Kerry shows somes backbone (FINALLY!!!)
 

Kerry blasts Bush over attack ads

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work."

Defending his record, the Democratic presidential candidate said, "Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts."

"Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam."

Kerry received five medals for his service in Vietnam a generation ago, but his record has come under campaign challenge in television commercials aired by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, funded by supporters of the president.

Bush and the White House have refused to condemn the ads, despite calls to do so -- from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, as well as from Democrats.

Senior Democrats, including some inside the presidential campaign, have urged Kerry to respond forcefully to the criticism, fearing that if left unanswered, it could hamper his quest for the White House.

In addition to Kerry's speech before an audience of firefighters, his campaign released a new 30-second campaign commercial that features a former Green Beret saying the young Navy lieutenant saved his life under fire.

Recalling when his boat came under attack more than 30 years ago, Jim Rassmann says, "It blew me off the boat. All those Viet Cong were shooting at me. I expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine."

Aides said the commercial would air in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, three battleground states. The decision to advertise even in a limited fashion marked a change in course for the campaign, which had hoped to remain off the air for August to conserve cash for the fall campaign.

In his speech, Kerry employed a wartime metaphor.

"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson. When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do today."

Speaking of the organization airing the ads that challenge his war record, Kerry said, "Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth and they're not telling the truth. ...

"But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know. He wants them to do his dirty work."

Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said, "That charge leveled by Senator Kerry is absolutely and completely false."

"The Bush campaign has never and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The president has referred to John Kerry's service as noble service," the Bush spokesman said.

Kerry said, "Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on."'

Kerry's comments drew boisterous cheers from members of the union that had endorsed him last year at a time his candidacy was struggling.

Rassmann, too, played a pivotal role in Kerry's campaign turnaround last winter. With the kickoff Iowa caucuses days away, the former Green Beret contacted the campaign and volunteered to appear with the Massachusetts senator and talk about his action in Vietnam.

Rassmann has since become the best known member of a group of veterans that Kerry calls his "band of brothers" -- a stress on military service designed to erode the traditional Republican campaign advantage on national security issues.

Kerry's response came as The Washington Post reported that a Vietnam veteran who claims Kerry lied about being under fire during a Mekong Delta engagement that won Kerry a Bronze Star was under constant fire himself during the same skirmish according to the man's own medal citation.

The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star in the engagement and that Thurlow's citation says he also was under attack, the Post reported.

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy swift boat during Vietnam. He swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow's records, obtained by the Post under the Freedom of Information Act, include references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at all five boats in the flotilla that day. In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a damaged swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who have aired a television advertisement attacking Kerry's war record.

Thurlow, a registered Republican, said he was angry with Kerry for anti-war activities after his return to the United States, especially his claim that U.S. troops committed war crimes with the knowledge of their officers up the chain of command.

Thurlow told the Post that he got the award for helping to rescue a boat that was mined. He said he believed his own award would be fraudulent if it was based on coming under enemy fire.

He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

Members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Whadddya mean, "finally"? We're talking about a guy who got a Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. Are you kidding me with this "finally" ****? :lol: I get enought of this crap listening to Candy Crowley report about Kerry taking "dainty" bites of a sandwich. Kerry's got plenty of backbone, don't you worry. :)

Blah Blah Blah - I meant in this campaign and response to these charges - I think you knew that Miss Smarty Pants !!!! :woohoo: :woohoo: :lol:

He has so much backbone that he refuses to talk about his Senate record and admit he shouldn't have voted for the war on Iraq.

I agree with Carnevaca and his astute characterization of the Democratic Party as being "rubber-spined."

I don't see how it takes that much courage to tell your opponent to stop attack ads against you. This is supposed to show he's so tough? That's silly. Show us you're tough by standing tough on things like the Iraq war, the marriage issue, the corporate takeover of Washington, etc.

"My opponent is picking on me" hardly qualifies.

It wouldn't hurt her to take only a few dainty bites, eh? :lol:

Have you been listening to Mike Malloy? :lol:

What are you talking about? :confused:

:eek: He said that, too?! :lol:

I only listened to him twice, I always fall asleep. I'm determined to listen to him tonight, though, I LOVE him. AAR is getting better with each day that passes, I love it!

You can listen to him on the White Rose Society's web site (archives). he called Keyes "Popeye on acid" the other night. :lol:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's almost as funny as when Teresa called Santorum "Forrest Gump with an attitude." :lol:

Thank you, I should copyright that. Where's the pat-yourself-on-the-back smiley?

It is worn out from your over use of it :cool: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :p :laugh:

As is the foot-in-mouth one from your overusage. :cool: :p :laugh:

PUUHHLLEEEZZEEEEEEE

Mr. "I will never concede a point even though I am dead wrong" :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: Do I habe to bring up Laura Bush's auto accident 40 years aso again :laugh: :wavey:

I'm not worng, I simply said it is an incident of suspicion. If you don't think so, fine. But I think it's suspicious, especially when she wasn't even given a f*cking ticket.

:rolleyes:

How about once a conviction is overturned it is as if it never existed :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :xoxo: :angel: :laugh: ;) :p

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't negate the fact that that certain someone (Ollie North, a druggie and a thief) was convicted at one point in time.

Yes it does, that conviction does not exist. Once again, when an appellate court overturns a conviction, it is as if it never happened - that defendant can truthfully say he was never ever convicted - period - end of story. The conviction never existed. Again that does not mean ON did not do it. It just means he was never ever convicted of it because the original conviction was null and void. This is not a difficult concept for 99.9% of the rest of us :laugh: :p :D

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't negate the fact that that certain someone (Ollie North, a druggie and a thief) was convicted at one point in time.

He was convicted, it was overturned on a technicality. But he was a convict for almost four years. ;)

Nope - he never was - the overturning of the conviction negates it entirely - and you are being obstenate and silly :laugh: :p

No, I'm not. I don't care what language is used to cover up the fact that Oliver North was a convict for four years, he was.

Nope - never was and you know it. You are wrong wrong wrong!!!! :xoxo: I know you know this and are being hard headed - which just proves my original comment here that you cannot admit being flat out, 100% WRONG :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :cool:

The only thing I know was that Oliver North was a convict for four years. I'm not wrong when I say this. What would you say about a man who was in jail for murder for 15 years, only to be let out on a technicality? He was a guest of the state for 15 years, or that he was a convict for 15 years?

YES YOU ARE :laugh:

When an appellate court overturns a conviction, the conviction never existed. I suppose you could say, Oliver Noth was convicted and then four years later an appellate court overturned that conviction. The overturning of that conviction makes the statement "Oliver Noth was convicted" not true and never true because the conviction NEVER EXISTED :laugh: How could he be convicted of something when that conviction never existed :shrug:

Someone is yanking my chain - Someone is yanking my chain - Someone is yanking my chain :laugh:

Secondly, in the example you give, the man was in prison for a crime he was never convicted for. Get it!!!!

No one is yanking your chain, Ollie North lived four years of his life as a convict.

Shall I have it engraved on my headstone?

No he did not - he was never convicted - show me the valid conviction. You cannot and you know it. Again, yes he lived his life for four years as a convict, but then the appellate court's overturning of that verdict erases the convict label and the erasure applies retroactively. Be as hard headed as you want, but ON was NEVER CONVICTED!!!!!!!

I find both of these statements contradictory:

In the end, I don't care if they're contradictory, you yourself made my point. :wavey:

No I did not - the conviction never existed. You want to tell only half the story (how unsurprising :p ). You want to say ON was a convict and then just stop there. Well, you cannot and be truthful at the same time - that is if truth is what you want to say. In the end, ON's conviction was overturned and he was in fact never convicted - the overturning of the conviction makes it impossible to say ON was ever convicted - period - end of story. That is not contradictory and you know it and are just being hard headed because ONCE AGAIN - you cannot admit being wrong, esp. where ON is concerned!!! ;) :wavey:

Darling, this is what I said:

To which you said:

Which you chased down with this cocktail:

To which I responded with:

Which they are. :xoxo: :wavey:

Never convicted one time
Never convicted two times
OOOOOOHHOOOOOOOOOOOOo
Dissention is wrong again
Ba Dum Ba Dum Ba Dum - Bum Bum Bum

:laugh:

Again, the ability to use the word convict when referring to those four years ceased when the conviction was overturned and you know it.

Again, and I quote:

I know it must be a bitter pill to swallow, but you're a big boy. :laugh: :xoxo:

Just like every other liberal, you can't quote the whole thing and take quotes out of context. So, nope - no bitter pill here :cool:

Again, the ability to use the word convict when referring to those four years ceased when the conviction was overturned and you know it. That was what I said and that would be apparent if you had quoted my whole statment - Just admit it - the truth (which is far from what you have been saying and you know it :laugh: ) will set you free!!!!!

Context or no context, you yourself admitted that he spent four years of his life as a convict.

Now he works for Faux News. :rolleyes: :laugh:

Nope - I never admitted that and you know it. But, you go on ahead and think whatever you want - just as long as you know you are flat out, unequivocably, 100%, a'int no two ways about it, dead WRONG on both my quote out of context and that fact that ON was ever convicted

Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh:

Not on your life. He was a convict for four years.

But, you are correct in that it is fitting that the formerly convicted but had his conviction overturned so he was never really convicted at all Ollie "I kissed and wiped RR's *&$%^@ so give me a job" North is on Fox News - bless his and their hearts!!!! :laugh:

Blah Blah Blah - no conviction exists and you know it!!!! Just admit it - it is okay - no one is going to take away your birthday and it does not lend any creedance to ON because he still did the crime !!!!! :laugh: ;) :p :cool: :lol: :lol:

I never said that his conviction still exists, I simply said that he lived his life as a convict for four years, which he did.

Nope - the overturning of the conviction makes it untruthful to say he lived his life as a convict for those four years. If the conviction never existed, he was never a convict for those four years - period. I know you know this. I know you are trying to be sly with words and semantics. But, it is not working and you are . . . wrong!!!! :laugh:

Keep repeating that, you might start to believe it. Otherwise:

Ollie lived as a convict for four years.