Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship

Ummm no. That presumes I've only seen Politico's article and forming an opinion based on that alone. The issues with Ben Carson's story are being widely covered in multiple media outlets. Obviously, Politico leans left. The Federalist (cited above) leans right. And I believe the initial investigation that uncovered the inconsistencies was done by CNN (left leaning again). Fox News is reporting about it (to the right), and so on.

It is almost impossible in today's environment to find any agreement on which source, or combination of sources, is considered legitimate. That is my frustration. Not that there are multiple sources and embedded biases, but that people will only consider 'their' source as the one true legitimate source of news and information, whether left or right.

But regardless of that, by seeking the Republican nomination for President, Ben Carson should expect to be heavily scrutinized. And he should quit whining about it.
 
Kyguardmom said:
Ummm no. That presumes I've only seen Politico's article and forming an opinion based on that alone. The issues with Ben Carson's story are being widely covered in multiple media outlets. Obviously, Politico leans left. The Federalist (cited above) leans right. And I believe the initial investigation that uncovered the inconsistencies was done by CNN (left leaning again). Fox News is reporting about it (to the right), and so on.

It is almost impossible in today's environment to find any agreement on which source, or combination of sources, is considered legitimate. That is my frustration. Not that there are multiple sources and embedded biases, but that people will only consider 'their' source as the one true legitimate source of news and information, whether left or right.

But regardless of that, by seeking the Republican nomination for President, Ben Carson should expect to be heavily scrutinized. And he should quit whining about it.
Click to expand...

When did you start paying attention to Dr. Carson's background - before or after the Politico article? If you started questioning Dr. Carson background only after the Politico article, the article accomplished what it wanted to do.

I would argue that regardless of personal bias, a bad journalism is bad journalism.

As I stated I am not a Dr. Carson supporter. However, when the Politico article mentioned "West Point," it to got my attention. After reading the article, the conclusion I reached based on what was in the article itself, I concluded that it was a bad journalism.

From the original article used "his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point" to mislead readers to believe Dr. Carson claimed he had applied and got accepted to West Point. If you kept on reading the same article, it showed that Dr. Carson never applied to West Point. So how can you give any credit to an atricle that don't even support it's opening? Although I don't buy Dr. Carson subsequent reply that he didn't apply to West Point becase he only had $10. Some of the old grads might remember or verify, even back in early 90's West Point didn't charge an application fee, so I doubt West Point had an application fee back in 70s. Of course, he might have been talking about the fee needed to forward this SAT scores. Of course, everybody moved on and no one's wants to argue about a minor point, so there is no discussion about Dr. Carson's "$10" story. So I would argue that if we push aside our personal bias, we can analyze the information in front of us better.
 
Primary sources know because they experience. Here is an example of one outlet citing another. It's bad at the root. You'll notice it when you hear "according to...." Or "xxxxxx is reporting..."
 
The unasked questions should be "Why didn't Ben Carson (born 1951) volunteer to serve in the US armed forces in 1969, when more than 500,000 of his fellow countrymen were in South Vietnam fighting in one of America's bloodiest wars? Was he anti-war? If so, why? If not, why not serve, in one capacity or another?"

Same with Donald Trump (born 1946, never served).

Same with Bernie Sanders (born 1941, never served).

Same with Jeb Bush (born 1953, never served).

Same with John Kasich (born 1952, never served).

Same with George Pataki (born 1945, never served).

Were these guys anti-war types? If so, let's hear about it. Of not, were they physically unable to serve?

Not to mention the others (Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Martin O'Malley, etc.) who all like to talk a tough game about fighting terrorism but all of whom never bothered to delay their political careers by taking the time to serve their country and not themselves. They seem like they've been involved in politics since the age of 12.

America used to demand that it's presidents had military service if they had been able to serve. Remember the scandals about Mike Dukakis being only an army clerk? Or Dan Quayle & George W Bush only serving in the Vietnam era National Guard (a far different force than today's Guard)? Or Al Gore only being a military journalist when he was in Vietnam?

We'll probably never have a military veteran be president again. Military service, if done honorably, leads to selflessness, which seems to be a disqualifying attribute for running for office nowadays. Just imagine, a politician putting country before their career - oh the quaintness of it all.

It's a damn shame that the most qualified candidate (and a damn good man), former US Marine Jim Webb, has dropped out of the race.

We're left with self-loving egotists when we used to have lions.

Note: Call me sexist, but I'll give Hillary Clinton & Carly Fiorina a pass from this topic.
 
Day-tripper - You forgot to mention Dick Cheney, the architect of the Iraq invasion. He took like 9 deferments to avoid going to Vietnam.

Other than that....Joe Biden's late son, Beau Biden, volunteered and served in the Army National Guard and deployed active duty to Iraq. I believe Sara Palin's son also went to Iraq.
 
Wearing a uniform should never be considered a qualification to serve as President. I'm sure plenty of us have served with MANY folks we would NEVER vote for…..

