The WhiteBlaze in Wartime [Archive] - Page 3

weary

09-06-2004, 15:54

I gave you a lie that Kerry told, but you called it confusion! You must be a great Democrat with that kind of word parsing...depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

No, I said i preferred to think of it as wartime confusion. I really don't have the vaguest idea why Kerry allegedly said he was in a place where he later conceded he hadn't been. But I do tend to give a bit of slack to 23-year-olds. Just as I do alcoholics who finally manage to quit at 40, though I wish in the latter case he had not repeatedly been bailed out of potential bankruptcy by his father's political friends.

As for Kerry, I know that he enlisted in the Navy in February of 1966 at the height of the initial phases of the war; reported for Naval Officers Candidate school that August and just before Christmas was commissioned an ensign.

After training in California, he reports to the USS Gridley. In February of 1968 Kerry went with the Gridley to the western Pacific and spends time in the Gulf of Tonkin.

He returns to the states in the middle of 1968 and begins Swift Boat training. On Nov. 17 he reported for duty in Vietnam and commands a Boat on numerous missions.

IN early April of 1969 Kerry requests departure from Vietnam under a policy that allows it after receiving three wounds. On Jan. 3 of 1970 he requests discharge and on March 1 that year he is discharged from active duty, having served four years in the service of his country.

I think that is admirable, considering that almost no one else in that age group among current political leaders in either party has a comparable record of war time service.

I'm bothered by the ignorant, and bitter political bigots, who deny that record of service. Unlike the top leaders in the Bush administration he did not pull strings to escape combat. He did not use the excuse that Cheney used, namely "I had other things I wanted to do then."

No one wants to be in a position of being shot at. Some go anyway. Some use political cronies and loopholes to escape.

Weary

bfitz

09-06-2004, 16:38

shades of blue

09-06-2004, 17:34

We were never told they HAD nuclear weapons. We were told they were trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Which has been proven true. Also, Those WMD have been found. The last response I heard form some anti war peolple is that the WMD was just a few not "stockpiles" as Bush said. I find this funny. People raise heck over something then when founnd the story changes. My question would be how much WMD would be enough? The chemicals found would only kill 500,000 people is that enough. If not what would the predicted boudy count be before it was enough.

I am not in favor of war but neither am I afraid of it. "with great power come great responsiblity" I feel (and no others disagree) it is our responsibility to rid the world of problems like Iraq.

Sorry Profile...I respect your work with the AT, and being a hostel owner. I've heard lots of good things about you but this isn't the truth, at least not the way I remember it. The Bush admin said they had weapons, they told us the inspectors were being lied to, and that they were there. The proof of Iraq trying to aquire weapons was based on bogus brit information. Our intelligence agencies had proven that false BEFORE it got in the state of the union address (I believe the nation Iraq was trying to aquire weapons from was *****ia...or another african nation). CIA said that they had told the Bush admin that this info was wrong, but who ever vetting the speech had missed that. As for the chemicals that would kill "500,000 people", I missed that info. Where did you get this information from? We know Hussein was willing to use that against his own people. So, why didn't he use this weapon of mass destruction on us? Why haven't the terrorist used it?

You are right in saying that we have a responsibility to other nations in the world. I'm not even sorry that Hussein is history. What I am sorry about is how we went about it, and yes, that does matter. It matters now, with how we deal with other real problems. When Bush first went off on Iraq, my thought was...that'll teach them. Problem is, it hasn't. Syria, Iran, N. Korea are still doing their own thing and we have very little support. Some of that may be other nations picking at the big person in the crowd....us. Unfortunately, I think a lot of it deals with how Bush handled the situation. We were supported in Afganistan because the world saw us in the right. We were not supported in Iraq because we had a go it alone mentality. No one likes arrogance.

weary

09-06-2004, 17:40

I think that that Kerry's service record is admirable. There are, of course, many veterans who sacrificed years, limbs, and lives for their country. Many of them are offended that one of their own would use the position of credibility gained from dangerous service as a platform to slander other's records of service. If you think Kerry (who admitted to being a "war criminal" and committing acts of destruction and pillage reminiscent of Ganjas khan)ought to be offended by the Swift boat vets calling him a liar, how about all the vets he called rapists and murderers, what about thier admirable service being slandered? What about the guys in Hanoi with their balls in a vice hearing their own "brother" condemning them. Its one thing to dissent. Dissent is the most patriotic of acts, but Fonda-ling the enemy goes beyond dissent, it is treachery.

That fact is that kerry made a careful distinction between the fighters who were simply obeying orders and those in Washington who were setting the policy.

It's easy to lie and distort, 35 years after the fact, to destroy a record of valor and courage. Kerry had the courage to argue -- despite the Americans still on the battle lines -- that this was a wrong war. History since has proved Kerry correct.

Democrats entered the Vietnam war, wrongly I believe, and as Kerry having experienced it first hand, came to believe, in the midst of the cold war, when right wing theorists insisted that if Vietnam became communist, all of southeast Asia would follow.

Well, we were defeated. All of southeast Asia did not become Communist. Rather it became a mecca for unrestrained capitalism. Even China has become a "free enterprise" bulwark. Vietnam was a foolish war, involving destructive tactics, that violated human rights of everyone. If anything, our invasion only delayed the natural evolution of Vietnam towards freedom. Vietnam's declaration of freedom from France, echoed Americas Declaration of Independence.

It's this Vietnam experience that is why I insisted in a previous post that time is the best antidote to war. Given time, humans have the ability to gradually work things out. Saddam days were measured. We did not need to kill thousands of innocent people, and a thousand American Army and Marine men and women, to hurry his exodus.

We didn't rescue Iraq from a dictatorship. We are only in the process of changing a secular dictatorship into what almost certainly will evolve into a religious dictatorship -- the most deadly kind.

Weary

bunbun

09-08-2004, 10:46

bun bun....saying that basically how you can call everyone on your side tellers of the truth, and everyone of the opposite side of your view...tellers of the gravest lies....I don't know how to debate someone like that. The things that you say are so obviously over the top....I just give up. One more thing....the last thing you have me as "quoted" I don't believe I ever wrote. Either whiteblaze made some error, you did this on purpose...or I am loosing my mind...all three are posibilities. If this is an error your part, please edit your post. Thank-you.

Shades - I'm back after a few nice quiet days and a bunch of miles in the PA woods.

And you're right - you did NOT write that. It was an error on my part in formating that post.

I apologize -

For the other part - I've made no claim that "everyone" on either side is either tellers of truth or tellers of lies. Hell - I don't even claim that "everything" I say is absolute truth - EVERYONE makes mistakes. Most mistakes are made simply because people are too lazy or too convinced of their own righteousness to check the facts - and then crosscheck them. Why do you think I went to the time, expense and trouble to order the Giap book in order to "check the facts" regarding the Ollie North quote that Old Fhart and Weary seemed to object to?

So - as long as we've gotten there, let's settle that piece of business - the Giap book (How We Won the War) states in two places that the antiwar movement helped to forge a climate of public opinion that contributed to the loss of the Vietnam war. Both places were in the foreword which was written by a member of the US antiwar movement, and he made it plain that people like Kerry and Fonda were a great asset to the Communist propaganda effort. So - whether North was right or wrong in his reference (and that has yet to be established), the basic concept has been proved - even though Giap did NOT write the specific words.

BUT - the words that Weary and Fhart objected to WERE written - not by Giap but by one of his cohorts (General Bui Tin) in his memoirs. Reference: http://www.vwam.com/vets/buitin.html

The same words appeared in both the Wall Street Journal and the American Legion Magazine in 1993.

I gave you one reference to a letter by John McCain's roommate at the Hanoi Hilton. If anyone needs further references, we can go there.

Kerry's words and actions in the antiwar movement were, beyond question, detrimental to the US and it's Armed Forces, gave aid and comfort to the enemy - and could reasonably be called treasonous.

BTW - I make one mistake a year whether I need it or not. :)

Finally - I'm NOT debating you - I'm providing you with information and information sources. Period. Debating implies an expectation that I "might" change your mind. I have no such expectation.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 10:55

Assuming you are as logical as that logical engineer you claim to be, you know that these things are unprovable -- 30 years after the fact.

You are engaged in a blatant attempt to influence the unsophisticated that the right wing crap you are spouting has validity. You can't cite any responsible member of the press or any responsible member of the political establishment --- including President Bush -- that your babble has any truth in it. The entire American press corps -- those many thousands of young aspiring journalists who dream of a Pulitzer -- some of whom wasted years of their careers trying to pin something on Clinton -- would have to have joined the conspiracy for your claims to be true.

Weary

ROTFLMAO!!!

Do you realize that the actual semantic content of that post is ZERO?

I've provided you with literally hundreds of opportunities to disprove or discredit my sources or information - and THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? Don't be ridiculous.

If you've got something useful to say, let's hear it. But use facts - not uninformed opinion.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 11:05

[QUOTE=eyahiker]Clinton doesn't need anybody to pin anything on him. He did it, he lied to our faces on national television, then got caught with his pants down ( lying), and then had to admit to us all again on national TV. Lying Cycle complete.

There are lies and then, ther are lies.

Clinton lied and a few people were embarrassed and a few lives were changed forever. We lost faith in our president.

Bush lies and MANY lives are changed forever. People die. Trees die. Our freedoms die.

Big difference, I think.

FC

FC - What lies has Bush told? Specifically. I keep hearing that mantra, but have yet to see it proved.

Johnson lied - and we lost 50,000 lives in Vietnam. FDR lied - and we lost even more lives in WWII. But both of those wars were necessary.

Kerry lied and contributed to the deaths of between 3.5 and 5 million people. Unnecessarily.

You're right - there are lies - and then there are lies.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 11:21

About what, when and where? What is your source? Did you hear him? How do you know it was a lie? I suspect this is strictly your opinon since you don't agree with his politics.

Weary

Cambodia, Weary --- Cambodia. Just for starters.

I don't have time to list ALL of his lies cause he spews them out faster than I can write them.

Last week I listened to the latest numbers re: insurance - and then listened to Kerry inflate those numbers by a fact of 3.5.

I listen to his number re: the economy - and they don't match reality.

How many lies do you want? And how far back do you want me to go?

You haven't read "Unfit for Command", have you? You should - it would answer at least some of your questions about Kerry's lies. Have you even read "Tour of Duty" - you know - Kerry's book. I haven't even finished it yet - I have a problem - every time I read a chapter I wanta go puke cause it's such a pack of lies. Even discounting the Swift Boat accusations, his view of the war was so warped as to be unrecognizable - and his constant accusations, insinuations and putdowns are just plain stupid. I read a paragraph to my brother - and then he wanted to puke cause he was one of the guys who pulled the Swift Boats fat out of the fire on a lot more than one occasion. And I'll tell you this -- he's pissed at the lies. Or maybe you should just watch the Swift vet film clip called "Gunner" (http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Latest ).

Yeah - Weary - LIES. Keep on asking - and I'll supply more of them for you. I've got an endless supply.

shades of blue

09-08-2004, 11:26

I had this retort all typed out...but in the end, bun bun...it doesn't really matter. People will believe lies...on both sides. Thank-you for correcting the error in your post. I figured that it was something with formatting. Peace, and I hope you had a good weekend.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 11:28

The wolf pack is a good analogy, given eyahiker's preference for WARRIOR leaders. I was not suggesting that Kerry is weak. To the contrary, in a human leader, it takes intelligence and a respect for power -- not an abuse of it -- to be a truly great leader.

Compare Churchill with Hitler, and you'll get my drift.

You sorta missed the mark, Percy - one of Kerry's problems in Vietnam was that he DID abuse the power he had. His favorite MO was "reconaissance by fire" - meaning you shoot anything that moves and then figure out later whether it was friendly or not. The problem was that anything that survived was "no longer" friendly. You may not think Kerry is weak - but I won't mince words about it. He is.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 12:06

No, I said i preferred to think of it as wartime confusion. I really don't have the vaguest idea why Kerry allegedly said he was in a place where he later conceded he hadn't been. But I do tend to give a bit of slack to 23-year-olds.

As a 23-year old Naval officer, one should expect a little more in the way of responsibility and veracity than he showed. And your "allegedly" is more than a little disingenuous. He used that Cambodian story repeatedly over the years. Check the Congressional Record.

As for Kerry, I know that he enlisted in the Navy in February of 1966 at the height of the initial phases of the war; reported for Naval Officers Candidate school that August and just before Christmas was commissioned an ensign.

What you failed to note is that he enlisted in the Navy to avoid the draft. Like Bush, he applied for deferment - and it was denied. The Navy was the "safe" service.

He returns to the states in the middle of 1968 and begins Swift Boat training. On Nov. 17 he reported for duty in Vietnam and commands a Boat on numerous missions.

IN early April of 1969 Kerry requests departure from Vietnam under a policy that allows it after receiving three wounds. On Jan. 3 of 1970 he requests discharge and on March 1 that year he is discharged from active duty, having served four years in the service of his country.

Kerry "requested" departure from Vietnam under a policy that he was told about by his fellow officers - at the same time they told him it would be better for all concerned if he used that policy to leave the unit. Three days after he "qualified" for the third PH, his transfer paperwork was typed, approved and received in Washington, DC. Neither his fellow officers nor his command structure wasted any time in getting rid of him.

I'm bothered by the ignorant, and bitter political bigots, who deny that record of service. Unlike the top leaders in the Bush administration he did not pull strings to escape combat. He did not use the excuse that Cheney used, namely "I had other things I wanted to do then."

Of course he "pulled strings" - Kerry was the ONLY Swift Boat officer to ever leave the unit for other than completion of the tour or incapacitating wounds. Don't wax too poetic about it. Oliver North, whom you hold in such contempt, refused Purple Hearts so he could stay with his unit. So did my brother. In talking to my brother, he reminded me of the number of wounded who refused Purple Hearts and left the hospitals still barely able to function so they could return to their units. Doesn't have crap to do with political bigotry -

No one wants to be in a position of being shot at. Some go anyway. Some use political cronies and loopholes to escape.

Yup - loopholes. Right.

OK - I'm outta here for a while - c'ya later.

eyahiker

09-08-2004, 12:37

Sounds like Hitler would have gotten Eyahiker's vote. Stalin too. Both were strong, determined, WARRIORS whom Eyahiker would follow around like a puppy.

This "vote for the strong man" mentality would be laughable if so many people didn't fall under it's spell. Sadly, the psychology of humans is too similar to the wolf pack mentality -- a large percentage of the weak will follow the most warlike regardless of where they are being led. Even if their "strong warrior" is pursuing a destructive path that will ultimately lead the nation to ruin and the loss of their liberties.
Percival, you are out of line here. Suggesting I would follow around anyone like a puppy is not only a downright LIE, but you're also speculating about a time/leaders that has past, please use people in the present if you'd like to speculate about me - someone you have not met, nor truly know. It shows a great amount of immaturity on your part.

As for the "strong man" mentality. You must not be one, you seem to relate well and understand a lot about 'following around like a puppy'. My comment in general were to the MEN of this nation, the definition of a real man or true WARRIOR escapes you. Perhaps you could work on this personally sometime.:-?

There are plenty of WARRIORS out there, this nation was built by them, and they are for the most part out there protecting your ass right now - whether you like you like it or not.

Blue Jay

09-08-2004, 12:37

FC - What lies has Bush told? Specifically. I keep hearing that mantra, but have yet to see it proved.

Johnson lied - and we lost 50,000 lives in Vietnam. FDR lied - and we lost even more lives in WWII. But both of those wars were necessary.

Kerry lied and contributed to the deaths of between 3.5 and 5 million people. Unnecessarily.

You're right - there are lies - and then there are lies.

