Fox News also said John Kerry's medals from Vietnam were suspect. Are DUers going to post that?

[beachmom]

Wow, it is amazing how people on this board now think Fox News is a reputable source to be used to take a shot at John Kerry. It is really despicable, but if we now think Fox News is credible, then I guess it would be perfectly fine to publish this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131319,00.html

Navy Probes Kerry Medal

Friday, September 03, 2004

NEW YORK — In what has been described by Navy officials as a routine process, the Pentagon's inspector general's office on Thursday referred to the secretary of the Navy a request to investigate medals won by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) during the Vietnam War.

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch (search) submitted the request for an investigation. Navy sources said the service will probe the medals, but added that most questions have arisen because of what appear to be errors in processing records.

Kerry received five medals during his four months in combat in Vietnam. Judicial Watch asked the Pentagon to investigate Kerry's receipt of the Silver Star with a "Combat V" designation (search), which stands for valor under fire.

...

In a letter to Judicial Watch, the inspector general's office said: "Concerning our allegations of violations of Uniform Code of Military Justice (search), we have the responsibility to ... 'report suspected or alleged violations.' We have informed the secretary of the Navy of the allegations."

Unlike today's article, at least the above one contained a rebuttal from the Kerry campaign. But of course, this "probe" came back that all medals were awarded properly. Hmmm ... I wonder if Fox News went out of their way to report that follow up?

It is really shameless to go after John Kerry using a Fox News report. Can we at least all agree on that?

[YOY]

1. Fuck 'em.

Seriously.

[Clio the Leo]

2. It never ceases to amaze me, the trash that gets dragged back here....

.... I dont care if the point of the OP is to refute or make fun of the article that says "Sen. X thinks the President is a peanut head...." or whatever, WHY WHY WHY do we continue to give these stories attention?

[Frustratedlady]

3. Why is that being brought up by FOX at this point in time? Did they run out of

Obama slashing items and had to start over with Kerry?

That channel is beyond help and needs to be shut down or forced to put their money where their mouth is and show proof of their accusations. I'm surprised they haven't been charged with slander more often.

I think Rush, FOX, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and all those RW radio "stars" such as Coulter, Michael Reagan, etc., have done tremendous damage to our country.

[redqueen]

5. They didn't. They're spreading lies about Kerry supporting a trigger.

This was posted for comparison, to remind people why FAUX News shouldn't be trusted.

[old mark]

4. This shit came around when he ran for President, and was refuted

then.
It's like Obama's birth certificate - totally fabricated Republican shit.

mark

[LiberalFighter]

12. That is what I thought. Are FOIA's compiled so they know when there are dupes?

And possibly the dupes are intentional to either clogged the system or attempting to dredge up crap?

[OHdem10]

6. Yes it is shameful. However, the GOP have begun their campaign

for 2020 and2012. Their first goal is bring down Obama's
ratings and the Democrats ratings.

Most DUer's I think, watch Fox so as to know what the enemy
is up to. They frame issues in such a way as to discredit
all things Democratic. They have a large audience and misinformation
goes out daily.

Example: If one watched their 6;00pm news yesterday your take
away would be :

The Option will not be in Health Care Package.
No Health Care can pass unless it is BiPartisan.
Obama just wants a Bill to sign. Just any old bill will do.

It does not appear that the Democrats are willing to confront
any of the daily information which is sometimes not even
recogniseable.

Our party had best get with the program.
Any Democrat of Signicance will be the Target. It is Kerry's
day in the barrel. Since Kerry is filling in for Kennedy on
Health--discredit him. This the GOP model. They surely
want him discredited so he will not be believable on Foreign
Policy and war.

[mkultra]

7. but but but....dissent is GOOD

It helps us be better and stuff

[emulatorloo]

8. Beachmom -- what is this about? What is fox saying about Kerry now that some DU'ers are promoting?

Thanks!

[Mass]

9. This is about another thread about Kerry and a Fox blog post suggesting

Snowe would have said Kerry is working with her on a public option in case the insurance companies do not do enough (which is I guess code for trigger, but who knows what Fox meant), I guess. Now, if true, Kerry is wrong, but I guess the point of beachmom is why do we trust Fox.