Jim Webb was the best Dem, but I wouldn't consider him anywhere near the top of the field.
 
Kyguardmom said:
Hmmm... The problem is that there appears to multiple discrepancies and/or unsubstantiated claims from his books, not just the West Point admissions. Carson has stated repeatedly, over decades, that when he was in ROTC, he met with General Westmoreland over a Memorial Day holiday. He has written this and repeated it in many speeches. But Westmoreland schedule shows that he was not in Detroit over that Memorial Day. So far, no one has been able to corroborate his claims of a violent childhood. He is remembered as quite the opposite - a quiet, nerdy kid. And while yes, he did grow up with a single mom in Detroit, the neighborhood he grew up in was tidy, close-knit and relatively safe. That is not the perception he has given in writing or in his speeches. And so far, no one has corroborated his story about hiding white people during the riots that broke out after MLK's assassination.

So, any of those alone might be considered a witch hunt by media. But taken together, it becomes more of a problem regarding his honesty. Which, according to polls, is his main attraction to his followers. Because, as we know, he doesn't have any experience in political office. And further more, it was his compelling life story, as he outlined in his books, that earned him those admirers.

I am a published author of humorous little book about learning to ride dressage. It is subtitled as "memoirs". Through out the book, I inserted passages regarding my personal experiences to emphasis the broader points in the chapters. The 'memoirs' portions were based on my experiences, but I absolutely embellished some parts to make it more funny or relevant. So I get how easy it is to make that happen and how it can make for a better 'story'. But the basis of my book was not about me, it was about the subject of learning to ride dressage.

That is not case or the intention of Ben Carson's book(s). I think he has a problem on his hands.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is that you are assuming that he is lying because politico pointed out other potential discrepancies from their point of view. If politico was proved to have fabricated the one about West Point admissions, why believe them on the other items?

What I find fascinating is they are digging into every little comment about his life. Who exactly is their source on "quiet nerdy kid?" What is their benchmark for determining his neighborhood was "tidy, close-knit and relatively safe." What determines "relatively" safe? My mother grew up in a "relatively safe" neighborhood in NYC, but the high school was rough. And her "relatively safe" in NYC is not the same as my "relatively safe" out in the country.

It seems to me Politico's methods are working. Throw enough mud, hint at enough doubts, bring up enough questions, play with wording and presto, convince the public there is something wrong.

I am not banging the drum for any candidate. I am just tired of the shenanigans of the media and the willingness of people to buy into the shenanigans.
 
Kyguardmom said:
Day-tripper - You forgot to mention Dick Cheney, the architect of the Iraq invasion. He took like 9 deferments to avoid going to Vietnam.

Other than that....Joe Biden's late son, Beau Biden, volunteered and served in the Army National Guard and deployed active duty to Iraq. I believe Sara Palin's son also went to Iraq.
Click to expand...

I was just sticking to the current crop of presidential candidates.

For the record, Lindsey Graham & Jim Gilmore (yes, that's an actual candidate) did serve in the US military.

And to beat a dead horse, would Ben Carson have gotten a West Point "scholarship" (appointment) in 1969 had he applied? Hell, yes. Without a doubt. The USMA was pleading for applications at that time and the Army was woefully short of junior officers. Remember, this was the era that William "Rusty" Calley got into OCS after being a dropout from a year of junior college, then was assigned as a 2nd lieutenant to an infantry company of the Americal Division and sent to a place called MyLai......Yeah, that's how easy it was to become an officer in those days.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Wearing a uniform should never be considered a qualification to serve as President. I'm sure plenty of us have served with MANY folks we would NEVER vote for…..

Jim Webb was the best Dem, but I wouldn't consider him anywhere near the top of the field.
Click to expand...


I agree that past military service shouldn't be a prerequisite to being elected president. And when it comes to, say, Rand Paul I don't think that its a big deal. Hell, he'd have trouble wanting to go to war with Japan on December 8th, 1941.

But when it comes to the candidates whom are, shall we say, more strident and eager to deploy US military assets (lives of American servicemen), we probably are well within our rights to ask "So what did you do when you were of age to serve?"

No one seems to be asking that in this campaign season.

And I must disagree with you re: JimWebb. He'd have been a helluva chief executive. He'll never get the chance. The Korean & Vietnam Wars will be the first major wars in US history not to have a veteran later become president. An unthinkable statement 20 years ago.
 
Day-Tripper said:
But when it comes to the candidates whom are, shall we say, more strident and eager to deploy US military assets (lives of American servicemen), we probably are well within our rights to ask "So what did you do when you were of age to serve?"
Click to expand...

Yes. Just... yes.
 
Ben Carson's reaction to the Paris incident is to compare refugees to rabid dogs. That is bat-**** crazy. And so he is. Period. The end.
 
Kyguardmom said:
Ben Carson's reaction to the Paris incident is to compare refugees to rabid dogs. That is bat-**** crazy. And so he is. Period. The end.
Click to expand...

Actually he wasn't equating refugees with rabid dogs. I heard the entire quote in context. He was likening the situation. Completely different. This whole twist the analogy in order to promote an agenda is getting really old.

Frankly, all those running for USA office of any kind who support refugees need to be asked...
Which is more important, an American life or someone else's life?
Which is more important, an American life or an illegal alien's life?
Which is more important, an American life or a refugee's life?
What price are you willing to pay in American lives in order to continue the import of Syrian refugees knowing that ISIS is exploiting refugee status in order to gain entry into Western countries?
What price are you willing to pay in American lives in order to continue allowing the influx of illegal immigrants (there is no vetting process on illegal immigrants)?
What will you do if a terrorist is able to gain entry into the USA as a refugee and proceeds to carry out terrorist actions which hurt, maim or kill USA citizens?

Everything I have researched on the current vetting process just keeps exposing the holes in the refugee system.

I really am tired of these games the main stream media is playing. It is no wonder that most of the American people do not trust the media any more.
 
as a member of the media machine I have to agree, although I would not call it a game.
I call it pandering, by the left to the left, buy the right the right.
at the end of the day all media is just trying to keep the commercials from bumping into each other.
it is about eyeballs, not ethics
Bigger threat is home grown.
the Syrian Passport found in Paris was a forgery to be used to enter Syria after the attack.
the Paris attackers were largely French
the London bus bombers English
Madrid train bombers Spanish
think the Army Major at Fort Hood
think Tim McVey
 
Well - I've looked at a variety of media sources.

And here is what I think. The refugee crisis IS an American crisis. It may not seem that way to everyday Americans, because only 1 percent serve in the military, as I know you all know. Most Americans won't be directly affected if we decide to engage with ground troops to Syria. But we are the world's only superpower, with all the expectations and responsibilities therein. So it is our problem.

But back to Europe's refugee crisis. This is the largest influx since WWII when the Jews fled Nazi persecution. Angela Merkel of Germany has presided for 10 years over a prosperous and progressive Germany. Since opening Germany's borders in September, Germany has been overwhelmed by upwards of 1/2 million refugees. Merkel has plunged in the polls and now fighting for her political life. The German right wing has gained strength, fueled by anti-Muslim sentiment. And THAT is never good - per History 101. And THAT is about the destabilization of Europe, because of the cluster in the Middle East. And that is our problem.

And that is why France announced it will take in 30,000 refugees, after the Paris attacks. And as history shows, the problems in the Middle East will never be solved by military alone. And in fact, Western incursion only makes it worse. Ever since England and France drew their arbitrary boundaries in the Middle East as the spoils of war, at the end of WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman empire with zero regard for ethnic/cultural issues. Wouldn't it be great to go back in time and just *****-slap those boys?

And that is why I think Ben Carson is bat-**** crazy. I read his entire speech regarding refugees as rabid dogs. Yes, I do think he was trying to say care must be taken in vetting refugees, while appealing to his base with rhetorical flourishes. But to be so completely tone-deaf is just shocking to me.

The best thing I saw this past week was the United States Holocaust Museum issuing a statement on their website in support of bringing Syrian refugees to the United States. And, fwiw, they rarely issue political statements.

November 19, 2015

WASHINGTON, DC—Acutely aware of the consequences to Jews who were unable to flee Nazism, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum looks with concern upon the current refugee crisis. While recognizing that security concerns must be fully addressed, we should not turn our backs on the thousands of legitimate refugees.

The Museum calls on public figures and citizens to avoid condemning today’s refugees as a group. It is important to remember that many are fleeing because they have been targeted by the Assad regime and ISIS for persecution and in some cases elimination on the basis of their identity.

A living memorial to the Holocaust, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum inspires citizens and leaders worldwide to confront hatred, prevent genocide, and promote human dignity. Its far-reaching educational programs and global impact are made possible by generous donors.

http://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/museum-statement-on-syrian-refugees
 
To be fair, service members are equally tone deaf.... And they curse more..
 
MombaBomba said:
Everything I have researched on the current vetting process just keeps exposing the holes in the refugee system.
Click to expand...

Please tell us what holes you found in the roughly two year process a refugee goes through before they are even allowed on US territory.

That is unless you are Cuban.

Statistically, if we are to experience another attack by Islamic terrorists, there is about 99% chance that it will be carried out by someone who is already in the US (citizen, legal resident or illegal alien) or by the millions upon millions of citizens of these countries who can travel to the US with only a passport:

http://www.esta.us/visa_waiver_countries.html

You'll notice that France and Belgium are on the list.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Holes in DHS's tracking?
Click to expand...

If there are holes in the DHS's tracking which would allow terrorists in among the intact families with small children, then we should probably stop visaless travel to the US by citizens of all 38 countries on the list.
 
Google "SEVP GAO" to read the GAO report (and there are multiple reports) about DHS's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (under ICE).

Just one example.

I worked with CBP, ICE and USCIS folks while I was on a ship. They were nice people, and I think they did a good job. But I know DHS is also dysfunctional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top