Burnt Orange Report

You raise a good point. I always stay skeptical of these polls done and calculated so quickly. But what if there are more REGISTERED Republicans than their are Democrats in the nation? then a proper sampling would have to have proportionately more registered Republicans to remain accurate. I don't know the answer to this question, but maybe thats why the sample had more.

That may be okay for Newsweek, how about Time?

Tell me who can question Kerry about Vietnam?

Kerry gave testimony about Vietnam, how about all those others? You know the 2.4 million that served? When do they get to give testimony?

Did Kerry's testimony influence prospective employers when they saw that a Vietnam vet was applying for a job? Do i employ a murderer, a rapist, a thief? Did the Vets have to check the prior felonies box with an explanation?

Did Kerry's testimony help create alot of alcoholics? Homeless people? Criminals because no one would employ them for their being a Vet?

How many wives or children were beaten up because of their treatment upon homecoming? How many family members were killed by returning vets?

How about the reception given Vets coming home. I remember they were bothered by antiwar protest?
Drafted, they were only following orders and they got treated badly by our fellow citizens on their return.

Objects appear larger in the rear view mirror than they actually are.

There is a link on Buzzflash to an aggregate list of data from several polls. In general, they show a Bush bounce, but with maybe a 2 point lead over Kerry (still within the margain of error).

In sum, this is still a close race. I think the key thing Bush did is not really "lead" Kerry, but stopped Kerry's momentum, which was starting to build up.

By the way, all those that booed at Clinton's ill health are a bunch of sick mother fuckers. But what do you expect from a bunch of Republicans? (I am fond of telling people a personal anecdote: I not too long ago had a VERY VERY PAINFUL health issue, which is luckily mostly resolved. I would describe it as so painful, that I would not even wish it on DeLay. It is true, I wish no ill health to these people - they cannot say the same.)

Instead of doing that ridiculous math just go to the full poll results and note that the margin of error is +/- 4%.

WhoMe, the "boo" story has been exposed as completely fake, the fantasy of an AP reporter or his superiors. The actual audio and video is available at many websites, including instapundit.

I haven't seen the TIME internals... if I do I'll take a look at them.

I really don't understand these people with the mindset that what Kerry did after the war was offensive or caused hardship for other soldiers.

This is a classic case of blaming the messenger. Would anyone argue today that the Abu Ghraib whistleblowers are responsible for soldiers who have committed suicide or any future cases of alcoholism?? I mean really, Republicans like to call themselves the party of personal responsibility, yet they want Kerry to take the blame for all the people who mistreated our veterans. Get real!

I have yet to see an honest argument put forth by a Republican about what Kerry said in his testimony. It is always taken out of context and twisted to make him look like he is pointing the finger at all soldiers.

MyDD agrees with you, Byron, though they crunch the numbers a bit differently.

So the polls are accurate only when they show us ahead?
In fact, polls are not anywhere near as scientific as many people assume. Cell phones and call screening technology have made telephone polling increasingly unreliable.

Thr best bet is to always run a campaign as if you were 5% behind. Big leads breed sloth and margins showing your candidate far behind induce lethargic defeatism.

After an August of permitting himself to be put on the defensive, Kerry is certainly behind. A strong September offensive combined with serious GOTV efforts can even things up in time for the debates.
But the Kerry campaign needs to be less namby-pamby and take off the kid gloves. And we need to make sure that every potential Democratic voter we know is properly registered to vote.

Jason,

The reason Kerry's testimony was so offensive is because he fabricated it out of thin air. He never saw anything like that occur, as everyone who serves with him agrees, both those who support him and those who oppose his candidacy. A number of the "Winter Soldiers" were subsequently revealed to be anti-war activists pretending to be ex-soldiers, or actual soldiers who were never sent to Vietnam. They fabricated accusations of atrocities to reduce public support for the war and get the US out of Vietnam. Kerry either knowingly or unknowingly repeated the false accusations, accusing US troops of unspeakeable atrocities they never committed. (sidenote, yes some atrocities occurred but they were isolated incidents, not routine and official policy support from the top on down as Kerry said)

Kerry falsely imupgned the honor and integrity of his fellow soldiers. That is why it is a big deal. It isn't shooting the messenger, it is that the messenger lied and in the process advanced his own career.

