Kerry, In Speech, Accuses White House of Suppressing Dissent

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) gave a speech in Iowa denouncing the White House of cutting off voices opposed to the Iraq War. Speaking at Grinnell College, the politician from Massachussetts equated the attitude of the Bush Administration to "intolerance" while calling for a pullout of troops from the Middle Eastern conflict. However, his words did not go unnoticed by the GOP. Danny Diaz, speaking for the Republican National Committee, rebutted Kerry's statements as lacking substance.



No matter what side of the fence he sits on, Mr. Kerry provides valuable words about how dissent is being treated today by the Bush Administration. With the two current examples of dissenters in the middle of an open town hall meeting featuring the Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in Atlanta (The matronly lady shouting calling for Mr. Rumsfeld to be tried for war crimes; Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, questioning Rumsfeld during a Q&A session), it is important that our right to speak back to officials is protected. In fact, these two instances demonstrate a dichotomy between a government who is unwilling to listen yet try to quickly explain away everything and dissenters not having enough channels to protest their discontent to the powers that be.

Do you think Mr. Kerry's comments fair in light of the White House's treatment of dissent in this country? There are also two links below that analyze Ray McGovern's questions of Mr. Rumsfeld. Do you think Mr. McGovern's questioning of Mr. Rumsfeld apply to Mr. Kerry's reasoning about dissent?

Related News Links:
www.cbsnews.com
ap.washingtontimes.com

[edit on 7-5-2006 by ceci2006]

It is all political grandstanding and Kerry is no better or worse than Bush.

The continuous "he said she said" averments that "ooze" from Washington are all the same and it does not matter which side your on, the elephant or the ass.

Perhaps if Kerry were to scream like the Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean, then we would all be more aware of his manipulations. He, however, prefers to stand and loftily proclaim media bias. RIGHT!!!

Did Dan Rather's report on the faked documents help Bush? Even after he acknowledged not having "confidence" in them?
www.cbsnews.com...

How about the media's incessant need to call Bush a traitor? Just take a look at the results of a google searh for "Bush Traitor."
www.google.com...
Is this bias toward Bush? If so How does it help him?

No; anyone can make a speach, anyone can post anything, and anyone can claim bias. Everyone can watch and listen however and see the truth.

Do you think Mr. Kerry's comments fair in light of the White House's treatment of dissent in this country?

Fair? Everything is "fair" under free speech. We are allowed to protest at funerals for fallen soldiers if we choose to, as that wacko preacher and his followers do. How can you take Kerry seriously?

Realistic? Nope. Not until I can no longer say whatever I want about this or any other admin. He's just trying to stir up the looneys, and still believing he can be the man in 2008.

Kerry flip flops more than pancakes at IHOP. He practices dissent
against himself constantly. Man .. this guy just doesn't get it.
He LOST. He needs to go away. Hillary is on the way for 2008.

Anyone's better than the oath you have as president now.

Bush is a monkey, and I hope the next people who try to asassinate him succeed.



Now to wait 5 minutes untill some mod detracts 500 points from my account for not breaking any rules. Her name begins with an N... yes....

That is very CHRISTIAN of you...

By the by, what is an "oath of a president?"

Another "well informed comment."



[edit on 5/7/2006 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by semperfortis
That is very CHRISTIAN of you...

[edit on 5/7/2006 by semperfortis]

WHAT?

Don't look too far beyond your nose. You found the oath!

Judging by your nick, you are ATACMS food.





[edit on 7-5-2006 by Christian IX]

Oath..
www.m-w.com...
Oaf..
www.m-w.com...
How did you know I was an Oath..I mean Oaf..?? Card carrying member of the club.

ATACMS???
Army Tactical Missile System...HMMMMM
www.fas.org...
Lost me on that one.

Again..not very Christian of you.


[edit on 5/7/2006 by semperfortis]

[edit on 5/7/2006 by semperfortis]

[edit on 5/7/2006 by semperfortis]

Just take a look at the results of a google searh for "Bush Traitor."

Prescot Bush was a traitor:

expage.com...

expage.com...


I'd say there is good evidence here that the Bush family has a traitorous past:

www.spiritone.com...

Deny Ignorance !













[edit on 5/7/2006 by bodebliss]

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black,

Wasn't John Kerry vehemently attempting to stifle dissent regarding his campaign from the Swift Boat Veterans.

Oh wait.......the only dissent worth protecting is anti-bush/anti-war........silly me.

And wasn't what the Swift Boat Veterans said slander against Mr. Kerry?

whatever happened with swift boat is nothing compared to turning your back on your country during world war II and supporting the Nazi cause with all your heart.

George Bush senior has continued to support organizations heavy in Nazi influence

www.spiritone.com...

And 'the Jinx' Bush enacted the Patriot Act

Originally posted by ceci2006
And wasn't what the Swift Boat Veterans said slander against Mr. Kerry?

