What do you think of this Kerry news?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Whether this "intern" story turns out to be:

1) Worthwhile.
2) A "Non-story."
3) Totally False
4) The next "Watergate."

Does it worry anyone that publications and broadcasters, people who are supposed to be legitimate journalists, are running parts of this story using as attribution, "Matt Drudge, an internet gossip columnist?"

What kind of source is that?

It was more than Drudge though from what I heard...

-Rudey
--But then again even if it's a rumor, you'd think the Post would put it out at least.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
It was more than Drudge though from what I heard...

-Rudey
--But then again even if it's a rumor, you'd think the Post would put it out at least.

At least. Nothing there.

If I read it correctly, Drudge claims that Time, ABC News and the Boston Globe are investigating.

I have not seen anyone from those organizations confirm (or deny, to be fair) that there is anything to the rumor.

If the investigation is ongoing, I would expect one of the above to do something, so that they aren't "scooped" by other media.

[KSigkid]

absolutely nothing in the Globe today...i read it cover to cover and didn't see anything. when it breaks there it will be front page news.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by Rudey
I keep joking with this one guy about how he's having flashbacks from Nam.

-Rudey
--He doesn't think it's as funny as I do.

Because it's not.

If you haven't seen someone hit the ground when they simply hear a helicopter, or go through the tests for Agent Orange or some of the other diseases picked up in Viet Nam (and Desert Storm, for that matter), you don't really understand.

Twenty years after my brother returned from Viet Nam, he was driving me out to the airport, and I made the mistake of asking him something about Viet Nam. He had to pull over from the anxiety - and I will never tell what he told me about it. As I said earlier, most Viet Nam veterans were against the war when they returned.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by honeychile
Because it's not.

If you haven't seen someone hit the ground when they simply hear a helicopter, or go through the tests for Agent Orange or some of the other diseases picked up in Viet Nam (and Desert Storm, for that matter), you don't really understand.

Twenty years after my brother returned from Viet Nam, he was driving me out to the airport, and I made the mistake of asking him something about Viet Nam. He had to pull over from the anxiety - and I will never tell what he told me about it. As I said earlier, most Viet Nam veterans were against the war when they returned.

I would hazard to say that most vets are against war on principle because they understand the horror that is war. In my group we have people that still after ten years refuse to step of concrete because of an ingrained fear of mines...... and certain smells or sounds can set them off (myself included).

So Kerry came back and protested a war that he thought was wrong... He fought in theory to defend that right, so there should be no problem in him exercising it.

[G8Ralphaxi]

My understanding is that the following facts are true:

1. Kerry served his country and fought in Vietnam.

2. While he was there, he did enough good, brave stuff to get several medals.

3. When he came back, he decided that it was not right for the U.S. to continue the war, and he spoke publicly about this opinion.

4. One of the places where he spoke against the war was to testify in front of Congress.

5. While testifying in front of Congress, he either exaggerated or flat-out lied about what he saw in Vietnam.

It's #5 that drives me insane. I'm not going to pick on his record over in Vietnam. I don't care whether his wounds were a paper cut or he almost got his whole damn leg blown off. The military thought he deserved the medals, so fine. (Likewise, I don't give a care about Bush's National Guard record. The military says he did what he was supposed to do and honorably discharged him. That's enough for me.)

And it really doesn't bother me that he decided the war was a bad idea and spoke out about it. The First Amendment means that's ok. Kerry could have walked around with a giant sign that said "Communism is Cool! America sucks!" and I would be fine with that. I wouldn't want to vote for someone who thought that way to be my President, but I would still think he was entitled to have that opinion.

However, the First Amendment (not to mention a reasonable person's sense of honor) does not support falsehoods. Kerry has admitted that he exaggerated or embellished or stretched the truth or whatever about his testimony. This is CRAP. He LIED.

"Testify" means you are swearing to tell the complete and total truth, not exaggerate or embellish the story to suit your purposes. Kerry is an intelligent, well-educated man. He knew better. And the thing that's so stupid about it is that the lies were unnecessary. If he wanted to say why the war was so bad, there were plenty of true stories he could have told. There were a lot of civilian casualties. It was an incredibly rough and dangerous area and there were a lot of American soldier dying too. Making up crap about American soldiers eating babies for breakfast undermines the whole message, especially when it turns out that it wasn't true.