The entire justification for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a blatent, open and proven lie. Under any definition, Vietnam was not only not necessary but was a complete waste of life. Even if we had won what possible positive change would have occured? You have ice for a heart.

shades of blue

09-08-2004, 13:15

bfitz

09-08-2004, 16:02

I don't think the suggestion was that any particular public figures are or aren't warriors or manly men or whatever, but that you should try to be one. (even if you're a woman) I'm thinking of my dad, or Conan the Barbarian. In fact, I've just thought of a new slogan. WWCD? (what would Conan do?) It seems to work no matter matter what hypothetical situation I apply it to. A kid dying of cancer, or a teacher in a ghetto are great examples of warriors. Jesus had his job to do and did it with balls. (by all accounts)
Bluejay: you could argue that the war in vietnam, and other military and diplomatic actions in those days served to box in the USSR and thwart various "incursions" on the free world, and also to send the message that they would always be opposed not appeased. Criminal and terrorist regimes need no lies to justify their dismantling. In fact I'd say Saddam never gaves us any justification to not remove him. Nor did he do anything to convince the world that he didn't have WMD's or anything. In fact he was in a tough position, because to back down and appear weak after all his years of posturing and aggression would have opened him up to attacks from his nieghbors (whom he feared would attack him over old grudges) especially if they realised he no longer had large "WMD" stockpiles.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 17:14

The entire justification for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a blatent, open and proven lie. Under any definition, Vietnam was not only not necessary but was a complete waste of life. Even if we had won what possible positive change would have occured? You have ice for a heart.

BJ, you need to learn some history. Let's let Iraq and Vietnam go for a minute - let's talk about WWII. Neville Chamberlain and the "peace at any price" crowd were in power in England when Hitler was building his power. No matter how you analyze it, England and France had the power to short circuit WWII - but instead they argued, they talked, they negotiated, they made treaties, they procrastinated, and they caved - and Germany took what they wanted. And after each piece of Europe that Germany took, they started the negotiations and the talking and the treaties and the appeasement cycle all over again. Until the only country left in Western Europe was -- England. And England was damn near defenseless. If Hitler had had the capability to invade England in 1940, the English would be speaking German today - and wearing swastikas. If the English and French had stood up on their hind legs and acted like human beings, and braced Hitler and made him live up to the commitments that Germany had made - WWII would never have happened and millions of people would have gone on living their lives. But England and France didn't. And so 60 million people died - including a LOT of Americans.

Now let's take a look at Korea - Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon -- all of them understood that if we didn't stand up somewhere and spit in the eye of Communism, then sooner or later we were gonna be standing alone - and that's NOT a place you want to be. So we stood up in Korea - and then blew it. How many people died there? Not just how many of "our" people - but how many "PEOPLE" - Koreans, Americans, Chinese, Turks, Australians, British, whatever? I won't tell you we "won" in Korea - we paid a hell of a price just to keep what we had before it started - a free South Korea. And it's still free and prosperous today. We could have just let it go, written it off - and South Korea would have been another "slave state". But we didn't just let it go - we stood up and acted like human beings.

So the Communists failed in Korea - but they were already on the move in Vietnam - Dien Bien Phu fell, the French were forced out, the country was partitioned. Yeah - there's more to that story - you're gettin' the short takes here cause I don't have time for a full history lesson. But the Communists weren't happy - they wanted the whole pie. Why do you think Kennedy went in there in the first place? You think maybe he went in there for oil? Or maybe the rubber? Bull. He went in there because he cared - about people. About freedom. And he knew what I know - that as long as there's one person, one group, one country on this earth that isn't free, then ALL of us are in danger of losing OUR freedom. Where were you when I quoted these lines before - from the 1960 Inaugural address of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge--and more.

To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Remember the Domino Theory? Yeah - it's that thing that "liberals" still laugh at. But I don't hear them answering when I ask what happened to Laos and Cambodia - and South Vietnam. They get real quiet about that. And the only answer I get about Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand comes from the Vietnamese - who admit that what we call the Vietnamese war blunted their power enough that they "couldn't" take those countries - and that if we hadn't stopped them in Vietnam, they WOULD have taken Burma and Thailand - and Malaysia - and what else? And we'd have been back into another World War.

We went into Vietnam, we stopped them - and then we allowed the "antiwar" groups and the mainstream media and a few Senators - and the Communist propaganda machine - to emasculate us. So we went home with our tails between our legs and made excuses like "we shouldn't have been in there." And when we left Vietnam a million Vietnamese died in the "re-education camps" - and somewhere around 1.5 to 2 million fled the country (and many of them died as well) --- and that left Cambodia up for grabs and another 2 million died - and God only knows how many died in Laos, but the toll wasn't small. And today, Vietnam isn't free - Cambodia isn't free - Laos isn't free. And none of them could be said to be prosperous. And we were left with 58,000 dead - who died for "nothing" because we as a nation didn't have the cojones to do what needed to be done., because we couldn't finish the job. What difference would it have made? Why don't you ask those millions of people that the anti-war movement was so willing to sacrifice in the name of "peace"? They found peace all right - the peace of the grave.

Do you know what Kerry's take was in 1971 on what would happen if we withdrew unilaterally from Vietnam? He thought "we might need to relocate 2000 or 3000 people"?

Appeasement don't work, babe. Treaties are only as effective as the force that backs them up and the willingness to use that force. If you don't have the force - or if you're not willing to use it, then the treaty is nothing but more time for the aggressor to build his power and a slower way for you to surrender.

NOW - let's talk about Iraq. Do you really think Kennedy's words don't apply there just as much as they did in Korea - or Vietnam - or Europe? Do you really think the Iraqis are less deserving of a chance at freedom than the Afghanis? Why? Justify that attitude.

The "death toll" passed 1000 today, didn't it? The media is celebrating that. I know - some of you think they're just "reporting" it. Bull. This is a celebration for them - a ghouls paradise. One more thing to beat up on Bush about.

What a crock - how did they miss the fact that the death toll in the "war on terror" passed 1000 on 9/11/2001. How many of them - or you - can tell me how many have died in Afghanistan? Or doesn't that death toll count?

The first person to die in this war was a tragedy - and the second - and the third - and every one since. And I mourn every one of them. And YES - I do know about mourning - because I've lost people in Korea, in Vietnam - in Europe. And I've lived with the ones who came back with the scars and the broken minds and bodies. And I can't remember a single one of them ever - EVER - saying "we didn't belong there". They were human beings - REAL human beings, who cared about others and were willing to put their lives on the line to ensure freedom, not only for themselves and their families, but for the rest of the world as well. How did you miss the post where I told you about my uncles - the ones who were willing to keep going beyond Berlin and kick ass in Russia in 1945. And that was after they'd all been in combat in Europe and Africa for 3 or 4 years.

Now - I've got a question - you say I've got ice for a heart. I'll ask you - DO YOU HAVE A HEART? And if so - how is it that you don't give enough of a damn about anything or anybody to make or even support the effort to help others to have what you have? I said before - the Democratic Party used to be the party that "cared about people." But I don't see that anymore - like Zell Miller, I see the changes - and they're not changes for the better. Now I see a party of "me, me, me - and to hell with the rest of the world." It ain't a pretty sight.

Yeah - I have a heart - but it doesn't just beat for my family or my party - or even my country. It doesn't just cry for the American soldiers who fall in battle - it weeps for those who died in a Russian school, it bleeds for those two women who were kidnapped today, it cries out for justice for the victims of Palestinian bombers. And my heart, my mind, everything in me, knows that the "we don't belong there" philosophy doesn't work, won't make those people safe or free, and ultimately won't keep my children and grandchidren safe and free either.

It's not just a matter of heart, BJ - it's a matter of responsibility, of caring, of understanding the reality of war and peace - and sometimes, of just plain balls. Dont' tell me about how we got our asses whipped in Vietnam - tell me about the Vietnamese Rangers who fought the NVA to a standstill in Hue in 1975 - until they ran out of ammunition cause the antiwar movement convinced Congress that the Communists weren't a threat and the Vietnamese didn't need any more supplies from us. Those men died fighting - they fixed bayonets and charged, knowing they were gonna die. Don't tell me the Vietnamese wouldn't fight - that they were cowards or didn't care or didn't deserve support. Those Rangers, and a lot of others, put the lie to all those excuses. And they died because some people thought "we didn't belong there." Where's your heart for them?

Yeah - you pissed me off.

Lone Wolf

09-08-2004, 17:19

Blue Jay is a whiner and taker. Takes his freedoms and this country for granted.
Bush/Cheney 04.

bunbun

09-08-2004, 17:42

To be a "real man" do you have to be a warrior? Does killing make you a man? Now don't get me wrong. I have a profound respect for people who risk their lives, be them men or women. Was Jesus a "real man" you know...He was both divine and human.... He didn't kill, or strike others, he taught love and peace.

Shades - Killing doesn't make you a man. Nor does it make you a "warrior". Knowing when to kill and more importantly, when NOT to kill is one of many things that makes you a man. There are those who resort to deadly force at the least provocation - they're not men - they're frightened children. Or possibly cowards. But they're neither men nor warriors.

But be warned - killing will destroy the killer as well. When you kill, you lose something - a part of your soul, a bit of what makes you human. It's part of the price.

To speak out against something when it is easier to just go a long with the flow....does that make you a real man?

To speak out when it'll cost you - your freedom, your family, your life - takes courage. But to be a "real man", you also need to know when it's worth it - and when it's just ones own frustration and anger. If it costs innocent lives to speak out, then sometimes it's not worth doing. And sometimes it is. Being a "real man" means having the judgment to make those decisions - the heart to carry them through - and the willingness to pay the price.

BUT - to riot in the streets of New York, knowing that the price, at most, will be a night in jail? There's no courage in that - there's no real price to be paid. And that has nothing to do with being a "man." Any child can do that - and most who do it are just that - children.

Now is Kerry a "man"....regardless of what you think of him....he served his country, he went to war "the warrior part". He served his country for over 20 years in the Senate, and he spoke his mind. Call him misguided if you will, or wrong....but to question his "manhood" because you disagree with his politics?

What he did in Vietnam doesn't make Kerry a "man" - or a "warrior". There are other words. I know real men - and real warriors - and he doesn't fit the description. And that concerns only his character - not his politics.

To call Bush a "man" because he sent people off to war....that doesn't make him a man. Right....or wrong.
My .02

Do you have any idea how much courage it takes to send men off to war, knowing some of them won't come back? And that the responsibility for those deaths rest on your shoulders? Why do you think it's so easy? And why do you think Kerry has that kind of courage?

bfitz

09-08-2004, 17:45

I agree. It's just unneighborly to ignore the plight of the oppressed around the world. If the liberals had any consistency they'd be all about liberating those oppressed people, (especially women) in the world. Looking forward to liberating Iran...oops...did that sound arrogant?...most of the work still falls to the arabs themselves. I know they love their children too, just like the russians.

'Till When

09-08-2004, 20:36

Well said bun bun, lwolf and bfitz.

weary

09-08-2004, 21:39

Do you have any idea how much courage it takes to send men off to war, knowing some of them won't come back? And that the responsibility for those deaths rest on your shoulders? Why do you think it's so easy? And why do you think Kerry has that kind of courage?

Bun Bun, it should take more than courage before we send people off to die. It should also require knowledge and intelligence. I hope to God that Kerry doesn't send Americans off to be killed on the kind of information Bush had when we invaded Iraq.

To this day we don't have the vaguest idea what Bush really thought when he sent Americans to be killed. None of the reasons he gave in advance proved to be true. I pray that the next president can listen and reason, regardless of who it is. I hope Bush has learned from his mistakes if he is reelected. And I also hope he can bring himself to stop denying obvious mistakes.

Is Bush capable of admitting that our traditional allies might possibly have been right, when they urged caution. Might Colin Powell possibly been right when he said, if you break Iraq, you own it.?

For God's sake, he flew onto an aircraft carrier to announce the fighting had ended. More than a thousand Americans have died since then. Another 10,000 have been injured. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died.

A retired marine general and a retired Army colonel spoke on the news hour tonight. Their conclusion? The killing won't stop until America leaves.

Bun Bun is right. It's difficult to send soldiers into combat and almost certain death. Once that is done the person doing the ordering is reluctant to admit he made a mistake. That's mostly what happened to Johnson. He couldn't bring himself to admit that his mistake killed thousands, so he persisted, and tens of thousands more died.

My fear is that Bush is in the same trap.

Weary

shades of blue

09-08-2004, 21:50

bun bun...my post was in response to eya about "what a man is". If you will look carefully at my post...you will see that for once we actually (mostly)agree. Killing doesn't make you a man...just sending men and women off to war doesn't make you a "man" either. Now it can take great courage to send people off to war, but sometimes it takes great courage not to go to war also. I'm not saying Bush "isn't a man", unlike what others are saying about Kerry. Actually, even though I disagree with Bush's policy on just about everything...I still respect his courage, at least as he has been President. But to say Kerry didn't serve his country...I just don't see how you can say this.....think about this now...not the swifties...not the Kerry people...just the facts.....

Kerry joined the Navy...someone said this was the "safest" service....tell that to all the men and women in the Navy who have died, or lost limbs....
He could've joined the national guard, which at that time didn't go to vietnam. (at least the air national guard...unsure of the others). He served a tour off of Vietnam's coast on a ship, then volunteered for dangerous duty as a swift boat leader. He served four months in action. Now, is that like several years...no. Are there people who argue his actions...yes...but HE DID SERVE. He was there, he was in harms way. Navy records show him as deserving the medals he earned...his crew (all of his crew) back his story. People 30 years later differ on his actions. NO ONE disagreed then. NO ONE. Now, tell me how he didn't serve. He didn't let ANY of his duties (as the Navy saw them) be unfulfilled...which definately can't be said of Bush...this is fact.
Bush missed at least one recall, and was dequalified to be a pilot because he missed a medical exam. Now...does this mean Bush can't be a good comander in chief because of this...of course not. He was young, and people make mistakes. But he still did not do his duty at that time. Kerry did. This is unarguable. It is the facts.
People may not like what Kerry did afterwards...maybe they are right. I don't think so, but I can see how many people would think that. But he did his duty, and he did it well. People saying otherwise 30 years after the fact is BS.

shades of blue

09-08-2004, 22:01

http://www.texansfortruth.com/ Bun bun..go to this site...it tells the truth about Bush's missing years during the vietnam war. Amazing...this must be true...it's on the internet...JUST LIKE THE SWIFTIES...wow...can't believe it. I know you love the truth...it's even in the address for their website....

Not much fun when someone else does it, is it?

Blue Jay

09-09-2004, 08:20

I sure do remember the Domino Theory and yes it was clearly proven to be BS. You are STILL afraid of the communists. I never argued against the cold war, we won that one with many non military weapons. You again gave not one single reason for fighting Viet Nam and again even if we had won there would be no actual difference in the world today. The only good thing that could have come from Viet Nam was that we NEVER make that disasterous mistake again. Unfortunately we are doing the same insane thing. Fighting terrorism with the military is worse than trying to herd thousands of cats by yourself it cannot possibly work. Kill all you want, you just make more. You have to go after their hearts, minds and wallets, just like we did in the cold war. We win one war (cold) and lose another (Nam). So which way do we chose for the next one, the exact way to lose. This war is almost purely to get Bush reelected, just as Nam was extended to get Nixon reelected. America, but not her military personel, deserves George Bush.

Tim Rich

09-09-2004, 08:59

Greetings,

I've been casually following this thread for the entertainment value of watching everyone twist themselves into pretzels. Not that it'll sway anyone's mind, but I thought I'd just add a few words.

You again gave not one single reason for fighting Viet Nam and again even if we had won there would be no actual difference in the world today.
Wow. I can only offer that I think the world may well be a different place if those millions murdered by the communists had survived. I don't know if millions of lives meet your threshold of "actual" difference, though.