[beachmom]

10. Exactly! And as we know, Snowe said herself she is working with Schumer.

that we heard FROM HER DIRECTLY. Funny how it is now being pinned on Kerry. And, who even knows what it all means anyway. The gossipy rumor stuff is maddening, and as it goes to shoddier sources, it gets worse.

[masuki bance]

11. Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/kerry-pushes-for-public-o_n_220822.html

In a closed-door meeting of Senate Finance Committee Democratic members and their staff Wednesday evening, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) suggested that if the committee bill didn't have enough votes for a public option it include a ten-year delay between passage of health care reform and the implementation of a public option that Americans could buy into, according to two Democratic aides.

Under the plan floated by Kerry, a public health care option would only be triggered by private insurance companies failing to meet certain criteria after ten years. Known as the "trigger" in legislative lingo, the idea is vociferously opposed by health care advocates who consider it the death of reform.

Reform advocates say that the system is already broken and that there's no need to wait any longer, also warning that the insurance industry might be able to game the criteria and prevent the public plan trigger from ever being pulled.

One source familiar with Kerry's unexpected suggestion said that the idea seemed to have little impact on the meeting and that the senators quickly moved on.

Kerry has expressed his strong personal support for a public option without a trigger that would be available immediately.

But the Finance Committee is more conservative than the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and getting a public option through without a trigger will be a political challenge. Ranking Republican Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has shown little interest in compromise so far, leaving Maine's Olympia Snowe as the likeliest Republican to cross the committee aisle. Snowe has said she would support a public option but only with a trigger.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Finance bills will be combined once they both move through their respective committees.

A Kerry spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment.

UPDATE: Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth responds with a statement: "Let's be clear, if Sen. Kerry had his way, there'd be no debate: we'd have universal coverage tomorrow with a strong public plan at its core. Sen. Kerry strongly supports a robust public option and has been pushing for it since day one of this debate. When he ran for president, he campaigned on a public option and everywhere he went he reminded the country that Congress shouldn't deny them the public health care that Members of Congress give themselves. The past five years have only strengthened that conviction. Any suggestion that he prefers proposals that would delay or trigger the implementation of a public plan is outright false, end of story. But it's no secret that the Finance Committee is looking at a whole range of progressive options with an eye on what can make its way to the president's desk to become law, and obviously if it's the only way to get universal health coverage then people will consider a trigger that ultimately guarantees a strong public option."

The first paragraph of the story has been changed to make clear that Kerry suggested a trigger only if it becomes impossible to get the votes for a public option without one.

[Mass]

13. Different rumor, which actually was debunked by Kerry's office, and

is interestingly non sourced. Also note that Huff Post has had to change the story because the first version was incorrect even by Huff Post standards (which are not that high).

As I said, if true Kerry is wrong, but what is much more important than trying to interpret half sentences who could mean anything and nothing is to call people (all of them, not only those like Kerry who will vote for a full public option if it ever comes to a vote), to make sure this happens.

The problem is that the OP that is targeted here is attacking the wrong issue. The correct issue is to make sure that HELP and Finance Committee bills both include a public option, and it has been clear forever that Kerry will vote for it if it is in the bill. Unfortunately, many other Dems will not vote for it. So, rather than ranting on what Olympia Snowe may or may not have said to somebody who repeated it to somebody who published it, I would prefer to see energy focused on making sure this thing happens, and cannot see how this works. The Senate in its globality is a mess. Reports contradict themselves on whether Dems will or will not give more to the GOP. Focusing on half a sentence rather than the big picture is stupid.

Get 50 Dems to agree to a public option. Get Reid to say that he will not accept a filibuster. Stop to worry about vague reports.

[karynnj]

15. This sentence was NOT in the original post

"A Kerry spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment."

Many commented here that it was unprofessional that they did not get a comment from Kerry's office especially given the weakness of their sources. Kerry's office responded within hours of the story being posted - likely because they got calls from constituents who read it on DailyKos, here and HP.

Note the the last sentence - on their change in the story - STILL goes beyond Kerry's spokeswoman's statement.