But hey, I'm a Republican, so I must be completely biased and not giving Kerry a fair chance. Yeah, ok.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by honeychile
*Most Viet Nam Veterans who received a Purple Heart were laid up for more than a day. In fact, a goodly portion received them posthumously.

*Kerry was with a group of Viet Nam Vets who protested by throwing away their medals. Kerry threw only his ribbons; the rest threw away their medals. I believe that's called hypocracy.

To earn the Purple Heart, one must be wounded or killed as a result of enemy action, though the original purpose of the medal in the Revolutionary War was for military merit (the reverse of the medal has 'FOR MILITARY MERIT' inscribed.) In fact, some early Purple Heart medals awarded in 1932 (the year the modern medal was introduced) were awarded for meritorious service.

Most medal presentation boxes are composed of the following:

the full-size medal (miniature medals for formal (mess dress) uniforms are sold separately)
the medal ribbon
and a miniature lapel pin of the medal ribbon

Back in the day, one could not purchase full-size medals; you had to request replacement medals from the respective military service. It's much easier to purchase full-size medals today (except - obviously - for the Medal of Honor). It was Kerry's choice to either toss his medals or his ribbons; to me they would have reflected the same impact.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by G8Ralphaxi
My understanding is that the following facts are true:

1. Kerry served his country and fought in Vietnam.

2. While he was there, he did enough good, brave stuff to get several medals.

3. When he came back, he decided that it was not right for the U.S. to continue the war, and he spoke publicly about this opinion.

4. One of the places where he spoke against the war was to testify in front of Congress.

5. While testifying in front of Congress, he either exaggerated or flat-out lied about what he saw in Vietnam.

It's #5 that drives me insane. I'm not going to pick on his record over in Vietnam. I don't care whether his wounds were a paper cut or he almost got his whole damn leg blown off. The military thought he deserved the medals, so fine. (Likewise, I don't give a care about Bush's National Guard record. The military says he did what he was supposed to do and honorably discharged him. That's enough for me.)

And it really doesn't bother me that he decided the war was a bad idea and spoke out about it. The First Amendment means that's ok. Kerry could have walked around with a giant sign that said "Communism is Cool! America sucks!" and I would be fine with that. I wouldn't want to vote for someone who thought that way to be my President, but I would still think he was entitled to have that opinion.

However, the First Amendment (not to mention a reasonable person's sense of honor) does not support falsehoods. Kerry has admitted that he exaggerated or embellished or stretched the truth or whatever about his testimony. This is CRAP. He LIED.

"Testify" means you are swearing to tell the complete and total truth, not exaggerate or embellish the story to suit your purposes. Kerry is an intelligent, well-educated man. He knew better. And the thing that's so stupid about it is that the lies were unnecessary. If he wanted to say why the war was so bad, there were plenty of true stories he could have told. There were a lot of civilian casualties. It was an incredibly rough and dangerous area and there were a lot of American soldier dying too. Making up crap about American soldiers eating babies for breakfast undermines the whole message, especially when it turns out that it wasn't true.

But hey, I'm a Republican, so I must be completely biased and not giving Kerry a fair chance. Yeah, ok.

I agreed wholeheartedly. Hey, there are pictures of me in a stroller in anti-war demonstrations!

I also get a kick out of people who think Kerry's Irish, when he's not!

[madmax]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Whether this "intern" story turns out to be:

1) Worthwhile.
2) A "Non-story."
3) Totally False
4) The next "Watergate."

Does it worry anyone that publications and broadcasters, people who are supposed to be legitimate journalists, are running parts of this story using as attribution, "Matt Drudge, an internet gossip columnist?"

What kind of source is that?

No, it doesn't worry me. He is usually accurate isn't he?

[Angels&Arrows]

Since he broke the Monica Lewinski (SP) story, he has become bigger than life.. at least in the conservative world...

You know... everyone denied the Monica story too... Bill, Monica, Monica's parents, etc..... Noone wanted to break/pick that story up at first either!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Angels&Arrows
You know... everyone denied the Monica story too... Bill, Monica, Monica's parents, etc..... Noone wanted to break/pick that story up at first either!