This war is almost purely to get Bush reelected, just as Nam was extended to get Nixon reelected.
I thought the liberal's reason was that he wanted to get Saddam back for thumbing his nose at his Daddy. Or it was about oil. Halliburton. So now that we're within 60 days of the election, it was about the election all along, right?

America, but not her military personel, deserves George Bush.
Almost right - I think America, particularly the military personnel, deserves George Bush.

Take Care,

Tim

Chappy

09-09-2004, 09:46

I hope to God that Kerry doesn't send Americans off to be killed on the kind of information Bush had when we invaded Iraq.

A retired marine general and a retired Army colonel spoke on the news hour tonight. Their conclusion? The killing won't stop until America leaves.Weary

Weary, Kerry won't send Americans off to war...he will never be commander-in-chief!

I wonder how many retired Marine generals and Army colonels you can find to say just the opposite? Weary, you pay too much attention to talking heads.

Chappy

09-09-2004, 09:51

Tim Rich...BJ is a flip-flopper like Kerry.

Blue Jay

09-09-2004, 09:53

Greetings,

I've been casually following this thread for the entertainment value of watching everyone twist themselves into pretzels. Not that it'll sway anyone's mind, but I thought I'd just add a few words.

Wow. I can only offer that I think the world may well be a different place if those millions murdered by the communists had survived. I don't know if millions of lives meet your threshold of "actual" difference, though.

I thought the liberal's reason was that he wanted to get Saddam back for thumbing his nose at his Daddy. Or it was about oil. Halliburton. So now that we're within 60 days of the election, it was about the election all along, right?

Almost right - I think America, particularly the military personnel, deserves George Bush.

Take Care,

Tim

Talk about pretzels. The Thu/Key (sp??) government who we backed for years (and last I heard live in luxury in CA at our expence) also killed millions. As with the Iraq war both sides are mass murderers, take your pick. I'm not a liberal like George, taxation is theft under any rational definition, so it would only be ethical to keep it low. Completely opposite of a liberal. I'd say conservative, but I think that is extinct. As for our old buddy Saddam (who was #2 after Israel for weapons from us in the 80's, we set this one up well in advance) we have him, surely that cannot be a cause for war or it would be over.
When I said almost purely to win the election, obviously we wanted their oil, the oil companies just sold it some place else. Chainy's corporation is just a little rip off scam on the side. Yep, the war is just an effective way for George to win

Blue Jay

09-09-2004, 09:56

Chappy flip this

bunbun

09-09-2004, 10:34

Bun Bun, it should take more than courage before we send people off to die. It should also require knowledge and intelligence.

It's amazing!! - something we agree about.

I hope to God that Kerry doesn't send Americans off to be killed on the kind of information Bush had when we invaded Iraq.

If you know anything about dogs, you'll know that there are dogs that are known as "fear-biters". Now imagine having a "fear-biter as President - no, not the dog, but a human equivalent. Someone who, when threatened, responds with maximum deadly force. That's what I see in Kerry. That's what the Swiftees see in Kerry.

YMMV - but as a variation on the old joke punchline - If Kerry's elected, you ain't never seen a wreck like this one's gonna be.

To this day we don't have the vaguest idea what Bush really thought when he sent Americans to be killed. None of the reasons he gave in advance proved to be true. I pray that the next president can listen and reason, regardless of who it is. I hope Bush has learned from his mistakes if he is reelected. And I also hope he can bring himself to stop denying obvious mistakes.

Let's see here -
1/ over 100 intelligence agencies from every major country in the world, including Syria, Egypt, Russia, France, Germany, Spain, ............
ALL of them said "YES, Iraq has WMD's - and is willing to use them."
2/ 17 UN resolutions over 10 years - no cooperation, no compliance, obvious obfuscation and obstruction
3/ proven WMD capability - and willingness to use them
4/ known haven for international terrorists

What's your point again? You keep talking in vague generalities. You keep sloshing around in a miasma of insinuation, implication and uncertainty. Get specific.

Yeah - I can tell you the mistakes that were made - specifically. But I want to to see if you really know what they were - or if you're just slinging mud against the wall. Get specific - then you'll actually be "discussing" the subject - otherwise your just into a sackcloth and ashes routine.

Is Bush capable of admitting that our traditional allies might possibly have been right, when they urged caution. Might Colin Powell possibly been right when he said, if you break Iraq, you own it.?

Why would you think our "traditional allies" were "right"? I ask that for two reasons - first, because those you seem to think of as "traditional allies" would probably be France (which has more often than not been anti-American ever since the French Revolution), Germany (the instigator of not one, but TWO World Wars), Russia (the home of Communism, the perpetrator of the deaths of 60 milliion of its own citizens and the Evil Empire of the Cold War) - or would you like to add Japan (the perpetrator of Pearl Harbor and the other half of WWII). Allies? Traditional? Let's not wax too poetic about their "traditional" support for the US.

Secondly, with the exception of Japan, every one of those countries had monetary reasons for keeping the status quo - regardless of whether Hussein the Insane was providing terrorist training camps (he was) or rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (he was) or providing sanctuary for international terrorists (he was) or attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons (was he?), or whether he had WMD's (which EVERYONE said he did - and which he demonstrably used three times) or whether he would have given them to the terrorists that he harbored (why wouldn't he?) - who would then very likely have gone to great lengths to use them - maybe at the Olympics? Or maybe other places - like the Super Bowl? Have you ever read any of Tom Clancy's books, Weary? You should - Osama Bin Laden does.

With the exception of Japan every one of those countries had their hand in the till of the Oil for Food Program - as did many of the top executives of the UN. Why would they want to "kill the Golden Goose"?

No, Weary - your reasoning is simplistic - and fails in any way to understand the reality of the situation.

For God's sake, he flew onto an aircraft carrier to announce the fighting had ended. More than a thousand Americans have died since then. Another 10,000 have been injured.

Y'know - for someone who spent time in the military, you sure don't know much about what it's all about, do you? I'll give you this link because I'm sure you don't go to places that publish this kind of stuff - it's the kind of information that "your" websites rarely publish cause it puts the lie to their philosophy - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/1/115737.shtml

Would you rather have 1000 Americans killed in combat in Iraq - or 50,000 Americans killed at a Super Bowl because terrorists used Sarin in the air handling system - Sarin that they acquired from Iraq with the help of Al Quaedi money?

Just what the hell do you think the military is for anyway?

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died.

And how many would have died if we hadn't gone to Iraq? Your statement is nonsense. It fails in any way to address either the reason for the deaths - or the alternatives and their attendant consequences.

A retired marine general and a retired Army colonel spoke on the news hour tonight. Their conclusion? The killing won't stop until America leaves..

They're wrong - it won't stop whether we leave or not.

Bun Bun is right. It's difficult to send soldiers into combat and almost certain death. Once that is done the person doing the ordering is reluctant to admit he made a mistake. That's mostly what happened to Johnson. He couldn't bring himself to admit that his mistake killed thousands, so he persisted, and tens of thousands more died..

No - Johnson's mistake was far more egregious than that. He was a politician who tried to micromanage the war from halfway around the Earth. Just as Carter tried to micromanage the Iran hostage rescue - and we left (how many?) dead in the Iranian desert. Just as Kerry would micromanage the "war on terror" - and leave (how many?) dead in (how many?) parts of the world. Or don't you understand that part of the advice he was recently given about his campaign was to stop micromanaging it? Among other things, he's a micromanager, Weary. How did that escape you?

If you paid any attention to what I gave you yesterday - to what was written by General Bui Tin, then you'd know that Johnsons mistake was in allowing the media to get away with their antiwar agenda and not finishing the war right after Tet. Anyone who had any real knowledge of what was happening at that time knew exactly what needed to be done - and Johnson didn't have the balls to do it. Instead, he tried to pacify the press, he lied to the American people, and he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The press (the media) is a terrible mistress. As he found out.

Tim Rich

09-09-2004, 10:41

When I said almost purely to win the election, obviously we wanted their oil, the oil companies just sold it some place else. Chainy's corporation is just a little rip off scam on the side. Yep, the war is just an effective way for George to win

So that oil's all gone now, huh? Those pesky oil companies just sold it some place else? Right out from under our noses while our military was looking in spider holes?

Come on. Oil revenues are now going to the Iraqi government, and no longer to build palaces or enrich those in Russia, France and Great Britain who flailed against removing Saddam.

shades of blue

09-09-2004, 11:05

bun bun...what, no response for my http://www.texansfortruth.com/ website? We still quote the swifties...but nothing about these noble texan men for truth? I'm apalled. I'm shocked.

And folks...now Kerry is a "fear biter" one who just reacts. Protecting one at home isn't doing anything. Bush is like the person whose house is robbed, so he leaves his home in NC to go fight criminals in Ca, while not putting up a security system at home. Would we think this man "wise"? Not me. My brother works in the transportation business. He is even a republican, God bless his soul. He talks at how maybe one out of ten of his shipping containers are physically checked. It says it would be simple to bring bombs or things into the country. It scares him to death.
You need to go after the terrorists...I agree. I think Kerry would agree, he says so, and I believe him. He also would do the security at home, which Bush has been so lacking in. Bush's words can be great...he talks a great line, but no action, at least at home. Plenty of action in Iraq though.

Blue Jay

09-09-2004, 11:10

So that oil's all gone now, huh? Those pesky oil companies just sold it some place else? Right out from under our noses while our military was looking in spider holes?

Come on. Oil revenues are now going to the Iraqi government, and no longer to build palaces or enrich those in Russia, France and Great Britain who flailed against removing Saddam.

Who said the oil's gone. The rest of your post does not make sense.

Don

09-09-2004, 11:28

bunbun

09-09-2004, 11:43

But to say Kerry didn't serve his country...I just don't see how you can say this.....think about this now...not the swifties...not the Kerry people...just the facts.....

Nobody has said that he didn't "serve" - not me - not the Swiftees. But Kerry himself made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign - and his main attack weapon against Bush (and all the rest of the nine ninnies who opposed him in the primaries). That, in itself, opens the subject for debate and examination. Whether he likes it or not. It also presents an opportunity to examine the character of the man. Personally, I find it lacking. I think I've made that plain, although I can add more (much more) if you like. YMMV

FYI - when I got back from Alaska on August 3, all I knew about Kerry was that he was a pro-abortion, anti-gun liberal Senator from Mass - and the Dems Presidential candidate. I got educated. I'd suggest that you do the same.

Kerry joined the Navy...someone said this was the "safest" service....

Either Navy or Coast Guard - safest of all was the Naval Reserve (which was where Kerry signed on). After all, the Vietnamese didn't have battle ships, carriers or submarines. Those were the services of choice for those who didn't want to go to Vietnam. :)

tell that to all the men and women in the Navy who have died, or lost limbs....

How many in Vietnam? I know - not zero. But how many Marines? How many Army? How many Air Force? Run the numbers - you'll see what I mean.

He served a tour off of Vietnam's coast on a ship, then volunteered for dangerous duty as a swift boat leader. He served four months in action.

Uh - almost true - or maybe "partially" true. The Gridley was a missile cruiser - his "Vietnam tour" consisted of a 6 month period during which the ship made transit from San Diego to the Formosa Strait and the China Sea, operated there for about 5 weeks (well offshore) and then went to Australia before returning to San Diego. Five weeks 100 miles off shore does not constitute a Vietnam tour by most normal definitions.

Point two - he volunteered for duty on the Swift Boats when he thought they were operating offshore as part of Operation Market Time. He squawked like a scalded chicken when the mission was changed to operating in the river system (Operation Sealord). His constant complaints about the dangerous duty were what eventually got him transferred back to An Thoi, which was less dangerous duty than that at Cat Lo. You won't find that in "Tour of Duty". You will find it in "Unfit for Command." Is it in the Boston Globe biography? I don't know - but the Globe bio is reportedly substantially different from "Tour of Duty." I'll find out when I read it next week.

[QUOTE=shadesofblue68]Now, is that like several years...no. Are there people who argue his actions...yes...but HE DID SERVE. He was there, he was in harms way. Navy records show him as deserving the medals he earned...his crew (all of his crew) back his story.

I won't touch the medal thing - I'll let the Navy do that with their investigation. I won't argue that he didn't serve either. But that's not the question at all - it's amazing how many people try to make that the prime question, but it's not. The real question is - HOW did he serve? Specifically - what does his service then tell us today about his character?

People 30 years later differ on his actions. NO ONE disagreed then. NO ONE. Now, tell me how he didn't serve.

Uh - sorry - that won't wash. He was transferred to a "less dangerous" duty station because of his own complaints, it was suggested by his fellow officers that he leave the unit to return to the States, there were officers who would not have him in their group because of poor fire discipline - among other things. Is that enough or do you want more? The "disagreement" at that time was blatantly obvious to anyone who understands the military.

He didn't let ANY of his duties (as the Navy saw them) be unfulfilled...which definately can't be said of Bush...this is fact.

Read "Unfit" - you'll find a different take on that unfulfilled duty thing. In fact, some of that can be found in "Tour of Duty" as well.

Bush missed at least one recall, and was dequalified to be a pilot because he missed a medical exam. Now...does this mean Bush can't be a good comander in chief because of this...of course not. He was young, and people make mistakes. But he still did not do his duty at that time. Kerry did. This is unarguable. It is the facts.

Whatever Bush did then, his character has been tested over the last 3 years. We know what he is. Kerry's character is an entirely different matter. I know what he is - you don't. I'd suggest that you find out.

A lot of media attention has focussed on Bush - if the same media attention were focussed on Kerry, what do you think would be found? But the media isn't gonna do that, are they? Did you know that the media favors Kerry by a 12 to 1 ratio?

People may not like what Kerry did afterwards...maybe they are right. I don't think so, but I can see how many people would think that. But he did his duty, and he did it well. People saying otherwise 30 years after the fact is BS.

Now we're down to the nitty gritty. And to the real reason why most of us have a bad case of agita about his possible presidency. Did you read the website I gave you with the quote from the General Bui Tin memoirs? Try it again : http://www.vwam.com/vets/buitin.html

smokymtnsteve

09-09-2004, 11:46

Whatever Bush did then, his character has been tested over the last 3 years. We know what he is.

we sure do. and it ain't good.

bunbun

09-09-2004, 11:54

Bunbun

Would you post a source for this statement.... Thanks...

1/ over 100 intelligence agencies from every major country in the world, including Syria, Egypt, Russia, France, Germany, Spain, ............
ALL of them said "YES, Iraq has WMD's - and is willing to use them."

I'm outta time here - but this deserves an answer - go read Tommy Franks book "American Soldier". Betcha you'll find it there.

Now the question is - whether you'll actually read it. For all the references I've put out here, it seems not a lot of people are actually reading them, cause I keep on getting the same kind of questions ad nauseum.

But thanks for asking. :)

Jack Tarlin

09-09-2004, 12:58

Blue Jay:

While I thank you for your most recent history lesson, a few comments:

1. Nguyen Van Thieu, former president of the republic of South Vietnam, does not live in the United States at our expense, as you stated. He died in 2001.

2. His Vice-President, Nguyen Cao Ky, while still alive, also doesn't live at our expense. He arrived here in 1975 in fairly comfortable circumstances.

3. Our present Vice President is Dick Cheyney, not "Chainy." Glad to see you spend so much time getting informed that you don't know the man's real name.

* * * *

This entire thread, along with another similar one, is getting more than a little silly. I can well understand why a lot of folks are growing tired of them.

At least one person has stated that this political bickering is starting to turn them off of Whiteblaze, and I suspect that this is true of a lot of other folks as well.