[beachmom]

16. The Huff Po one uses unnamed sources and was forced to correct the article.

Again, you don't care about getting a good health care bill. Just going after Kerry, who is the strongest advocate for the public option on the Finance Committee.

[masuki bance]

17. ...

"The first paragraph of the story has been changed to make clear that Kerry suggested a trigger only if it becomes impossible to get the votes for a public option without one."

[beachmom]

18. That story is bunk with the reply from the Kerry spokeswoman. Again, why do you

trust anonymous sources? If they can't be named for a meeting, then they are up to no good.

[masuki bance]

19. Why do you keep insisting the story is bunk?

The spokesperson never denied that Kerry had spoken about the trigger, all the statement did was repeat what we already know, that he prefers the public option. We know that. His own spokesperson confirmed that the option is on the table.

What is the reason that you are averting your eyes to that? By speaking up and telling our reps that we disagree with the trigger there is a chance that they will reverse course, as you have seen with Rahm and Blanche, but just mindlessly denying the truth only protects them.

[Mass]

20. We need to speak up to ALL Senators, not a few selected ones.

Unfortunately, some people here seem to think we need to call a few, and generally those who happen to be in the news.

I do not know whether these reports are true or not. If they are true, I disagree with Kerry, but I also know that the way to change this is to make clear to the Cantwell, Wyden, and Lincoln of the world that we WANT a real public option, and to Baucus that a bipartisan bill is not necessary, which is why I cannot see why some people here are spending so much time on vague reports rather than focusing on the issues. But this is DU.

[masuki bance]

21. Reid told Baucus a bipartisan bill wasn't necessary

one day, the next he promised a bipartisan bill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8518076&mesg_id=8518076

Who suggested not speaking to all Senators? Who has called for only speaking to a few? If you don't know whether the stories are true or not, why do you continue to say that they are false? Why do you accuse people of focusing time on vague reports when you start a whole new Op on that "vague report"? Why do you say that the report says Kerry's medals were suspect when the report was the Navy was doing a routine investigation? Why do you ask if DUer's are going to post that story and then you post it?

[masuki bance]

24. Replied in error, wrong person. Too late to edit. nt

:blush:

[karynnj]

28. OMG - If you can't see that FOX was creating doubt about JK's medals, you really aren't thinking

the fact is the Navy did a routine check because a RW group forced them to. Coming out in September 2004 with that report was a dirty trick - on the part of the Judicial Watch and Fox. Kerry is a war hero with nothing in his service record that was negative. It was all on his web site. The fitness reports were all there - you could look at the dates and see they spanned the interval. They were filled with praise - much of the praise written by people who later became the SBV liars.

The fact is on Fox, "truth" became that Kerry's records had "problems" and Bush's were all there and commendable. The other cable stations were less bad, but they all played with this story long after the Kerry team proved lie after lie. Lies are despicable things - the problem is that once spread, you can't get them back. In fact, I confronted someone joking about Kerry's medals just last week - in conservative southern Indiana. Fox was not innocently reporting this.

Nor was HP a few weeks ago.

[masuki bance]

31. They were not the only news organization to report that event.

The whole fiasco was public knowledge, and covered extensively by all of the MSM-

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=navy+kerry+medal&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&cid=8608110893596674

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120257838.html

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/18/cst.04.html

Navy probes Kerry medals
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/05/1094322640717.html

Defense Dept. Probe of Kerrey's Medal Is a Possibility
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/27/news/mn-56360

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-17-kerry-navy-awards_x.htm

http://www.asiantribune.com/oldsite/show_article.php?id=1767

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/federal/20040917-1532-campaign-kerry-navy.html

If you wanted to show a hit piece by FOX there are plenty, but this example was standard issue MSM.

[beachmom]

33. Somebody is trying WAY TOO HARD.

[karynnj]

35. and he has reading comprehension problems

I never thought I would see anyone on DU defend the way FOX treated Kerry's service record.

[masuki bance]

41. I didn't defend FOX for the way they treated Kerry's service record.

I stated facts, facts that the story used as an example was standard vanilla MSM work. As to the charge that I am trying too hard, those links were about 2 minutes worth of time with google, piece of cake.