One final note. Kerry claimed that he personally committed savage atrocities and war crimes. Do you believe him? If so, why do you support him, and why is his war record in Vietnam something for him to be proud of. If he is a war criminal, his service record is certainly something open to attack.

If you do not believe him, do you then agree that he has lied about the war crimes he claimed to have seen? And what does it say about the man you want to be Commander in Chief that he wanted people to believe he had murdered civilians, even if he had not done so?

If so, why do you support him, and why is his war record in Vietnam something for him to be proud of.

Kerry's record in Vietnam is a source of much greater pride than the Flightsuit-in-Chief's draft dodging activities and coke snoreting when he was supposed to have been in the National Guard.
Read the latest on Dubya's activities in 1972-1973 in Salon. Obviously a source of pride to any spoiled brat frat boy.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index.html

The neocons and Bushies really love throwing stones inside their glass houses.
This is certainly an issue where we should never permit Republicans to put us on the defensive. The whole Smear Boats for Bush effort is a calculated to draw attention away from Dubya's sordid life during that period.
Don't even bother responding to attacks on Kerry's Vietnam record. They are an effort to get you to waste your time. Instead, counterattack, and make them like it!

Tim,

My post had nothing to do with the Swift Vet accusations, except in so much as it explains part of why they dislike Kerry so much. I was referring to his post-War testimony, and I would genuinely like to know how you on the left react to the fact that Kerry claimed to have committed atrocities in Vietnam. That isn't a right-wing smear, that is his own voluntary admission. Personally, I think he was lying about it in order to increase the credibility of his charges that America was not fighting a just war in Vietnam.

But Kerry still confessed to committing war crimes. Seriously, do you think he made those up, as I do, or not? If he did commit war crimes, why should he tout his Vietnam service as a reason to elect him. If he lied about what he claimed to have done, do you also accept that he probably lied about what he claimed others did, and thus Veterans are justifiably upset about his charges of war crimes where none existed. Or do you think he was lying about committing war crimes himself, but actually saw others commit them. If so, what evidence is there to support this view?

Curiously,

Aladextra

What accusations were false exactly? Did My Lai never happen, and if it did, why would you think it was an isolated occurance?

And your hypocrisy is rank. You dump on Kerry for possibly repeating false accusations, when Bush has done the exact same thing over Iraq. If Kerry must be held responsible for what he says, why don't you set the bar just as high for Bush? If Kerry did repeat false accusations, it was in an effort to save human life, what have Bush's false accusations cost us?

Jason,

As I noted, My Lai and similar tragedies did occur, but they were isolated incidents. Kerry claimed that it was official policy and routine behaviour, from the top on down, to "rape, mutilate ... raze villages in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjis Khan ..." etc and generally murder and kill innocent civillians. That is the allegation that is false. That the atrocities were widespread, committed by large numbers of soldiers, and officially tolerated at every level of the chain of command. That My Lai wasn't an isolated incident but a typical example of how American troops behaved in Vietnam. That was a lie, and it impugned the honor of every American who served in Vietnam.

Kerry never saw any atrocities occur like he claimed he did. On that all the Swifties are agreed, even those who have endorsed him. Like I said, that is why so many of them hate him -- they would have been duty and honour bound to report it if they had seen anything like that, and so his testimony implies that they are complicit in torture and murder, which they were not.

My point about him confessing to committing war crimes is that he (hopefully, much as I dislike him, I don't want to think that he murdered civilians) lied about what he said he personally witnessed in order to bolster his claims about the general barbarity of US troops. If you accept that Kerry isn't a murderer, you have to accept that he lied about the atrocities he said he saw in Vietnam. Which makes his claims about war crimes being widespread and officially sanctioned somewhat hard to buy. Especially since there is no evidence to support this accusation, and it turns out most of the "Winter Soldiers" were never in Vietnam.

