Geez, you lied again! The key charges you made are not supported by the Globe story.
Richard Bennett
· 5 years ago
The Boston Globe confirms the essence of the story, and even the jokes that Kerry's comrades made about him.
I stand by the claim that Kerry staged re-enactment of his heroics for selfish purposes.
John K.
· 5 years ago
The Boston Globe didn't confirm "staged heroics," at all, and, in fact, the Boston Globe's piece was later discredited (see above).
Like I said: desperation.
You would think that after the Clenis<superscript>TM</superscript> scandals, anyone would approach stories like this with a healthy amount of skepticism.
Richard Bennett
· 5 years ago
The Boston Globe confirmed the larger story, John: blind ambition.
John K.
· 5 years ago
The Boston Globe was debunked by the (then future) editor of the owner's publication.
John K.
· 5 years ago
And I might add, that gives cred to the charge that your main focus, "Staged Heroics," was - what was it- a lie? or simply misleading?
I'll let your other readers be the judge of that.
Richard Bennett
· 5 years ago
The point wasn't so much that the re-enactments weren't accurate -- nobody charged that -- but that they displayed pathogical poltical ambitions.
John K.
· 5 years ago
Uh, as it turns out, there were no "re-enactments." What's pathological is a group just making up crap like that, and other folks parroting it.
Richard Bennett
· 5 years ago
You don't actually know that, even though you wish it were true.
Ken Layne
· 5 years ago
Hey Richard!
Yr critics are basically wrong here. Kerry *did* shoot home movies of his battlegrounds (or "battlerivers"?) and he has never claimed otherwise. He *did* go back to the scenes of various trouble spots and make little movies.
Keller wrote a column making fun of Kerry for this. Kerry's office, in 2002, invited Keller to come in and watch 40 minutes of this footage. Keller left thinking it wasn't a big deal ... that Kerry just made some home movies of the spots where he had shootouts w/ Charlie.
But nothing in Keller's "retraction" column says the basic story isn't true. The film exists, obviously -- some was used in the campaign video tonight, so I've heard (I was walking the dog so I could be back in time to see all of Kerry's speech) -- and I'm not even sure if there's anything bad about it.
Even if it seems creepy ....
I do know that every one of my veteran friends, uncles, bro-in-laws and especially grandpas are pretty serious about documenting their war days. There are photos, films, trinkets, and of course the War Stories. And they come out in a flash, if you show the slightest interest. (I'm always interested in these stories, just because they're interesting. Maybe not if you're married to the person and hear a variation of the tale whenever someone visits, but ....)
I don't know. The story, in itself, is obviously true. The *motivation* will fuel the argument. And even though it creeps me out that Kerry was possibly planning his Political Life way back then, I'm not sure it will really hurt him in any serious way -- meaning, won't hurt him in the independent / swing voter world -- because it *still* sounds better than Bush (& Cheney, & Clinton) avoiding service in Vietnam while lesser kids had to go there and die.
John K.
· 5 years ago
There you and your friends go again.
Nobody's denying Kerry shot movies.
Like that's a crime?
But as we saw last night, Keller pretty much debunked the idea that this was some kind of cold-blooded political stunt: Kerry didn't appear prominently in any of the footage shot.
Moreover let's get back on point here: the title of this post is "Staged heroics".
The point of the post was that somehow Kerry shot re-enactments of battles, with the cold-blooded idea of using these for his political campaigns. This has been clearly debunked.
Moreover, as we saw last night, Kerry's a man of honor, who is indeed respected by those who knew firsthand what he did.
Bush's mettle, as I've said elsewhere, was on display for all of America to see when we finally saw the "My Pet Goat" look on 9/11.
The people on the right- who, like Richard, like George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam have to try and diminish any way they can a true war hero, thinking they can make "Mission Accomplished" Bush look like, what is it- a War President or a Peace President?
The American people aren't buying this sludge.
Richard Bennett
· 5 years ago
Uh, John, Ken Layne has picked your claims apart, and he's a Kerry backer.
The question of the Kerry re-enactments and what they represent doesn't have a thing to do with Bush's goat, Pai Chang's fox, or any other red herring you can toss in the mix. Kerry went to Vietnam hoping he could do some heroics that would help him in politics, and he succeeded. So I give him points for planning, at least.
John K.