A suggestion: Instead of getting "turned off" by the site, I suggest that folks that aren't interested in certain threads or subjects simply ignore them, and spend their time on the threads and discussions they find interesting. It is indeed true that a lot of the bickering and nastiness that effectively destroyed sites such as the old AT-L mailing list are starting to appear here, and it's no surprise to see some of the very same people who pissed in the well at at-l are doing the same thing here. The solution is simple: Ignore them.

Alternate solution: Perhaps Rock or Troll can put some kind of header or title on off-topic threads that CLEARLY indicates that certain threads are not remotely trail related; it'd make it much easier for the folks who come to Whiteblaze to learn about, and to discuss the Trail. If a topic or thread is CLEARLY off-topic, then it sems to me that it's very easy to let people know this....sometimes, the title of a thread isn't enough. A great big red "OFF-TOPIC" headline would go a long way towards warning folks who aren't remotely interested in discussing Iraq, Bush's attendance record in the Guard, Kerry's non-injuries, etc. I am NOT telling folks what they can and can't discuss here---it's nobody's place to do that----but I see nothing wrong with quarantining or isolating certain threads that have essentially nothing to do with the Appalachain Trail; people that want to spend time arguing politics or whatever can do so, and the vast majority of us that have no interest or desire in reading or participating in such discussions can easily ignore them.

But at the very lerast, I hope this political nonsense----which could, of course, be discussed on thousands of other websites, including many designed for that specific purpose-----I hope this nonsense doesn't cause anyone to leave Whiteblaze. The election season will mercifully be over; til then, it's very easy to read and join the discussions you like, and it's equally easy to ignore and skip the ones you don't care for.

shades of blue

09-09-2004, 13:06

bun bun...why some people look dimly on your choice of books is that they are partisan...and you can argue it all day long, but it is true....I will even admit that the Dems do the same thing. It would be like me to try to prove a point by listing books by Michael Moore. Everyone would laugh at me..... But to try to prove a point by quoting books and people who have an agenda...which is not to "air the truth" but to damage some one politically, and re elect someone...that isn't "fair and balanced". And you still didn't reply to the Texan's for truth site. You basically said that 30 years ago didn't matter for Bush, he's proved himself now. The opposing view is that what he has proved isn't good (not his courage, but his ability to make good choices). However....30 years ago mattered in Kerry's case...as Spock would say....that is illogical. :) All you have is this vietnam guy saying people like Kerry gave him hope...and not even Kerry himself, but the antiwar movement. So...the thought is...even if we were wrong, and we shouldn't be there(vietnam), we should've stayed because the other people might win? We should've stayed and let more American's die because speaking out against it would mean we loose? To win at a war that is wrong just for the sake of winning...well....that is wrong.

Now what does that have to deal with now? The republicans are trying to scare the American people (try Cheney) that to elect the democrats is to cause us to lose the war on terror.... Anyone with intellect would know that this isn't true. No one in there right mind will treat the world as if 9/11 didn't happen. For the republicans to say this, is wrong. It's unfortunate that some will be swayed by this scare tactic. That's why politics gets such a bad name. Truth is thrown over for the sound bite and fear rules. The republicans didn't totally screw everything up with foreign policy...but their view is not my view. It's not just about foreign policy either...it's about the economy, education, health care, environment, social security, medicare...the list is enormous...what record has Bush to run on...Foreign policy, and even that to me he isn't THAT strong on.

Lone Wolf

09-09-2004, 13:11

Our vice prez is CHENEY not Cheyney or Chainy.
Bush/Cheney 04 The Only Choice!

shades of blue

09-09-2004, 13:19

Jack...you are right...and wrong...see how fair I am? You are right in the fact that this has become silly, and I suppose I am as much to blame as anyone. This isn't going to change anyone's mind, and it's like hitting your head up against a wall. I just have a hard time hearing words spoken as truth, which have so much illogic in them. I just have to respond.

As for being wrong, this does apply to the AT. The environment, clear cutting of our forest...and laws directly affect the AT. I've not reached Pennsylvania yet (finished this summer at Harpers Ferry), but I have read stories, and seen pictures of distructive mining and poor environmental care. If WE don't speak out against policy that would allow this, no matter whose fault it is...who will? As for people not reading the thread...these are the only two threads I have currently seen doing this political stuff. They are clearly marked, and people don't have to read them. You don't have to read them. I respect you, greatly. I've even sent you a PM to try to discuss my hike this past year, and my upcoming one this year, but you haven't read it yet. I'd love to talk the AT with you and others. But we also have to protect the AT. Since I can't pass laws myself to protect it...I can try to vote for the person who I think will best protect it. My personal opinion. Anyway... my .02

bunbun

09-09-2004, 13:39

Chappy flip this

ROTFLMAO!!!

The ultimate response ----

Jack Tarlin

09-09-2004, 13:40

Excellent, Wolf!!

One of the wonderful things about your having the leisure in your declining years to spend so much time at your computer is that you're in an excellent position to correct us when we err, and I congratulate you for doing so, and doing so so promptly. My spelling is evidently no better than Blue Jay's!

Must be too much of that ole No. 7.......

And Shades....you're partly right: There are political issues that are pertinent here, and not merely environmental policies and decisions. And I think it's perfectly OK to discuss these matters here. But it's one thing to debate public policy and to encourage folks to take part in the political process, and it's entirely another matter to discuss how many times John Kerry was in the same room with Jane Fonda, how many Cabinet officers served in the military, how many dozens of Swift boat officers served longer in-country than Kerry, etc. There'a time and a place for everything, and while I have no problem whatsoever with politics entering the discussion boards here now and again, I think it's important that we remember the principal purpose of this site, which is to share and exchange information on the A.T., particularly as regards helping people plan and prepare for their first extended A.T. adventure. I think that should ultimately remain our primary focus here, and therefore, if a thread is going to be entirely NON Trail-related, I see no problem in notifying folks about this clearly and plainly, so they can decide for themselves whether or not a particular thread or dialogue is worth their time.

shades of blue

09-09-2004, 13:45

Agreed.
I have no problem with marking the thread more clearly, if that can be done.

A-Train

09-09-2004, 13:45

Blue Jay

09-09-2004, 14:07

the idea as Jack provides is a good one, but it seems that almost always, simple meaningless Trail-related questions and threads turn into political rants, generally sparked by a few posters, who are hot to make a splash on here and be heard. Obviously this is a free chat board and people can do as they darn well please. I'm sure we can all agree thats what has made Whiteblaze suceed the past few years (something most other forums haven't figured out). I just think invariably it'll be a tough thing to try to seperate trail information from non-trail issues as the two so often get interweaved, simply by someones joke, or comments. Someone will always take the bait :)

I love the way you guys keep complaining.......and keep on reading and posting. Kind of like Playboy Magazine, I'm sure you just read it for the articles. Be honest for once, this is like a car wreak, you don't want to look but you do. So either join in, or read and shut up, or go away.

blindeye

09-09-2004, 14:12

i'm new to this site but i thought it was about an exchange of ideas and solutions for people hiking the A.T. guess iwas wrong

smokymtnsteve

09-09-2004, 14:16

whiteblaze is a community of appalachian trail enthusiasts.

A-Train

09-09-2004, 14:18

Yes Blindeye- you were correct in thinking this WAS about the AT. It used to be until fairly recently (over the summer) when people became overwhelmed by politics and wished to almost control the thoughts of everyone else. There's been some excellent debate and points drawn, but a lot of it is mindless drable and cheap shots at people who have personal beef with one another on here, stemming way back.

A-Train

09-09-2004, 14:30

So either join in, or read and shut up, or go away.

I wish you'd follow your own advice for once.

The beautiful thing about this site (as I've repeated) is that anyone can express themselves however they feel. You all have done so for like 29 pages worth and thats fine. I haven't honestly been following along for a long time though I periodically return to see if the conversation has gotten any more interesting. I think people have read and heard a lot of your input and no one seemed to tell you to stop, so I'd appreciate if you would respect everyone else's right to complain and say as they please. If you don't like then simply follow your well stated rules

Chappy

09-09-2004, 14:41

Chappy flip this

Flip what, my man?

Blue Jay

09-09-2004, 14:54

I wish you'd follow your own advice for once.

The beautiful thing about this site (as I've repeated) is that anyone can express themselves however they feel. You all have done so for like 29 pages worth and thats fine. I haven't honestly been following along for a long time though I periodically return to see if the conversation has gotten any more interesting. I think people have read and heard a lot of your input and no one seemed to tell you to stop, so I'd appreciate if you would respect everyone else's right to complain and say as they please. If you don't like then simply follow your well stated rules

I said JOIN IN, you even quoted it. Just please stop whining. You know there is an excellent exciting thread about what Baltimore Jack is drinking. You may find that one more scintilating, or how about the other one you liked, Hot Girls of the AT.

bunbun

09-09-2004, 15:25

bun bun...why some people look dimly on your choice of books is that they are partisan...and you can argue it all day long, but it is true....I will even admit that the Dems do the same thing.

Shades, if you find ANYONE who's not partisan in this thing - one way or the other - I'd like to meet them. Now let's talk about that --- there's a Greek inscription on the National Academy of Sciences building on Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC. --- it translates like this --

The investigation of truth is in one way hard and in another way easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to find the truth entirely, while on the other hand no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of things, and by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed. Aristotle, “Metaphysics” Book II

The message is that if you're only looking at one side of an argument - any argument, then you cannot claim to have any real knowledge about truth. If you're only looking at or listening to Rush Limbaugh (I know - yech) then you're biased. Conversely, if you're only looking at or listening to liberal/left information - you're biased. Whoever it was that came back and puked on one of my references because it was a "right wing nut" site - is biased. Now - if you're only reading or listening to the mainstream media - you're also biased - because they're biased, regardless of what they say about their "objectivity." As I said earlier - the media is biased 12 to 1 for Kerry - and obviously so to anyone who's got any intellectual honesty at all.

The solution? Is not palatable to some people - in part because most of us are lazy - we don't WANT to spend the time and energy learning about things that we think we won't agree with. And then, in some cases, our minds are made up and we just don't want to be confused by facts. :)

The solution? If you want to know what's "real"? Is to look at both liberal and conservative arguments and information. And withhold judgment until you can crosscheck the information with independent sources. Example - Kerry recently made the claim that this year 5 million more people are without medical insurance than last year. Really?? He should check his numbers - cause da Gubmint said that 1.4 million fell in that category. Do you think that justifies his claim? Really?? Well - how about the other side of the story - that this year 1 million more people HAVE medical insurance than last year. Oooh - how can that be? How about the words "population increase"? The other part of it is that in absolute numbers MORE people have medical insurance in this country than EVER before. So - who's playing with numbers for political purposes here?

And you still didn't reply to the Texan's for truth site.

The site is an offshoot of Moveon.org - if that tells you anything. At the very least it casts doubt on the veracity of the information and ensures the partisanship of the authors - BUT - that's not the point. From the website -

The ad features Robert Mintz, one of many who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard -- when Bush claims to have been there -- who have no memory of Bush on the base. In other words, Bush failed to fulfill his military duty while others were dying in Vietnam.

Interesting - and they need some lessons in elementary logic.
1/ One man - or a group of men - who have no memory of Bush being there is not evidence that he wasn't. That's a nonstarter from a logical perspective. To quote the SETI motto -- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
2/ Even if he were NOT there - the conclusion that he failed to fulfill his military service is illogical and unwarranted from the available evidence.
3/ According to National Guard requirements, Bush needed a minimum of 50 points per year to fulfill the duty requirements. During most of his service time he acquired 3 to 6 times that much per year. For the last year, he acquired, if memory serves, 73 points. Not a lot - but certainly sufficient to meet the minimum requirements, especially at a time when there was a glut of pilots because the Vietnam War was winding down.

Conclusion - the Texans have a logic problem - and possibly a factual problem. And most certainly a case of agita that needs attention.

FYI - I'd almost bet that my cousin in Austin is involved with the group - but then she's originally a Massachusetts liberal. :)

You basically said that 30 years ago didn't matter for Bush, he's proved himself now. The opposing view is that what he has proved isn't good (not his courage, but his ability to make good choices).

Courage is part of character, Shades - so is cowardice. So is habitual prevarication and inconsistency - as well as their opposites. Steve may believe that Bush has showed badly in those respects - I don't.

OTOH - don't get the idea that I'd vote for Bush if there were an alternative. I wouldn't. I told you long ago - by nature, I'm a pragmatist - not a Republican.

However....30 years ago mattered in Kerry's case...as Spock would say....that is illogical. :) All you have is this vietnam guy saying people like Kerry gave him hope...and not even Kerry himself, but the antiwar movement. So...the thought is...even if we were wrong, and we shouldn't be there(vietnam), we should've stayed because the other people might win? We should've stayed and let more American's die because speaking out against it would mean we loose? To win at a war that is wrong just for the sake of winning...well....that is wrong.

No - not sure where you found that logic, but it's defective. The NVA/VC Tet offensive happened in Jan/Feb 1968. We were in the war at that time - it wasn't a question of whether we should be there or not - WE WERE THERE. And we were there at the request of the legitimate government of South Vietnam - something some people seem to forget. And yes - we stayed - and more Americans died. And a lot more of them died than necessary because the military advantage presented by the Tet offensive was not exploited. BTW - "exploited" is NOT a bad word - regardless of the liberal left interpretation. It's simply descriptive.

Also note - that you labelled the war "wrong". Which betrays your own bias. I don't believe the war was wrong - nor that it was "unwinnable". Nor have I seen anyone here present any valid argument as to why it might have been "wrong". Argument by assertion doesn't impress me.

Finally - to lose at a war that you've already won - to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - is just plain stupid.

Now what does that have to deal with now? The republicans are trying to scare the American people (try Cheney) that to elect the democrats is to cause us to lose the war on terror.... Anyone with intellect would know that this isn't true. No one in there right mind will treat the world as if 9/11 didn't happen. For the republicans to say this, is wrong. It's unfortunate that some will be swayed by this scare tactic. That's why politics gets such a bad name.

Anyone with intellect will know that terrorist attacks will be attempted regardless of who wins the election. To assume that Bush & Co will stop ALL terrorist attacks is ridiculous. To assume that Kerry's stated policy of "responding to terrorist attacks" is either reasonable or effective is worse than ridiculous - it's just plain stupidity. Or did you fail to realize that "RESPONSE" means "after the fact" - not preemption. Unless Kerry comes up with a better "plan" than he's previously stated, Cheney was right on target and if Kerry's elected more Americans will die - IN this country - from terrorist attacks than if Bush is elected. Not politics, but logic, my friend - ain't it wonderful?

Truth is thrown over for the sound bite and fear rules. The republicans didn't totally screw everything up with foreign policy...but their view is not my view. It's not just about foreign policy either...it's about the economy, education, health care, environment, social security, medicare...the list is enormous...what record has Bush to run on...Foreign policy, and even that to me he isn't THAT strong on.

Sigh - have you actually LOOKED at Kerry's legislative record? Do you have any idea how abysmal it is? From ANY point of view? Do you know how often he's flipflopped - and on how many issues? What - exactly - do you think Kerry has done in the Senate for the last 20 years? Do you really know what he's voted for - and against? And how often? And how it plays against what he's saying now? I'd like to see what you come up with.

Do you have any clue at all about what Bush has done with regard to education, the economy, health care, etc? Not that I agree with all of what he's done, but telling me that he's done nothing is ridiculous. One thing you might consider is that government funding for the environmental community has been increased by something like 30% over the Clinton years. Which is interesting, because the groups that have gotten the money have turned around and are biting him. They've used da Gubmint money to fund their programs and used their donation money to fund attacks on Bush. You'll want a reference for that, won't you - it showed up in a Washington Post article a couple months ago. But I'll let you go chase it down - I've been there and don't have time to go back.