[karynnj]

43. But you didn't READ them

The links from USAtoday and CNN were to a story where the NAVY BACKED KERRY'S MEDALS AS EARNED. THe LA Times article was on BOB KERREY - because of revelations that he and his men killed women and children. The google result showed mostly stories backing Kerry at the top. I didn't look at others that were not MSM.

Yes it is a piece of cake to use goggle - I do it many times a day - but you have to then read what you get! (I didn't make the charge that you were working too hard - but I would take it as sarcasm.

The fact of the matter was that FOX distorted what was happening here - at a critical point in an election. The real story was:

1) A far right wing group, with a history of filing baseless charges, filed this flimsy case.
2) The Navy routinely agreed to review it, but gave it no credibility.
3) Kerry's campaign said it had no merit and his non-medical records were complete and on the web.

The Navy did investigate and as you can see from the links found that Kerry's medals were given correctly.

[karynnj]

34. Did you look at the links? All the important ones back Kerry

By the way - your LA link is for Bob Kerrey

The USAtoday story is titled "Navy says Kerry's service awards were properly approved"

The CNN link has this:
"Well, now to the flap over Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's medals.

Kerry is campaigning in New England this weekend. The inspector general of the U.S. Navy has completed a review of Kerry's Vietnam War service record. He concludes that Kerry's medals were properly awarded.

The group Judicial Watch had argued that wasn't the case and called upon the secretary of the Navy to revoke the medals. Inspector General Ronald Route says he sees no need for a full-scale probe.

The Kerry campaign says the review results are not news to them, but they hope it ends the controversy. Kerry is attending a fund- raiser in Boston today. Well, with the candidates running neck-and-neck, the deciding factor in the 2004 campaign is anybody's guess. We're going to do a side by side comparison of Bush and Kerry and their stands on the issue. It's a high stake's game.

Google is a google search - and the top several links are pro-Kerry.

[beachmom]

30. Because another DUer posted a CURRENT Fox News story to bash John Kerry!!!

We are not allowed to call out or link to said article. Don't worry, you can find it if you try.

[beachmom]

22. Because YOU are making an issue out of it. Why don't you knock

around the members of the Finance Committee who DON'T support the public option instead? That Huff Po piece was highly misleading. Sorry, you are the one averting your eyes from 3rd party BS pieces.

[masuki bance]

23. How was it misleading? nt

[karynnj]

29. It was misleading because

it's message was that John Kerry was promoting a 10 year trigger. In fact, he was not and has been a leading advocate for the public option in that committee.

The fact is without the distortion, there is no story.

[masuki bance]

36. Why do you say he was not? His spokesperson never said that. nt

He can be the greatest advocate for the public option ever created and still discuss implementation through a trigger mechanism. They are not exclusive of each other.

[karynnj]

38. There is a huge difference between discuss and propose, back etc

His spokesperson did not say he was!

Is this clear enough:

1. Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
Yes.

2. Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
He supports a public option that will be available immediately.

3. Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
Sen. Kerry supports a robust public plan, that like Medicare, would be
available to everyone from coast-to-coast.

4. Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?
Sen. Kerry believes a public plan will meaningfully transform our delivery system through its lower administrative expenses and bargaining power. These efficiencies will provide affordable coverage to those enrolled in the public plan and due to increased competition could lower costs in the private insurance market.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8519676&mesg_id=8519676

Thanks to Prosense

[masuki bance]

40. Again, I don't see how that rules out the other. You are free to

believe what you want, but being a champion of something doesn't rule out accepting a delay or a trigger. So, you can trumpet the statement and these answers, but if you parse all of it, there is no denial. It's very easy to see, it's Politics 101.


*edit fore speleen

[karynnj]

42. The fact is the story was wrong

It did not say that Kerry, if nothing else better was doable, would vote for a plan with a trigger.

It said that he "floated" a plan with 10 year trigger. The pure and simple fact is that he didn't. The clue that he didn't was in the original article. They said there was no discussion after he did. Now, the committee is taking up proposals and discussing them. One such proposal is Snowe's that has been publicly discussed and was submitted to the committee. I've watched open committee meetings on CSPAN. Even bills with no chance are briefly discussed then voted down. If Senator Kerry, with his own status as a senior Senator and his close links to Kennedy and Obama, "floated" a proposal, it would be discussed. That is what his office, in strong plain English, denied.