· 5 years ago
Sure does. Kerry's valor won him a Silver Star, and no spinning by you can undo that.
Bush was "deer in the headlights" on 9/11, he was AWOL in the National Guard after a million bucks were spent training him, and his behavior on 9/11 would be best summed up if he were nammed Sir Robin Bush as:
Brave Sir Robin ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely
turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly, he chickened out. Bravely
taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin.
Richard Bennett
· 5 years ago
President Bush's behavior on 9/11 was exactly as it should have been, sir - he didn't panic, he didn't over-react, and he didn't fold. He sent troops into Afghanistan (over your objection, I might add) to take down the Taliban and shut down the Al Qaeda camps.
All men of good will were pleased with this, and the rest of you don't particularly matter.
All Comments
It's well known that these guys have connections to the Bush campaign, which they deny on their website.
As a bunch of liars, I wouldn't give them any credence.
Moreover, they happen NOT to have served directly with Kerry on his boat, so they wouldn't have any knowledge of this.
Amazing how credulous some folks can be.
Geez, Richard, can't you do any better than that?
I stand by the claim that Kerry staged re-enactment of his heroics for selfish purposes.
Like I said: desperation.
You would think that after the Clenis<superscript>TM</superscript> scandals, anyone would approach stories like this with a healthy amount of skepticism.
I'll let your other readers be the judge of that.
What's pathological is a group just making up crap like that, and other folks parroting it.
Yr critics are basically wrong here. Kerry *did* shoot home movies of his battlegrounds (or "battlerivers"?) and he has never claimed otherwise. He *did* go back to the scenes of various trouble spots and make little movies.
Keller wrote a column making fun of Kerry for this. Kerry's office, in 2002, invited Keller to come in and watch 40 minutes of this footage. Keller left thinking it wasn't a big deal ... that Kerry just made some home movies of the spots where he had shootouts w/ Charlie.
But nothing in Keller's "retraction" column says the basic story isn't true. The film exists, obviously -- some was used in the campaign video tonight, so I've heard (I was walking the dog so I could be back in time to see all of Kerry's speech) -- and I'm not even sure if there's anything bad about it.
Even if it seems creepy ....
I do know that every one of my veteran friends, uncles, bro-in-laws and especially grandpas are pretty serious about documenting their war days. There are photos, films, trinkets, and of course the War Stories. And they come out in a flash, if you show the slightest interest. (I'm always interested in these stories, just because they're interesting. Maybe not if you're married to the person and hear a variation of the tale whenever someone visits, but ....)
I don't know. The story, in itself, is obviously true. The *motivation* will fuel the argument. And even though it creeps me out that Kerry was possibly planning his Political Life way back then, I'm not sure it will really hurt him in any serious way -- meaning, won't hurt him in the independent / swing voter world -- because it *still* sounds better than Bush (& Cheney, & Clinton) avoiding service in Vietnam while lesser kids had to go there and die.
Nobody's denying Kerry shot movies.
Like that's a crime?
But as we saw last night, Keller pretty much debunked the idea that this was some kind of cold-blooded political stunt: Kerry didn't appear prominently in any of the footage shot.
Moreover let's get back on point here:
the title of this post is "Staged heroics".
The point of the post was that somehow Kerry shot re-enactments of battles, with the cold-blooded idea of using these for his political campaigns. This has been clearly debunked.
Moreover, as we saw last night, Kerry's a man of honor, who is indeed respected by those who knew firsthand what he did.
Bush's mettle, as I've said elsewhere, was on display for all of America to see when we finally saw the "My Pet Goat" look on 9/11.
The people on the right- who, like Richard, like George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam have to try and diminish any way they can a true war hero, thinking they can make "Mission Accomplished" Bush look like, what is it- a War President or a Peace President?
The American people aren't buying this sludge.
The question of the Kerry re-enactments and what they represent doesn't have a thing to do with Bush's goat, Pai Chang's fox, or any other red herring you can toss in the mix. Kerry went to Vietnam hoping he could do some heroics that would help him in politics, and he succeeded. So I give him points for planning, at least.
Bush was "deer in the headlights" on 9/11, he was AWOL in the National Guard after a million bucks were spent training him, and his behavior on 9/11 would be best summed up if he were nammed Sir Robin Bush as:
All men of good will were pleased with this, and the rest of you don't particularly matter.