Jack Tarlin

09-09-2004, 16:15

Hey, Jay....

In a world of uncertainty and doubt, it's nice to know that some things are always dependable.....like you being something of a jerk, for example. Thanx for the cheap shot in your last post. We've come to expect no less from you.

Actually, Jay, the thread on what people like to drink on the Trail, or the Hot Chicks of the A.T. Calendar is, in fact, probably of more interest to most folks than either of these recent lame political threads, which do nothing but turn off most people. I'd guess that 98% of the folks that visit here don't come for the political commentary, no matter how brilliant it may be. (Nice to see you attempting to use big words like "scintillating", but your attempts at erudition and wit would really come off somewhat better if you'd invest in SpellCheck...)

Once again, I'm sorry to see folks saying how turned off they are by this political bickering, especially the newcomers to Whiteblaze. This is NOT what we're all about here; this is merely a personality clash between a few of the more frequent contributors here who are taking advantage of an open Forum to preach about matters that most of us don't care to discuss, at least not here.

Like I said before, if a thread turns you off, ignore it. If a poster turns you off, ignore HIM. Most of the people venting their holes here on political matters also don't have much of value to say when they're ON-topic either, and know as little about the A.T. and thru-hiking as they do matters political.
It's not hard to filter out whose comments are worth a read and some thought, and whose aren't.

I hope our newer visitors and members put up with this silliness for a little while; mercifully, the election season will soon be over, and we'll get back to the subject at hand, the A.T. Or at least most of us will.......

smokymtnsteve

09-09-2004, 16:19

you can't change anything if you can't change your own mind.

bunbun

09-09-2004, 16:20

This entire thread, along with another similar one, is getting more than a little silly. I can well understand why a lot of folks are growing tired of them.

At least one person has stated that this political bickering is starting to turn them off of Whiteblaze, and I suspect that this is true of a lot of other folks as well.

But at the very lerast, I hope this political nonsense----which could, of course, be discussed on thousands of other websites, including many designed for that specific purpose-----I hope this nonsense doesn't cause anyone to leave Whiteblaze. The election season will mercifully be over; til then, it's very easy to read and join the discussions you like, and it's equally easy to ignore and skip the ones you don't care for.

Jack et al -
It was Sgt Rock who said (I believe it was #184 on this thread)

Rant to your heart's desire here.

Without that message I wouldn't be participating here. As it is - I believe what I've done is to provide answers to questions raised by others, albeit a little more thoroughly than some of them would like. Some of them, of course, have kept asking questions - as my wife said, with the intention of "tripping me up". But I won't comment further on that. :D

As you said - less than two months - and it'll be over. And both sides can get drunk. Except for those of us who don't do that anymore.

In the meantime - the OFF TOPIC label would be a good idea.

It would also be a good idea if those who want to talk politics confine those conversations to the specific thread(s) that are designated as OFF TOPIC - and leave the rest of Whiteblaze to the purpose for which it was intended.

Finally - for those who don't want to be bothered by politics or other related insanities - if you don't like it, don't read it - ignore the thread and stay out of the cesspool. :)

smokymtnsteve

09-09-2004, 16:27

09.09.04 - "Stupid people love Bush" new study proves According to the prestigious Southern California think tank, The Gluton Group, stupid people prefer President George W Bush over Senator John Kerry by a 4-to-1 margin. As Chief Resident Dr. Louis Friend characterized the results of the research, "the less intelligent you are, the more you like Bush." This landmark study, conducted over a 5 month period, involved 2400 likely voters bridging all economic stratas in the 17 states generally considered up for grabs on November 2nd. Participants were tested for intelligence, then asked to fill out a 12 page series of questions involving the Presidential candidates with results released earlier this week.

The consensus: the higher the IQ, the less people trust Bush and respect the job his administration has done. The lower the IQ, the more people admire his steadfastness. "It was pretty much a slam dunk. There's no nice way to say this. Dumb people like him. They think his unwavering nature is a positive personality trait. They even venerate him for never admitting mistakes, even when he's wrong. On the other hand, smart people think he's a lying bully. I mean, c'mon, you have a deserter accusing a decorated veteran of treason. Who's going to buy that besides stupid people?"

Preliminary results:
IQ Above 140: Kerry 80%, Bush 20%.
120-140: Kerry 65%, Bush 35%.
100-120: Kerry 54%, Bush 46%.
80-100: Bush 54%, Kerry 46%.
60-80: Bush 60%, Kerry 15%, Dale Earnhardt Jr. 25%.

Apparently Bush's good-evil, black-white philosophy resonates on an inverse relationship with higher education, whereas it became evident over the period of analysis that John Kerry's nuanced arguments are only understood by people who paid attention in any class above the 5th grade.

Doctor Friend elaborated: "It has to do with intellectual curiosity. Folks see Bush in front of a stream talking about the environment and they assume he's in favor of it, even though if you read his legislation, I'd be surprised to hear him endorse shade. This also explains why Bush gets away with pretending he doesn't know how the Senate works, allowing him to call Kerry a flip-flopper."

Friend released evidence that this type of disconnect exists across the board: education, foreign policy, the economy, post 9-11 security response and State Dinner entertainment choices. Also discovered was a direct correlation between the number of preset Country Western stations on car radios and Bush's approval rating. Dr. Friend attributes this phenomena to the simplicity inherent in the messages indigenous to both. Classical music listeners were preponderantly Kerry supporters, but surprisingly, on heavy metal, the two split down the middle.

Spotting a trend, Friend cautioned, "Because of the deterioration in public education, larger and larger segments of the population are creeping downward IQ-wise, cementing the hold Republicans have on the electorate." However, if the election were held today, Bush would hold a lead of 52-48 in the popular vote, but would be virtually tied in the Electoral College, which Bush supporters argue against because the word College angers them. When contacted, a Kerry spokesman just chuckled. No Bush spokesperson was made available for comment. It was also found that Ralph Nader supporters were the brightest of all political proponents tested, but Dr. Friend dismissed them as "too smart for their own good."

bunbun

09-09-2004, 17:16

[QUOTE=smokymtnsteve]09.09.04 - "Stupid people love Bush" new study proves According to the prestigious Southern California think tank, The Gluton Group, stupid people prefer President George W Bush over Senator John Kerry by a 4-to-1 margin. QUOTE]

ROTFLMAO!!!

frankcornbread

09-09-2004, 21:30

Lone Wolf

09-09-2004, 21:35

You really believe that **** you type. god help ya. :rolleyes:

weary

09-09-2004, 22:34

....No, Weary - your reasoning is simplistic - and fails in any way to understand the reality of the situation.
.....http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/1/115737.shtml[/url]
.

Bun Bun, the problem with your arguments is that they are all based on nebulous "facts." Unless you can demonstrate that 10s of thousands of media outlets are universally and deliberately lying, don't expect thinking people to believe that the only truth can be found on right wing fringe propaganda sites like "newsmax."

The simple fact, as sensible people know, Saddam feared Islamic bigots more than anyone. He ran a secular police state. The people he feared most were those who were willing to die for their beliefs, because killing was his only tool for continued control.

He may have toyed with them from time to time, but the evidence that he had anything significant to do with the World Trade Center tragedies simply doesn't exist as much as you and Bush might wish it did.

Jimmy. Yours is the simplistic reasoning. You grasp at "factual" straws in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's certainly a way to influence the ignorant, the non observant, and those who haven't made the effort to pay attention.

Unfortunately, the latter are those who will decide this election, since they are by far the majority. The miracle is not that Bush leads, but that the race is close. Democracy doesn't make wrongs right. It's just an efficient way to change governments without killing the incumbents. For that, as Winston observed, it's a terrible form of government -- except for whatever may be in second place. Well, he said something like that with a similar meaning.

Weary

bfitz

09-10-2004, 02:49

This thread just hit the curb and spun into outer space. By the way, where did they get their High IQ sample? MENSA??
P.P. Gotta love the heavy metal! I wonder if the split is sub-genre specific? I bet it is. (mabye just a testament to the wide range of IQ's under the heavy metal umbrella)

boulder

09-10-2004, 06:55

Fascinating that people still believe Iraq was linked to 9/11 when even Bush himself has said there is no connection.

Truth is very tricky for some, ex. Schwarzenegger at the GOP convention:

" When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets .I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.

My family didn't have a car -- but one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to a Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy, I wasn't an action hero back then, and I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car, and I'd never see him again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!"

But he lived in a province occupied by the British and was born 2 years after the Soviets left Austria.

Then he said "As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. I love Austria and I love the Austrian people - but I always knew America was the place for me."

Sorry again, but the post war period, as w/most of Austria's post war history has been dominated by capitalist conservatives.

How about John O'Neill's "Unfit for command" where he calls Kerry a liar for saying he had been in Cambodia.

From "Unfit for Command": Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. ... Areas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. [pp. 47-48]

O'Neill on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos": How do I know he's [Kerry] not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made-up story. [8/22]

Oops. Turns out O'Neill made precisely the opposite claim -- on tape -- to some President named Nixon:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

hm. . .

Blue Jay

09-10-2004, 07:42

Hey, Jay....

In a world of uncertainty and doubt, it's nice to know that some things are always dependable.....like you being something of a jerk, for example. Thanx for the cheap shot in your last post. We've come to expect no less from you.

Hey Jack, it was not my intention to throw a cheap shot at you, so
I'll do one now. I was just using one of you threads as an example of other inane and flat out stupid threads that you and others like. This one is stupid, but it's entertaining, so again I invite you to join in, read and shut up or go back to your more favorite ones such as the many wonderful places Baltimore Jack gets his food or how he helps the poor one leg guy. Actually I like those too.

Jack Tarlin

09-10-2004, 11:30

Actually, Jay, my favorite threads on Whiteblaze are the ones where people are actually talking about the Trail and providing concrete useful information to folks who need it, and answering direct questions from folks with queries or problems. This is the main reason I spend time on this site.

Maybe someday we'll see you contributing something useful, kind, and helpful, to threads like these.

But I kinda doubt it.

P.S. You described my "Maildrop/Re-Supply" article in disparaging terms. I've actually received more positive feedback from folks on that article than on anything I've posted on the Internet in five years. I think that article has proven very useful to an awful lot of people; sorry you don't like it. If you think you can contribute something similar or better, I encourage you to do so; it'd be nice to see you actually do something thoughtful and positive here instead of providing your daily curmudgeonly whining. Have a nice day, I'm going hiking.

bunbun

09-10-2004, 12:02

Bun Bun, the problem with your arguments is that they are all based on nebulous "facts." Unless you can demonstrate that 10s of thousands of media outlets are universally and deliberately lying, don't expect thinking people to believe that the only truth can be found on right wing fringe propaganda sites like "newsmax."

Really?? Lessee here - where do I start? Let's start with the lack of responsible reporting (or maybe just the "slanted/biased" reporting?) on the part of the Washington Post and the NY Times. You know - the "main stream media" (along with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC) - and lets not forget the LA Times --- ALL of which totally ignored the Swift Boat thing for at least 10 days after the story broke, ALL of which have yet to put out a single positive story about the vets and ALL of which are trying desperately to ignore it and cover it up even now. Ain't gonna work.

Now - I've never said that they "lie" - that's "your" fabrication. What I HAVE said and will continue to say is that they fail to report the news as they should - objectively. And that they're so biased that they sometimes don't know the truth when it bites them on the ass. Example - yesterday they ALL jumped on the Bush memo thing that was run on CBS (60 Minutes). And all was right in Kerryland ---- well, until last night.

Only in the last hour has MSNBC had the grace to note that the memos are under a serious cloud of suspicion - that they're fakes. The WP did have that on the front page this morning, although the story was pretty much slanted. But the question comes to mind - if that kind of "smoking gun" (the memos) were found re: Kerry - would the Post et al print the story immediately (as they did re: Bush) - or would they wait "for verification"? We both know the answer, don't we?

The "right wing fringe propaganda sites like "newsmax"" as you call them - along with cnsnews.com - and realclearpolitics.com and gazette.com and townhall.com and humaneventsonline.com and washingtondispatch.com/ - and talk radio and other "alternative outlets" -- present news that the NY Times fails to consider news because of their liberal/left bias. In other words, the "alternative outlets" present news that the Dems/liberal-left/Kerry/Weary/etc - would rather never see the light of day - and wouldn't if it weren't for the "alternative outlets." Like the Swiftvets - and the falsification of the Bush memos.

Those "alternative" outlets" also have another advantage - TV news gives only sound bites, newspapers are published only once or twice a day - the "alternative" outlets" can be and frequently are updated several times each day. For example - I knew last night that the latest Bush "memos" and the 60 Minute segment were false - because it was on the alternative news sources - but not on the TV news. I also knew several days ago about the "September Surprise" that's just beginning to hit Kerry upside the head. I LIKE "alternative news" sources - it's easy, it's fun, it's educational - and I don't have to wade through someones asinine bias to find out the "real" facts.

Mmmm - speaking of which - I have yet to see you present any evidence that any of my facts are "nebulous." How'bout it? Where's your refutation of anything I've said - other than your personal opinion?

There was a study back in 1986 in which the mainstream media proudly proclaimed its "liberal" status - to the tune of someting like 85% Liberal, 10% centrist and 5% conservative. The latest study of that sort showed a very large "centrist" population, a few Liberals and VERY few conservatives. The problem is that we're still talking to many of the same people - and that the term "liberal" is no longer really politically correct - so where do you think all those Liberals went to? Lets not get obtuse here - the word "centrist" now means "Liberal". Just another part of the liberal penchant for changing the meanings of words to suit their own purposes. You know about that - we talked about that last Spring, when you tried to pull that BS on me.

It's kinda like Kerry trying to pass himself off as "pro-gun" and a hunter. Anyone with a little knowledge and two brain cells to rub together knows what a crock that is.

In fact, while we're on this subject (which is off the subject of our OFF TOPIC thread) - how come the mainstream press is incapable of calling a terrorist - a terrorist. During the recent Russian hostage crisis, not one of the main stream news outlets (with the exception of the Washington Times) used the word "terrorist" - they used militant, extremist, separatist - and about 20 other euphemisms (including, in one case, "victim") to describe the terrorists. PC is alive and well - and is still a four letter word. Ptui.

The simple fact, as sensible people know, Saddam feared Islamic bigots more than anyone. He ran a secular police state. The people he feared most were those who were willing to die for their beliefs, because killing was his only tool for continued control.

He may have toyed with them from time to time, but the evidence that he had anything significant to do with the World Trade Center tragedies simply doesn't exist as much as you and Bush might wish it did.

You should pay more attention - or didn't the Times print that part - you know - the part of the 9/11 Commission Report that said that while Hussein wasn't directly linked to the World Trade Center, he was absolutely linked to global terrorism? For example: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

Not to mention http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/

Or the Islamic extremists who were ousted from northern Iraq - or .......

Whoever your "sensible people" are - they should pay more attention to William James, the American philospher who said: Most people believe they're "thinking" when all they're doing is rearranging their prejudices.

Jimmy. Yours is the simplistic reasoning. You grasp at "factual" straws in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's certainly a way to influence the ignorant, the non observant, and those who haven't made the effort to pay attention.

Mmmm - that's not worth answering.

Unfortunately, the latter are those who will decide this election, since they are by far the majority. The miracle is not that Bush leads, but that the race is close. Democracy doesn't make wrongs right. It's just an efficient way to change governments without killing the incumbents. For that, as Winston observed, it's a terrible form of government -- except for whatever may be in second place. Well, he said something like that with a similar meaning.

To a large degree, we can agree on that. But not for the same reasons.

Lion King

09-10-2004, 12:09

We Are Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore

By Garrison Keillor

Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element.

