough examination.
Yes, 'tis a real mystery why SBVT didn't just ask the next commanding officer if he signed the documents...especially because Hibbard admitted he knew about it before he left VN.
It's also a mystery why an expert like Admiral Roy Hoffmann, Ret., would not know what's a privacy-protected record (sick bay report made public by Kerry) and what isn't (everything else).
Ah, here you are quoting Roy Hoffmann, who had zero first-hand information on the incident, so instead relies entirely on Grant Hibbard's ever-changing account. Again, an account completely unsupported by eyewitnesses.
Why don't you know who authorized the PH? Why can't you see the actual documentation? Nothing's stopping you, AA. All of that information is part of the public record and to the extent it still exists is available to the public through the public archives. Knock yourself out, buddy.
PS, the only item that would not be part of the public record would be privacy-protected medical records. However, Kerry has made the sick bay report public, and nobody disputes that he was treated for the wound.
Yes my good man. Let me praise you, and thank you for your service to this country. I appreciate all of your efforts, and everyone like you.
I, even though being a hard core left wing uber liberal, would never denigrate someone's military service, such as Kerry, McCain, Murtha, Duke Cunningham, or anyone else, left, right, middle, or whatever. If we're talking about their military service, and if they served honorably, I've got NO problems with that at all. It does seem though that the people who DO denigrate military service, seem to be almost always republicans, and case in point, Kerry's service in Vietnam. Remember the Purple Hear band aids they had at their convention in 2004 making fun of Kerry's award? Yep, super classy right there. Almost always, we see republicans trying to take down democrats, who have served honorably, mostly because they disagree with their political views.
2 last words of a good example of this. Max. Cleland.
Belittling military service has been a standard tactic for Republicans for many years. On the national level they did it to John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale. They mocked Jimmy Carter, a Navy officer of such promise that he was accepted into the elite nuclear submarine program, and who was also involved in the cleanup after a nuclear accident at Chalk River in Canada. On the state level they certainly did it to Max Cleland, among others.
Yeah, Democrats brought up George W. Bush and Dan Quayle, but only because they got preferential treatment when they joined the National Guard to get out of duty in Vietnam. But as far as I know, no Dem questioned the POW heroism displayed by John McCain, the wartime heroics of George H.W. Bush, the stateside Army service of Ronald Reagan, or the Navy service of Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. Reagan especially deserves praise because he joined the Army Reserve in a time of peace and despite poor vision that should have disqualified him, and attempted to go overseas on active duty for WW II, but was prevented from doing so because of his bad eyes -- he didn't have to serve, but he did so anyway, and by all accounts performed capably. Contrast that with Dick Cheney's "other priorities" draft deferments.
There was a time when mockery like the Purple Heart band aids of the 2004 campaign or Ann Coulter's venomous lies about Max Cleland in 2002 would have been beyond the pale. But in this era of all "belief" and no "know", someone can make a claim, no matter how ridiculous, and have it accepted by his ideological adherents.
I do not remember any belittling of Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or Jimmy Carter. Do you have any links?
The only thing I remember about Al Gore is that he was some sort of reporter. I forget how long he was in Viet Nam.
I find if funny the savaging and dishonest attack of GW Bush is so lightly brushed off. Anyone remember Rathergate?
The military service of Max Cleland was not attacked. It is a false and dishonest meme meant to shift the argument from the fact that he voted against the Homeland Security Act because of his support for unions. What lies did Coulter tell about Cleland?
Kerry also had five deferments in case you forgot and only enlisted when he knew he was going to be drafted.
So I disagree completely with your take on the attacks. However I have come to accept that from, as another person said earlier, "the lackeys" who support Kerry and disparage people of good will who only question the facts.
John Kerry has bigger balls than any of his detractors.
John Kerry volunteered for the Navy right out of Yale University. He went to Vietnam TWICE. After his first assignment aboard ship he volunteered for the Navy's most difficult assignments, the swift boats of the riverine force. He volunteered for and graduated from SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) school, the toughest training a sailor can go through. He invented the tactics that made the swift boats successful (that's why he received the Silver Star). Those are the facts, and if you had any grace and tact you'd stop questioning them.
George Bush did join the Air National Guard to get out of Vietnam and he didn't go to drill. Period. The contemporaneous documentary record confirms that he not only quit attending drill, he also quit flying at the very time that the Air Guard started requiring drug tests, and he was released from the National Guard before he served out his original term of service.
If you don't know the lies Ann Coulter told on Max Cleland, then you're really out of touch. And the same applies to the ridicule of Gore, et. al.
I'm not going to bother providing links or continuing the debate. Clearly nothing will sway you.
