Posted on 08/19/2004 1:48:12 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
This morning brought this wire story from the Associated Press:
by Ron FournierBOSTON (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."
(snip)
[John Kerry said] "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."
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."
While author Fournier accurately relayed that Kerry accused the "527 group" Swift Boat Veterans For Truth of being sock puppets for Bush (which the 200+ individual members of SBVT deny), and while it is without doubt (and far from a secret) that Texas Republicans provided the majority of the seed money for the TV ad that SBVT aired in swing states, Fournier failed to provide other pertinent facts:
I was reading this poor excuse for journalistic balance this morning, and, needless to say, was infuriated. I knew that the leftist-majority media would ignore the Swift Vets until they had enough ammunition to smear them. But I didn't think it would be this brazen and demonstrably slanted. There is no excuse for anyone who calls him or herself a "journalist" for turning in such a slanted piece of fill-in-the-blank.
(I find myself reciting variations of the last paragraph a lot these days.)
Stay with me.
I googled him and found someone else who didn't like his work, this one being a leftist blogger named Steve Soto. Back in December of 2003, he didn't like the fact that Kerry was criticized in a story with Fournier's byline detailing the fallout of Kerry's using the "F-word" in a Rolling Stone interview.
Wrote Mr. Leftie in a December 7, 2003 missive:
Apparently, someone who reads his blog (I can't imagine why) did email Fournier at the above address. Here's Soto the following day, December 8, 2003:
The allegedly Born Again Christian George W. Bush, as we reported here before from a no-longer-free link to Time Magazine, interrupted a meeting between Condi Rice and three senators nearly a year before the invasion to blurt “F[---] Saddam, we’re taking him out!”What’s good for the goose…..
Send an email to AP coresponent Ron Fournier and let him know how hypocritical it is for the White House to complain about Kerry's profanity when Bush used it in the White House in an open setting over a year before the invasion. You can reach Fournier at rfournier@ap.org.
So if you do choose to excoriate Ron Fournier at rfournier@ap.org, you may want to cover all the bases, and address it "To Whom It May Concern."
Reader Brian did in fact send an email to Fournier, and guess what? According to Brian, Fournier claims that although the story has his name on it, he didn't write it.Subject: RE: Bush's use of foul language
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 05:22:53 -0500
From: "Ron Fournier"
To: "Brian X. XXXXXX"
I did not write that story, and I don't know who did. You make some good points. I'lll [sic] forward your email to my bosses
Regards
Ron
What? The story still has his name on it this morning, yet he is disowning it?
Seems this Swift-Boatgate is beginning to come to a head. Something's got to give between now and the election.
I have been saying this for months and have sent my observations to the media, Congress, SBVFT, and others. Namely, I provide the following:
Did he or didn't he? After reviewing Kerry's service records, as released by him, I find it hard to believe the media have not picked up on the John Lehman connection. It should set off all kinds of alarm bells, especially considering the recent flap over whether he threw his medals away or not.
A very curious question arises over Kerry's multiple Silver (3) and Bronze (2) star citations. Two of the five were signed by John Lehman who was Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration 5 Feb 1981 - 10 Apr 1987. There are three Silver Star citations supplied by Kerry. One was signed by ADM Zumwalt, one by ADM Hyland, and one by Secretary Lehman. The Bronze Star citations were signed by Zumwalt and Lehman. Specifically,
Zumwalt: ADM Zumwalt served as Commander, US Naval Forces Vietnam from Sep 1968-May 1970. The Silver Star citation is more than likely the original citation taken from the award submission. Normally, as part of the nomination form, the nominator must provide a synopsis of the award (citation) that can fit on a single page suitable for framing with the certificate. Zumwalt's citation covered two pages. I suspect that Zumwalt forwarded the award to CINCPAC, ADM Hyland, for the final signature, including the citation. It is worth noting that the requirement to go to CINCPAC applied only to the Silver Star, hence only the Zumwalt and Lehman citations for the Bronze Star, i.e., Zumwalt as the final approving authority and Lehman for the replacement/reissue.
Hyland: CINCPAC probably edited the Zumwalt Silver Star citation to make it fit on to one page and to clean it up a bit to fit the existing format. ADM Hyland was CINCPAC 30 Nov 1967 - 05 Dec 1970
Lehman: Except for the last sentence, the Silver Star citation is the same as Hyland's. What makes this curious is that Secretary Lehman signed the citation at least over 12 and up to 18 years after the events occurred. Kerry served in Vietnam from November 1968 to April 1969. I doubt, in any event, that the final approval authority for Silver Stars had to go to SECNAV for approval. We also have photographic evidence that Kerry had the Silver Star medal pinned on in 1969. Kerry also acknowledges that he received them. My take is that Kerry requested replacement medals and due to the fact that Kerry was no longer an active duty service member, administrative requirements mandated that SECNAV's office had to approve the issue of the replacements once it was verified from official records that Kerry had actually earned them.
The bottom line is that Kerry probably did throw away his medals and then requested replacements in the 1980s. Someone needs to raise this issue with Kerry, i.e., why did Secretary Lehman sign duplicate Bronze and Silver Star citations at least 12 years after you left Vietnam? Kerry needs to release all of his military records including the nomination forms, which will give us the chronology and the approval chain of command.
Kerry's reaction on Good Morning America fits his MO. He wants it both ways. When he discovered that throwing away your medals was politically a negative, he came up with the story about his ribbons and someone else's medals. Kerry realized that he couldn't walk away from the story entirely, especially since he has the medals displayed prominently in his office. However, the fly in the ointment is that we now have the citations, released by him, signed by Lehman. If he indeed requested replacement medals, he has a real problem, i.e., he was telling the truth initially, lied in the 80s, and is lying now.
I recognize that confronting Kerry on his military service is fraught with problems politically, but I believe there are plenty of inconsistencies that need to be made public. His antiwar activities and associations (Fonda, Ramsey Clark, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, et. al) also need to be exposed fully. The fact that Kerry was a member of the inactive Naval Reserves (1970-2) subject to involuntary recall and could meet with the Communist Vietnamese in Paris (per his sworn Congressional testimony) while our forces were engaged in hostilities is disgraceful. In fact it has recently been learned that Kerry met twice with the Communists in Paris.
Kerry is frozen in a time warp when it comes to his service in Vietnam. His preoccupation with his medals borders on being an obsession. If you check Kerry's released military records, you will notice that Kerry amended his DD214 with a DD215. Among other things, Kerry burnishes his Vietnam Service medal by adding four bronze service stars to reflect various campaigns. This was done in March 2001!!! Why anyone would go through that effort to make some meaningless changes is beyond me. Hundreds of thousands of veterans, including myself, could do it, but beyond self-gratification and ego, what is the point?
23 posted on 08/19/2004 7:25:31 AM EDT by kabar [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 |
What about all of the lefty 527's? Jeesh, these people make me nauseous.
Guess I was ready to get a good "MAD" going. I should really read the entire article first. It seems they did mention the leftists.
Fournier made abundant inferences that SBVT is a Bush "front group," just as Kerry wants us all to believe.
Fournier is such a DNC shill, it makes me want to barf. And if he thinks the swifities are sock puppets, I think Fournier is a meat puppet.
Kerry certainly doesn't want you to know who's telling the truth.
Oh, but he did just that and more...
Aug 05, 2004 - The White House yesterday distanced itself from a political ad that questions John Kerry's Vietnam service and called on the Democratic presidential nominee to join President Bush in demanding an "immediate cessation" of all advertisements by outside groups. "We have not and will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One. "The president is calling for an immediate cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity." He added: "We hope the Kerry campaign will join us."They also filed a complaint...which resulted in this opinion...June 23, 2004 - In a major shift in fundraising strategy, President Bush’s finance team has begun asking wealthy Republicans to cut checks as large as $1 million to GOP state parties in key election battlegrounds rather than steering their funds to independent groups created in recent months to support Republican candidates this fall.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Election Commission Thursday rejected a proposal to rein in the unlimited fundraising and spending power of independent political groups attempting to influence the outcome of this year's presidential race. Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot and Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie called the FEC decision "irresponsible" in a joint statement.
Friday, October 6, 2000
Course for now: tough Bush, nice Gore
By RON FOURNIER AP Political Writer
DANVILLE, Ky. -- Al Gore and George W. Bush are sticking with the strategies that marked their first debate, the Republican on the attack, the Democrat playing nice. Both courses are fraught with risk.
Millions of viewers tuned in to their televised clash over taxes, Medicare, abortion and Gore's character. But analysts say the first debate may have minimal immediate impact on the political landscape.
That would be good news for the vice president, who came in with an edge in the state-by-state race for electoral votes. Bush needs to take advantage of every chance to persuade Americans to vote for change in a time of peace and prosperity, analysts say.
Gore appears to be playing it safe, though polls show the popular vote split and his electoral lead fragile. The Texas governor is assuming the role of scrappy underdog.
''Bush didn't make a particularly good case for changing the administration. He didn't look awful, he didn't lose anything, but this wasn't the kind of performance that moved him ahead,'' said John Green, political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio, a battleground state that Gore is keeping tight.
Green and others said nobody will know the full impact of the debate for a few days, until voters digest follow-up media reports and talk to friends and colleagues.
Though their messages were unchanged, both campaigns were slightly adjusting their electoral map plans after the debate.
Gore planned to begin advertising in his home state of Tennessee and renew his ad campaign in West Virginia in recognition of Bush's inroads in two states he had hoped to have wrapped up.
Bush, meanwhile, was airing ads in Nevada, a state he had hoped to have firmly in his corner by this stage. Republicans say he may soon substantially increase the size of his media campaign across the country. His latest ad, due for release Thursday, is described by aides as a ''vision spot'' that outlines his governing philosophies.
The debate could turn out to be a mixed blessing.
Gore proved the best debater and drove home the experience gap he holds over the two-term Texas governor. But the vice president turned off some voters with constant interruptions and off-camera antics; his heavy sighs punctuated several Bush answers.
''I think if you're a debate coach, Gore did everything you're trained to do, but he looked a little strained and strident,'' said Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, a key state that turned toward Gore in September.
Bush looked presidential in style and substance, a relief to voters who wondered whether he was fit for the job. But attacks on Gore's character, a cornerstone of Bush's election strategy, could rub some voters the wrong way.
''I felt there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House,'' Bush said. He targeted President Clinton without using his name or mentioning his impeachment.
It was red meat for his GOP base, which has gotten soft in the Midwest. Bush wove the theme through policy discussion, telling voters that Gore also can't be trusted to keep his promises to cut taxes, improve health care or manage the federal bureaucracy
Trying to dominate post-debate media coverage Wednesday, Bush advisers highlighted cases in which Gore exaggerated or misstated facts in the debate. Aides said Bush and his surrogates would continue to make the character case against Gore.
In Thursday's vice presidential debate here, running mate Dick Cheney may pick up where Bush left off. A spokesman said Cheney will be a ''firm critic'' of Gore's proposals in the meeting with Democratic candidate Joseph Lieberman.
Swing voters, particularly women, seem torn.
''I'm getting really, really sick and tired of them cutting on each other,'' said Deb Barsh, a restaurant clerk and single mother in rural Pennsylvania who, when first interviewed by The Associated Press in April, said she was undecided.
Gore is appealing to the same woman -- and others like her -- by attacking the attacker.
Advisers said Gore would stick with the low-key response, betting that Bush will face a backlash. Recent polls show the Texan is viewed less favorably since he began sharpening his criticism of Gore.
A number of advisers said Bush was not tough enough in the debate: He allowed Gore to dominate the discussion; he failed to recite the GOP talking points against the vice president's prescription drug plan and he rarely talked about education.
But mostly, there was relief among GOP officials who had feared a gaffe or a deer-in-the-headlights moment.
''Bush gave as good as he got ... and showed he's ready to be president,'' said GOP consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's failed 1996 campaign. And yet, ''I don't believe he scored enough to change the dynamics of the race.
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Ron Fournier is chief political writer for The Associated Press.
Kerry's wife funds him through her leftist organizations.
September 14, 2000
Gore Closer to Electoral Majority
BY RON FOURNIER
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore has pulled closer to the 270 electoral votes needed to claim the presidency, generating momentum in battleground states from his rival's mistakes and the public's growing preference for issues over personality, according to an analysis by The Associated Pess.
In more than three dozen interviews this week, Democratic, Republican and independent political analysts concluded the race is still highly competitive. But they said Texas Gov. George W. Bush must move quickly to keep the vice president from opening a formidable lead.
Across the country, Republicans expressed frustration with their nominee's campaign.
''People like George W. Bush, but the issue in people's minds is, 'Is he up to the job?''' said Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Oregon GOP. He said Bush must answer the question in debates against Gore. The first of three debates is set for Oct. 3.
The vice president has made modest but steady gains against Bush since Labor Day, when an AP survey found 14 states and the District of Columbia leaning Gore's way or solidly in his column. An additional 22 states tilted toward Bush, leaving a wide open race concentrated in the Midwest battlegrounds of Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania.
Since then, Gore has emerged from a dead heat in national polls to gain an edge in many surveys. In the all-important state-by-state race for electoral votes, Pennsylvania has moved from the tossup category to the lean-Gore column. Colorado, a lean-Bush state two weeks ago, is now a tossup.
That gives Gore 15 states plus the District of Columbia for 224 electoral votes -- 46 short of the 270 required for victory. If the election were held today, Bush would claim 21 states for 171 electoral votes.
An additional 14 states and 143 electoral votes are tossups. Analysts say Gore has momentum that could soon tilt a number of the most competitive states to the Democrat, including Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Washington.
''The longer the campaign goes on without a shift to Bush, the harder it is to find a reason that such a shift will occur,'' said Dave Rohde, political science professor at Michigan State University.
The trend is striking in Missouri, a state with Bush leanings until recent weeks. Republicans and Democrats alike say the state, which traditionally votes for the winner, is on the verge of falling into Gore's column.
''He should focus on how Al Gore is way too left for Missouri, but they haven't done that effectively,'' said John Russell, the senior GOP senator in the Missouri legislature. ''If the election were today, and I'm a Bush backer, it would be a tossup and Gore could win.''
''Michigan is listing Gore's way,'' said Craig Ruff, president of a Lansing, Mich., political think tank.
In Washington state, independent pollster Stuart Elway compared Gore to a baseball player coming out of a summer-long dry spell -- his polling now gives an edge to the vice president. ''He can't miss. Bush can still win here, but he has to come out of his slump,'' Elway said.
Ohio is Bush's best bet in the Midwest, yet GOP polls show the race has evened up since Labor Day.
The latest Pennsylvania poll gave Gore a 13-point lead. Though few analysts think the margin is that large, internal polling for both parties leans toward Gore.
''Gore has now made himself acceptable to more voters here,'' said Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Millersville University in Pennsylvania.
Adding to Bush's troubles is the tight race in Florida, where his brother Jeb is governor and no Republican can afford to lose.
Gore must win California to make his electoral math add to 270. Polls show he is safely ahead for now.
Republicans complained that Bush has been sidetracked since the Democratic convention by debate negotiations, his high-profile slur of a newspaper reporter and controversies over GOP ads. Even Bush's famously loyal confidants say privately that many more distractions could give Gore room to run away with the lead.
''He's got to get on the offensive and he's got to be posing better ideas rather than defending various remarks and other ancillary activities of the campaign,'' said Republican state Rep. Jim Trakas of suburban Cleveland.
''Bush has to show that he knows he's running for president, not president of his class at Wellesley,'' said Tom Roeser, a conservative activist in Illinois, where Gore is holding on to a slim lead.
Responding to the sniping, Bush has retooled his campaign message and sharpened his attacks on Gore.
Bush's running mate Dick Cheney has disappointed some Republicans, both for his low-wattage style and business controversies. Cheney lashed out at the media this week, a sure sign of a politician on the run.
Polls show a remarkable turnaround for Gore: voters have more confidence in the vice president than in Bush to run the economy; he erased Bush's lead on personal qualities like trust and likeability; and parents, a majority of whom held President Clinton's impeachment against Gore this summer, are now evenly split between the two candidates.
Issues fueled Gore's gain, according to a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. Nearly half of the voters say their choice for president is based on his stand on issues compared with 36 percent who expressed that opinion in June. Gore holds wide leads over Bush on two top issues, Social Security and improving health care.
And yet the momentum could whip back to Bush.
Nearly one-third of independents who have committed to a candidate say they still might change their minds. Bush is viewed as a stronger leader with more political courage than Gore, according to the Pew poll.
''The wheel turns,'' said GOP activist Roeser, ''and I think that one way or another something dramatic will happen and it will turn our way again.''
Kerry's only hope is to somehow completely submerge this entire controversy, as he cannot win the debate if all the Swift Vet's factual arguments are brought to bear. Kerry should realize that he is unarmed in this particular battle of wits. This explains the Democrat response up until now, one of shrill screaming and pique, while failing to refute a single salient charge. Sure, paid liars like Lanny Davis can show up on talk shows with an armful of straw men, but Lanny is completely clueless regarding the real contentions of the Swift Boat Vets. Kerry cannot afford to let this continue. And he cannot afford to continue to be on the defensive.
I think Lanny loves being a shill for his party. It is good for his law firm.
"the John Lehman connection"
Did you know Kerry has removed that information from his website. Brit and Col Cowen disgussed it tonite. Brit was really questioning the validity of doing such a thing, but Cowen did say that he had had a citation replaced.
I didn't think it was an issue until I heard that Kerry had removed the documents from his website which had Lehman's name on it.
Did you see Brit's panel tonight .. they were discussing the "Bush front group" statement and Mort Kondrake and the guy from the Wash Post said they had investigated and they couldn't find any connection between the Bush campaign and the SwiftVets.
WhoooHoooo .. the dems are busted again!!!
It's all suspicious as the dickens, man.
Fournier has a great French name and is the king of the crapweasels.
Here's a flash for the press: It's not 'cause a few words are misspelled. It's because you sell out cheap -- easy stories from simple leads given by liberal buds in the old black book. You don't want to offend the buds that make your life easier so you push one side as often as possible.
Then because reporters don't want to believe they're cheap sellouts, they convince themselves they believe every liberal lie. If they didn't "believe" they would come face to face with being lazy, corrupt shills for one point of view.
If conservatives were black, it would be racist. If conservatives were women, it would be sexist. Since we're a mix, it's just plain unfair and stupid. <B<Where are the friggin publishers? Are they all so fat and wealthy they don't care about profits? Are their advertisers satisfied with dwindling readership? Where's USA Today? Where's truth and ethics? Where's the New York Times Ombudsman?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.