Was the information provided by SBV not correct, factual and/or true? If the information was correct, then there was and will be no slander. Furthermore, if SBV did happen to slander Kerry enough to cost him the presidential election, I have NO doubt that Kerry would have filed a number of slander suits against the SBV. Consequently, have you seen or heard of one being filed by Kerry? Let me know, k?





seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Interesting argument: one side wishes dissent goes away and the other side becomes skillful manufacturers of it. Which side is holy in this struggle?

I do know one thing though, this White House has been accused of just about every crime there is and can be imagined in this term of office. This is either the worst White House of all time or the Democrats are sinking lower and lower in desperation to win and cling to power that is continuing to elude them.

If the Dems are right then they will soon break through but if they are wrong: they will end up on the rocks I believe.

I also find it funny that Kerry is slamming hard now and why didn't he do it during the past election? Strange people and strange times.

Every ay that passes I give thanks that Kerry was not elected president.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ceci2006
And wasn't what the Swift Boat Veterans said slander against Mr. Kerry?

Was the information provided by SBV not correct, factual and/or true? If the information was correct, then there was and will be no slander. Furthermore, if SBV did happen to slander Kerry enough to cost him the presidential election, I have NO doubt that Kerry would have filed a number of slander suits against the SBV. Consequently, have you seen or heard of one being filed by Kerry? Let me know, k?

seekerof

My guess is that's why the Bush family doesn't fight the nazi sympathizer accusations.

Okay, Seekerof, I will do my best.

First, there is Ian Williams' article, Slander is Cheap. Aptly titled, it talks about one distinct fact about the Swift Boat ads:

In contrast, Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post deserves considerable kudos for checking out the records to discover, for example, that one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, who has denied that the boats were under fire in the incident that won John Kerry a bronze star, won his own bronze star – with a citation saying that they were under fire together!

The Post's Freedom of Information request for documents contrasts honorably with the frequent uncritical media acceptance of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" allegations. Every time a reporter as assiduous as Dobbs checks the contemporary record, it gives them the lie.

Mediamatters.org investigates the use of the Swift Boat Ads by talk show pundits. Here's what they found out about the claims:

Scarborough, Buchanan, Fund and Burkman gave Swift Boat Vets royal send-off

False claims

* Fund insisted that Kerry chose not to address Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's accusations because Kerry "ultimately could not defend his post-Vietnam record, in which he trashed the American troops and accused them of atrocities." But as MMFA repeatedly noted, Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony never "accused" American troops of anything; he simply repeated firsthand accounts he had heard at the Winter Soldier Investigation earlier that year.

* Fund claimed that "60 percent of the people who served on swift boats in Vietnam ... signed up with them [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth], not with John Kerry." An MMFA search found no evidence to corroborate this assertion, and it seems unlikely that such a statistic has been or could be calculated.

* Fund falsely claimed that "the testimony that John Kerry relied upon, the Winter Soldier testimony, was largely discredited. A lot of those people hadn't been in Vietnam." In fact, none of the witnesses at the Winter Soldier Investigation have been discredited (though one witness, Steven J. Pitkin, has since claimed that he lied in his own testimony), as MMFA noted on September 13 and September 16.

* Buchanan praised the Swift Boat Veterans' truthfulness: "They came out, 20 of them, signed sworn affidavits about what Kerry did and did not do. And, dramatically, they proved Kerry did not tell the truth when he said he was in Cambodia." However, the "affidavits" were never filed in court, so the documents have no legal significance. By contrast, all available military documentation contradicts the claims the veterans made in these affidavits about the combat incidents for which Kerry received his various military decorations, as MMFA explained.

* Swift Boat Veterans for Truth never proved that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia, as MMFA has noted. By contrast, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth co-founder John E. O'Neill lied about his own activities in Cambodia. As MMFA documented, O'Neill claimed publicly that swift boats never crossed the Cambodian border, but a recording of a brief conversation between O'Neill and former President Richard Nixon reveals O'Neill telling Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir."

And that's just for starters. I will continue this in a future post. But, I right now I am short on time.

I love the postings on Kerry vs G. Bush

But what in the world does Pres. Bush's grandpa have to do with the topic?

Oh thats right...sorry, more dem. sidetracking.
My bad

Nice try, ceci2006, but did Kerry file any type slander suits against the SBV?
If not, then there was no slander no matter the amount of counterfactual evidence you wish to present to support your assertion of slander.

Btw, did not Kerry slander US Vietnam veterans?
Remember something here in regards to Kerry's past comments about them and in relation to the slander that you claim the SBV's did against Kerry: a slander against one soldier is a slander against all soldiers.






seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by semperfortis
I love the postings on Kerry vs G. Bush

But what in the world does Pres. Bush's grandpa have to do with the topic?

Oh thats right...sorry, more dem. sidetracking.
My bad

I think your wrong!

The idea of getting away with contributing to the deaths of thousands of american fighting men in the conflict with the nazis has permeated the psychology of the Bush family.

Or don't you see that!