Thank you for your service, 1stRepublic. And thanks for the common sense words.
"What is proven is that Kerry got this Purple Heart under suspicious circumstances,"
Really. Which one, ug? Enjoy the rest of your reich.
Always a pleasure.
Of course Kerry remembered who Zaladonis was. He crewed on PCF 44 under him for nearly two months. It was Runyon he couldn't place after all those years.
And "the first account" most certainly does say that Kerry commanded the skimmer mission that night. That account being the one based on Kerry's journal that appeared in Douglas Brinkley's book written in 2003 (ToD, pp. 146-148).
By the way, Kerry has always said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from that night...so much for the idea he claimed to have been hit by enemy fire. Even if it was a "friendly fire" or self-inflicted wound, it still qualified for a PH because it resulted from an action intended to inflict damage on the enemy. Grant Hibbard himself said in the SBVT book that he had been told that Kerry and the enlisted men fired on VC running on the beach...so he knew very well it qualified.
Well of course there is Kerry's journal, written at the time, that says it was him and two enlisted men. No other enlisted men have come forward to say they were there, much less offer such detailed information.
My mistake, the Brinkley account was based on an interview with Kerry, who evidently relied on his journal notes.
And yet two days later Kerry was given command responsibility for and entrusted with the lives of five enlisted men as commander of his own Swift Boat.
And those skimmer missions were not "designed to INSTRUCT" (B's emphasis), they were designed to ferret out enemy activity.
And of course a Swift Boat command was all about "unsupervised exercises" designed for combat.
COULTER:
Don't ask me about evdience or answers. Read my website.
She stole that trick from meshuggah monah charen.
I agree. MMFA is always careful about using the 'L' word, but when it's such a clear-cut case, MMFA calls it what it is.
You have got to be joking. So Christians are some club that's exempt from criticism from outside? So if someone claims to be a Christian, nobody who isn't one can't say anything when their behavior is inconsistent with their claims?
What an elitist attitude.
Hey, I don't mind discussing religion or people being critical, if it is in the contents of the thread. Tossing in insults about one's faiath in Christianity when it has nothing to do with the thread is simply biggotted against Christianity.
Just show me where anyone here who criticizes Jews or Muslims or Atheists based on what they say about unrelated topics. They don't. But it comes up almost daily here about Christians.
It's not an insult about anyone's faith in Christianity. People have "observations". That one was about Coulter and lying, which is the subject of the thread.
Maybe it comes up more about Christians because conservatives have aligned themselves with Christianity so blatantly. Look at yourself. You made excuses for Limbaugh when he mocked the sick, is that Christian behavior on your part?
Yes people have observations, but to put down another person's religious belief when it is not part of the thread, is a different matter.
I do not know what you are referring to with Limbaugh. I do not knowLimbaugh's religion, nor do I care. The same is true of Rachel Maddow or KO or BO or any other commentator/pundit.
It's not putting down Christianity to say that someone doesn't uphold Christian values. You should either address that or apologize to TR. If you can't support your criticism, you shouldn't make it.
I didn't say anything about Limbaugh's religion. I'm talking about you.
You are going way off on some tangent about Limbaugh and me making excuses. You'll have to be more specific. Your sentence preceding the one about Limbaugh said that Conservatives have aligned themselve so blatantly to Christians made me think you were still discussing Limbaugh and not me.
Anyway the original post for my rebuttal is gone as are a number of others. We can pick this up some other time.
Jesus hung out with lepers, and Limbaugh mocked someone with Parkinson's disease. You choose to defend Limbaugh. What would Jesus do? That's the same sort of point as the one about Coulter, so it's not nearly as tangential as you'd like to believe.
What you don't seem to get is that very few people really have a problem with Christianity. If someone wants to believe in that, wonderful. Where the problem arises is when people want to push it on others, or are hypocritical in their actions. Anybody can point that out, Christian or otherwise.
The bad example of "a good conservative Christian" is an old disguised attack on Christians. -anotheramerican
No, it isn't. Not unless that person is being held up as truly representative of christians. tony rome's post didn't do that. I think you're crossing over into deep paranoia.
Bill, nice touch throwing in more insults. There is no paranoia here. Only everyone, like you, is jumping on the bandwagon to defend what I believe is obvious bigotry against Christians.
Your post is laughable. Of course TR was holding up AC as an example of a Christian as attacked her religion rather than the content of the thread.
No, he was holding her self-professed christianity against her. There isn't one single word in his post suggesting she was a typical christian. It was strictly a comment on those who loudly proclaim their christianity without even attempting to live up to those ideals, and he wasn't suggesting that most christians are like that.