The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned-and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today's. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.

In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. "Bipartisanship is another term of date rape," says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong's moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt's evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we're deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy-the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president's personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.

Our beloved land has been fogged with fear-fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn't the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it's 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn't the "end of innocence," or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn't prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No. 1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.

The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn't made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we're not getting any younger.

Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It's a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life:banana

bunbun

09-10-2004, 12:45

How about John O'Neill's "Unfit for command" where he calls Kerry a liar for saying he had been in Cambodia.
********************
Oops. Turns out O'Neill made precisely the opposite claim -- on tape -- to some President named Nixon:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

hm. . .

Boulder - that song don't play.

O'neill took over Kerry's boat after he left - now picture the time sequence -

Christmas 68 - Kerry was in Sa Dec (50 miles from the border) based out of Cat Lo (near Saigon/Ho Chi city). NOBODY was allowed into Cambodia. Sihanouk would've had a cow.

January 69 - Kerry is transferred back to An Thoi which is where O'neill takes over the 94 boat in March 69 (south - in the Delta). New place, new rules, new ball game - even a new President.

Gotta keep it straight, man. Get a map.
Try this - http://www.thegantelope.com/html/KV2.htm

And while you're at it maybe you should follow this link and maybe get your head on straight: http://www.thegantelope.com/

Nightwalker

09-10-2004, 12:52

...you need to learn some history.
I consider myself to be about 99% anti-war, but that was an impressive post. The hand-wringers are gonna really attack you over it...

Nightwalker

09-10-2004, 12:58

It's difficult to send soldiers into combat and almost certain death. Once that is done the person doing the ordering is reluctant to admit he made a mistake. That's mostly what happened to Johnson. He couldn't bring himself to admit that his mistake killed thousands, so he persisted, and tens of thousands more died.

My fear is that Bush is in the same trap.
You may be right. Politicians of any leaning seem to have trouble admitting that they've made mistakes.

Unfortunately, political mudslinging aside, we still don't know whether this one was a mistake, the right thing for the wrong reasons, or something else altogether.

bunbun

09-10-2004, 13:00

I consider myself to be about 99% anti-war, but that was an impressive post. The hand-wringers are gonna really attack you over it...

Frank -
There's NOBODY who's more anti-war than those who have to do the fighting, bleeding and dying. The difference is that some of us (usually those who do the fighting, bleeding and dying) understand the necessity.

One Leg

09-10-2004, 13:04

or how he helps the poor one leg guy.

Actually, BlueJay, I don't recall such a thread as the one you stated. Jack's hiking with me because I asked him to, and nothing more. There's no MDA telethon that he's contributing to, because I ain't no Jerry's Kid.

What I do have, however, is a nice Saloman hiking boot size 9.5 that'll fit nicely into one of your orifices should you continue to "diss" me. (I can still kick pretty good....Wouldn't it be terrible to have to explain to everyone where that artificial foot came from that's sticking out of your rear end?)

BTW: Have a nice day :sun

Nightwalker

09-10-2004, 13:11

Why, in all of this mess, is no one talking about the fact that John Edwards never served at all in the Vietnam era? He was of the correct age, after all.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/24/130440.shtml

Conservative site, a given, but de-bunk the info...

Blue Jay

09-10-2004, 13:37

P.S. You described my "Maildrop/Re-Supply" article in disparaging terms. I've actually received more positive feedback from folks on that article than on anything I've posted on the Internet in five years. I think that article has proven very useful to an awful lot of people; sorry you don't like it.

If you actually read the post (579) I clearly said I liked the "Where Baltimore Jack gets his food" article. I have given my humble opinions about gear and hiking style many many times, as you are well aware. I fully realize they cannot match the value of those of the great Baltimore Jack nor do I expect them to. Is your entourage (since you demand proper spelling I looked that one up for you) any smaller these days?

Chappy

09-10-2004, 13:44

What I do have, however, is a nice Saloman hiking boot size 9.5 that'll fit nicely into one of your orifices should you continue to "diss" me. (I can still kick pretty good....Wouldn't it be terrible to have to explain to everyone where that artificial foot came from that's sticking out of your rear end?)BTW: Have a nice day :sun

One Leg, Better be careful, ol' BJ might lose his cool again! ;)

Blue Jay

09-10-2004, 14:13

One Leg, Better be careful, ol' BJ might lose his cool again! ;)

I never found cool so how could I lose it. By the way, I didn't diss One Leg. I was merely using a thread he was in, to make a point. Clearly, unsuccessfully.

Blue Jay

09-12-2004, 11:36

bfitz

09-12-2004, 13:35

Aha! So you admit Kerry lied to get his medal! Those Bush documents are forgeries! As for the terrorist...we get to watch him now. He wont be doing any terrorism while we've got him under our microscope, plus we can milk him for info, kind of like the street drug dealer we let go if he gives us info on the higher ups. (If he is even a terrorist, I've never heard of him, figured I'd post first and research later.)

Sly

09-12-2004, 17:28

If lying matters, it's about time y'all started seriously questioning the CIC. From US News and World report.

Nation & World
The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served
By Kit R. Roane

"Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said.

But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

rest of article here: :welcome

=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

bunbun

09-13-2004, 14:24

Some new documents out. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian and lost his status as a Texas Air National Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical examination. This marked the second time in days that he had to backtrack from assertions that all of his records had been released. After he lost that status higher ups must have prevented his butt being shipped to Nam. I wonder is that worse than lying to get a medal?

You should pay more attention, BJ -
1/ the documents that your first contention (Bush's failures) are built on are fake.
2/ there was no "backtracking" - Bush & Co have made no statement whatever about those documents - and, in fact, publicly released the documents after they were delivered to the White House by CBS -- without comment.
3/ by the time he lost flight status, nobody was looking to send anyone to Nam. In fact, there was a glut of pilots and da Gubmint ws looking to get rid of some of them. Which was a problem that Bush helped them to solve.

You REALLY should pay more attention. :D

Also, You are all aware of the children that died in Russia due to Chechen separatists. I think you would all agree with me that these are terrorists, wouldn't you? Why then has the Bush administration granted asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, a top official in the separatist government. I'm sure there is a long convoluted explaination. As in the past some terrorists we like and supply weapons to, like Saudi Arabia, then when they stab us in the Towers we cry "we didn't know that was going to happen". Yea right.

Doesn't need a long convoluted explanation - just some common sense.

Your conclusion that "some terrorists are Chechens" therefore "all Chechens are terrorists" really doesn't meet even the minimal standards of logical thought. May I suggest that you go back to school and take a course in Elementary Logic? It would really improve the quality of your posts.

Hmmm - just for future reference -
http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/print_news.php?func=detail&par=77

Hellbilly

09-13-2004, 14:45

You should pay more attention, BJ -
1/ the documents that your first contention (Bush's failures) are built on are fake.

The memos in question have not been proven to be false, only thought to be. There are no experts that state otherwise. However, I do beleive they are probably fakes, but it has not been proven as of yet.

Blue Jay

09-13-2004, 15:01

Doesn't need a long convoluted explanation - just some common sense.

Your conclusion that "some terrorists are Chechens" therefore "all Chechens are terrorists" really doesn't meet even the minimal standards of logical thought. May I suggest that you go back to school and take a course in Elementary Logic? It would really improve the quality of your posts.

Hmmm - just for future reference -
http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/print_news.php?func=detail&par=77

I didn't conclude anything about Chechens. I'm sure most of them are just poor slobs like us, just trying to keep their government out of their lives. Ilyas Akhmadov has been identified as a terrorist by the very people in Russia his organization attacked. Your definition of a terrorist is anyone George says is one. After his coronation all nonRepubicans will be terrorists. I have to admit I am amazed that you actually used a nonRepublican resource, well done.

weary

09-13-2004, 15:09

You should pay more attention, BJ -
1/ the documents that your first contention (Bush's failures) are built on are fake.
2/ there was no "backtracking" - Bush & Co have made no statement whatever about those documents - and, in fact, publicly released the documents after they were delivered to the White House by CBS -- without comment.

After a lifetime of doubting conspiracy theories, I must admit I see the possibility of one here. Since it's common knowledge that Bush welched on his service responsibility, what better way to cast doubt on the evidence -- real and faked -- than to release obviously faked documents "without comment."

What better way to plant the seed of public belief that all the evidence, real and imagined, is similarly faked.

Weary, who truly admires the skill of Republicans in covering up and disguising malfeasance.

bunbun

09-13-2004, 15:22

If lying matters, it's about time y'all started seriously questioning the CIC. From US News and World report.

Sly - I know you don't lie. But you should really start using better sources for your information. :-?

First - I couldn't get at your link.

Second - these same arguments have been trotted out periodically ever since 1994. The Democrats used almost exactly the same words during Bush's first gubernatiorial race in 1994. Then they resurrected them again in 1998. And then they resurrected them yet again in 2000. Three times they've been debunked. And now, the same stinking mess has been exhumed and is being dragged through the streets again. Bull.

The only thing "new" in this whole mess is the "memos" that were "unearthed" last week.

Now - if you'd like to comment on those ---- naah, you don't want to do that. At this point a 3-year-old could eat your lunch over that mess.

If you want a more honest story about "Bush's service" - try this link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

There's a lot more, but here are just a few paragraphs to give you something to think about ---

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

**********************
All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes

**********************
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

Actually - you might want to read the last five paragraphs for a better feel about the reality of the political nastiness involved. Those who say Kerry never attacked Bush's service are either ignorant - or lying.

bunbun

09-13-2004, 15:46

After a lifetime of doubting conspiracy theories, I must admit I see the possibility of one here. Since it's common knowledge that Bush welched on his service responsibility, what better way to cast doubt on the evidence -- real and faked -- than to release obviously faked documents "without comment."

What better way to plant the seed of public belief that all the evidence, real and imagined, is similarly faked.

Weary, who truly admires the skill of Republicans in covering up and disguising malfeasance.

LOL!!! -

Bob - that's just dumber than a doorknob.

First because if they were caught at it, it would be an auotmatic end to the Republican Presidential campaign. Unlike the liberal/left fringe, the average American doesn't condone lying and subterfuge.

Second - because the Republicans simply had no reason to fake evidence. The "Bush is a deserter" (or whatever) crap has been run and rerun - and has failed to impress very many people - for the last ten years. If the Democrats are so desperate as to drag up the subject again, then they're wasting their money and time on what's already been proved to be a losing tactic.

Third - because the Republicans simply had no reason to fake evidence. Bush is up in the polls - so far up that he could probably cruise to the election - although I seriously doubt they'd do that in any case. They simply don't need to do something this dumb.

Fourth - because if the Republicans WERE gonna do something like this, the hope is that they'd at least find someone competent to do it. Obviously Rather and Crew are so biased that they aren't competent to even vet information anymore.

Finally - don't you find it a little odd that the Democrats would nominate someone for the Presidency who's not only a proven liar and an unindicted war criminal (by his own words), but also a quite ordinary criminal in that he violated Article 104, part 904 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953, and also Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. In addition, your contempt for Oliver North for his Congressional immunity should be extended to John Kerry in that he was also the recipient of Congressional immunity during and after the 1971 Senate hearings and during the Winter Soldier investigation. :D

One should never dig in someone else's cat hole unless one is prepared for the favor to be returned. :D

bunbun

09-13-2004, 16:25

The memos in question have not been proven to be false, only thought to be. There are no experts that state otherwise. However, I do beleive they are probably fakes, but it has not been proven as of yet.

Hmmm - not to put too fine a point on it, but -- a few samples of what's going around out here in the real world -

Sandra Ramsey Lines, for instance - a forensic document expert who edits the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners - told the Associated Press that she "could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

"They're forged as hell," former Guard director Earl W. Lively told the Washington Times. "There's no way that [Bush's commanding officer] Jerry Killian would have written what they've come up with."

According to Dr. Philip Bouffard, one of the two top Forensic Document Examiners in the US, it's "hard to put an exact percentage number on the chances that this was a fake , but I'd say it's at least 90%.".

Add the small problem of the signature of Killian's commanding officer - who retired 18 months prior to the date of one of the memos on which his signature "appears"? Or the statements of Killian's widow and son? Or about two dozen other problems that Rather failed to address in his defense of the whopper he tried to perpetrate? Or maybe the fact that CBS doesn't have - and apparently can't get - the originals of those memos. And that at least two CBS staffers have reportedly said that the memos came from the Kerry camp via a cutout. And finally - the coup de grace - that the whole thing has disappeared from the front pages of all the major newspapers and will probably be dropped by all the major networks except Fox in an effort to bury the subject. Just like they tried to bury the Swift Vets.

C'mon - even Weary has admitted that they're fake. :D

Speaking of - what were those words about "the skill of Republicans in covering up and disguising malfeasance"? Run that by me again? :rolleyes:

The only questions left are - WHO actually perpetrated the hoax on Rather? and how long is it gonna take Rather & Co to play the "mea culpa" game and try to save his job?

Finally - for BJ - of course you did. Sometimes you should read what you write - and figure out what you actually said. But we all have that problem sometimes, don't we? :)

Sly

09-13-2004, 19:39

You don't consider US News and World Report a reputible news source yet expect me to trust in National Review?

How anyone can belleive that Bush did not shirk his duty in the NG is beyond me.

Ok, here's another scenerio on just what Bush was up to...

BUSH: THE MISSING YEARS
By Jason Gay
In January 1973, Private Gary Donahue was on his second tour of duty in Vietnam when he stopped with a few other GIs at a sweaty Saigon bar called the Roc Club. It was nearing midnight, and the place was thick with well-lubricated soldiers and local women. A middle-aged Vietnamese crooner prowled a makeshift stage, singing standards like "Mack the Knife" and "Luck Be a Lady."

Suddenly, a trim, clean-cut American grabbed the microphone. "Howdy, folks!" the man yelled in a slight twang. "How ya'll feel about hearing a little music?" Donning a straw Vietnamese hat, the man launched into a raucous, heartfelt version of "Deep in the Heart of Texas" and then "Wooly Bully."

The rest of the story (long)... :D

http://us.gq.com/features/content/printables/040727feco_02/?pagination=none

Sly

09-13-2004, 19:47

Here's a good link (I hope) to the US News and World report article....

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

Nightwalker

09-13-2004, 22:34

Weary, who truly admires the skill of Republicans in covering up and disguising malfeasance.
My guess is that they learned it from the Clinton folks...

:)
Don't waste your vote! Nader 2004!

weary

09-14-2004, 08:10

LOL!!! -
Bob - that's just dumber than a doorknob.
First because if they were caught at it, it would be an auotmatic end to the Republican Presidential campaign. Unlike the liberal/left fringe, the average American doesn't condone lying and subterfuge.
D

Jimmy, you misread my message -- probably because I was not as clear as I should have been.

I don't believe the White House or Bush made up the fake papers, if that is what they were. As I understand it they were sent to the White House by CBS news.

The White House then released them to others "without comment." My suspicion is that the "without comment" was deliberate. That they knew immediately they were fake but deliberately did not say so, knowing others would quickly do that job for them. Thus the not commentlng was an effort to cast doubt on all the records that suggest Bush served less than diligently in the National Guard.

In any case, whether the White House knew the documents were fake or not, releasing the "fake" documents without comment in fact will cause many to assume that all the documents relating to Bush's Vietnam era service are equally flawed.