You may have a good point -- if the alleged story is ever published.

Nobody has denied anything yet, because nobody has leveled any "charges" yet.

Let's remember that, whether he's right or wrong, all Drudge has only said that a story is going to be published/aired.

That's a long way from an investigative piece saying that Kerry has done anything "wrong."

[AGDee]

And now you all get to see my cynical and paranoid side... Would *someone* deliberately withhold this story until AFTER the Dems make Kerry the candidate so that the Dems can't put another candidate in? If it is true and it doesn't come out until after the Democratic Party makes their nomination, then Bush is a shoe in. I hope that if it's true, it comes out before the Dem Party Convention this summer.

Dee

[AlphaSigOU]

Something to digest from the other side, from an op-ed piece in the Washington Times a few days ago:

'Bush and I were lieutenants'

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.

It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.

The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2&1/2 years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.

Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.

Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.

As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:

First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly - the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.

Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen - then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.

In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)

U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard

Herndon, Va.

[justamom]

My brother-in-law examines politics with a microscope. Conservative without a doubt. He sent this to me.

If you haven’t heard, John Kerry has been carrying on an affair for two years now.



Four things:

1) Dean might once again become the front-runner;

2) John Kerry’s wife is furious (she just found out);

3) Al Gore learned of this in year 2000 and decided to select someone else for this very reason (Al Gore eventually selected Joe Lieberman); and

4) the liberal media has known about it since at least year 2000 and are hoping this doesn’t become ‘front-page’ news.



Passages below taken from the Neal Boortz web site followed by links to other web sites with additional information about Kerry’s affair.



John Kerry is expected to respond today to the report on the Drudge Report about the alleged two-year relationship with a much younger woman. An earlier report said she had once worked for the Associated Press. According to Drudge, "after being approached by a top news producer, the woman fled to Africa, where she remains." It'll be fun to hear Kerry explain this one.

More important than the allegations is what this does to the race. If Kerry is no longer the slam-dunk, most electable candidate, then that opens it back up (Dan’s note: Howard Dean might make front-runner again; more about that in a few more paragraphs). For weeks now we have seen polls showing that Democrats are lining up behind John Kerry because they believe he can beat George Bush. Voters could now turn to Edwards or Dean as an alternative.

It is rumored that the Kerry affair story was shopped around by none other than Chris Lehane, a former Gore hack working for Clark. Now that Weasley's campaign is over, they all magically switch sides and endorse Kerry. They will now attempt to defend Kerry against the very allegations they helped raise.

It really does take your breath away.

DEANIE BABIES REJOICE: THIS CREATES AN OPENING

Now we know why Howard Dean went back on his promise to drop out of the race after Wisconsin. He apparently knew about the Kerry affair allegations and decided to stay in the race. He may be smarter than we thought he was. This is about to get very interesting.

If Kerry suddenly has the baggage of cheating on his wife, plus the Jane Fonda photo, now he doesn't look so unstoppable. Add to that, Super Tuesday (March 2) is still 2 1/2 weeks away. Since Democrats at the polls are so concerned about electability, this one isn't looking too electable all the sudden.

Howard Dean's political obituary may have been a little bit premature. John Kerry's bimbo eruptions make the "I have a scream" speech (Dan’s note: Howard Dean’s response after losing Iowa) look like child's play. Plus, Dean can trot out his wholesome-looking wife to become the family-oriented choice.

Just when you thought it was all over, it's just getting started.


http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...printstory.jsp
Kerry may have the biggest problem with his wife Teresa Heinz-Kerry. She told Elle magazine that she warned her first husband on the subject of adultery: "If you ever get something, I'll maim you. I won't kill you. I'll maim you." Yikes.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html This British newspaper has picked up additional details about the John Kerry allegations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html The Telegraph of London says Kerry faces a big test over the allegations.

http://a.tribalfusion.com/p.media/WW...35736/pop.html WorldNet Daily weighs in on the Kerry issue.

edited to add the links

[GeekyPenguin]

I haven't seen anything on this Kerry scandal in a reputable American newspaper (the NY Post isn't one, last time I checked. ). It's been given NO attention here, which is fascinating considering our debate is in less then 12 hours and our primary is Tuesday.