The New York Times *((^*&IO(&(*&(

[beachmom]

In an article about Kirk and his exaggerating his military service, we find this paragraph written by Adam Nagorney:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/politics/05campaign.html?ref=politics

This type of political behavior is hardly new. Over the years, a parade of politicians from both parties — John Kerry, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and David Duke, to name a few — have had to account for what opponents portrayed as exaggerations or worse about their military service (or their attempts to avoid service altogether). Some of those candidates and many others have been called out for less-than-fully-truthful statements on countless other topics as well.

Yeah, John Kerry is just like Blumenthal and Kirk. I mean a big giant WTF??? In fact, I don't get why Al Gore & Bill Clinton are there either. Al Gore was a military journalist in Vietnam -- I somewhat watched the 2000 campaign and I always knew that was what he did in Vietnam. Bill Clinton got out of the draft, and would have rather not talked about it but he never said he was in Vietnam.

I am so sick and tired of "they're all the same". Even Kirk and Blumenthal aren't the same. Blumenthal misspoke a couple of times in extemporaneous remarks. Kirk put the lies IN HIS CAMPAIGN LITERATURE and on his website; he even had them in prepared remarks! But with the MSM it's all equivalent. Republicans and Democrats are equally corrupt, equally liars, equally incompetent, equally hypocrites. Sorry, but that is not true. I would say 99% of Republicans are uncaring hypocritical lying jerks and 60% of Democrats are hypocritical lying uncaring jerks. That ain't equivalent, yet that is how they are treated in the SCLM.

Shame on the NYT for furthering the Swift Boat lies. In bloody 2010.

[MBS]

1. " " " " " "

Anyone up for crafting an LTE?

[beachmom]

2. And Chris Matthews who spents DAYS on Blumenthal, has spent 1 minute on Kirk

This blog is the one who blew open the Kirk scandal:

http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2010/06/chris-matthews-finally-finds-mark-kirk.html

My parents watch Hardball religiously and will probably not know about Kirk. And they never believe me when I talk about these biases.

[ProSense]

3. The media occasionally interrupts the RW talking points

to report facts. Their purpose for existing is to remain complicit with the RW.

Using Kerry as an example in that piece is beyond ludicrous, and it's intentional. Gore and Clinton should not be compared to Blumenthal.

Media = RW complicit

It's disgusting, and apparently will never end.

[karynnj]

7. Although Clinton did lie and change his story, his opponents did

not and could not have distorted his service - there was no service.

[karynnj]

4. In fairness, what he says is literally true

All those listed had opponents say that they exaggerated or distorted their military record. "Some of these candidates " were less than truthful. The problem is that the ones who did NOT distort their careers are smeared by the fact that he does not list which "some" he is speaking of.

Gore was accused of exaggerating, though to my knowledge he never said more than that he served - which he did. He was a military journalist. Bill Clinton did lie repeatedly. When he was first accused of dodging the draft, he said he did not recall whether he ever got a letter from the draft board. (seriously unbelievable for anyone in that generation - even us girls who only dealt with it second hand), Then he said that he had too high a draft number, so was never at risk. Not true, as the lottery affected boys only if they were born in 1952 or later (maybe 1951). As to Bush, he lied - he lied saying he indicated he would prefer to go to Vietnam when he did the opposite. I know nothing of David Duke's military record.

What is most galling in Kerry's case is that one thing that could be seen in his Navy records, was that he actually went to the Navy and asked that they give him the information to summarize his military career. That document was apparently what he sent out for decades when people asked about his military record and it was what was on his web sites. That was an extra step others did not take.

[ProSense]

5. You're right about that point. Still

the larger issue is that by including Kerry in this report in the way that they did implies that there were misstatements and exaggerations. After all, that is the issue with Blumenthal, and he did appologize. Kirk simply lied.

Kerry has nothing to apologize for. It's sloppy.

[karynnj]

6. Exaggactly - and where is McCain's name

He like Kerry was accused of many things - and his name is not here.

(re-reading mine, I think I should have lied that though literally true, it is lying by omission. Kerry actually rarely spoke of any details of his service - and never spoke of his heroic actions that won him his medals. There was nothing anywhere that differed from the official record, which was on his web site.

[beachmom]

8. Thanks for the correct on Clinton. I didn't realize he lied about the draft.

I just knew he was a "draft dodger" because that is what all the c-span callers said at the time.

It's pretty clear that Nagorney was saying Kerry exaggerated his military record. That is what I got from it. What is he talking about? Cambodia? Which was only a matter of a different month. And in my view extremely minor. The point Kerry was making was that the U.S. was messing around in that border region which we know it was. Other swiftboats DEFINITELY went into Cambodian waters. So I just can't believe Nagorney put him in there like that. What it does is say "it's no big deal" to lie about your service since "everyone does it". How dumb.

[karynnj]

9. Not to mention there was no exaggeration there or claim of having done something good

The comment where his month was wrong was included in a Senate speech - about 20 years later - where he was speaking against covert actions in Central America. He was absolutely not claiming glory. He was speaking of being in a country, we were not at war with, where the President was denying we were and the feeling that engendered. He spoke in the 1970s of this being against international law. The fact that he could be two months off - twenty years later - is completely understandable. It could be pointed out that it actually made it Johnson, not Nixon - both of whom Kerry spoke against in the 1970s. That is the ONLY thing I can thing that the date changes.

Kerry very very rarely spoke of either of his two prestigious medals. I know of only two times - and I've compulsively read everything I could - as we all have. The only time Kerry mentioned them - was to say that he was given them by the Navy and that was in response to the liars. Those two medals were given for real heroism. He certainly did not have to make anything up.