Weary

Blue Jay

09-14-2004, 08:15

Finally - don't you find it a little odd that the Democrats would nominate someone for the Presidency who's not only a proven liar and an unindicted war criminal (by his own words), but also a quite ordinary criminal in that he violated Article 104, part 904 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953, and also Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. In addition, your contempt for Oliver North for his Congressional immunity should be extended to John Kerry in that he was also the recipient of Congressional immunity during and after the 1971 Senate hearings and during the Winter Soldier investigation. :D

I don't find it odd at all. Kerry has the same position that the Generals have when they play the Globe Trotters. Kerry has the same position as the no name wrastler (spelled correctly) who goes against someone named Hulk or Savage. You are all being had, soooo openly it is pathetic. This is not a democracy it is corporate feudelism and not even being hidden. There does not have to be a conspiracy or anything at all secret. It's all right out in front of you and not only do you accept it, you like it.

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 08:19

bunbun - you keep up the great posts!:clap

Don't be discouraged!

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 09:55

"Whenever I read _Time_ or _Newsweek_ or such magazines, I wash my hands afterward. But how to wash off the small but odious stain such reading leaves on the mind?"

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 09:57

Hi Smkmtsteve, what or who is Abbey? Are you referring to Edward Abbey? The gadfly anarchist writer who popularized environmental activisim?

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 10:03

yes..Edward ABBEY

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"Christian theology: nothing so grotesque could possibly be true."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 10:07

Nature is often pretty grotesque.

Now I see where you are coming from. Thanks for sharing.

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 10:09

"Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 10:17

"Fantastic doctrines
Hmmm. Abbey was American who enjoyed his freedom of speech.

Who paid for this freedom?

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 10:23

Mr. Abbey himself...he served in the US military in Italy 1945-1947.

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 10:25

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 10:33

I am glad to hear that, a fact I did not know, thanks. :)

What reading of Abbey's would you suggest? I have not read anything yet.
All of the things you mentioned from Gallows - psych wards, will all happen regardless. Human nature and physical flaws.

Mr. Abbey wrote fiction,(monkey wrench gang, hayduke lives,) which are good books and fun reads,,,I however like his non-fiction best , Desert Solitare, Down the River.

you however may not like reading abbey as he was not very fond of Xians.
you would need an open mind to read and understand abbey...who would have been very opposed to Mr. Bush's world view.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"The best argument for Christianity is the Gregorian chant. Listening to that music, one can believe anything--while the music lasts."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 10:56

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 11:23

I like reading other environmentalist literature!

I'll probably like his stuff, will check it out........ but will of course discount his stabs at God or faith and realize he can't possibly know about the subject matter enough to write about it. Sounds like he was pretty intolerant and judgmental to me.

But, I will check out some of his writings, thanks for the suggestion on the titles!:clap

Mr Abbey has the right to be judgemental and intolerant. He saw the effects of religion and the problems it causes. It is Xian theology that teachs to Judge not that ye not be judged...this would not apply to non-xians. Mr. Abbey was a quite well educated and worldly man and knew plenty enough to write about the subject of gods and faith.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY!

"I once sat on a mesa above the Rio Grande for three days and nights, trying to have a vision. I got hungry and saw God in the form of a beef pie."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

smokymtnsteve

09-14-2004, 11:32

"The missionaries go forth to Christianize the savages--as if the savages weren't dangerous enough already."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

bunbun

09-14-2004, 13:56

Ok, here's another scenerio on just what Bush was up to...

BUSH: THE MISSING YEARS
By Jason Gay
In January 1973, Private Gary Donahue was on his second tour of duty in
The rest of the story (long)... :D

http://us.gq.com/features/content/printables/040727feco_02/?pagination=none

Sly - Good story. :D
I'll trade you - then I'll answer your question --- :jump

Newly Unearthed Bush National Guard Memo
by Dave Konig

MEMORANDUM FOR ME

TO: Me (Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian)
FROM: Me (Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian)
SUBJECT: Bush, George W. 1st Lt. 3244754FG

1. I am writing this memo to myself so that I, Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian (commanding officer of 1st Lt. George W. Bush) will have a record of the secret thoughts of me, Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

The rest of the story:
http://www.nationalreview.com/dkonig/konig200409140915.asp

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 15:26

Mr Abbey has the right to be judgemental and intolerant.Oh I see, do your liberal friends believe this too? Since when is this becoming acceptable in our society,

this is the same thing you say about Christians, being intolerant and judgemental
how interesting..............

bunbun

09-14-2004, 16:30

You don't consider US News and World Report a reputible news source yet expect me to trust in National Review?

How anyone can belleive that Bush did not shirk his duty in the NG is beyond me.

Now let's answer the questions.
First - I said nothing of the sort. I wouldn't tell you what to trust. Long ago and far away, my grandfather taught me to believe half of what I see, a third of what I hear and a quarter of what I read. It's been good advice. And it keeps me in trouble with those who fail to heed it. :)

What it means is that if you trust ANY single source or any set of related sources or any single viewpoint to be "accurate" or "true" - then who's the fool? And the answer's obvious - at least to me. National Review, US News, Washington Post, Wahington Times, CBS, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, --- they ALL have "a piece of the truth". And NONE of them have enough of the truth to be worth listening to exclusively unless one wants to stay ignorant all their life. So "I" don't entirely trust ANY of them - but I read enough of them to figure out who's outright lying - who's got some real information - who's just playing "politics" - and sometimes even who's got their head on straight. Sometime it's the Post, sometimes it's the Times, sometimes it's the bloggers. But it's rarely all of them at once.

So - I'll give you a for instance - from your own source. The subtitle of that article is:
"A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served."

Let's start with the fact that that's a dead giveaway that the article is a political attack. Not factual, not investigative, not "questioning" anything - just an outright gratuitous attack. So - why is that so?

Because - as I told you yesterday, this subject has been beaten to death at least three times before (four if you include the last "investigation" last Spring). At no point has there been ANYTHING of substance found. Unless there's some new information, then it has no purpose except to distract attention - in this case, to distract attention from Kerry's record/Vietnam service/post-Vietnam performance and to smear Bush as much as possible. That's it. No other point to the whole exercise.

But, but, but - you say, "but they DID find new evidence - that's what the article is about."

Nope - they did NOT "find" new evidence. If you look closely, if you actually look at and understand the words that are used, what they did is called "revisionism". They took the same old information and rearranged it to suit themselves - they changed the rules - they "re-interpreted" the data - however you want to put it. What it comes down to is the assumption that whatever "experts" they dragged in to do the hatchet job supposedly know more about the rules and how they were used to determine service credit and how the Guard units operated at that time than the people whose job it was to make that determination back in the 70's. What they're saying is "We know better than those people, those professionals, how they should have done their job". What a crock!!!

Those "experts" weren't there in the 70's, they have no idea how the rules were interpreted or applied then, but NOW they want to "re-interpret" them in a way that suits their own underhanded political purposes. Bullfeathers. By that logic, we could go back to your grade school or high school and "re-interpret" your grades to make sure you didn't graduate - or to make sure you graduated summa cum laude. Or maybe go back to your CDT hike and re-examine it - and re-interpret it - to determine that you didn't really hike ALL of the CDT so you shouldn't be credited with that as a thruhike.

So - in the first place, the basic assumption is wrong.

In the second place, it's insulting to the entire Guard command structure in that it says they didn't know how to do their job - and that the "experts" brought in by the press today DO know how to do the job. And, if the latter were true, then the entire Guard command structure should be reprimanded or court-martialed for dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming.

Even IF --- that were to happen, it would STILL not reflect on Bush. If Bush failed to discharge his duties and the Guard commanders failed to take appropriate action, then it would be THEIR responsibility - not his. Keep in mind that Bush was a lieutenant - he certainly kept track of his points, but his "point count" was NOT what showed up in the unit records - that was the point count that was kept by his commanders.

Finally - in the absence of real evidence, belief that Bush "did" shirk his duty assumes that "you" know what the rules are (or rather, were at that time) - and are competent to judge what he did. And that's a judgmental attitude that has no foundation in either fact or logic, my friend. For either of us.

The answers to your questions then are -
1. Sometimes the National Review IS more reliable than US News - or the NY Times. And sometimes it's not. But unless you're reading both of them (or similarly diverse viewpoints) then you're not operating with a full deck.

2. For what specific reason DO you believe Bush shirked his duty? Because I've seen no valid evidence to support that contention. The only evidence that indicates that he did is what the press has manipulated (twisted) to fit their own prejudices. As in the article you quoted. And that ain't valid evidence - it's reconstituted dehydrated crap.

bunbun

09-14-2004, 16:45

Jimmy, you misread my message -- probably because I was not as clear as I should have been.

I don't believe the White House or Bush made up the fake papers, if that is what they were. As I understand it they were sent to the White House by CBS news.

S'OK - neither was I clear enough. First because the "dumber" comment was NOT meant to imply that "you" were so - only that the idea that I took from you post was. And I evidently misunderstood what you were saying. If it's appropriate, you can take this as an apology.

I should take my own advice and read both what I write and what others write more carefully before answering.

The White House then released them to others "without comment." My suspicion is that the "without comment" was deliberate. That they knew immediately they were fake but deliberately did not say so, knowing others would quickly do that job for them.

I think it more likely that they had no idea whether the memos were real or fake when they got them. And therefore had no valid comment to make. But they still had to release them because they knew beyond doubt that CBS would. But - quien sabe?

In any case, whether the White House knew the documents were fake or not, releasing the "fake" documents without comment in fact will cause many to assume that all the documents relating to Bush's Vietnam era service are equally flawed.

Maybe - or maybe it'll just ensure that any "new memos that are unearthed" will receive proper scrutiny "before" the mud flinging begins rather than after.

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 16:49

I think I smell a rat, and it's in the BIG K camp.

bunbun

09-14-2004, 17:22

I think I smell a rat, and it's in the BIG K camp.

The latest I've heard is that CBS got the memos from the DNC, but that they originally came from someone else. For my part, this is NOT to beat up on the Kerry people (even if they do deserve it). Apparently they just passed the information on to CBS. Which is precisely what the Bush camp probably would have done if the situation were reversed. But the DNC weren't the ones who failed to vet the information before airing it on national TV. It wasn't even their job - that was a job for CBS and Dan Rather. And, as Bernard Goldberg said, he has "never in my life seen a more one-sided piece in the history of television."

Keep in mind that this hasn't been positively verified - yet.

eyahiker

09-14-2004, 18:16

Yup.

But I still smell a rat;)

Sly

09-14-2004, 20:55

weary

09-14-2004, 21:44

The latest I've heard is that CBS got the memos from the DNC, but that they originally came from someone else. For my part, this is NOT to beat up on the Kerry people (even if they do deserve it). Apparently they just passed the information on to CBS. Which is precisely what the Bush camp probably would have done if the situation were reversed. But the DNC weren't the ones who failed to vet the information before airing it on national TV. It wasn't even their job - that was a job for CBS and Dan Rather. ..." .

Where did the documents come from? CBS isn't saying. But a major source of the CBS story was Bill Burkett, who Newsweek calls, "a disgruntled former guard officer" from Baird, Texas, who says he was present at Guard headquarters in Austin in 1997, when a top aid to then Gov. Bush ordered the records sanitized to protect their boss."

The White House calls Burkett "a discredited source," because he became gravely ill on a Guard mission to Panama, but was denied treatment. Fellow officers, according to Newsweek, say Burkett "wasn't a crank, but a stickler for proper procedure -- a classic whistle blower type."

Frankly, I wish we could get to talking realistically about the two men. As a Newsweek letter writer pointed out in the issue that arrived in my mail box a few hours ago, "by the time he was 40, John Kerry had served in Vietnam and been decorated for heroism, become a leading spokesman against the war, graduated from law school and been a state proscecutor, been elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts -- and was gearing up for a successful run for the U.S. Senate."

In contrast George Bush "was still trying to sober up and stop spitting tobacco on women's purses, yet he is supposed to have more character than Kerry. The mind boggles."

Weary

bunbun

09-14-2004, 23:59

... at filibustering simplicity.

Even if the US News article is false in it's "formula" that Bush didn't put enough hours in based on USAF/NG regs, one thing is certain he missed a physical, was defrocked and "lost his wings". By missing that physical he shirked his duties.

LOL - nope, won't buy that, Sly. You're doing what the media has consistently done - take it out of context. Context is that it was the winding down of the Vietnam War. There was a glut of pilots - I mean thousands of pilots - for whom there was no room at the inn. So let's take it one step at a time -
1. Bush's unit was about to change aircraft - as a Guard outfit they were gonna get some of the newer aircraft that had been in Vietnam. That means he'd have had to requalify in an entirely new aircraft. More training time - but only IF he could get it. And there was no reason for him to get it since there were a LOT of already qualified pilots for those new aircraft.

2. Even if he could have gotten the training - he wouldn't get a lot of "air time" - cause the budget for both flying and maintenance was being cut. Not to mention the competition for flight time among the pilots.

3. Since he was not at his "home" unit - the chance of flight time was even further reduced.

4. All that reduces to ---- there was no reason for him to take that physical because he was so short his feet didn't reach the floor. Or was that - he was so short he could walk upright under the belly of a rattlesnake? Whatever - :)

5. In fact, his commanders would have been relieved both by his NOT taking the physical - and by his "early out" because they were having budget problems at the time and he was one more "mouth they didn't have to feed." In other words, if he wasn't doin' drills and wasn't flying, they didn't have to pay him -- and it eased their budget crunch.

6. Not to mention that they had gaggles of already qualified flight officers for those nice "new" aircraft that were being brought in (yeah - I know - some of them were dogs after a couple years of combat duty). And those were officers that they didn't have to pay to have retrained.

Ya gotta understand the culture - and the problems - and the economics - and the situation. It's not nearly as "siimple" as the press (and the Democrats) would have you believe. And one of the things they'll NEVER tell you - is that it was the Democrats who were creating the budget crunch that Bush got caught in. So if you take it from a purely logical perspective - the people you want to blame for Bush's "shirking" - are the Democrats. :-?

But I don't think the Dems would agree with that. But then - I don't care either. :D

Hey - good to hear from you --- and thanks for asking.

smokymtnsteve

09-15-2004, 10:47

Oh I see, do your liberal friends believe this too? Since when is this becoming acceptable in our society,

this is the same thing you say about Christians, being intolerant and judgemental
how interesting..............

it is your jesus and theology that teaches to judge not...I am not an xian so I am not bound by it's teachings

c.coyle

09-15-2004, 14:21

For what specific reason DO you believe Bush shirked his duty? Because I've seen no valid evidence to support that contention. The only evidence that indicates that he did is what the press has manipulated (twisted) to fit their own prejudices. As in the article you quoted. And that ain't valid evidence - it's reconstituted dehydrated crap.

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/)

... and Here (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/)

... and also here, from a longtime friend who is about as far right as anyone I know (http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/109524002994291.xml?pennnleb)

MOWGLI

09-15-2004, 15:34

smokymtnsteve

09-15-2004, 15:42

I don't understand it eithier,,folks supporting a desserter and critizing a medal-winner patriot...seems kinda backwards to me.

bunbun

09-15-2004, 16:16

I have to wonder about anyone who simply swallows - hook, line & sinker - the explaination that Dubya must have met his service requirements - simply 'cause he was honorably discharged.

If your Daddy was a Texas Oilman, a Congressman, the US Ambassador to China, the Head of the CIA, the Veep, and then the President, and then a principal in the Carlyle Group....

I was guess it was just a stroke of luck (or genius) that he didn't go to Nam.

I have to wonder about why you're unwilling to believe that he didn't meet the requirements when the Guard thought he had and honorably discharged him?

So - I'll trade you stories --- this came for a friend - and it seems to be the sentiment among those who are out there protecting our collective asses. Make sure you get to the bottom line. ANd pay particular attention to th part that asks about Kerry's Ready Reserve service.
************************************************** *******

Subject: FWD: Hanoi John's Military Service

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:49:16 -0400

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate Contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt.John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our
Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the Unite! d States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team -Director
AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs"

bunbun

09-15-2004, 16:34

simply 'cause he was honorably discharged.

