SwiftVets.com

[integritycounts]

[fortdixlover]

Could "inconsistencies uncovered by the Navy probe" that happen to be consistent with what the SBVFT have been saying for months now spell the beginning of the end of the anti-American, morality-free "Main Stream Media" as we know it?

I hope so.

-- FDL

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/5/132437.shtml

Sen. John Kerry's campaign biographer Douglas Brinkley said Sunday that if an ongoing Navy investigation into Kerry's military decorations turns up evidence of "purposeful" deception, it could spell doom for the top Democrat's White House bid ...

He said that while questions raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Kerry's war record have been very damaging, "so far they haven't been lethal." But Brinkley predicted that a discrepancy with Kerry's medals could seriously escalate his political problems.

Asked if inconsistencies uncovered by the Navy probe could be the "death knell" for Kerry's campaign, Brinkley told Malzberg, "It could."

[vet_supporter]

Don't you think it would have been more logical, since Brinkley is backing Kerry for him to have said, "I've studied the records and the official investigation will validate Kerry's version of events." ?

After all, if he was really certain, he would have said this.

I don't think it's some clever psy-ops exercise. The psy-ops part is smearing the Swiftvets while avoiding addressing the charges they are making. It is a classic way to take someone who is telling the truth, e. g. the Swiftvets, and divert attention from their truth to make people doubt the veracity of truth teller. This only happens when the person or group is telling the truth which cannot be refuted. Tarnish the teller of the truth while diverting attention away from the truth they are telling.

Doesn't it seem likely that if Kerry was certain the records actually backed him up, he'd be on Meet the Press signing the 180 ?

Doesn't it seem likely that Brinkley would be gleefully defending himself because he knows the records will back up what he is saying rather than hedging?

IMHO.

[fortdixlover]

[producehawk]

Have you noticed criss matuws reporting since the Zell Hell. He seems to me to have deserted kerry and is trying to save his own a---s. Brinkley is doing the same. I have actually had a better time watching mathews lately than scarbourgho. Joe has been whipped into being even handed and you can tell he hates it. I would have more respect for him if he followed his heart instead of the MSM masters.

[Jazzoi]

[quote="Chuck Z Ombie AC2000"]You notice how only the word "purposeful" is quoted and the rest was added in with Newsmax's own spin? Im not trying to start trouble but if im missing where brinkley is quoted as saying "if an ongoing Navy investigation into Kerry's military decorations turns up evidence of "purposeful" deception, it could spell doom for the top Democrat's White House bid." please point it out to me.



If you did, as you say, read the whole article, then perhaps you you missed this part.

- "Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?" Brinkley wondered. -

or this part

- Asked if inconsistencies uncovered by the Navy probe could be the "death knell" for Kerry's campaign, Brinkley told Malzberg, "It could."

In the next breath he hastened to add, however: "Right now it's unclear. So we have to just wait to see what all this adds up to." -

I see no evidence of innaccurate reporting on the part of Newsmax. They are, and will continue to be, a more accurate source of information the the NYSlimes, or even Brinkley himself, as far as I'm concerned.

Like you, I also do not wish to cause trouble, but it seems to me that you lost a debate with someone once because you quoted something from Newsmax. Could it be that your opponent simply attacked the messenger, and not the message, as is a standard countermeasure for liberals when they are confronted with "uncomfortable" facts, and you found yourself unable to defend?

(notice how I used quotes around the word uncomfortable, for emphasis, without attributing the word to anyone in particular?)

Again I say, fact check Newsmax against ANY of the liberal media, and Newsmax wins every time. Will you see spin one way or other in the aforementioned news sources? Absolutely. And again I say, Newsmax has never claimed to be on the side of liberals, but liberals would have you believe that the NYSlimes is 'the paper of record'.

Peace

[mascari]

Guys, lets stop arguing over the NewsMax story. Chuck has a point. While they do get a good scoop here and there, they're as biased as the MSM, except in the opposite direction. The difference is that the avg American has never heard of newsmax.

The others have a point too. It appears that Brinkley is definitely in CYA mode.