And there is no hypocrisy involved in condemning Kerry but not Bush. The circumstances are very different. It is the difference between knowingly repeating a false accusation and repeating something you sincerly believe to be true, but is later proved wrong. The US, British, and even the UN, French, and German intelligence services told W. the same thing -- Iraq was puruing WMDs. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Reports and the Hutton Inquiry both proved that the analysts weren't pressured to make these claims. So Bush was acting on the best info available to him at the time. In Kerry's case it is very different. Unless Kerry personally committed war crimes, we know he lied about what he said he saw. That is why I don't blame Bush, but do Kerry.

As for Kerry's motives, it doesn't change the fact that he attacked the honor of virtually every soldier who served in Vietnam and that is why so many people have the "mindset that what Kerry did after the war was offensive or caused hardship for other soldiers." Duty, honor and integrity aren't nothing to most people, but especially not to those who have served in the military.

But if you want to claim that the ends justify the means, then Kerry's lies lead to the enslavement of the Vietnamese people by a totalitarian regime. On the other hand, Bush's acting on bad intelligence lead to the liberation of 25 million people from a fascist dictator who had sent at least 400,000 of his citizens to mass graves, and replaced him with a free and democratic government with elections soon to take place. If that is the criteria you want, I'll take Bush's "lies" over Kerry's any day of the week.

Aladextra

I don't accept that Kerry "confessed" to war crimes. Hopefully others won't fall into your rhetorical trap.

I do know that Dubya's failure to properly heed the August 6, 2001 security memo was partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.,
He's either incompetent, an airhead, or an agent of al-Qaeda. (in addition to a spoiled brat frat boy)

Tim,

Here is Sen. Kerry's statement on the matter, from Meet the Press in 1971:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

"MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, 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-caliber 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 and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

It seems pretty clear he is confessing to atrocities. If nothing else, razing villages (did he do it in a fashion reminisent of Jenjis Khan, I wonder) is fairly barbaric. How is this anything other than Kerry confessing to war crimes. In his own words he took part in actions that were "contrary to the laws of warfare."

Now of course, I think Kerry was full of it and didn't do any of those things. But he still said he did.

Aladextra

Alexandra,

Spin all you like, Karl Rove will be proud that you are on message with the party line.
You may score points on freeper sites, but you won't get out of the end zone here.
We'll see you after we produce Dubya's coke dealer from the early 70s. ha!

Tim,

I have no expectation that I am going to persuade any of you on this site. I would seriously like to know what you on the left think of Kerry's testimony on this. He either lied or didn't lie. Either presents problems for him, like I've said in many previous posts. What do Kerry supports like you make of his testimony? Do you just ignore it and dismiss it as right wing spin? These aren't accussations lobbied against Kerry, these are his own words. How do you deal with this?

Aladextra

We deal with it by saying BUSH SUCKS!

Don't try to get us to waste our time answering smear charges against future President Kerry.
Tell Karl that this smear boat won't float.

As somebody said near the end of a recent documentary:
"Fool me once..."

You guys want to talk about David Brinkley's interview on WABC today? About the Navy's investigation into the decorations posted on the Kerry/Edwards website. The Silver Star with a V, Four Bronze Stars.

"Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?"

Brinkley predicted that a discrepancy with Kerry's medals could seriosly escalate his political problems.

Remember Adm Booarda and his V-pens?

Tim,

If your response to Kerry's admission is that no matter how bad Kerry is Bush is worse, and so you will vote for Kerry, that is fair enough. Thank you for being so forthright. For my part, it would take quite a lot to make me vote for Sen. Flip-Flop -- even if you guys did produce "Dubya's coke dealer from the early 70s" I would still vote for Bush.