There is also the question of where this story came from and why. It is highly unlikely that an aide will violate the confidentiality of a closed door meeting without the tacit agreement of his or her boss. The article says it comes from Democrats. Now, any Democrat against the public option has no reason to raise this - this is an issue where they are against their own voters. Do you think they want it known that they are against it even 10 years out when the private companies have failed to meet reasonable standards?

For the supporters of the public option, it does not help their case to present a long time, consistent supporter as backing off. This is a time to be attempting to generate support. So, the motives have to be related to power politics - benefiting someone. Look at Beachmom's or BLM's posts, Schumer's office is close to this "journalist", Schumer has very likely used underhanded attacks before, and he is known to have sharp elbows. What motives could he have? He may want this out there to allow himself to broker a plan with a shorter trigger. If that happens - even though the concept was Snowe's, who will be front and center claiming credit? With HeyJohn, where his office is the likely suspect, the goal was to diminish Kerry in the blogosphere. Now, that was when it was still possible Kerry would run for President.

Now, it could even be more personal. Kerry is a powerful Senator and the unchallenged leading Democratic voice in the Senate on foreign policy, where he is to the left of Schumer and of Clinton and Biden in the administration. If you look at all the senior Senators, Kerry has the most potential to replace Kennedy as the leading voice of the liberal part of the party. Schumer clearly intends to be the majority leader in the future. He very likely wants to weaken any competing voices in the party.

[karynnj]

26. Because the Rahm and Blanche things were different - Kerry is not pushing the trigger option

His spokesperson simply said it is one of the options being discussed - Kerry is not leading that discussion or advocating for it.

[karynnj]

25. True - but the better reaction was more like "nevermind"

The fact is that the author made the smallest change possible and it still distorts the Senator's position. There is nothing in his spokesperson's statement that says that.

[karynnj]

14. I agree wholeheartedly

especially when his office already put out a completely clear statement.

His position is completely unambiguous. The question is whether there are enough other Senators in favor of public option. There are only 40 listed on Dean's site - up from 37 on June 19th (from a DU post). Wouldn't it make more sense to try to politely persuade 10 or 20 more Senators?

[rasputin1952]

27. Silver Stars are always awarded for Valor...

Bronze Stars, on the other hand can be awarded for other than combat situations and the "V" device denotes Valor. Army Commendation Medals can also have the "V" device added when warranted.

I have never heard of a "V" device for the Silver Star, the award, by it's merit alone denotes Valor.

It is like saying one receives the Distinguished Service Cross or the Medal of Honor, but neither of them are worth as much as one w/a "V" device. It simply is ridiculous to have a medal for Valor and then have to add "more" valor to it. Do the Purple Hearts need a "V" device as well...being wounded in battle is not Valorous enough?

Why is it that a bunch of Chickenhawks get a shot a Kerry anyway? I don't recall the naysayers wearing uniforms, receiving awards for Valor or even showing up for pre-enlistment physicals; yet by some absurd logic they can "demand" accountability of awards presented to others...:wtf:

[karynnj]

37. The problem was as you described

A Navy typist on one Navy form added a "V" that shouldn't have been there - likely because the Bronze star had one. It was not listed that way on his Senate or campaign site and was not that way on the certificate itself.

The problem was that these clowns looked for anything and found nothing - so they made stuff up. They got a shot at Kerry because the media gave them tons of free time.

[rasputin1952]

39. I also think that most of the SBVFT were jealous...

I didn't hear about any awards they received, yet the SEAL that wqas pulled from the river stated specifically that Kerry was a brave and honorable officer. The other point is, no one can "put themselves in" for an award...the system does not work that way. Military types get highly upset when people try desperately to denounce combat veterans and the awards they received. One of my pet peeves, nobody ever "won" a medal, they earned it, (most of the time). I have a real problem when I see..."'won' the Medal of Honor", it's not a damned contest...:grr:

[politicasista]

32. Yep. n/t