But we dont need to fight over it. Its about standing together against the hated one and defeating him.
_________________
===============
www.BestSynthetic.com

[Chuck Z Ombie AC2000]

[Bostonian]

This story is also in the Telegraph (UK):

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wus05.xml

This story has legs.

[vet_supporter]

I think this is getting off-track.

We have just been reading where the AP printed documented lies about boos, Arnold's speech, and saying that the Swiftboat Vet's are documented liars.

These things were obviously intentional. I don't think anyone can claim Newsmax intentionally prints false information and I have seen them print corrections when they have been wrong. I have seen them print things damaging to conservatives as well as liberals. In the end, everyone has their favorite source of information and it really doesn't matter.

So, why don't we focus on the real issue. Brinkley was on Malzberg's program. If you don't want to accept the report, do some digging and find cross references to it.

Everyone giving their gripes about various news sources credibillity just aids and abets Kerry supporters whether you intend it or not because it takes the focus off the facts.

[jrsdad]

[Aristotle The Hun]

[Jazzoi]

[Beldar]

The talk radio host, Steve Malzberg, evidently has a deal with NewsMax to write regular columns for them. The NewsMax article is unsigned, but I suspect it came directly from Malzberg immediately after his show finished on Sunday afternoon. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but the article does show signs of spinning the quotes from the interview pretty hard in a way to make them more newsworthy. I could take the same quotes and build an article that would spin them pro-Kerry without much effort.

I'm also not yet excited over the breathless assertions that the Navy Department has convened an official investigation into Kerry's medals. Judicial Watch's press release understandably makes the Sep. 1 letter from the DoD-IG look that way. But all he was doing was saying (my paraphrase of the bureaucratese, not direct quotes), "Yes, we have the duty to look into allegations of the sort you've made" and "I'm forwarding this to the Navy Department for further handling." It would be a mistake, I think, to trumpet that as if the Navy Department had made some preliminary determination that there's a serious impropriety or that Kerry's at fault. That all may yet happen, but I don't think it's happened yet.

Please understand, folks, that I'm a long-time and consistent critic of Kerry, and an avid supporter of the SwiftVets. I'm a conservative Republican, the son of a Navy LTJG who served on the troopship USS Zeilen in the Pacific in 1944-45, and someone who's absolutely horrified at the idea that Kerry might become our country's C-in-C.

But one of the things I try to do in my blogging on these issues is to exercise some caution and restraint, rather than get high on my own fumes. The Judicial Watch complaint may get some results, eventually, and there's some benefit to publicizing it (as Judicial Watch is trying to do) in an effort to get the mainstream media's interest. I'd just hate to overstate what's happened yet with that complaint, in the same way I'd hate to jump to the conclusion that Brinkley's "jumped ship" on Kerry. (I don't think he has; in fact, I think Brinkley is engaged in a misdirection ploy, and that Kerry signed a Form 180 directing the Navy to release directly to Brinkley the records that Brinkley now says Kerry ought to release.)

So -- take a deep breath everyone. Let's not have any friendly fire casualties on this forum! And remember, this is a marathon, not a sprint, and we're at best only one-third of the way through it so far.

My recent blog posts on these topics, regarding which I always am interested in comments or feedback from readers of these forums:

Brinkley continues to play coy on Kerry records

Navy Department review of Kerry's medals and alleged misconduct

Kerry apparently signed Form 180 for Brinkley, but Brinkley is cooperating in the cover-up

[Boundless]

Malzberg has a web site
and sometimes makes available downloads of the
audio, or transcripts, for some interviews.

There's nothing there yet on the Brinkley, but keep
an eye on it, unless independent inquiries directly
to Malzberg are already underway.

I'm not sure I can guess what Brinkley is up to.
The book
(Tour of Duty: The Fiction Begins with the Title)
evidently has serious problems, such as the
no-enemy-fire-yet admission for PH#1. If it had
been a movie script, it would have at least been
checked for continuity.

If Brinkley is not operating on orders from the
campaign, the doubts he's allowing to be raised
cannot sit well with people in a position to cause
him a great deal of trouble.