I stand by my paranoia comment. You're determined to find insult where none exists.
I think you are stretching to make that assumption that TR was not dissing typical christians. He obviously was dissing a Christian who is also on the right wing.
To accuse one of paranoia is hardly a positive comment. You are making a disparaging comment with someone simply because of a disagreement. You can stand behind your insults all you want but to try and say there is no insult is laughable.
"Dissing" a Christian who is also on the right wing? He was "dissing' someone who claimed to be a Christian but didn't live up to the name. If anything that is a positive statement about Christians. Your reasoning is bizarre.
Who says Coulter does not live up to the name? Your example is Some non-Christian anonymous person attacking Coulter's religious convictions based on disputed 40 year old memories?
The claim is an unwarranted attack on Christians. The removal of the comments by MMFA proves my point.
TR said she didn't live up to the name. You can disagree with that opinion, but that is clearly the thrust of what he said. You do seem to be making an assumption about his status as a "non-Christian".
The removal proves nothing. I've seen plenty of on-topic, non-offensive posts removed just because they were flagged. It doesn't prove that it was actually an "attack" on anything.
And Coulter's lie is not based on "disputed 40 year old memories." It's fresh as a daisy.
AA, are you the whiny little girl who got my post pulled? I wasn't attacking Christians, I was saying that Coulter is not a good example of Christianity. She's a fake, a fraud, just like Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, most all of the Kennedys and Edwards. And many more who claim to be Christians, yet don't live it. If you can't walk the walk, then don't talk the talk.
Your post is laughable. Of course TR was holding up AC as an example of a Christian as attacked her religion rather than the content of the thread.
Hey American, last night Coulter said to Huckabee that she was against "sodomy." You really believe that? No oral sex, no anal sex, eh?
Who cares if it's part of the thread? If she is held up to be Christian, and her behavior isn't consistent, then that's a valid observation, and anyone can make it. I'll ask you again:How is that an attack on Christianity? It doesn't say anything negative about it at all.
"but can you show me where any Christian denomination says that Christians who lie are cannot be Christians?"
That's what I was referring to, so that's not a straw man. Whether Coulter is actually lying or not is beside the point, you seemed to want to argue that dishonesty is somehow consistent with Christianity.
You are being silly.
Tell me how.
I already did. It is gone now.
However the reason for this discussion has been removed. Apparently someone, (not me,) felt TR's comments should be removed. I think that proves my point.
I read your responses. The fact that someone brings it up does not prove "anti-Christian" bias. There's nothing negative about Christians being said or implied at all.
It doesn't prove anything if someone flagged his comment. Even if that means they agree with you completely, that doesn't mean both of you would be right. That is certainly one of the most desperate claims I've seen.
Apparently someone, (not me,) felt TR's comments should be removed. I think that proves my point. (ANutterAmerican)
How the hell do some flagged posts prove your point, Barney?
That reminds me, a while back you denied saying something crazy that I remembered pretty clearly. I went to the thread where I absolutely knew it was, and the posts were deleted. There was nothing offensive or profane involved.
Are you actually flagging your own posts when you dig a poop=hole that's too deep? And using that as proof that the responses are wrong? You're nuts if that's what's happening.
That's funny because I've done that a number of times and couldn't find threads I KNEW were there, also. Self-flaggination is a wholey new form of republicants self hatred.
Bill,
"There are none so blind than those who will not see"
TR wrote, "Right wing, so-called "Christians" like Coulter lie so freely, you would have to think that they don't care about their religious convictions."
It is an obvious biggotted statement. Who determines who are the "so-called" Christians? Someone who is not a Christian? Who is TR to judge whether or not a Christian cares about their religious convictions? Coulter's religious convictions have nothing to do with this thread. It was simply and uncalled for, gratuitous putdown of Christians and shows anti-Christian bigotry.
"Who determines who are the "so-called" Christians?"
Anyone who thinks lying is a bad thing, maybe? Why does that make you assume that someone wouldn't be a Christian for saying that? Maybe he doesn't like people of her character parading around as Christians, because that doesn't make Christians look particularly respectable.
Hahaha... You guys are funny how you have to stretch the meaning of the comment in order to make it sound respectable rather than take it in context, along with the first few replies, to understand that they are attacking Christians expressly because they are Christians.
I'm not stretching anything. In context, there's nothing in that comment that is "anti-Christian", no matter how much you stomp your feet over it.
Answer the questions. What makes what I said unreasonable in any way?
It's clear from the wording that he was referring to Coulter's own referrences to herself as a christian. In this case "so-called christian" applies to Coulter because she calls herself a christian. It's not that complicated.
There is nothing in his post that broad-brushes all christians. I don't think I'm the blind one here.
You're not the blind one, BillJ. Maybe someone got their panties in a wad because I called Coulter a "heroin chic skank".
TR wrote, "Right wing, so-called "Christians" like Coulter lie so freely, you would have to think that they don't care about their religious convictions."It is an obvious biggotted statement.
There's nothing "bigotted" in pointing out that someone is a hypocrite. Coulter is a lying one. Still believe her "sodomy" remark?
wow, amazing what transpired since the original remark. If AA hated the coulter comment, I'm wondering what he thought about my reference to Palin? How does he get around the fact that conservative christians still uphold her as the perfect candidate for 2012 when the only conservative christian value she's demonstrated is that she thinks her daughter should bring an illigitimate baby to term?
COULTER: Media Matters. That's what we're talking about.
Yea, baby, that's what I'm talkin' about...! Media Matters has your number, Coulter: A liar is a liar is a liar... If you had your own show on FOX you'd even give Sean Hannity a run for the prize.
Well, she can always help Joe the Plumber convince reporters to ban reporting and bring an everlasting peace to the holy land by converting the Jews and Arabs to Christianity for their own good whether they like it or not.
Gee, how is it that nobody else ever thought of that.
Fox is just catering to their ignorant-trash/scum-vote target audience. Nobody else is gonna watch 'em.
Funnyguy,
I do believe jwcoop just insulted you.
funnyguy - "Did you happen to see her on Huckabee last night?"
jwcoop insulted Funnyguy? Sometimes I truly wonder what you're reading.
Or smoking.
Well, that just stands to reason, ug. Clearly, you've got a lot of factually-challenged, lunatic-fringe beliefs.
I get it! Now, I GET it! Coulter is like Jack Nicholson's character in "As Good As It Gets". Jack would say the most offensive and outrageously off the wall things, but he had a "condition" for which he saw a therapist and was taking medication. Poor Ann is just not taking her medication. At one point in the film, Greg Kinnear says to Nicholson, "You absolute HORROR of a human being..."
As Kyle said, "So, which of Schachte's conflicting accounts would you say has more credibility. The one where they encountered enemy fire, or the one where they didn't? The one where he was actually in the skimmer, or where he was observing from the Swiftboat?"
Also maybe Dave can say which of John O'Neill's accounts are more credibile. The one where he said that swift boats couldn't possibly go into Cambodia? Or the one where he said he went into Cambodia in a swift boat?
"Swift boaters lie? Where was Kerry the morning of December 25, 1968 again? Cambodia?"
Apparently he was there with John O'Neill (lead Swift Boat nut).
O'Neill: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
Nixon : In a Swift boat?
O'Neill: Yes, sir.
Oooops....
Why are we, or is she, still talking about the Swift Boat Liars? They've been exposed as frauds. Let it go, Ann. You have 9/11 widows to berate then complain that no one can berate them.
Randy
Ann's Master Plan
By Madeleine Begun Kane
A right-wingnut woman named Ann
Had a book tour publicity plan:
She would spew on TV
Lies and venom with glee,
And they'd let her, cause Ann ain't a man."
Nah, Coulter's just a coalition of the clueless cretin train wreck waiting to happen. A gratuitous car chase in a bad movie to kill time in a futile attempt to distract from the fact that she and the film have got nothing to say and they've been saying it far too loudly and far too often for far too long. Outside of the fact that she works cheaper than flush, gender's got nothing to do with it
Now here's a lie right here:
That's not true. SBVT had originally gone with the story reported in the Brinkley book and the Boston Globe, that Kerry had gone out with two enlisted men. At one point (no later than April 2004) those enlisted men identified themselves as Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/
Then, four months later (August 2004), William Schachte piped up and said, no, it was one enlisted man and me. Since he was basically supporting the SBVT talking points, they adopted his version and changed their website.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp
So Ann, do your research and get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth. It would be a first, I know, but you wouldn't get slammed nearly so often on the easy stuff.
I meant RIGHT wing media, but FIGHT wing media is a fortuitous error.
Someday we may come to understand why Republicans harbor such hatred for Viet Nam War veterans. The Right are basically traitors.
Perry, it's because most Republicans in power today used every means possible to get out of serving in a war they supported, as long as someone else fought it for them.
So, some weak-kneed pansy had my post pulled. What a coward.
Just for the record, I was NOT attacking real Christians or Chritianity. I was slamming Coulter and other right wing haters like her for CLAIMING to be Christian, while puking out likes and bitter hatred toward others.
I expect this post to be pulled, also.
I hope it stays. It needs to be said.