Out of curiousity, does Tim speak for all the rest of you on the left here? Do any of you find the fact that Kerry is either a war criminal or someone who knowingly smeared every Vietnam veteran at all problematic? Or are you so opposed to Bush you would be willing to vote for any sane candidate to his left to replace him?

Aladextra

Drudge is reporting that Bubba had a conversation tonight with Sen. Kerry and he told him to drop Vietnam and talk about other issues. I've never agreed much with Bill, but i have to say this man did win two Presidential elections. Kerry might want to listen to him.

Bubba had a conversation tonight with Sen. Kerry and he told him to drop Vietnam and talk about other issues.

This is from Sunday's Meet the Press :
MR. RUSSERT:  Have you had a chance to talk to (President Clinton) recently?

MR. CARVILLE:  All night last night and Friday night, too.

So Kerry is getting good primary advice from Clinton and good secondary advice from James Carville. They are the architects of the defeat of the first Bush (the father of the spoiled brat frat boy) in 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Bob Graham was another guest on Meet the Press. Unfortunately he didn't have time to say much about his new book which links terrorists to Saudi authorities, not unlike those so near and dear to the Bush clan.

Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. "It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.'' . . .

Graham found the president had ''an unforgivable level of intellectual -- and even common sense -- indifference'' toward analyzing the comparative threats posed by Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

From Laura Rozen's article in The Gadflyer
http://gadflyer.com/warandpiece/index.php?Week=200436#744

Kerry was following orders. That's what a soldier is supposed to do. That's what the airmen who dropped the a-bombs on Japan did. Then, when his tour of duty ended, he came back and testified before Congress on what was going on in Vietnam. I have family members who served in Nam - they agree with Kerry's account. There were war crimes committed, and this was on par with orders from above. So Kerry told his fellow citizens what their tax dollars were being used for. For this, he's being called a traitor.

Also, what is this Kerry flip-flop nonsense? Bush has never flip-flopped? Bush initially opposed the 9/11 commission, then he had to support it. Same with the department of Homeland Security, which he fought tooth and nail until later taking credit for its establishment. And steel tariffs? He's switched twice on that one. Just wait- Kerry recently took on some Clinton people; they're going to do what Rove does - "go after strengths, not weaknesses" - and tear down Bush's illusion of "steadfastness."

Kerry was following orders. That's what a soldier is supposed to do. That's what the airmen who dropped the a-bombs on Japan did. Then, when his tour of duty ended, he came back and testified before Congress on what was going on in Vietnam. I have family members who served in Nam - they agree with Kerry's account. There were war crimes committed, and this was on par with orders from above. So Kerry told his fellow citizens what their tax dollars were being used for. For this, he's being called a traitor.

Also, what is this Kerry flip-flop nonsense? Bush has never flip-flopped? Bush initially opposed the 9/11 commission, then he had to support it. Same with the department of Homeland Security, which he fought tooth and nail until later taking credit for its establishment. And steel tariffs? He's switched twice on that one. Just wait- Kerry recently took on some Clinton people; they're going to do what Rove does - "go after strengths, not weaknesses" - and tear down Bush's illusion of "steadfastness."

I believe Kerry when he says he did things he is not proud of. But until he says he committed war crimes, I'm not going to believe it. I think there is a difference in following orders and committing war crimes on your own accord.

At the same time, Bush admits there are things he has done that he isn't proud of. He just doesn't think we have a right to know what they are, and the press basically doesn't question that.

I really don't see how the Christian right is able to vote for someone who had a DUI. He could have easily killed somebody, but he got lucky and became president instead.

"I really don't see how the Christian right is able to vote for someone who had a DUI."

They are such hypocrites that this is no problem for the fundies. They claim to be "pro-life" but strongly support the death penalty. At least the Pope is consistent.

Being the first president with a DUI conviction is just chicken feed.
According to this recent article, Dubya was doing cocaine at Camp David when Papi was president.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14609301&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=bush--took-cocaine-at-camp-david--name_page.html

Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s.

She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either."

Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush "liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine".