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 ...
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.
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.
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.
We've learned a lot in the last 6 months. Perhaps Snopes should be updated.
they have debunked theresa heinz donations to hamas too. dont know what to think.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Here is a prior thread on Snopes. Others were pulled as dupes. As should this one.
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.
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.
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.
I agree...and I just sent snopes.com and email telling them that.
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.
Sorry. I did a search and did not find that one.
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.
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.