Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SNOPES take on allegations of Kerry's medals being obtained under "fishy" circumstances - FALSE
SNOPES ^ | February 2004 | Snopes

Posted on 08/20/2004 12:25:53 PM PDT by goodnesswins

Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet 2004]

(Excerpt) Read more at snopes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bronzestar; election; kerry; medals; purplehearts; silverstar; snopes; snopesisbiased; snopesisliberalcover; snopeslies; vietnam
Snopes current take on Kerry's medals does NOT include the Swift Boat Veterans allegations.....
1 posted on 08/20/2004 12:25:54 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

OK, so snopes.com just lost any credibility in my book. I could have respected an answer that it undetermined, but to flatly say it is false is just silly considering how well documented and how many witnesses claim otherwise.


2 posted on 08/20/2004 12:28:17 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

is this an arm of the democratic party like factcheck.org ?


3 posted on 08/20/2004 12:28:23 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Snopes current take on Kerry's medals does NOT include the Swift Boat Veterans allegations.....

They'll get to it. It'll say that the allegations are a political attack from a Republican, so they must be false. And, the Swiftees have recanted their story, see Boston Globe for proof.

See how easy that is?

4 posted on 08/20/2004 12:28:41 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

If Snopes is not able to properly vet the charges against Kerry, it should not comment on them. It's that simple.


5 posted on 08/20/2004 12:29:12 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

snopes leans left whenever something political is mentioned.

Here's there methodology:

Claim: John Kerry isn't the hero he'd like you to believe.

Story: Dozens and dozens of people who served with john kerry say he's a phony, and jimmied the system to get medals and awards he didnt' deserve.

John Kerry says that's not true.

Conclusion: Since john kerry says it's not true, these claims are false.


6 posted on 08/20/2004 12:30:09 PM PDT by flashbunny (Kerry helped move jobs to china - http://www.flashbunny.org/commentary/kerryoutsourced.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Snopes is a Leftist site, run by Leftist sympathizers, who use their skepticism to advance their Leftist agenda.

They have gone to great lengths attempting to de-bunk the Clinton Body Count, and have actually linked to a Bush body count in its narrative.

During the combat phase of Iraqi Freedom, the Leftist founders of Snopes came out and stated their opposition against the war, the troops, and especially President Bush.

I will not give these Leftists the Web hit they so desperately need.


7 posted on 08/20/2004 12:30:13 PM PDT by Old Sarge (ZOT 'em all, let MOD sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Snopes is run by two libs.


8 posted on 08/20/2004 12:33:06 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
When it comes to politics, Snopes is totally FOS. In fact given how their spinning on political matters reaches the point that it cannot be explained any other way than dishonesty in pursuit of political goals, I no longer can trust or believe anything they write.

From Insight Magazine:

Online Rumor Mill Spins Its Own Myth(Snopes.com's leftwing bias undercuts its credibility)

9 posted on 08/20/2004 12:33:25 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

I'm very surprised that snoopes would simply take the word of Kerry and his supporters that the charges were false.
I suppose then OJ is innocent, Clinton did not have sex with that woman, and Rush never obtained drugs illegally...


10 posted on 08/20/2004 12:37:29 PM PDT by RS (just because they are out to get him dosen't mean he is not guilty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

From Snopes:

According to the Boston Globe, this was the only one of Kerry's three Purple Heart injuries that caused him to miss any days of service:

Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.
Back in 1969, Navy regulations specified that any soldier wounded in combat three times be automatically reassigned away from a combat zone to an assignment of his choosing (unless the thrice-wounded soldier specifically requested to stay). Four days after Kerry took his third hit of shrapnel, Commodore Charles F. Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which Kerry served, forwarded a request on Kerry's behalf to the Navy Bureau of Personnel asking that Kerry be reassigned to "duty as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C." Soon afterwards Kerry was transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to await further orders, and within a month he had been reassigned as a personal aide and flag lieutenant to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr. with the Military Sea Transportation Service based in Brooklyn, New York.

Kerry served with Admiral Schlech until the end of 1969, when he requested an early discharge from the Navy in order to run for a Massachusetts congressional seat. Admiral Schlech approved the request, and on 3 January 1970 Kerry received an honorable discharge, six months early.

Last updated: 19 February 2004


11 posted on 08/20/2004 12:38:03 PM PDT by woofie ( It's not an optical illusion. It just looks like one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
OK, so snopes.com just lost any credibility in my book.

Why did they ever have any in the first place?

Snopes is run by a husband and wife team who were pro-Clinton and have a clear liberal bias.

They've never had any credibility when it comes to politics.

12 posted on 08/20/2004 12:38:39 PM PDT by South40 (Amnesty for ILLEGALS is a slap in the face to the USBP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expatpat; Old Sarge
I agree with you guys.

The leftists have no sense when it comes to self-preservation. They'll jump on board any train heading for a wreck if they think it will forward the agenda.

13 posted on 08/20/2004 12:39:14 PM PDT by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Snopes has once again been exposed.


14 posted on 08/20/2004 12:39:55 PM PDT by doug from upland (John Kerry is a sports fan like Lorena Bobbitt is a surgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
They're complete lefties on the topic of politics.

I wrote about this some time ago on this thread. I think I had a decent argument and a nice compare/contrast example. There were some replies to my comments and subsequent discussion as well.

15 posted on 08/20/2004 12:40:15 PM PDT by mattdono ([mattdono to John Kerry]: I voted for you...right before I voted against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
They debunked this one pretty good about Bush's IQ. And they got this one about the Nobel Peace Prize right as well.

Haven't checked the rest. Nor do I remember then saying squat at the time about Iraq. Do you have a specific link?

16 posted on 08/20/2004 12:41:15 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

This was my message to Snopes:

To be honest, you should no longer draw a conclusion regarding the honesty of John Kerry regarding his service in Vietnam.

At the very least, his claim to have spent Christmas in Cambodia is incredible, impossible, internally inconsistent (Nixon was not yet sworn in, and not able give any order much less lie about it), and it was repeated over and over by Kerry himself, indicating a serious inability to separate reality from his own myth-making.

Is this serious? Admiral Jeremy Boorda fatally shot himself in the chest rather than face reporters who knew his "V" for valor was not earned. This is the same device Kerry claims to have for his Silver Star. A "V" is not awarded in connection with a Silver Star.


17 posted on 08/20/2004 12:41:17 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite, it's almost worth defending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Post #20 has an interesting fact that I produced also.
18 posted on 08/20/2004 12:41:30 PM PDT by mattdono ([mattdono to John Kerry]: I voted for you...right before I voted against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: woofie

What you've shown is that the Snopes site pre-dated the Swifties' allegations, is that right? I wonder how committed Snopes is to "updating" its information based on the ADMISSION that the "Christmas in Cambodia" fantasy sKerry has been spinning for over two decades was false.

Yeah, right. I thought so.


19 posted on 08/20/2004 12:42:47 PM PDT by alwaysconservative (If the guys in VietNam knew Kerry was a screw-up after 4 months, how can we give him 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Snopes claims the Terror in the Skies (Flight 327) is false also.


20 posted on 08/20/2004 12:45:35 PM PDT by LNewman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Like I said - I will not give them the Web hit. That's how they make their revenue; by the ad hits.

The link I read the Bush Body Count on, was the Clinton Body Count itself.

The anti-Bush stance was up on their site during the war; it's been down ever since, I think. That was when I saw it, and that was the last time I ever set keyboard at Snopes.


21 posted on 08/20/2004 12:45:50 PM PDT by Old Sarge (ZOT 'em all, let MOD sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Snopes current take on Kerry's medals

This is at least the third time this has been posted. I don't think you can take an item that was posted by them in February and call it current.

22 posted on 08/20/2004 12:46:11 PM PDT by socal_parrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I don't know anything about their origins or biases. All I know is that a couple of times I have looked something up in Snopes.com, they have gotten it right.


23 posted on 08/20/2004 12:47:43 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Last updated: 19 February 2004

We've learned a lot in the last 6 months. Perhaps Snopes should be updated.

24 posted on 08/20/2004 12:49:19 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

they have debunked theresa heinz donations to hamas too. dont know what to think.


25 posted on 08/20/2004 12:52:11 PM PDT by SGTARKyTEK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: socal_parrot

IT'S RELEVANT today! They haven't updated it considering there's about 300 Swift Boat Vets with CONTRARY information....THAT'S the point!!!!! Get a clue.


26 posted on 08/20/2004 12:55:03 PM PDT by goodnesswins (VICTORY...........brings peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Sources:

Brinkley, Douglas.Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN 0-06-056523-3.

Klein, Joe. "The Long War of John Kerry." The New Yorker. 2 December 2002.

Kranish, Michael. "John F. Kerry: Candidate in the Making — Part 2: Heroism, and Growing Concern About War." The Boston Globe. 16 June 2003.

There ya' go!

If John Fraud Kerry's buddy/biographer, Joe Klein and The Boston Globe said it, it must be true.

27 posted on 08/20/2004 12:55:21 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Snopes quotes one of its references

"Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy."

Wasn't the purpose of Operation SEALORD to interdict enemy supply lines? It's rather pointless to draw fire (not be confused with a recon-type of mission).

This error in identifying the purpose of Operation SEALORD leads me to wonder just how well Mr Snopes (or is it Ms Snopes?) understands military matters.


28 posted on 08/20/2004 12:58:13 PM PDT by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Did you read the so-called sources at the bottom of the page? The only conclusion I can draw is that Snopes never intended itself to be taken seriously. It is a bloody comedy site! It has been playing us along all this time!

Sources (for Snopes opinion on John Kerry's medals):

Brinkley, Douglas. Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN 0-06-056523-3.

Klein, Joe. "The Long War of John Kerry." The New Yorker. 2 December 2002.

Kranish, Michael. "John F. Kerry: Candidate in the Making — Part 2: Heroism, and Growing Concern About War." The Boston Globe. 16 June 2003.

ROFL!


29 posted on 08/20/2004 1:00:17 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins; Jayhawk5150
Hey, check this out. I was looking on the "What's New" section of snopes and found this page about a supposed letter from Bill Timmins of the Aladdin casino to Michael Moore and it states that he didn't write it, but that it was based on a FR Thread by Jayhawk5150. Good work, Jayhawk5150, you have made the big time on snopes.
30 posted on 08/20/2004 1:00:27 PM PDT by jtminton (Kerry/Edwards 2004: It's Boring in America again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Why not just bump the existing thread on this? Or contact Snopes and ask them to review their posting in light of the new information. Stop yelling and start searching before your post.

Here is a prior thread on Snopes. Others were pulled as dupes. As should this one.

31 posted on 08/20/2004 1:11:25 PM PDT by socal_parrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Snopes also still refuses to call Hillary a liar over the "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary" line. Snopes claims that maybe her mom lied to her.


32 posted on 08/20/2004 1:13:48 PM PDT by weegee (YOU could have been aborted, and you wouldn't have had a CHOICE about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jtminton

Snopes likes to blow some things out of proportion. They gave the "fake" Kerry-Fonda more play than anyone else did. FR certainly did not permit that gag photo to remain online long.


33 posted on 08/20/2004 1:15:19 PM PDT by weegee (YOU could have been aborted, and you wouldn't have had a CHOICE about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
A lot of the snopes rumors have been cribbed from Jan Brunvand's books on urban legends.

Snopes is biased. They excuse their biases by saying that the framing statement is used to determine if something is true or not. The wording of that statement can be bent depending if they want something to be TRUE or not.

34 posted on 08/20/2004 1:17:21 PM PDT by weegee (YOU could have been aborted, and you wouldn't have had a CHOICE about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
They have a "send comments" link at the bottom of the page, I let them know that much of the problem with the Medals is spelled out in the very book they chose to reference as their "proof".

Snopes can't hang their hat on "rich Republicans are behind it", they have to deal with the actual evidence to save their reputation.

I wonder if their politics rises above the continued existence of their website. It would be interesting to know if any material has disappeared from the Snopes story yet.
35 posted on 08/20/2004 1:25:52 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis (Liberals lie at the premise, accept their premise and you can only lose the argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I agree...and I just sent snopes.com and email telling them that.


36 posted on 08/20/2004 3:14:49 PM PDT by singlemomofone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Snopes is a lefty lib site. They didn't find any basis to the claims of fourteen Arab musicians acting suspiciously on that recent flight.


37 posted on 08/20/2004 4:17:18 PM PDT by Ciexyz ("FR, best viewed with a budgie on hand")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: socal_parrot

Sorry. I did a search and did not find that one.


38 posted on 08/20/2004 4:42:54 PM PDT by goodnesswins (VICTORY...........brings peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz

I'd hardly call Snopes left-leaning...in fact, I find them to be truly fair and balanced w/regards to their debunking of ULs:

- They defend the Clintons, but also the Bushes (attributing W's gaffes to poor public speaking abilities, as opposed to just calling him stupid, as a true left-leaning site would)
- A number of articles from country singer Charlie Daniels' "Soapbox" webpage found there way there, and their commentary is overwhelmingly positive
- They criticize Jerry Falwell for his infamous post-9/11 remarks, but defend Anne Graham Lotz for similar (albeit far less vitrolic) statements she made on CBS's Early Show

Abd it's endorsed by Neal Boortz on his website, for crying out loud...how many left-leaning sites would the author of "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" give his stamp of approval to? There's a fine line between true lefty bias and commentary that just doesn't gel w/one's personal opinions, and I think Barbara and David have done a fine job in remaining impartial, despite their political leanings.


39 posted on 08/28/2004 10:50:08 PM PDT by cd1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson