Say Good Bye To Kerry! [Archive]

Noam

04-02-2004, 10:48 PM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004896

WHY KERRY LOST

The election is still seven months away, and already Democrats are coming up with rationalizations for John Kerry's defeat, reports the New York Times:

At the very moment that President Bush has begun his general election campaign, Senator John Kerry has largely slipped from sight. And Mr. Bush has made the most of Mr. Kerry's absence.

Mr. Kerry's low profile occurs at what would seem to be a particularly opportune time for the senator. Mr. Bush has been struggling with questions about his record on terrorism, and Mr. Kerry had been riding on a wave of excitement after his capture of the Democratic nomination. . . .

Some Democrats said that should Mr. Kerry lose in November, he might well remember this month as the time when he seriously undermined his hopes of defeating Mr. Bush. A few invoked one of Mr. Kerry's least-liked comparisons, noting how another Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president, Michael S. Dukakis, stuck close to home in August 1988, in what turned out to be a foolish strategic move in his campaign against Mr. Bush's father.

Hey, remember when Kerry was riding that "wave of excitement"? It was almost as exciting as the wave of excitement about Michael Dukakis that swept us up in July 1988. Oh, to be young again!

It seems that whenever the Democrats lose an election, they have an excuse. Hubert Humphrey fell victim to Richard Nixon's racist "Southern strategy." George McGovern would have won if not for the Watergate coverup. Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale? Victims of Ronald Reagan's winning personality. Al Gore had the election stolen from him by the Supreme Court. And John Kerry, like Michael Dukakis before him, made a tactical error months before the election, and, oh yes, George Bush "questioned his patriotism."

What will it take for a Democratic to acknowledge losing an election because of bad ideas?

KSO

04-03-2004, 04:47 AM

While reading some of the posts concerning G.W, I can see that some people's teenlike admiration for the president is so profound that they try to make some kind of an antichrist from John Kerry, Don't understand it, all I see in Kerry is a really boring man who tries to say nothing while using many many words, He is to afraid to scare the right wings with liberal views, or to scare the left wingers with conservative ideas, so he just mumbles something, luckily for Bush His flock of admirers will swallow everything he sais even if he will read Karl Marxs writings, and will buy Saddam a major league baseball team.

minusthejihad

04-03-2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by KSO
luckily for Bush His flock of admirers will swallow everything he sais even if he will read Karl Marxs writings, and will buy Saddam a major league baseball team.

Now that's daft.

KSO

04-03-2004, 07:19 AM

What can I do, every time I watch the fox news or read his supporters, it seems like there's about some 12 year old girls watching Britney Spears concert, maybe there's something magnetic in his dim eyes that I haven't noticed, well doesn't matter anyway.
If he will lose to Karey I will know that he is a complete loser and an Idiot, it's hard to lose to a blanket, anyway don't see it happen in this election, I still Dream of the option that in 2008 the elections will be Hilary Clinton VS Ahnult Shwarznegger, Than Ill know Ive seen it all.

minusthejihad

04-03-2004, 07:41 AM

So far I have seen it all,

a 19 year olf Christian Aremian living in Israel turn into an older Jew living in Russia overnight! Thanks KAPO!

KSO

04-03-2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by minusthejihad
So far I have seen it all,

a 19 year olf Christian Aremian living in Israel turn into an older Jew living in Russia overnight! Thanks KAPO!

here is a site for you, you can check out all the options and check the unit you want to join (sorry didn't found Internet Tigers unit)

http://www.idf.il/english/insignia/combat.stm

when you are coming to Israel you take a bus to Tel Ha Shomer (they will refund you later) get a number and than the usual stuff medical check, psychological test, profile and than test for the combat divisions who fight our just war, can land you my house while you will be doing the tests.

p.s.
try to a place to stay and get your needs, for month of holy work you will get 250 sheckels, but I guess ideals are priceless,
god bless you son!

P.S

Try not to use the Kapo rhetorique to much while in Israel, some people are sensetive about it.

Good Luck!

Noam

04-03-2004, 11:54 PM

Latest news:

KERRY LOSING THE HORSE RACE

KEEPING THE HORSE FACE.

RichardP

04-18-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Noam
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004896

WHY KERRY LOST

The election is still seven months away, and already Democrats are coming up with rationalizations for John Kerry's defeat, reports the New York Times:

At the very moment that President Bush has begun his general election campaign, Senator John Kerry has largely slipped from sight. And Mr. Bush has made the most of Mr. Kerry's absence.

Mr. Kerry's low profile occurs at what would seem to be a particularly opportune time for the senator. Mr. Bush has been struggling with questions about his record on terrorism, and Mr. Kerry had been riding on a wave of excitement after his capture of the Democratic nomination. . . .

Some Democrats said that should Mr. Kerry lose in November, he might well remember this month as the time when he seriously undermined his hopes of defeating Mr. Bush. A few invoked one of Mr. Kerry's least-liked comparisons, noting how another Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president, Michael S. Dukakis, stuck close to home in August 1988, in what turned out to be a foolish strategic move in his campaign against Mr. Bush's father.

Hey, remember when Kerry was riding that "wave of excitement"? It was almost as exciting as the wave of excitement about Michael Dukakis that swept us up in July 1988. Oh, to be young again!

It seems that whenever the Democrats lose an election, they have an excuse. Hubert Humphrey fell victim to Richard Nixon's racist "Southern strategy." George McGovern would have won if not for the Watergate coverup. Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale? Victims of Ronald Reagan's winning personality. Al Gore had the election stolen from him by the Supreme Court. And John Kerry, like Michael Dukakis before him, made a tactical error months before the election, and, oh yes, George Bush "questioned his patriotism."

What will it take for a Democratic to acknowledge losing an election because of bad ideas?

Bad ideas: agreed, though the Democrats are much too arrogant and smug, ever to admit that they are fallible.

Kev

04-18-2004, 12:27 PM

No doubt some here have seen todays interview on Meet THe Press with Kerry?

A Must Read.

http://advisoryopinion.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/index.html#a0001233450

April 18, 2004
John Kerry: War Hero? Update
From today's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam. You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and come back and talk about it:
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.

Shameful.

Oh Jerusalem

04-18-2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Kev
No doubt some here have seen todays interview on Meet THe Press with Kerry?
I wish I could see it by go to the MSNBC page for this session (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/) and all it says is "by by". :confused:

What's going on? :confused:

TheyAre

04-18-2004, 01:40 PM

KSO

04-18-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by TheyAre
And then there are the people who regularly formulate logical, coherent reasons for their support of George W. Bush. That's usually when you, KSO, write up a paragraph like the one quoted, as if puerile ad hominems make your argument for you.

If someone formulates logical and coherent reasons to support the presidents then I respect their oppinions, But the level of dialog on this elections is realy low people who support Kerry, support him for the good reason he is not Bush, and people who support Biush use some kind of admiration and like a teenage girl justify everything he does, that's why I don't care about the 2004 elections anymore, they are meaningless no matter who will win.

TheyAre

04-19-2004, 09:13 AM

support him for the good reason he is not Bush, and people who support Biush use some kind of admiration and like a teenage girl justify everything he does, that's why I don't care about the 2004 elections anymore, they are meaningless no matter who will win.

Saying that supporting a candidate because "he is not Bush" is a good reason for that support precludes you from intelligent discussion on the 2004 presidential election anyway.

Kev

05-03-2004, 08:49 AM

Wonder how this will affect Kerry?

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200405/SPE20040503a.html

Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief', Say Former Military Colleagues
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 03, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com . The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, currently a Houston, Texas, based attorney, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States. Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any sailor who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures will educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander-in-chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander-in-Chief'

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign.

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.

O'Neill hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

'Real John Kerry'

B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"The American people do not know John Kerry and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he added.

Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment.

red crabtree

05-04-2004, 02:03 PM

John Kerry is a pathological liar and opportunist, with his finger to the political winds using whatever and whoever can get him the power he desires. The man who falsely accused American troops, repeatedly, of atrocities that were not true does not deserve ever to be Commander in Chief.

All the information is too large to copy/paste here. Please go to www.wintersoldier.com

I wouldn't piss on this man if he were on fire. He uses his Vietnam time as a badge of honor now, what a frigging hypocrite.

Alfred

05-04-2004, 03:31 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/york/york200405041626.asp

May 04, 2004, 4:26 p.m.
Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out
The medical description of his first wound.

By Byron York

Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it.

I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.
John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

RichardP

05-04-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/york/york200405041626.asp

May 04, 2004, 4:26 p.m.
Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out
The medical description of his first wound.

By Byron York

Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it.

I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.
John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

Well said by Red Crabtree and Alfred, the man is an opportunist and has made a career of doing so. Apparently, he was on Chris Matthews’ ‘Hardball’ on MSNBC, apparently, Matthews played ‘Softball’ with the slug, which comes as no surprise. Moreover, these so called unbiased leftist-pundits of the media are doing their utmost to portray Kerry as something or someone, he is not and will never be… honest.

red crabtree

05-04-2004, 06:17 PM

It is my intention to bring everything treanous and cowardly act this man has done to the attention of as many people as I can. In all my years I have never felt the absolute rage at a political figure as I do this man. The nomination of John Kerry for the democratic party has pushed me futher to the right than I have ever been or thought I would ever be. The democrats may have lost my vote forever.

Alfred

05-04-2004, 08:05 PM

Those of you who have served in the military have seen Kerry's type before. Usually Admiral/General or a politician's son. These guys are prima donas and are made fun of and sometimes fragged if the situation is deadly for their troops. One of his former peers said Kerry was always typing....he never knew what, but he was always typing something.

His reported Silver Star action should have resulted in a reprimand....grounding your boat to retrive a used RPG? Give me a break.

Regardless of your political leanings...this man is a phoney as far as a his military record.

But anyone who can get 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, a silver star (without a scratch) then get Jane Fonda and dozens of other airhead Lefties (many took part in the anti-war movement to get chicks:)....., throw his medals away...call most Viet Nam Vets (and himself) war criminals... marry two millioniaress..then get himself nominated to run for President of the US while being voted the most Liberal Senator in the US is something of almost mythical proportions.

Only in post Clinton America!!

Kev

05-04-2004, 08:33 PM

I cant help but look at Kerry and see the same type of politician that has been leading Canada now for the past 12 years.

RichardP

05-04-2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Kev
I cant help but look at Kerry and see the same type of politician that has been leading Canada now for the past 12 years.

Well said, Kev ain't that the truth... I feel sorry for our good friends south of the border, if Kerry succeeds winning the white house. Actually, I’ll feel sorry for all of those, who want to preserve their freedoms and the democracies.

Kev

05-04-2004, 11:27 PM

Unfit for Office - John Kerry (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005036)

Unfit for Office
I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.

Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.

Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.

During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.

John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.

Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.
John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?

Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.
Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.

RichardP

05-05-2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Kev
Unfit for Office - John Kerry (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005036)

Meanwhile back at the mainstream, leftwing media agencies; there is never a word spoken on this key issue, without a subjective defense on behalf of their 'chosen' future Commander-in-Chief, Kerry. More smoke and mirrors to befuddle the masses, to whom the media deems, are no more than a clump, of befuddled humanity in need of a diet-plan and new President.

Oh Jerusalem

05-05-2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by RichardP
Meanwhile back at the mainstream, leftwing media agencies; there is never a word spoken on this key issue, without a subjective defense on behalf of their 'chosen' future Commander-in-Chief, Kerry. More smoke and mirrors to befuddle the masses, to whom the media deems, are no more than a clump, of befuddled humanity in need of a diet-plan and new President.
Not so fast! Read the NYT's take on this story. It's hard to make a clean assessment with all this mud being slinged around!

Veterans Group Criticizes Kerry on His Record in Vietnam (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/politics/campaign/05VETS.html?ex=1084420800&en=c1e5a30512c69714&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1)
By JODI WILGOREN

Published: May 5, 2004

ASHINGTON, May 4 — A group of Vietnam veterans tried to pick apart Senator John Kerry's war-hero biography on Tuesday, questioning a combat wound and denouncing his antiwar activities as a betrayal that should disqualify him to be commander in chief.

The group cited a document from a doctor who said that in December 1968 he treated the wound for which Mr. Kerry received the first of his three Purple Hearts and that it probably resulted from an accident, not hostile fire.

"Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore," wrote the doctor, Louis Letson of Scottsboro, Ala., a member of the group. "The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury which I treated."

Dr. Letson's group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, seeks to discredit Mr. Kerry. It was organized by John O'Neill of Houston, who was recruited by the Nixon administration three decades ago to debate Mr. Kerry about the conduct of service members in Vietnam.

The group says it represents 200 men who, like Mr. Kerry, saw combat on Navy Swift boats. (The Swift Boat Sailors Association, a nonpartisan veterans group, estimates the total number of men assigned to the boats at 3,000 to 3,500.) Swift Boat Veterans for Truth held its first news conference here just a day after Mr. Kerry unveiled a $27 million advertising campaign highlighting his Vietnam service.

"Senator Kerry is not fit for command," said Adm. Roy Hoffman, retired, the leader of the group.

Steve Gardner, who served under Mr. Kerry, called him indecisive in combat, a description sharply at odds with evaluations by Mr. Kerry's commanders.

"If a man like that can't handle that six-man boat, how can you expect him to be our commander in chief?" asked Mr. Gardner, one of about two dozen veterans who flew here to discredit Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Kerry aides immediately dismissed the new group as a tool of President Bush's re-election campaign and accused it of engaging in "Nixonian dirty tricks."

Regarding Dr. Letson's recollection of Mr. Kerry's wound, Michael Meehan, a campaign spokesman, noted that a different person, J. C. Carreon, had signed the "sick call sheet" summarizing treatment of the injury, and asked, "Who is this guy? How do we know that he was the doctor who treated him?"

The aides produced several veterans to attest to Mr. Kerry's bona fides.

"I think it's going to sicken and revulse the vast majority of the American people," Wade Sanders, who fought alongside Mr. Kerry, said in a hastily arranged news conference that followed one by Admiral Hoffman's group.

Mr. Sanders predicted that the veterans' criticism would "backfire on this president and this vice president," and, paraphrasing a challenge to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, asked, "Is there no limit to the extreme that you will go in the destruction of someone who scares you?"

Mr. O'Neill, the group's founder, denied that the group was connected to the Bush campaign, saying he paid the $1,200 fee for use of a conference room for Tuesday's event himself. The group's publicist, Merrie Spaeth, worked in the Reagan White House and has given money to Mr. Bush's campaigns.

Kev

05-05-2004, 03:59 PM

I cant help but look at Kerry and see the same type of politician that has been leading Canada now for the past 12 years.

Only a Canadian I suppose would understand that statement.
Which isn't to say that our government hasn't done some great things in various areas.

We have never had a government that has been so arrogant, so out of touch with the people, so fiscally corrupt........and for those that say that Bush lied?

ROFLOL
The Liberals can actually make Clinton look angelic in comparison.

Although I am not quite a naval brat persay, I come from a long line of British Naval officers and I therefore have the utmost respect for the military, regardless whether it is British or American and I just find Kerry offensive in almost every way possible.

red crabtree

Good for you!
I admire your spirit! :)

Some Americans wonder why we Canadians get so involved in your elections.
Many of us, especially those who are either righter wing, or right of center like myself tend to associate more with the American political system than our own.

I for one have spent a great deal of time in the United States in the past and just adore it so yes, even though I personally don't have to live under John Kerry if he were to be elected, its as good as so for your country, your system, your news, TV, etc, is beamed into our homes, far more than our own and I would have to suffer at least 4 years of that man as any American opposed to him might. :(

Puleeeeezzzzze keep up the good work Crabtree :D

I am David

05-05-2004, 06:15 PM

What, Kerry's Vietname record isnt good enough for you guys? You have to demonize and belittle that too? You guys know no shame in your uncontrollable hate, and your quest for untruth.

Kerry served valiantly and heroicly in Vietnam. Kerry risked his life to save that of another, and made a daring, split second decision that saved his entire crew. And to this day he still has shrapnel lodged in his leg for service to his country. Is that not enough for you guys, or do you have to pathetically nitpick if mabye, Kerry stretched his injuries a bit to get a purple heart, a medal given out in the thousands?

That is intellectually dishonest, and an overexageration of the importance of a minor detail. If you trully care about Kerry's character, you would see the patheticness of the argument that Kerry's character is somehow seriously flawed because he may have stretched the degree of his wound to get a purple heart, when he was also doing things like saving lives at the risk of his own. Get over it, and get serious. Do anything else and your just kidding yourself.

--

I dont know or care how politically motivated that press confrence was, but I do know it was dishonest, innacurate, and full of some bitter people who obviously dont understand Kerrys testimony after he returned from war. If they cant understand the purpose and meaning of Kerry's anti-war movement, then how fit are they to pass judgement on Kerry's judgment? The answer is not fit at all.

red crabtree

05-05-2004, 07:51 PM

Hey David, your ignorance is showing.
It is not his service in Vietnam I take umbrage over. I do not despite that he did what he did or got his medals etc... You are not able to see the full picture here and why you cannot is beyond me.
It is what Kerry did after he left Vietnam that brands him a traitor. Yes, a traitor. His "investigation" of war atrocities was . May I guess that you didn't bother to look at the link I provided? The Winter Soldier investigation has been debunked by a military investigation primarily because those who participated refused to speak to Navy Intelligence, under instructions from the Vietnam Veterans against the War group, who either knowingly put out garbage and didn't want that known or refused to ensure those who committed atrocities were punished. Either way that's wrong. Next, it has been shown more than once that there were fabrications of stories, including the fact that many of those there were not ever in Vietnam, and others who stole the names and personal information of people who really were there, but when they were looked up they had never been in Detroit. He painted Vietnam Vets as psychopathic baby killers, not just a few mind you, but that it was normal. The man who treated his fellow soldiers in such a manner never has the right to be Commander in Chief. You should understand that the person who first critisized and debunked all this right after it happened was Neil Sheehan, the same man who was given the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg. His interest was truth, not partisan politics. Note in case you don't realize it, but the Pentagon papers helped bring down a Presidency.
He meant in Paris with the idea of negotiating with the enemy, which in case you didn't know is illegal for a private citizen to do. He is a traitor in deed, even if not legally.
It's not his record in Vietnam David, it is his record afterwards. He isn't worth the powder to blow him to hell.

Alfred

05-05-2004, 08:21 PM

Actually, I have a problem with his Viet Nam record too. Nothing is more abhorrent to a military guy than someone with connections putting himself (or having a buddy) put himself in for medals. Especially for actions that rate reprimands versus medals. I think the truth will come out about his medals and I will accept the final conclusion. Either he was heroic in Viet Nam or he was a scoundrel. I am waiting to see.

By the way. I don't think that Republican Senator McCain walks on water either. From what I hear, he had to be threatened several times with court martial in the Hanoi Hilton to shut up and stop cooperating with the enemy. He was a famous Admiral's son that may have talked a bit too much. That is the skuttlebutt around military circles anyway. Now, having been through POW training...and having been tortured a bit during said training, I can understand how one can talk to avoid more torture. So I will reserve judgement.... I just don't go gaw gaw over McCain like Chris Matthews and others do. He is not a hero in my eyes but just another poor flyer that had to go through POW status. He does accept the adulation a bit too smugly in my mind however.

I am David

05-05-2004, 08:21 PM

Great tactic crabtree, call me ignorant, and wrong, and then go ahead and be ignorant and wrong yourself. Works amazingly well too, for me ;)

At least you admit you dont have a problem with Kerrys Vietnam service, although that never should have been an issue.

Now, your problem is the same as those at the confrence. You dont understand Kerry's actions after the war. He was fully in support of the troops. That's why he wanted to end the war. But when refering to the war atrocities, he used language that was probably over symbolic and innapropriate, and/or he may have been lied to, or simply didnt know some of the facts. Either way, theres nothing wrong with condmening Americans when they are murderers and torturers, and if thats what Kerry thought was happening, he was perfectly right to speak about it. That is patriotic, to condemn Americans when they should be, and to speak out against a war that endangers good Americans. If anything, Kerrys actions after the war should be seen as a plus, rather than a nuetral or negative. If it werent for radical actions like his and others concerning the war, it may have lasted longer and costed thousand more lives.

Alfred

05-05-2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by I am David
That is patriotic, to condemn Americans when they should be, and to speak out against a war that endangers good Americans.

That is a Liberal definition of patriotism which I find rather odd. Tear down your country and your military as a "patriotic" act. It will be this Liberal rationalization of patriotism that will make us lose the war on terror. Mark my words.

I am David

05-05-2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
That is a Liberal definition of patriotism which I find rather odd. Tear down your country and your military as a "patriotic" act. It will be this Liberal rationalization of patriotism that will make us lose the war on terror. Mark my words.

Call it Liberal, call it whatever you want, that doesnt matter. Now, As I explained, its not patriotism to tear down your country, but its patriotic to condemn evil people, wether from America or not. Its also patriotic to question authority (in this case the Nixon Admin) when you believe it to be wrong, and to work for the better of America and save American lives by stopping a deadly war.

Donna

05-05-2004, 08:35 PM

I think it's part of that idealogy that says "So that we may truly love others, we must hate ourselves first."

Or something like that.

red crabtree

05-06-2004, 08:16 PM

In my world David, a lie is a lie. It is not language that is overly symbolic.
Please do not tell me that I do not understand what Kerry was doing after the war. I understand perfectly. It is not the protest that is a problem, every American has the right to stand in the town square and make an ass of themselves if they want to as Kerry did. What I take issue with and will forever is his branding Vietnam Troops as the glassy eyed pyschotic baby killer. I take issue with his premise that blacks took more casualities, particularly when statistics were available and were not used. Since that time the empirical evidence shows the myths that he and his marxist friends trumpeted were just that myths. Protesting a war is one thing, painting the men you were with as crazed killers. He lied, short and sweet. He has never apologized for it, and barely acknowledged it except to say that he may have been a little over the top.
The other thing you do not do is go treat with the enemy. Again protesting and working within your own govn't to end inappropriate action is one thing, but to meet and treat with the enemy is treason. A man who behaves thus should never have the honor of being the President.
The people on the left want it both ways. They want to say that Bush is a liar, that he deliberately lied etc... but Kerry's obvious lying about fellow Americans who were risking their lives while this butthead left the theater with minor wounds, is not really lying. Lying is lying no matter why you did it. You wish to excuse his actions by saying they were necessary lies. You wish to justify what is not justifable by giving me the party line of how what he did was for the greater good of America. A bit like the idea that if your house needs remodeling, the best thing to do is to burn it to the ground, instead of fixing what is broke.
You seem to think that I have a problem with his protesting. No I don't. I have a problem with the way he did it, I have a problem with him being associated and a spokesman for a group that seriously discussed the assasination of hard line right wing hawks in the federal govn't because they didn't like them. You are a hypocrite to smugly talk about Nixon and his hypocrisy, when your man is no better he simply has different politics. and that sums up what is wrong with the left. It's ok for them to use and abuse whatever tactics they like in the name of the greater good, and how can the rest of us unwashed ignorant masses don't understand that? But by God let someone from the right do the same and all hell breaks loose.
He was irresponsible with the way he painted Vietnam Vets who have lived with the stigma of the wanton killer, maladjusted image he stuck them with for the last 30 some years. Go ahead and tell me he was young. I'm sorry 27 is not so young as to be that immature that you can now attempt to not take any responsiblity for the way you behaved.
David, your not ignorant, but your red slip is showing. You and yours are definately not ignorant, you are disingenous.

I am David

05-06-2004, 08:47 PM

Oh cool, A while ago you called me ignorant, but now I'm just disingenuous! Or is that supposed to be worse, and thats why you switched? Whatever, your opinion of me doesnt matter, because its so predictable, just state your opinion and be quite :)

Now, a lie is not always the same thing. There are white lies, there are benificial lies, there are small and big lies. Then there are all those different options with lies with the added dimension of how aware the "lier" was he was being untruthfull. If you think a lie is just a lie, and its effect and importance is always the same, then thats a pretty good indicator of the simplicity you view political issues with.

The problem with the rest of your logic is that there WERE atrocities commited in the vietname war, so what exactly is wrong with Kerry accusing troops of atrocities, when they were actually doing it? Also, your accusation that kerry "falsy accused" troops of atrocities is bogus, because Kerry obviously didnt know the names of all the perpetrators, so he was only refering to those soldiers who DID commit atrocities. I cannot possibly see what you find wrong with accusing troops of atrocites when there is a good chance they are. It would be like someone today having a problem with another person accusing some US troops of abusing Iraqis, when there is pretty good indication that they are. If someone is upsett about Americans abusing Iraqis, they arent a traitor, they are all the more patriotic.

As far as Kerry conspiring with the enemy, you will have to back that up.

Alfred

05-07-2004, 12:58 PM

As President Bush is the leader of the free world, I think that he should APOLOGIZE to the Viet Cong for the atrocities that John Kerry has admitted to committing in Viet Nam.

TheyAre

05-07-2004, 01:09 PM

The problem with the rest of your logic is that there WERE atrocities commited in the vietname war, so what exactly is wrong with Kerry accusing troops of atrocities, when they were actually doing it? Also, your accusation that kerry "falsy accused" troops of atrocities is bogus, because Kerry obviously didnt know the names of all the perpetrators, so he was only refering to those soldiers who DID commit atrocities. I cannot possibly see what you find wrong with accusing troops of atrocites when there is a good chance they are. It would be like someone today having a problem with another person accusing some US troops of abusing Iraqis, when there is pretty good indication that they are. If someone is upsett about Americans abusing Iraqis, they arent a traitor, they are all the more patriotic.

What is wrong?

What is wrong is that Kerry lied. He said things happened that didn't happen. You cannot try to hide his lying behind "Oh, it happened somewhere, so he was basically telling the truth." He wasn't telling the truth. He said he personally saw things that he never saw. He said he personally did things that he never did.

It doesn't matter that he didn't know the names of the men he accused. He deliberately lied about good men, telling Congress that they did things they didn't. But I suppose that the feelings of the members of Kerry's unit, who he in essence said were monsters when in fact they were not, those are immaterial.

Honor, dignity, the truth - none of it matters when you can be a self-righteous liberal, eh?

It would be like someone today having a problem with another person accusing some US troops of abusing Iraqis, when there is pretty good indication that they are.

I suppose it would be like someone having a problem with Arabs flying two planes into the two tallest buildings in New York because 'some' Americans are 'oppressing' Arabs somewhere.

I am David

05-07-2004, 05:01 PM

Your repeating the same old Argument TheyAre.

US troops DID commit atrocities, now Kerry, not knowing specific names, said that US troops were commiting atrocities. That is neither a lie or misleading. Kerry was simply bringing an important issue to national attention, no more no less.

If Kerry doesnt know the names of perpetrators, there is no possible way he can tell people that US troops are commiting atrocites without refering to them generally. So your basically saying, anytime you speak in general terms, without knowing specific names, you are lying. That is one of the most horrendous arguments I've ever heard, but only whats needed to defend an indefinsible position.

I suppose it would be like someone having a problem with Arabs flying two planes into the two tallest buildings in New York because 'some' Americans are 'oppressing' Arabs somewhere.

Did you just decide to throw that in there randomly, or do you actually think that mockery of an excuse of an analogy actually proves some kind of point?

red crabtree

05-07-2004, 07:54 PM

BWAHHHH! Actually you are ignorant and disingenuos. I thought perhaps you had a clue, but you really don't. Again it is obvious that you did not read the posted link.

<Speaking loudly and slowly for the obviously impaired David> There was an "investigation" called the Winter Soldier held in Detroit. Some 150 men "testified". They all told stories of atrocities. But there was a problem with this "investigation" several of those "testifying" were never in Vietnam, in fact they had deserted. Then there were the ones that used someone else's name, names of men who actually were in Vietnam, but who never were in Detroit, nor did they know anything about actocities. This is called lying. Then Kerry compounded it even more by saying this kind of thing happened every day, blah blah blah.

What is really laughable is how stupidly predictable you are. It is ok to lie about those in uniform, as long as it gets your political goals taken care of. You say, well technically he told the truth because atrocities did happen, Hey genius it was a war. Just like bad things happened in every other war, because no Sherlock IT IS A WAR. That does not mean that it was the norm, it does not give some Lt. JG the right to paint all American troops as bug eyed maniacs. Nor to treat with the enemy.

That all said it is knee slapping funny to watch you bend yourself into a pretzel to justify the party line. What isn't so funny is to realize that people like you who are willing to be disingenous to hold the party line have actually managed to committ more atrocities and murders than any other political persuasion in the world. Kerry supported the North Vietnamese, marching under their flag on more than one occasion and they managed to kill more Vietnamese in months than America did in 13 years of War. You and the type of politics you profess can claim Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot etc... Millions of people died under these "great" leaders who were great at the whole end justifies the means thing. With that much practice the abilty to actually know what truth is I realize is a very difficult exercise.

I am David

05-07-2004, 08:15 PM

Bohoo, lots of rhetoric and no substance to your argument. Lots of name calling and accusations, and no logic. Mabye if you concentrated more on knowing the truth and thinking, and less on belittling anyone who oposes you, you might have something to actually talk about.

Now, your last post has nothing that contradicts me. The soldiers who lied may have, but that doesnt negate the fact that soldiers commited atrocities. Kerry said soldiers commited atrocities, and they did. Now normally no one would have a problem with that, but if you are ideologically and hate driven, I guess you will.

Also absurd is your "second argument" that because we can assume all wars contain atrocities, then John Kerry was a lier because we should have already known this and therefore he must have been lying. What? How do you justify even considering that that is a valid argument, let alone posting it.

No, your catchy little lines like "bend yourself into a pretzel along party lines" wont help your absurdly pathetic arguments. As I said before, you would be wise to try and actually THINK before taking an opinion and sticking to it forever, no matter WHAT evidence is shown to you that you are wrong.

red crabtree

05-08-2004, 07:19 AM

Struck a nerve with you did I?
It is you who are not logical. YOU are unwilling to take a critical look at a man who is not only a turncoat, but who has repeatedly used those "little white lies" in order to pander to whoever he is trying to win over.

The first to refute the Kerry spread was Guether Lewy, who wrote a book, America in Vietnam. This was written in 1978. The same has been refuted in another book, Stolen Valor. A book by the way that I bought some 4 years ago. This book is a very well researched and well written condemnation of not only the popular myths of Vietnam and the men who fought it, but also a well written condemnation of those who perpetuated the myths, including John Kerry. You speak to me of truths, yet defend a man who lied, repeatedly. What you see as truth is little more than an obsessive need to back a party line. It is not based on statistics, it is not based on empirical evidence. It is based on antedoctal evidence at best, and even then that is fallible because so many who told the stories have been proven not to be who or what they said they were. However, to find that out it takes the time to do the research, to do the reading and to open your mind up far enough to allow that just maybe the "facts" as you know them are wrong. John Kerry sounds like Groucho Marx in an old movie, who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Let me do a copy/paste of an article that sums up my feelings very well. (Burkett is the author of Stolen Valor)

I had always agreed with the observation of the late Harry Summers, a well-known military commentator who served as an infantryman in Korean and Vietnam, that the story teller's distance from the battle zone was directly proportional to the gruesomeness of his atrocity story. But until the publication of the aforementioned Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and its History, neither Harry nor I any idea just how true his observation was.

In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans. They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.

Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his or her salt could have done: he used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life, was an impostor.

Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in Vietnam.

Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.

The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.

Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:

"We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, and so when in 30 years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."

But a comprehensive 1980 survey commissioned by Veterans' Administration (VA) reported that 91 percent of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served their country;" 80 percent disagreed with the statement that "the US took advantage of me;" and nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end.

Today, Sen. Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn. But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask Sen. Kerry this: Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now? We do know that his speech was not the spontaneous, emotional, from-the-heart offering that he suggested it was. Burkett and Whitley report that instead, "it had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it."

But the issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony? But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a piece of political theater that he, an aspiring politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of that war for slandering them to advance his political fortunes.

MichaelC

05-08-2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by I am David
Bohoo, lots of rhetoric and no substance to your argument. Lots of name calling and accusations, and no logic. Mabye if you concentrated more on knowing the truth and thinking, and less on belittling anyone who oposes you, you might have something to actually talk about.[...]

[...]you would be wise to try and actually THINK before taking an opinion and sticking to it forever, no matter WHAT evidence is shown to you that you are wrong.
If anyone ever needed proof that a man with his head up his ass cannot have it removed by the application of reason, this post is that proof.

However if you simply look in the mirror and apply your logic to yourself you might then hear a loud POP! .

It is easy to see when a man's position has become untenable even to himself when his tone becomes as shrill and petulant as yours.

Mira~

05-08-2004, 07:56 AM

Foreign diplomacy is a lot like chess and Bush is not very good at playing this game. Although he is not responsible for the latest disasters in Iraq, the US was ill prepared for this war, or at least the idea of nation building in Iraq. Already, we see that Bush has reneged on his pledge to Israel that it would not have to retreat back to the 67 line or that a final peace agreement would not include a Palestinian "right of return" because he has had to save face with the Arab world as a result of this latest public embarassment in Iraq. At the same time, the UN has unilaterally declared that all of East Jeruslaem and the West Bank are "occupied" territory to be part of a future Palestinian State. I am not too worried about the economy because this isn't the first time that we have had to resort to deficit spending. I am confident that American ingenuity will pull us through these difficult times and we are already seeing the recovery take place.

Bush's number one attribute is that he does what he says he is going to do and you have a pretty good idea where he stands on the issues. I do not think that Bush is a phony, which is a very admirable thing considering that politicians by nature equivocate. My problem with him is in the execution of his ideas. Again, he is a very poor chess player, and ultimately, for a leader of the United States, good intentions don't get us very far if the execution of those intentions is poor. I just don't know whether Kerry will be any better or exactly how he will do things differently. November is approaching and I still don't have a clear message from Kerry on what he is all about.

MichaelC

05-08-2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Mira
November is approaching and I still don't have a clear message from Kerry on what he is all about.
A lot of people seem to be in the same place on the matter as you. It seems to me that in such a circumstance a reasonable person must put great weight in where a man "has been".

I believe that the contentious debate about Kerry's Viet Nam service and the almost maniacal defense of his untenable explanations for what he publically claimed concerning that service are producing bizarre and contorted defenses for him as demonstrated by a certain poster in this thread. That poster is not the only one in this country bending over backwards in a desperate attempt to spin Kerry's record.

Alfred

05-08-2004, 08:32 AM

Kerry will probably be like Clinton was but will not have the benefit of a pretty face or nice personality....thus the media may not be orgasmic at every nuance of his daily "affairs." White House interns may or may not be safe depending upon how much money their families have.

Kerry would tow the European/UN line in most issues, domestic and international.

.Kerry would get us out of the Middle East.
.Iran would get nukes.
.North Korea would export nukes either covertly or overtly.
.A joint Euro/American/UN/Russian/Chinese plan would be put in place for the re-partition of Israel.

. The border with Mexico will continue to be open.
. The US will drop most support for Taiwan. Taiwan will be "absorbed."

If the Congress stays Republican then Kerry won't be able to hurt the nation (internally) very much. If the Congress goes Bolshevik along with a Kerry administration we will have a civil war and/or anarchy within 5 years. This will be brought on by massive moral decline....economic disruptions, massive illegal immigration, fires in the west, food supply problems and terrorist actions within the US. (same applies if Hillery gets the job in 2008 along with a Bolshevik Congress)

Kerry will still not own an SUV or limo but his wife and his job will require that he drive in one. Kerry will continue the Clinto legacy of being unsure about the definition of the word "is."

red crabtree

05-08-2004, 09:49 AM

Agreed Michael.
Mira, this is the deal to me. I have never, by any stretch of the imagination, thought Bush was all that. It is very possible, if not likely, that I would have voted democrat had that party been able to put up someone who was not from the far left. John Edwards to me was the only one of the crew who could come close, and he did not make the nomination.
In order for me to make a choice between what I consider two fairly unpalatable choices, I have to look at many things. One of those is the political past of each. While a sea change in people and their values are possible, it is not something that happens frequently. The past of what John Kerry did is not simply that he pissed on his fellow troops. Ultimately for me, what he did was lie deliberately in order to further his political aims, while getting into bed with the enemy to do so. He has proven to me once that he is willing to treat with an enemy, even to the point that had he gotten what he pushed for it would have meant leaving behind POWs prior to signing a peace agreement. Ultimately what he did 30 some years ago was to not only dishonor his fellow troops and his country, he was willing to sell out those troops and that country to an enemy to have his own political ambitions fulfilled.

No matter how much I disagree with certain politics of Bush he has yet to show me he is willing to give America and it's people up to the enemy in order to have power. He may not be a good chess player, but at least he is not a traitor. In todays world in which we are engaged in battle with Islamic theocracy, which is just as determined to destroy this country as the Nazi's were and as the Communists were, I am going to put my backing on the man that has demonstrated he will not allow that. The Islamists have taken a page from the playbook that Communists used in the Vietnam era which John Kerry fell for and helped propagate. The ideological tactics the Islamists have used are eerily familiar to those in the 60's and early 70's from the Soviet Union.

John Kerry, I am sure, sincerely believed that the Vietnam War was wrong and immoral. I am not here to refight that old argument that neither side will ever really win. The problem is he made a deal with the devil by not only getting into bed with the enemy, but also with his inability to see what the long range inplications of his tactics were for this country. Just as the appeasors of the 1930's let Germany and Japan believe they would not be opposed, the appeasors of the 1960's and 1970's weakened this country immensely to those we are fighting now. This is a fight that did not start in 2001 either. It has been going on since 1979 when the Iranians took hostages and we didn't do anything then. The citizens of this country have been targeted over and over by those from the Middle East with no consequences. To the point that by 1993 Arafat was elevated to the position of true statesman for a people who never existed as an autonomous group to begin with. Do you not think there is no thread of consistancy here? The appeasors, the protestors who insist that all things are relative have brought the world to this. Current events never happen in a vaccum, there is always some preceding history to it. Those appeasors today have their roots in the appeasors of yesteryear. The 1930's, to the 1960's to the early 2000's. Take a look at what all those people have in common Mira. They demonized American society, they demonized the Jew. So many of the radicals of the 60's made a point of saying they didn't hate Jews, they just didn't like Zionism that Martin Luther King Jr. was prompted to note that Anti-Zionism was Anti-Semitism.
Next, it is obvious to me that Kerry was willing to use dubious allies in his youthful indiscritions as he jump started his political career, but what about now? In a copy/paste I hope to answer that question.

In December, when John Kerry was badly trailing Howard Dean, the Massachusetts senator spoke at the annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an anti-Semitic organization that has defended infamous terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Addressing the Long Beach, Calif., audience by phone, Mr. Kerry told the crowd that he "really want to earn support of Muslim leaders across the United States." Mr. Kerry appealed to the crowd by strongly implying that the Bush administration is not protecting the First Amendment rights of Muslims. "I believe this administration is moving our country in a radically wrong direction and is cynically exploiting people in the country and has forgotten some of the heart of the Constitution of the United States of America," he said during his speech.

Mr. Kerry's words, though not justified by facts or any reasonable interpretation of reality, are not the primary problem. His willingness to address the group in the first place is. No presidential candidate should lend legitimacy to a group with MPAC's track record.

On the day of the September 11 attacks, MPAC's executive director and co-founder, Salam Al-Marayati, wasted no time launching into an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, saying on KCRW-FM's "Which Way, L.A.?" program that "we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list." MPAC has also defended the actions of terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Mr. Al-Marayati, at a speech at the University of Pennsylvania in 1997, lauded Hamas' "social and educational operations" and downplayed what he called "its quote unquote military operations." In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, MPAC Senior Adviser Maher Hathout claimed that Hezbollah merely fights for the "American values" of "freedom and liberty."

It's possible, of course, that Mr. Kerry's campaign had no idea about the true nature of MPAC. But given the group's notoriety, particularly among many in Los Angeles, how could the Kerry staff have been so careless?

The other alternative is far worse. We don't suspect that Mr. Kerry shares any of MPAC's repugnant views. But knowing the ugly truth about MPAC and speaking there anyway would not be much better. We hope for Mr. Kerry's sake that his campaign staff were simply completely inept.

I'd rather have a bad chess player.

I am David

05-08-2004, 10:21 AM

red crabtree, I don't why you bothered responding or consider yours to be a acceptable response. There was nothing in your post to refute any of the well formed and well thought out arguments in mine. Also, it seems you need to learn the definition of a simple word, "lied". Get to work.

Micheal C,

If anyone ever needed proof that a man with his head up his ass cannot have it removed by the application of reason, this post is that proof. However if you simply look in the mirror and apply your logic to yourself you might then hear a loud POP! . It is easy to see when a man's position has become untenable even to himself when his tone becomes as shrill and petulant as yours.

I was just stating the cold, hard, and painfull facts Micheal. Actually, whats really Ironic is that YOUR post shows someone who has his head firmly and securelly up his ass, someone who does nothing but bellittle and name call, but offers no argument whatsoever. Also appallingly absurd is the accusation that you can know someones argument is "untenable" just by listening to how "shrill or "petulant" they are. I guess you havent heard of anyone being fed up and frustrated with stubborn, unthinking and hatefull party worshippers who are both mean spirited and stubborn as a mule? That can cause someone to be shrill and petulant TOO, at least by your very loose standards.

TheyAre

05-08-2004, 11:19 AM

David, you might want to check what your high horse is stepping in.

US troops DID commit atrocities, now Kerry, not knowing specific names, said that US troops were commiting atrocities. That is neither a lie or misleading. Kerry was simply bringing an important issue to national attention, no more no less.

If Kerry doesnt know the names of perpetrators, there is no possible way he can tell people that US troops are commiting atrocites without refering to them generally. So your basically saying, anytime you speak in general terms, without knowing specific names, you are lying. That is one of the most horrendous arguments I've ever heard, but only whats needed to defend an indefinsible position.

Once again, David, why don't you actually respond to what I said instead of what you wish I said. Kerry said he personally witnessed atrocities that he now says didn't happen. He attempts to excuse this with 'I was a kid' and 'I was just being a bit over-the-top.'

Your argument is one of the most illogical and morally reprehensible I have ever seen. Any accusation is fine, as long as it or something like it is happening somewhere. Defaming the men who fought and died beside you is fine as long as somewhere, someone is doing what you say they did.

The truth is irrelevant. Only the principle matters, right? As long as you're right, it's fine to lie.

Once again, you might want to check what your high horse is stepping in. Tell me, just who conceded you the moral high ground?

MichaelC

05-08-2004, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by I am David
I was just stating the cold, hard, and painfull facts Micheal. Actually, whats really Ironic is that YOUR post shows someone who has his head firmly and securelly up his ass, someone who does nothing but bellittle and name call, but offers no argument whatsoever. Also appallingly absurd is the accusation that you can know someones argument is "untenable" just by listening to how "shrill or "petulant" they are. I guess you havent heard of anyone being fed up and frustrated with stubborn, unthinking and hatefull party worshippers who are both mean spirited and stubborn as a mule? That can cause someone to be shrill and petulant TOO, at least by your very loose standards.
Basically I'm sick and tired of hearing you shoot your mouth off and then shift the onus for your absurd posturing to those who have shown you time and again how fallible you are. RedCrabTree has ground you to powder and you don't even know it.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your ass, so quit doing your pretentious "moral high ground" act and address the well documented criticisms that are coming your way instead of whining that someone else here has a more scurrilous point of view than yourself.

I am David

05-08-2004, 12:21 PM

Actually crabtree is guilty of the same intellectual dishonesty you are: Lots of insults, lots of accusations, lots of mean spiritedness, and endless amounts of meanlingless rhetoric, yet not a logical argument in sight. All I see in your post is accustions and childish insults, no where do I see an argument, nor did I in crabtree's last post. I don't even need to refute anything, you've done it for me as has crabtree by not even having an argument. Way to go.

I am David

05-08-2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by TheyAre
David, you might want to check what your high horse is stepping in.

Once again, David, why don't you actually respond to what I said instead of what you wish I said. Kerry said he personally witnessed atrocities that he now says didn't happen. He attempts to excuse this with 'I was a kid' and 'I was just being a bit over-the-top.'

Your argument is one of the most illogical and morally reprehensible I have ever seen. Any accusation is fine, as long as it or something like it is happening somewhere. Defaming the men who fought and died beside you is fine as long as somewhere, someone is doing what you say they did.

The truth is irrelevant. Only the principle matters, right? As long as you're right, it's fine to lie.

Once again, you might want to check what your high horse is stepping in. Tell me, just who conceded you the moral high ground?

Who conceded me the moral high ground? Why dont you look at the past posts if you want to know such useless information, dont bother me with you nonsense, useless rhetoric.

And no, my argument is not "Any accusation is fine, as long as it or something like it is happening somewhere." Your argument basically comes down to if he knew the winter soldiers were lying, hardly a solid argument to base your horribly opinion of Kerry on.

And if your mad that I wont admit Kerry lied, just think how it would be if I accused George Bush of lying, with just as much evidence as you have for Kerry lying. Do you think you would? I don't know, but I doubt it.

MichaelC

05-08-2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by I am David
Actually crabtree is guilty of the same intellectual dishonesty you are: Lots of insults, lots of accusations, lots of mean spiritedness, and endless amounts of meanlingless rhetoric, yet not a logical argument in sight. All I see in your post is accustions and childish insults, no where do I see an argument, nor did I in crabtree's last post. I don't even need to refute anything, you've done it for me as has crabtree by not even having an argument. Way to go.
This person is beyond help.

I am David

05-08-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by MichaelC
This person is beyond help.

And you support your accusations so well! If you just go into a debate to be mean spirited and insulting, why go into it at all? At least crabtree and TheyAre have SOME arguments, but all I've seen you do is insult and put down.

Ahava

05-08-2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by MichaelC
This person is beyond help.
MichaelC, why won't you come up with substantial arguments to prove David wrong then?

MichaelC

05-08-2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by I am David
And you support your accusations so well! If you just go into a debate to be mean spirited and insulting, why go into it at all? At least crabtree and TheyAre have SOME arguments, but all I've seen you do is insult and put down.
My accusation is that the person in question is totally impotent to answer the issues raised by RedCrabTree. Go back and read the thread. We do not have to quote the entire thread in each of our posts. It is assumed that people are reading along. I notice that you just showed up. Have you read anything here yet or are you just glad to dump on me again?

Ahava

05-08-2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by MichaelC
I notice that you just showed up. Have you read anything here yet or are you just glad to dump on me again?
To me? :o

red crabtree

05-08-2004, 06:25 PM

David, do not simply say I am throwing rhetoric around when I have given you sources, statistics and empirical evidence. Show me specifically where I am wrong. Not with opinion by the way, but with the stats. I have given you that courtesy, give me the same. I have my opinions based on statistical evidence, as well as the evidence that the winter soldier investigation was a sham from the get go, that it was shown to be so from the beginning by the same reporter who broke the Pentagon Papers, hardly someone who was thought to be on the political right. Maybe Neil Sheehan was simply interested in truth, what a novel concept.

So prove me wrong David. Prove that Kerry didn't lie, prove that the poor and disadvantaged were disportioned in their representation in Vietnam, prove to me that minorities took the brunt of battle, prove to me that atrocities were as common as grass as Kerry charged. Take each thing apart and prove me wrong.

I am David

05-08-2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by red crabtree
David, do not simply say I am throwing rhetoric around when I have given you sources, statistics and empirical evidence. Show me specifically where I am wrong. Not with opinion by the way, but with the stats. I have given you that courtesy, give me the same. I have my opinions based on statistical evidence, as well as the evidence that the winter soldier investigation was a sham from the get go, that it was shown to be so from the beginning by the same reporter who broke the Pentagon Papers, hardly someone who was thought to be on the political right. Maybe Neil Sheehan was simply interested in truth, what a novel concept.

So prove me wrong David. Prove that Kerry didn't lie, prove that the poor and disadvantaged were disportioned in their representation in Vietnam, prove to me that minorities took the brunt of battle, prove to me that atrocities were as common as grass as Kerry charged. Take each thing apart and prove me wrong.

You havent done any such thing, but the answer to your argument is much simpler: Look up the definition of Lie, then come to me and prove that Kerry DID lie, on those issues you spoke about.

Mira~

05-08-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by red crabtree

No matter how much I disagree with certain politics of Bush he has yet to show me he is willing to give America and it's people up to the enemy in order to have power. He may not be a good chess player, but at least he is not a traitor. In todays world in which we are engaged in battle with Islamic theocracy, which is just as determined to destroy this country as the Nazi's were and as the Communists were, I am going to put my backing on the man that has demonstrated he will not allow that. The Islamists have taken a page from the playbook that Communists used in the Vietnam era which John Kerry fell for and helped propagate. The ideological tactics the Islamists have used are eerily familiar to those in the 60's and early 70's from the Soviet Union.

On one level, perhaps you can compare the two, but at the same time, the dynamics are very different. We won the war against Communism because the Soviet Union was unable to keep up with us in the arms race, they were susceptible to the strategy of containment through mutually assured destruction, and by design, Communism lacked the innovation to keep up with the modern world and so it collapsed from within. The Islamic world, on the other hand, has a resource that the world is dependent upon, the United States is its largest customer. Saudi Arabia has enough oil reserves to last well into the next century, and a lot can change in world affairs between now and then. Next week, Arab diplomats will be meeting with their counterparts in South America, a part of the world that has been for the last decade woefully ignored by American foreign policy. The Bush adminstration shows no indication that it will severe its ties with the House of Saud, the oil industry, or seriously address the issue of exploring a viable option of cultivating alternative resources. We were never dependent on the Soviet Union like we are on the Arab world. I suspect that part of our intentions in Iraq was to create a stable, friendly and ideally democratic Iraqi regime that we could then use to ease the Saudi noose from around our necks, but it doesn't look like things are turning out as we expected there. We will continue to be hostage to Saudi oil.

red crabtree

05-08-2004, 07:37 PM

Mira, you raise points that can be valid, in terms of what the Middle East can hold over us, but actually I think it is a subject that belongs in another thread.

David, I looked up lie as suggested. From Webster's.

Main Entry: 4lie
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE, PREVARICATE, EQUIVOCATE, PALTER, FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.

Let's see. Um, yea. That fits the Winter Soldier story pretty good. Now please excuse me while I go laugh my a** off at someone who can't figure out what a lie is without it having to be looked up. What an intellectual!

I am David

05-08-2004, 09:52 PM

I asked you to look it up because clearly you do not understand its real world meaning. And worse, even after looking it up, you still dont. When your laughing your ass off, your really laughing it off at yourself.

red crabtree

05-08-2004, 10:29 PM

Please explain it's real world meaning, after all it looks like Webster's got it wrong.

red crabtree

05-08-2004, 10:45 PM

Course Webster's probably has this wrong too.

Main Entry: trai·tor
Pronunciation: 'trA-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English traitre, from Old French, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give -- more at DATE
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason

and this

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

I know, I know I'm really a dunderhead who can't understand the bigger picture of what lying actually is, nor what treason and treachery are in the real world.

I will wait with baited breath to be instructed in the real meanings of these things.

Mira~

05-09-2004, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by red crabtree
Mira, you raise points that can be valid, in terms of what the Middle East can hold over us, but actually I think it is a subject that belongs in another thread.

Sorry. The Bush adminstration shows no indication that it will severe its ties with the House of Saud, the oil industry, or seriously address the issue of exploring a viable option of cultivating alternative resources. I want someone who is serious about getting us off our oil dependency.

Kev

05-09-2004, 06:04 AM

For whatever it is worth.................
Letter from a Pastor and comments why those will vote for Bush and never Kerry...........

International Impact of US Presidential Elections (http://www.solport.com/roundtable/archives/000609.php)

red crabtree

05-09-2004, 08:06 AM

Mira, how does Kerry intend on doing that? So far the only thing I have heard from him regarding oil or the price of oil is that the Bush adminstration should force OPEC to increase production.
He also, of course, voted to disallow drilling in Alaska. I don't necessarily believe in drilling in Alaska myself either, I also would like to see the US move away from oil dependency. That said how would Kerry accomplish this? What is his plan?
It is not enough to say we need to stop relying on oil, I would guess most of us believe that. The point is this. Everything that runs on oil is designed to do so. To change all of it over to an alternative source is not only expensive, it will make a sea change in the economy in terms of say car manufacturing (since I'm from Michigan that is important to me) as well as nearly every other industry that uses oil as it's energy source. It's like turning a big ship in the middle of passage, it takes time, skill and knowledge so you don't get swamped. Doing something like that would be long enough in the making that whoever got those poliicies into place would have to do it in such a way that 15 years down the road someone couldn't come around and change it. and so on, you get the picture I'm trying to draw here. My point is what is Kerry's plan for this. It is not a quick fix, it requires a great deal of long range planning.
He talks about not drilling our way out of it, but inventing our way out of it. Ok, great, but what are the specifics? How specifically would he do that. We could raise fuel efficency standards, however in the short term to do that usually makes cars and trucks lighter. As an old Neuro Trauma nurse that does not excite me. Long term perhaps a more efficient engine can be developed. I looked Mira for what Kerry's specifics are, and didn't find anything that leds me to conclude he has anything but the grand idea that we should be independent in energy, and that he believes that can be done in 10 years. To which I say, most of us believe we should be independent, but in 10 years? That is bull. If you find something that gives specifics of what he would do, and what plan he has to move jobs from one sector to another I would be interested in knowing it. It is not enough for me to hear him say my plan will create 500,000 new jobs because I want to know how, where and how many jobs will be lost.
I do believe in moving to independence and telling the Saudi's to kiss off, but I also believe it will take a very detailed plan, not rhetoric.

Mira~

05-09-2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by red crabtree
Mira, how does Kerry intend on doing that? So far the only thing I have heard from him regarding oil or the price of oil is that the Bush adminstration should force OPEC to increase production.
He also, of course, voted to disallow drilling in Alaska. I don't necessarily believe in drilling in Alaska myself either, I also would like to see the US move away from oil dependency. That said how would Kerry accomplish this? What is his plan?
It is not enough to say we need to stop relying on oil, I would guess most of us believe that. The point is this. Everything that runs on oil is designed to do so. To change all of it over to an alternative source is not only expensive, it will make a sea change in the economy in terms of say car manufacturing (since I'm from Michigan that is important to me) as well as nearly every other industry that uses oil as it's energy source. It's like turning a big ship in the middle of passage, it takes time, skill and knowledge so you don't get swamped. Doing something like that would be long enough in the making that whoever got those poliicies into place would have to do it in such a way that 15 years down the road someone couldn't come around and change it. and so on, you get the picture I'm trying to draw here. My point is what is Kerry's plan for this. It is not a quick fix, it requires a great deal of long range planning.
He talks about not drilling our way out of it, but inventing our way out of it. Ok, great, but what are the specifics? How specifically would he do that. We could raise fuel efficency standards, however in the short term to do that usually makes cars and trucks lighter. As an old Neuro Trauma nurse that does not excite me. Long term perhaps a more efficient engine can be developed. I looked Mira for what Kerry's specifics are, and didn't find anything that leds me to conclude he has anything but the grand idea that we should be independent in energy, and that he believes that can be done in 10 years. To which I say, most of us believe we should be independent, but in 10 years? That is bull. If you find something that gives specifics of what he would do, and what plan he has to move jobs from one sector to another I would be interested in knowing it. It is not enough for me to hear him say my plan will create 500,000 new jobs because I want to know how, where and how many jobs will be lost.
I do believe in moving to independence and telling the Saudi's to kiss off, but I also believe it will take a very detailed plan, not rhetoric.

We are in agreement here.

Kev

05-09-2004, 09:48 AM

We are in agreement here.

Also in agreement but less assured there will ever be a move away from our dependancy, no matter which party is in power.

Kev

05-09-2004, 10:46 AM

Theres another area pertaining to this election that I would want to fully understand if I were american.

Outsourcing of jobs.
I cant quite make up my mind yet if it is good, or very bad to do so.

Whaddya all think?

Mediocrates

05-09-2004, 11:06 AM

In a recent job fair in silicon valley, 2000 native Indians queued up for jobs to return home to. The great untold story, Lou Dobbs notwithstanding is that many of the tech jobs moving to Bangalore, Malaysia, Taiwan are actually H1B visa jobs to begin with, that is, jobs that were held by foreign nationals over here.

The fact is that job for job the great manufacturing migration is a myth in many parts of the country. Here in nonunion North Carolina, if an $8/hr mill job disappears and the worker eventually gets an $8/hr job at Walmart, he/she is in a better position than they were before. Note also that manufacturing jobs only account for 12% of nonfarm payrolls. Those jobs left a long time ago.

All I can say to technies is keep your skills up and ensure that you are employable over the long run. If you are doing the same thing now as 10 years ago then you are in trouble. But by and large most jobs today did not exist 15 years ago so it's critical for the workers to up-skill themselves and not rely on what you do today.

MichaelC

05-09-2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
To me? :o
Scratching head, now how did I do that. Hmmm, yes, that post was in response to you.

Ahava

05-09-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by MichaelC
Scratching head, now how did I do that. Hmmm, yes, that post was in response to you.
In that case. Why does everybody think every word is personal? Nothing personal, MichaelC, I was just reading through the thread and saw you 'criticized' I am David without having taken part in the discussion. Kinda pointless.

MichaelC

05-09-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
In that case. Why does everybody think every word is personal? Nothing personal, MichaelC, I was just reading through the thread and saw you 'criticized' I am David without having taken part in the discussion. Kinda pointless.
My comments were clearly in support of RedCrabTree and others whose cogent delivery of "facts" were being ignored by the person in question in order for him to rant about his own particular view which I and others think has been totally discredited.

Why you think it is your place to establish criteria for when a person may or may not post is beyond me. I personally think you still have an axe to grind. But you would be better off to just let that "other thread" go. Grow up.

Lowell

05-09-2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by philingraham
Praying, plotting, it's all the same thing...

Perhaps. And how do we know that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are not praying and plotting to get Kerry into the White House, so he can invite the terrorist Arafat to a Camp David "peace" summit...? In the election this year I'll vote for the candidate least dangerous to Israel, and that isn't Kerry.

Mira~

05-09-2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Lowell
Perhaps. And how do we know that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are not praying and plotting to get Kerry into the White House, so he can invite the terrorist Arafat to a Camp David "peace" summit...? In the election this year I'll vote for the candidate least dangerous to Israel, and that isn't Kerry.

Both candidates are very pro-Israel.

Kev

05-09-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Mira
Both candidates are very pro-Israel.

I would have to disagree, however, I felt that this was more amusing.

Take note of this paragraph:

Lawrence Kaplan reports in the New Republic about a meeting the senator had with Jewish leaders to assuage their concerns about his offer to dispatch Jimmy Carter or James Baker (both regarded as pro-Arab) to the Middle East.

Kerry's just parroting his speechwriters

May 9, 2004

BY MARK STEYN
John Kerry said something amazing the other day. He was talking to the Wall Street Journal and was asked about his many attacks on ''Benedict Arnold CEOs'' -- for example: ''We will repeal every single benefit, every single loophole, every single reward for any Benedict Arnold CEO or corporation that take American jobs overseas and stick you with the bill.'' (Kerry in Virginia, Feb. 10)

Senator Flippy has now decided this line is nonoperative. As he told the chaps at the Journal, ''You know, I called a couple of times to overzealous speechwriters and said 'Look, that's not what I'm saying.' Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that. I was referring to the people who take advantage of noneconomic transactions purely for tax purposes -- sham transactions -- and give up American citizenship. That's a Benedict Arnold. You give up your American citizenship but you want to continue to do business.''

Got that? When Kerry talks about ''any Benedict Arnold CEO or corporation that takes American jobs overseas,'' he's not referring to someone who ''takes jobs overseas.'' Perish the thought! He's all in favor of taking jobs overseas. It wasn't him who attacked all those ''Benedict Arnold CEOs,'' just his ''overzealous speechwriters.'' And the minute he discovered it was going on, he called them to say, ''Look, that's not what I'm saying.''

I mean, OK, it was what he was saying in the narrow technical sense of words emerging from between his lips, day after day, night after night, all through primary season. I had a quick rummage through the Nexis database, and found a mere 746 citations for Kerry and the expression ''Benedict Arnold.'' I myself have personally been present on three occasions when he attacked ''Benedict Arnold CEOs'' who ''take jobs overseas,'' and on two of them he didn't have a TelePrompTer or even a script. He just stood in front of us and the words came out of his mouth, almost as if they were what he himself believed.

Happily, he's now explained to us that what he was saying is not what he was saying. He's like one of those sitcom actresses -- Cybill Shepherd, say -- who complain the writers didn't get her character right until the second season. But now Johnnifer Kerriston has got his character down pat. Although we all left those New Hampshire campaign rallies with the impression that ''Benedict Arnold'' was a term he reserved for CEOs who ''take jobs overseas,'' it's clear it now refers to CEOs who ''give up American citizenship.'' This is apparently a huge problem. Because of tax loopholes, thousands of CEOs find it advantageous to take out Mexican citizenship, swim back to America and work as ''undocumented executives.''

Well, it's good to know the senator has finally found a way to neutralize the flip-flop question. Many of us assumed that, when he was for the war and then he was against it and then he was for it again, that he kept changing his mind. But now it's possible he was just being entirely consistent -- he's always been for it, or against it, it's just that his ''overzealous speechwriters'' kept putting the wrong words in his mouth.

Boy, those Benedict Arnold speechwriters who take the hard-earned money of decent, honest American politicians and salt it away in their Cayman Islands bank accounts, there oughta be a law against it. Given their uncanny ability to make Kerry say what he doesn't mean at six campaign stops a day, is it possible these overzealous speechwriters are part of the ''Republican attack machine''?

Or is this a typically shrewd move by the Kerry campaign? Democratic operatives have long dismissed the moron Bush as incapable of stringing two words together without puppetmaster Dick Cheney shoving his arm up the back of the coat. By announcing that he too is merely a brainless stooge reading out whatever's put in front of him, the senator could seriously cut into Bush's base in key swing states. It takes a smart guy like Kerry to position himself as such a dummy. Unless, of course, it's the new speechwriters who did it for him.

Maybe that's why he (and they) did it again. Lawrence Kaplan reports in the New Republic about a meeting the senator had with Jewish leaders to assuage their concerns about his offer to dispatch Jimmy Carter or James Baker (both regarded as pro-Arab) to the Middle East. ''One of the first things Kerry did at the meeting was to blame his aides for the mention of Carter and Baker as possible envoys in his December speech,'' writes Kaplan. ''The names, Kerry said, had been inserted by mistake, and he had even asked that they be removed.''

But apparently his request to the overzealous speechwriters to remove the names was turned down. So Kerry dutifully went ahead and read out the speech complete with the mistakenly inserted names. ''There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton,'' he told the bigwigs at the Council on Foreign Relations. ''And I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this.'' So not only did he read out the mistakenly inserted names he'd asked to be removed from the speech but he even went ahead and met with one of the mistakes about offering him a key role he didn't want him to have.

Why would he do this? The New Republic obtained this explanation from the campaign: ''The candidate eventually did speak with Carter -- but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter.''

Those pesky speechwriters again! As Slate's Mickey Kaus mused, what's next? ''Kerry reveals he went to Vietnam after reading a draft of his autobiography that said he went to Vietnam?''

Who is John Kerry? They weren't his medals he threw away, just some non-name World War II vet he happened to bump into. Those aren't his four gas-guzzling SUVs in the drive, just ones owned by his ''family.'' They're not his words coming out of his mouth, just words wholly owned and operated by employees of a subsidiary unit of his wife's holding company, Benedict Arnold Heinz Kerry Campaign Rhetoric Inc., registered in Bermuda.

It takes a big man to blame everyone around him. Which is at last a rationale for the Kerry campaign: If you're the kind of fellow who likes blaming your underlings, at least when you're president there's no end of underlings to blame.

Oh Jerusalem

05-09-2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Mira
Both candidates are very pro-Israel.
I disagree with you regarding both candidates.

Then the question bogs down to which one is worse for Israel?

I'll place my ballot on Bush and that will not be with any enthusiasm.

For those of you who want to ask if I base my vote on whether I cast my presidential ballot based on whether a candidate is good for the Jews or bad for the Jews, the answer is generally no. That's true for this election, too.

The only time it would become a critical decision point for me is if a candidate the likes of France's Le Pen was running. Then I would feel as if I had no alternative.

In the case of Bush versus Kerry, I personally feel it's respectively a good intentioned but often ignorant Texan up against a fickle Massachusetts village idiot. My concern here is what's best for the United States. I'll take the former, out of lack of choice.

Kev

05-10-2004, 01:34 AM

I think you described it quite well, how many in North America who have chosen to back Bush do feel.

Hes not perfect, and far from it but hes the best they have at the moment.
Unfortunately, the best man for the job hasnt stepped forward yet.

My great disapointment with Bush is that he has become like others, far too politically correct, although I wonder how he would have been out of an election year, or how he might be given another 4 years.

But if he doesnt somehow counteract the last 2 months with some sucessess, it might be more than just Mira who begins to look at Kerry with some "hope".

Mira~

05-10-2004, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I disagree with you regarding both candidates.

Then the question bogs down to which one is worse for Israel?

I'll place my ballot on Bush and that will not be with any enthusiasm.

For those of you who want to ask if I base my vote on whether I cast my presidential ballot based on whether a candidate is good for the Jews or bad for the Jews, the answer is generally no. That's true for this election, too.

The only time it would become a critical decision point for me is if a candidate the likes of France's Le Pen was running. Then I would feel as if I had no alternative.

In the case of Bush versus Kerry, I personally feel it's respectively a good intentioned but often ignorant Texan up against a fickle Massachusetts village idiot. My concern here is what's best for the United States. I'll take the former, out of lack of choice.

Yes, yes...I agree with 90% of your sentiment. But for those people who think that Kerry is not pro Israel (at least in the traditional American sense that Presidents are pro-Israel, OJ):

Kerry Says Israel's Security 'Paramount'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 07 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT

"The highlight came when Kerry, a licensed pilot, persuaded the Israeli Air Force to let him see the country from above, by taking the controls of a training jet.."

WASHINGTON - Unconditional support of Israel has become the common feature of the U.S. presidential election campaign with Democratic hopeful John Kerry describing Israel’s security as "paramount" and pledging never to push Israel into peace agreements against its interest.

"As President, my promise to the people of Israel is this: I will never force Israel to make concessions that cost or compromise any of Israel's security," Kerry told leaders of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Monday, May 3, reported the New Hampshire Sunday Times on its website.

"The security of Israel is paramount. ... We will also never expect Israel to negotiate peace without a credible (Palestinian) partner. And it is up to the United States in my judgment to do a better job of helping the Arab world to help that partner to evolve and to develop."

Kerry further told the prominent Jewish group that he criticized Bush for too often "disengaging" from the effort to forge a Palestinian-Israeli settlement.

While repeating some of his standard criticism of Bush's foreign policy, he said the emphatic U.S. support for Israel - which has won Bush support from what is historically one of the Democratic Party's most reliable voting blocs - would be no less steadfast in a Kerry administration.

Bush and Kerry had embraced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial plan to unilaterally withdraw troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip at the same time they endorsed dramatic concessions to Israel about the terms of an eventual settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Kerry also made a quick nod to the news of the moment, the vote in a Likud Party referendum Sunday to reject Sharon's plan.

The snubbing of Sharon by his party was a setback for Bush, and leaves the path to a settlement more uncertain than ever.

"Obviously, yesterday's vote raises questions about where things are going," Kerry said.

"Israel has long wanted to be out of Gaza. ... And whatever the future of this particular plan, if elected President I will guarantee you that I will work continuously, never disengaging as this administration did for so long, in a way that will advance that cause."

Kerry devoted much of his talk to personal reminiscence.

In animated tones, he spoke of his first visit to Israel, which he said was under the auspices of the ADL.

Kerry said he went to the (occupied Syrian) Golan Heights, visited the Sea of Galilee, and "actually stood on the Mount of the Beatitudes and read the Sermon on the Mount to those gathered with me."

The highlight, though, came when Kerry, a licensed pilot, persuaded the Israeli Air Force to let him see the country from above, by taking the controls of a training jet.

"So I went up to about 12,000 feet and proceeded to go in and do a loop," Kerry recounted, to appreciative laughter from the audience.

"And I want you to know, ladies and gentlemen, that to be able to come out upside down and look down and catch the horizon in back of me, and see all the way down into the Sinai, to the old base that had been given up, all the way across into Jordan, all the way out into the Gulf of Aqaba, and to see Israel beneath me ... and to see it all upside down was the perfect way to see the Middle East and Israel."

On his campaign website, Kerry makes it clear that his support for Israel is unwavering.

"John Kerry believes that history and our own best interests demand that the United States maintain a steady policy of friendship and support for Israel.

"As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel is our most important ally, and a critical partner in the quest for peace and security in this troubled region. America’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s independence and survival must never waver."

Bush has already out-raced Kerry in wooing the influential Jewish votes by breaking away with decades-old U.S. policies.

With Sharon at his side in a press conference here, Bush told reporters that Palestinian refugees could not return to land lost in 1948 and that Israel could retain occupation of lands in the West Bank, in what is dubbed as a "Bushfour Promise".

The U.N. and the European Union immediately rebuked the American policy shift, which completely ignored dozens of U.N. resolutions in that regard.

Ever since its creation in 1948, Israel has ignored 65 U.N. resolutions aimed at giving back the Palestinians rights and lands in endless attempts to reach peace in the Middle East.

Source: IslamOnline.net

Oh Jerusalem

05-10-2004, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Mira
Yes, yes...I agree with 90% of your sentiment. But for those people who think that Kerry is not pro Israel (at least in the traditional American sense that Presidents are pro-Israel, OJ): ...............Source: IslamOnline.net
ROFL! :p

Read my sig's quotation, Mira. I would think you would know better.

Kerry on Israel (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040304-082410-7067r.htm)

Sen. John Kerry's penchant for taking contradictory positions on important issues is extraordinary. He has voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, yet he opposed legislation to provide the money to pay for the rebuilding of the country. He voted for NAFTA, yet he has continually poor-mouthed free trade. He voted for the Patriot Act, yet he now claims that the measure violates civil liberties. It also turns out that Mr. Kerry has been playing the same kind of semantic game over the security fence Israel has been building to prevent terrorist attacks.

In an October speech to the Arab American Institute in Michigan, Mr. Kerry depicted the barrier as an impediment to peace. "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line — cutting deep into Palestinian areas," the Massachusetts Democrat declared. "We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

After supporters of Israel objected that Mr. Kerry had given Israel's legitimate security concerns short shrift, the senator's spin team went into action. Sources inside the Kerry campaign told the Jerusalem Post last week that Mr. Kerry's real objection was to the route of the fence. According to the Kerry spokesmen, he only objected to the fact that the barrier deviates from the Green Line —Israel's pre-1967 border with the West Bank.

In fact, it would be difficult to imagine a more disingenuous explanation. There is nothing sacred about the Green Line — the Armistice Line created following the 1948-49 war, in which the new state of Israel was attacked by five of its Arab neighbors. Were Israel to have put the fence right on the Green Line, as Mr. Kerry suggests, it would have represented a capitulation to one of the minimum demands of the terrorists who have been attacking Israel since the current war began on Sept. 29, 2000: a return to the virtually indefensible pre-1967 lines.

Ever since the October speech, Mr. Kerry has gone to great lengths to show that he isn't really dismissive of Israel's legitimate security concerns. He now describes the barrier as a "legitimate act of self defense." On Sunday, Mr. Kerry brought the new, pro-Israel spin to a group of Jewish leaders in New York. Some bought it, but others sound decidedly wary. Mr. Kerry's politics of spin may finally be catching up with him.

Mira~

05-10-2004, 04:39 AM

LOL!

Thanks, OJ.

Oh Jerusalem

05-10-2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Mira
LOL!

Thanks, OJ.
Just a reminder that there's a separate thread on the subject of Israel and US presidential candidates here (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5471&perpage=15&pagenumber=1).

Mira~

05-10-2004, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Kev
I think you described it quite well, how many in North America who have chosen to back Bush do feel.

Hes not perfect, and far from it but hes the best they have at the moment.
Unfortunately, the best man for the job hasnt stepped forward yet.

My great disapointment with Bush is that he has become like others, far too politically correct, although I wonder how he would have been out of an election year, or how he might be given another 4 years.

But if he doesnt somehow counteract the last 2 months with some sucessess, it might be more than just Mira who begins to look at Kerry with some "hope".

If Kerry would detail a ten or 15 year plan that was viable enough to withstand some criticism on how we can get ourselves off of even 25% of our oil dependency, I would vote for him. Truth be told, Americans shouldn't be waiting around for the President, we could right now probably reduce our oil consumption by 10% just by changing some of our habits.

Oh Jerusalem

05-10-2004, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Mira
Truth be told, Americans shouldn't be waiting around for the President, we could right now probably reduce our oil consumption by 10% just by changing some of our habits.
If even a portion of all the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, , anti-Israel and anti-globalization kukoos channeled their energies into a consumer/political campaign to reduce energy consumption and promote alternative energy legislation and options, the US could reduce their fossil fuel consumption by much more.

Talk about wasted energy! :(

Mira~

05-10-2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
If even a portion of all the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, , anti-Israel and anti-globalization kukoos channeled their energies into a consumer/political campaign to reduce energy consumption and promote alternative energy legislation and options, the US could reduce their fossil fuel consumption by much more.

Talk about wasted energy! :(

That's why I have nothing to do with the left. They imagine themselves to be progressives, but what they really are is just a bunch of complainers.

Mediocrates

05-10-2004, 05:59 AM

The only real liberals left of John McCain and William F. Buckley. And I mean that w/o a hint of sarcasm.

Kev

05-10-2004, 07:48 AM

Kerry will do and say whatever is necessary to buy votes. But he will never tackle any problem that would be too controversial.

Many on the left today suggest that Bush went to war strictly to buy votes for people back a president during war time.

I think it was rather obvious to me that both Bush and Blair chose to go to war because they really believed they had no other option.

But by doing so, they have both risked their own positions and that is what I believe a leader should do.
Do what he thinks is necessary for the security of his country, whether it is later found out to be right or wrong.

As opposed to a politician such as Kerry who will only make moves based on whether it will ensure his win for presidency.

I agree with OJ when he says that neither leader is great for Israel and if one reads what some of the so called "neo-cons" say about Israel's right to defense, I don't see how people can suggest that neo-cons are making these choices in order to help Israel for they aren't really giving Israel much leeway at all and are simply, putting the American interests first and foremost, which is, technically, what they are supposed to do.

But Kerry being good for Israel?
He's as far left as the left can go.

Some say that Clinton was a friend to Israel.
I cant quite see how when you consider he was the president that invited Arafat to the white house more times than anyone before him.
But he did cater to the "illusion" that he was helping the US by helping Israel.

And that's all that people are content with believing, that the world is one big happy family.

Sana

05-11-2004, 11:47 AM

I got this today in an email....don't know if this has been posted here or not.

Worst president? Let's look at this from another perspective. The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor: Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea; North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent (editorial comment not meant as a compliment to Clinton: Who needed French consent?), Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! "If you can read this, thank a teacher; if you are reading it in English, thank a soldier."

Alfred

05-11-2004, 04:47 PM

Kerry will probably come out and blame the US/Bush for the death today of Mr. Berg.

Untermenschen.

Donna

05-11-2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
Kerry will probably come out and blame the US/Bush for the death today of Mr. Berg.

Untermenschen.

Probably.

philingraham

05-11-2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The only real liberals left of John McCain and William F. Buckley. And I mean that w/o a hint of sarcasm.

I once met John Mc Cain in a lobby in Tucson, AZ. The occasion was a gay demonstration against the Senator for his opposition to gays in the Military. Amidst the hysteria, I managed to corner him and said, "The problem is not gays in the military but rather white homophobes in the military". I explained my experience in both Germany and Vietnam and he listened carefully. He said," I respect what you have to say, but this is what I have to deal with". Then he proceeded to give me an explanation of where his constituency was at in AZ. It wasn't like he disagreed with me, but rather he had a survival problem.

I walked away from that encounter with a respect for John Mc Cain. The fact that he engaged me in a serious manner amid all the hysteria suggests there exists a "Liberal" worthy of our respect .

Yes, John Mc Cain is a Liberal, in the finest tradition of the word. Not only is he a maverick, but he is also a Patriot. His bona fides are unimpeachable...

Alfred

05-11-2004, 06:13 PM

By the way......

Wouldn't you agree that the pedophile priests who molested little boys ....were gay?

Wouldn't you agree that the evil American soldiers who raped little boys in the Bagdad prison...were gay?

McCain is a phony and I cannot believe the voters in Arizona continue to vote this guy in. His record at the Hanoi Hilton are not "impeccable."

Gays have no place in the US Military. Let them live in peace outside of the military. The Military is NOT a social club.

philingraham

05-11-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
By the way......

Wouldn't you agree that the pedophile priests who molested little boys ....were gay?

Wouldn't you agree that the evil American soldiers who raped little boys in the Bagdad prison...were gay?

McCain is a phony and I cannot believe the voters in Arizona continue to vote this guy in. His record at the Hanoi Hilton are not "impeccable."

Gays have no place in the US Military. Let them live in peace outside of the military. The Military is NOT a social club.

The Military is the ultimate social club. Regardless of your current antipathy, the military will continue to be the place where many outcasts congregate in order to find a way to make sense out of their lives. Were you ever in the Military, Alfred ?

Mc Cain is no phony...

Alfred

05-11-2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by philingraham
The Military is the ultimate social club. Regardless of your current antipathy, the military will continue to be the place where many outcasts congregate in order to find a way to make sense out of their lives. Were you ever in the Military, Alfred ?

Mc Cain is no phony...

Yes I was....twice. Were you?

The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and blow up the enemies assets. Anything that hinders that mission causes good guys to be killed. For that reason I am also against women in combat units.

I was in a combat unit....an experimental unit during my last tour and we had 35 women in our unit. Lots of problems. They could'nt even carry their tool box (yes it was heavy) and there were many other problems. Not blaming them, but combat is labor intensive. Open Gays cause other probems...in the old days they tossed them over the side of ships.

"make sense out of their lives'

With due respect... I hope that someday you are in a firefight next to someone who is "trying to make sense of their live."

philingraham

05-11-2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
Yes I was....twice. Were you?

The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and blow up the enemies assets. Anything that hinders that mission causes good guys to be killed. For that reason I am also against women in combat units.

I was in a combat unit....an experimental unit during my last tour and we had 35 women in our unit. Lots of problems. They could'nt even carry their tool box (yes it was heavy) and there were many other problems. Not blaming them, but combat is labor intensive. Open Gays cause other probems...in the old days they tossed them over the side of ships.

"make sense out of their lives'

With due respect... I hope that someday you are in a firefight next to someone who is "trying to make sense of their live."

Everyone I was ever in a firefight with was desperately trying to make sense out of their lives...Whether it was a Mexican trying to get his papers, or a Russian guy looking for work, or a spaced out hippy finding himself in a spot he hadn't bargained on, we ALL were trying to make sense out of our lives in the middle of a firefight. Your notion of being somehow special in the midst of all this is absurd. We are all the same... even gay people for chrissakes...

Alfred

05-11-2004, 07:24 PM

Did you say fire-fight or pie-fight??

I am no-one special. Let people trying to find themselves join the peace corp.

Now every youth is "trying to find himself" to some degree, but that is not what I am getting out of your posts. And open Gays cause unit disruption. If you were in the military you should understand that concept.

Were you??

philingraham

05-11-2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Alfred
Did you say fire-fight or pie-fight??

I am no-one special. Let people trying to find themselves join the peace corp.

Now every youth is "trying to find himself" to some degree, but that is not what I am getting out of your posts. And open Gays cause unit disruption. If you were in the military you should understand that concept.

Were you??

RA11818579...

Alfred

05-11-2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by philingraham
RA11818579...

Then you understand what the term "unit cohesion" means.

If you had a unit with blacks in it and then Johnny Reb transferred in calling every black a N--ger, you are going to have problems. Same goes for a Black Panther in a mostly white unit. Same goes for Bruce "the gayguy" hitting up on someone. Women, bless their hearts, try but they do not have the physical capability to be in active combat.

But you should understand this, so why are we arguing?

Edit- I went back and read an earlier post of yours about McCain and the problem being white-homophobes and not the gays. Well, I guess you could threaten all white-homophobes with Court Martial if they looked cross-eyed at "the gayguy"....that would do well for unit cohesion. And no, being gay is not the same thing as being black. If no one knows you are gay then no one has a problem. You put on pink camo then you got a problem. The major problem today is that gays cannot shut up about their preference/perversion and try to shove it down peoples throats (no pun intended).

But I direct you back to a comment I made earlier. If you have sadistic S&M Gays in the Military Police units...and they rape little Iraqi boys...wouldn't it be better not to have them there? And yes, there is a difference between raping little boys and making Iraqis men parade around naked....or were these the same MP's?
Hmmmm, there does seem to be a trend here. I myself would have no desire to be in charge of a bunch of naked POW's thank you.

Gays and little boys do not mix. Thus the problems with Homosexual Catholic Priests and Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders. But most people should be able to agree with that statement.

If you are Gay I do not mean you harm. You can live your life as you see fit. But some things are more important and cannot be adapted to fullfill the dreams of some segment of society. My little brother had poor eyesight and was terribly dissapointed that he could not be a fighter pilot.

Don't ask, Don't tell is fine with me. But if Kerry is elected then I am sure that standard will no longer apply.

By the way. The Scuttlebutt around old Navy cirlces is that McCain had to be threatened with post-release Court Martial to make him shut up and stop cooperating in the Hanoi Hilton.

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:31 PM

Wouldn't you agree that the pedophile priests who molested little boys ....were gay?

Wouldn't you agree that the evil American soldiers who raped little boys in the Bagdad prison...were gay?

Ah, here we go again.

No, they arent gay, they are pedophiles!

Lets make this very simple..........

A man who likes female adults is hetrosexual
A man that likes male adults is homosexual
A man that likes young male children isnt gay, he is a pedophile.

A man that likes young female childrent isnt gay is he?
No, he is a pedophile.

When his taste runs to both females and males, as many pedophiles do, he is not, also Bi Sexual.................but a Pedophile!

Just as a pedopile that likes young girls isnt hetorsexual, a
pedophile that likes young boys, isnt homosexual.

They are both, simply, pedophiles!

:rolleyes:

why is this so difficult to understand?

But, we dont really need to go there again, although it does seem that any past attempts to explain the difference have seemingly failed. ;-(

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:35 PM

If you have sadistic S&M Gays in the Military Police units...and they rape little Iraqi boys...wouldn't it be better not to have them there?

Just as it would be best not to have sadistic hetrosexual men in the Military Police Units who rape Iraqi girls.

:rolleyes:

You really need to get out and meet a few Gay men and not assume you know wny from watching the Village People, or characters on TV.

Some of the toughest and most masculine men I know have been homosexual and could put many hetrosexual men to shame.

I think it should be pretty obvious now I have little tolerance for many things but if I DO have tolerance for GAYS it is because there isnt any reason for me not to do so.

Alfred

05-11-2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Kev
Ah, here we go again.

No, they arent gay, they are pedophiles!

Lets make this very simple..........

A man who likes female adults is hetrosexual
A man that likes male adults is homosexual
A man that likes young male children isnt gay, he is a pedophile.

A man that likes young female childrent isnt gay is he?
No, he is a pedophile.

When his taste runs to both females and males, as many pedophiles do, he is not, also Bi Sexual.................but a Pedophile!

Just as a pedopile that likes young girls isnt hetorsexual, a
pedophile that likes young boys, isnt homosexual.

They are both, simply, pedophiles!

:rolleyes:

why is this so difficult to understand?

But, we dont really need to go there again, although it does seem that any past attempts to explain the difference have seemingly failed. ;-(

Males who like males are queer. Sorry to disapoint you. How about males who like males in bondage? You know whips and chains and stuff. Are they a fourth catagory...it seems we have some of those at the Bagdad Prison in question.

I am old fashioned.....and don't go in for 30 catogories...transexual, bi-gender, cross-dressing, pedophiliac, high heel boys.

And how do you know that the Catholic Priests weren't sleeping with each other too?

The Gays just don't want to get pegged with any crime do they?

But, my goodness. We start talking about Kerry and it descends into S&M....I told you that Kerry was no good for America.

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:40 PM

And how do you know that the Catholic Priests weren't sleeping with each other too?

Sleeping with each other?

Perhaps the ones that were attracted to male priests like themselves of adult age were but any that were attracted to children were likely NOT sleeping with each other but SHARING their knowledge of which children were most attractive.

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:42 PM

The Gays just don't want to get pegged with any crime do they?

Not true at all.

There are many issues you could peg them with but pedophila is definetely NOT one of them, if they are, in fact gays and not pedophiles.

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:43 PM

Males who like males are queer. Sorry to disapoint you. How about males who like males in bondage? You know whips and chains and stuff. Are they a fourth catagory...it seems we have some of those at the Bagdad Prison in question.

IS there a fouth category for hetrosexual males that like their female partners in bondage?

No, they are still hetrosexual with slightly "kinky" tastes.

As are homosexual men that tend to be attracted to leather or kink, still homosexual.

BTW most gay men, espeically the more masculine ones are pretty embarrassed by gender bending individuals and consider themselves as far removed from that world as you would.

Alfred

05-11-2004, 08:46 PM

Oh come on gang.....let us no be naive. 50% of the Catholic Priest population is Gay (by their own admission). You open up the Boy Scouts to Gays and what do you expect. There is not a great leap from buggering men to buggering boys.

You put an open gay in a room/squad full of macho young men in uniform and what do you think is going to happen???? He will vanish one night if he hits up on one too many.

Give me a break. This PC is beyond belief.

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:57 PM

Oh come on gang.....let us no be naive. 50% of the Catholic Priest population is Gay (by their own admission). You open up the Boy Scouts to Gays and what do you expect. There is not a great leap from buggering men to buggering boys.

Well you are definitely one of the first to consider me PC.
:)

But I am not naive, I'm afraid you are.

I don't personally care one iota if you like or hate gays but just do me a favor and please get it right.

Gays like adults and pedophiles like children and the twain shall never meet! :)

Yes, many in the Catholic church ARE gay.
And many in the Catholic church are pedophiles.

Sorry but I am the first person to suggest that much in life is black and white but this is one of those issues that is a lot
"greyer" than you are suggesting.

How many Gay people, or Gay men, do you know really well?
How many Gay friends have you had?

I have had thousands and by this I am not exaggerating, although many would be classified as acquaintances only.

I know their sexual styles, needs, desires as well as I know my own and I can assure you, that NONE of them liked children.

Any that did?
Were not considered gay, and were outcasts but it is society at large that likes to lump them all into the same category, under the banner of homosexuality, but they are wrong.

Kev

05-11-2004, 08:59 PM

You put an open gay in a room/squad full of macho young men in uniform and what do you think is going to happen???? He will vanish one night if he hits up on one too many.

Yes, that might be so, but he is, after all, hitting up on soldiers that arent children but adults.

So we arent talking about men that like children now are we?

You however broght the equation in earlier by suggesting that these same gay men would desire young children, and they dont, simple as that.

Kev

05-11-2004, 09:03 PM

Look, if you want to blame most gays for anything, at least blame them for having LOUSY politicas and being as Liberal as most can be............although, granted, as they come of age more, more and more are becoming quite conservative, but it still remains for most that they are Liberals, so blame them for that but dont blame them for a sexual attraction to children that they simply DO NOT have.

Alfred

05-11-2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Kev
Look, if you want to blame most gays for anything, at least blame them for having LOUSY politicas and being as Liberal as most can be............although, granted, as they come of age more, more and more are becoming quite conservative, but it still remains for most that they are Liberals, so blame them for that but dont blame them for a sexual attraction to children that they simply DO NOT have.

Ok, I give up.

No gays on this planet like little boys.....and thus it is fine to make Gay Boy Scout leaders because nothing naughty will happen.

Not in my country thank you.

But I will no longer insist that gays like little boys, because I have only known two gays, and I forgot to ask if they liked little boys.

EDIT: wait a minute. My parents had a friend who hit on my Dad and was VERY nice and touching with me, I thought it a bit odd...but we were never alone (I was 9). My parents made sure of that. Uncle Ray was his name.

New military questionaire.

Are you gay?
Are you gay and like little boys?
Are you liking little boys but not big boys?
Are you liking big boys with leather but not little boys with leather?
Are you liking old men? Old men in leather? Old men who are senile?
Are you liking naked prisoners?

I much prefer Kev, the good olde days, when you didn't have so many catagories. Fewer problems. Men were men, and women were women and gays stayed in the closet and didn't try to force their views on America. They were cute to watch on Hollywood movies but you weren't forced to have them as your priest or Boy Scout leader....and yes, that is coming.

And yes, they have lousy politics.

Gute nacht. I will dream of big, masculine gay men(?) tonight...hmmmmmm :)