Now - I've got one more comment for you --- that particular line is insulting to every serviceman who's been honorably disharged - ever.

Nobody has questioned Kerry's honorable discharge - nobody has questioned that he was in Vietnam. For you or anyone else to question the validity of Bush's honorable discharge is to call ALL honorable discharges into question. And that's not acceptable - that's equivalent to what Kerry did in 1971 in his Senate testimony.

He WAS honorable discharged - if you have a beef, take it up with his commanding officers cause THEY were the ones responsible for that - not him. As for Bush's Daddy - who knows - who cares. I've known a lot of guys whose Daddy was just as big a wheel - and they didn't get special treatment. Your assumption that he did is just that - an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

Oh yeah - Barnes - don't forget his daughter - she just destroyed his credibility and his career by publicly calling him a liar. So let's don't trot him out here as evidence.

I know you - and up till now I've liked you - but if you do that again, me and thee WILL have a problem.

Sly

09-15-2004, 16:47

Jim, you just called "Hanoi" John Kerry's honorable discharge into question, yet got all over another poster questioning Bush's.

Talk about calling the kettle black.

And what's with the Hanoi?

c.coyle

09-15-2004, 16:50

Now - I've got one more comment for you --- that particular line is insulting to every serviceman who's been honorably disharged - ever.

Nobody has questioned Kerry's honorable discharge - nobody has questioned that he was in Vietnam. For you or anyone else to question the validity of Bush's honorable discharge is to call ALL honorable discharges into question. And that's not acceptable - that's equivalent to what Kerry did in 1971 in his Senate testimony.

He WAS honorable discharged - if you have a beef, take it up with his commanding officers cause THEY were the ones responsible for that - not him. As for Bush's Daddy - who knows - who cares. I've known a lot of guys whose Daddy was just as big a wheel - and they didn't get special treatment. Your assumption that he did is just that - an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

Lighten up. W was honorably discharged, even though he shirked his duty. Either somebody screwed up, there was a general breakdown in the process, or some strings were pulled. The fact that one shirker got an honorable discharge by no means calls all HD's into question. Mistakes get made. Favors get called in. The process ain't perfect.

Neither candidate is the same person he was 30+ years ago. Kerry wasn't the only decorated vet to serve honorably and come back to oppose the war. Bush wasn't the only party boy with some clout who hid in the Guards. Those were the times. I'm more concerned with the here and the now, aren't you?

Sly

09-15-2004, 17:01

Texans for Truth have offered a $50,000 reward to anyone that can prove Bush "served" his time.

Should be simple, aye! :rolleyes:

http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Lone Wolf

09-15-2004, 17:05

Bush/Cheney 04. The only choice.

c.coyle

09-15-2004, 17:12

Bush/Cheney 04. The only choice.

Works for me. Being a shirker 30+ years ago is irrelevant.

MOWGLI

09-15-2004, 17:23

Now - I've got one more comment for you --- that particular line is insulting to every serviceman who's been honorably disharged - ever.

I disagree Jim. I have relatives who have fought in just about every war that this country has been involved in, starting with the Revolutionary War - the War of 1812, WW I, WWII, Korea. Nobody in Nam, although my brother was on a ship in 74-75. I have the utmost respect for veterans, in large part, because I didn't have to serve because others before me did.

I have disagreed with much of what you have written, and have posted here sparingly regarding politics. I believe that money and power can have tremendous influence in our society. I have no idea if Bush did everything that he was supposed to do. I simply find (in this case) the honorable discharge explaination weak. I also find the acceptance of that explaination convenient. You or I could not get out of a military obligation during a war to work on a political campaign - and you know it. The son of a powerful politician can get those sorts of arrangements. I have some problems with that - especially when a lot of soldiers who came from poor families died because they didn't have those sort of choices.

I hope we can agree to disagree.

Sly

09-15-2004, 17:43

bunbun

09-15-2004, 18:01

Here (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/)

... and Here (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/)

... and also here, from a longtime friend who is about as far right as anyone I know (http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/109524002994291.xml?pennnleb)

First Chris - consider the source - the Boston Globe. :)

Second - there's a lot of good info in both articles - and both of them are also slanted although not as badly as some I've seen. There are a number of zingers like this -
"The ease of Bush's entry into the Air Guard was widely reported last year."

And if you read a little further, you'll also find this -
"But last year, Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of Bush's father asked him to do so."

But then there's this -
"In interviews last week, Guard officials from that era said Bush leapfrogged over other applicants because few applicants were willing to commit to the 18 months of flight training or the inherent dangers of flying."

And then there's Barnes' daughter who publicly called him a liar on both radio and national TV. but then, that was recent, wasn't it.

Ya gotta pay attention cause they don't make it easy to put things together. There's a reason for that. It's called media bias. And usually - they don't even have the grace to put the disclaimers in the article. At least the Globe was honest enough to put those in there even if they did hide them.

Then there's the matter of thie "experts" - You've got an Army Col making judgments on a 30-year old ANG unit operation at a time and under conditions that he has no experience with. Really? What bull****. Kinda sounds like the experts CBS brought in to validate the recent and unlamented "Bush memos."

Lots and lots of other problems with that article - some of them with the organization that leaves the reader confused, some of them with conclusions that are drawn out of the ether, a few of them with facts and some of them with the unwarranted "slant" that's put on the whole thing.

Here's one of the "factual" ones for you - from the Globe -
"Under Air National Guard rules at the time, guardsmen who missed duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted into the Army as draftees."

That's pure garbage. Bush was a pilot - and an officer - drafting him into the Army was NOT an option. Now if he'd been an E-2? Yeah - and that's where your friends article comes in. But the only purpose to that statement was either total ignorance or - Oh my God, there's that word again - BIAS. Meaning - one more way to make Bush look bad, whether there was any truth to it or not. Ptui.

Now - for the rest - have you actually taken the article and whatever other information is available - and tried to put a timeline together? If you haven't done that, then I seriously doubt that you know where Bush was or when he was there. But keep in mind this - again from the Globe - two places -
"That is the same month that Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian effectively declared Bush missing from duty."

" it leaves unexplained why Bush's two superior officers would have declared him absent for the full year."

And both of them are not just inaccurate but outright lies (or ignorance - your choice). Why? Because those officers COULD not rate him -- not necessarily because he wasn't there, but certainly because they had not observed his performance for a long enough period of time. Was that because he was "absent for the full year" as the Globe states? Maybe - maybe not - but assuming it to be so doesn't make it so. The assumption illustrates only the bias of those who make the assumption - not the truth of the assumption.

The final nail in the coffin, Chris - is this - that that article was written in May - and has lain dormant for over 3 months. If it really supported the "Bush is a deserter" case - it would have been plastered all over every media outlet in the world for the last three months by the Democrats. Resurrecting that kind of stuff now - is nothing but distraction and misdirection from the real issues.

What really matters to me is the person Bush has become - AND the person that Kerry has become. And I'll tell you that regardless of what Bush has done or not done in the past - Kerry ain't fit to shine his shoes. Not then - not now - not when Hell freezes over.

For Steve - it was Michael Moore who accused Bush of being a deserter - and if you're gonna believe anything Moore says, then I'm glad I don't live in your head. :)

Finally - I didn't come here to defend Bush - I hate doing that. What I'd STILL like to know is what I asked in the beginning - Does ANYONE know of ANY good reason to vote for Kerry? Other than voting against Bush?

Truth be known, I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" in the past - and I will again this time. But I won't be voting for a man who's a self-proven liar, a self-confessed war criminal, a hypocrite in both action and word, a flipflopper extraordinaire, a strong anti-defense Senator ( in fact - the strongest anti-defense Senator), and incapable of making a real decision. To say nothing of his arrogance and rudeness to anyone he considers his inferior - which is just about everyone who can't further his career. Anyone who's been a Senator for 20 years and has compiled as unenviable, unsavory and undistinguished a record as Kerry has nothing positive to offer the United States as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

bunbun

09-15-2004, 18:04

Yeah, having a shirker and a bunch of chickenhawks running the country in time of war is a great idea. :confused:

But you don't have to take my word for, take Hack's.

http://www.hackworth.com/archive.html

Sly - been there - and I know where he's got his head - the same place as Rather. And for the same reason - laziness and arrogance.

C'ya

Sly

09-15-2004, 18:16

Yet you'll believe every word of the Swifties? Most of them never even knew Kerry in Vietnam, including the author. And have you ever checked out the reputation of co-author?

I'm sorry, but if I'm going to believe anyone, it's going to be the most decorated living American*

*Atleast I think that Hack owns that distinction. And even if he isn't, he's right up there.

Sly

09-15-2004, 18:35

Read here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002605.html

Check out the links.

c.coyle

09-15-2004, 18:44

Truth be known, I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" in the past - and I will again this time.

The problem with this election is the evil of two lessers. ;)

That old hiker, Ambrose Bierce, said it best in the Devil's Dictionary:

"POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."

"VOTE, n.
The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country."

Let's hike.

Sly

09-15-2004, 18:48

I've already got one honk and a thumbs up...

http://i20.ebayimg.com/01/i/02/20/95/c8_1.JPG

Lone Wolf

09-15-2004, 19:04

Wow. Deep. :rolleyes:

Alligator

09-15-2004, 19:19

I've already got one honk and a thumbs up...

A different choice of picture with that exact wording will get you many more honks.;) I'll bet even LW would honk at that.

It would also get you kicked off an airplane.

Sly

09-15-2004, 19:44

Yeah I know it's kind of silly, but better than "Trim the Bushes" or "Four More Wars."

:jump

Frosty

09-15-2004, 20:23

Sgt. Rock, your own military service puts that of John Forbes Kerry to shame, he was a political son using his military service for political gainThis is the first time I ever heard of anyone who went to Vietnam for political gain. I seem to recall it was rather UNpopular at the time.

Anyway, as one who spent a year and a half on the ground in Vietnam with the 25th Infantry (1968-1969), I have to respect ANYONE who spent time there, especially if wounded and especially if decorated. Regardless of what he has done or said since, he was there.

I think it poor form to attempt to diminish a decorated soldier because you disagree with his political platform. He was decorated for bravery. That, to someone who was there, is impressive. You say that there are well-documented accounts of officers decorating themselves, but I don't know of any. Maybe there are. That doesn't mean everyone else who received a medal didn't earn it. I do know that I witnessed many acts of bravery, none of which were awarded. Maybe Kerry's acts of bravery were less than these, I don't know. Maybe, in addition to the awards, he had his own unacknowledged acts of bravery. Again, I don't know.

But he was there. His life was at risk every day. Attack his political stance, but not what he did thirty-some years ago. You are insulting all veterans.

bunbun

09-15-2004, 21:09

I disagree Jim.
I have disagreed with much of what you have written, and have posted here sparingly regarding politics. I believe that money and power can have tremendous influence in our society. I have no idea if Bush did everything that he was supposed to do. I simply find (in this case) the honorable discharge explaination weak. I also find the acceptance of that explaination convenient. You or I could not get out of a military obligation during a war to work on a political campaign - and you know it. The son of a powerful politician can get those sorts of arrangements. I have some problems with that - especially when a lot of soldiers who came from poor families died because they didn't have those sort of choices.

I hope we can agree to disagree.

Yes, for the most part we can agree to disagree - but there's something you overlook. Actually several somethings.

First, that for whatever reason Bush was given an honorable discharge - it is STILL the responsibility of his commanding officer. Not Lt Bush. Questioning Bush's integrity over that IS insulting to a lot of people.

Second - that your denigrating his honorable discharge also denigrates ALL honorable discharges - whether you realize it or not.

Third - questioning his activities for some particular period of time is not something I'm gonna beat up on you about - IF - you come up with "REAL" facts - not the ersatz stuff that's been thrown around here. What's been posted here so far has been media speculation with a few real facts thrown in to give it the appearance of truth. Chris is throwing out articles that were written in May - that's old news - and not very interesting anymore except to those who think they can "re-invent" the story.

Fourth - Have you tried to "get out of a military obligation during a war to work on a political campaign"? Your assumption - again - is an assumption, not fact. I know people who have done just that. And their name wasn't Bush. But they WERE officers - and not enlisted.

Fifth - you overlook the fact that Kerry got the same honorable discharge - and served very little, if any more time than Bush did. In point of fact - Kerry "escaped" more active duty time than Bush is accused of "escaping."

Sixth - Kerry's obligation after being released from active duty is no less valid a subject of conversation than Bush's service. In other words - where ARE the records of his Ready Reserve drills? More to the point, if Bush's military records are of such major interest, why is there so little interest in Kerry's records? Especially since he's refused to release them. Yeah - I know - he says they've been released - all 6 pages of them. So where are the other 100 pages that the Navy says are still there and have not been released?

Seventh - for Sly - I didn't question Kerry's honorable discharge - I questioned his service records. Where are they? And along the way, there were specific words about Kerry's crimes. Notice - I didn't put that in quotes. They're not "alleged" crimes - they come from his own words in his own book, writings, Senate speeches and sworn testimony/ As I told Weary last night - you might also want to think about how he managed to stay out of jail. That plays into the money and power thing, guys. Kerry's no more clean on that one than you've assumed about Bush.

Eighth - I come from a place where money and power were misused so egregiously that I left the state ASAP. The use of money and power by the Bushes has been legitimate in all respects as far as I've seen. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. But don't quote me Kitty Kelly's trash book. In any case, their activities don't even come close to the misuse I've seen by people like the Kennedys - and I know more about that than you'll find in any book. Some of my ex-wife's relatives are Kennedys.

Ninth - I was one of those soldiers from poor families. As were my father, brother, uncles, cousins, nephews and nearly every other male in my family since about 1640. As are most of those who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Maybe you should ask some of them how they feel about all this? Or maybe you can just ask some of the ones who have come back? Are there some of them who would agree with you? I'd be surprised if there weren't. I'd also make a large bet that the vast majority have more understanding of why they are/were there than any of those who want to "bring them home" without finishing the job they went over there for. One of the few things I disagree with Sgt Rock about is his statement that soldiers are "undereducated" - I've found soldiers at all levels to be better educated than their civilian counterparts.

Tenth - I forgot one - you seem to forget that Bush DID fly for the Guard for over 4 years even if he were to be missing for the year you're so upset about (which, of course, has yet to be proved). So - how does that fit into the calculations of desertion? Um - for Sly - $50,000? Is that all? Cheap, aren't they?

Now I could go on to discuss Kerry's post-Vietnam activities if you like, but let's save that one - it'll come of it's own accord. Although while we're here - maybe you should also start thinking about Kerry's FBI files. Believe me, you would find those interesting reading.

bunbun

09-15-2004, 21:30

Read here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002605.html

Check out the links.

Yeah - I did. What I found was the usual - the clever use of words to disguise a lack of reality. I'll give you an example from another context - this came from another anti-Bush website. Look at it carefully.

The Bush camp has spread vast lies about the effect of John Kerry's anti-war statements on the outcome of the Vietnam War. The Bush liars would have you believe that North Vietnamese leaders published memoirs in which they praised the anti-war movement in general and Kerry in particular for helping them win the war.

It's all lies -- consider.

LIE: I recently saw this question posted on a Usenet newsgroup: "I have seen a web site that contains the memoirs of a North Vietnamese general who said he was about to give up but the anti war movement caused him to continue. Where is that web site?"

FACT: What you have in mind is surely one of the many web sites that claim
General Vo Nguyen Giap had said that. But the claim is false.
General Giap has not actually said that.

Recognize it? You should - we've already been here.

They very carefully tell you that Giap never said that. What they fail to tell you is that General Bui Tin DID say it. And Bui Tin was the NVA General who accepted the surrender of the South in 1975. Did they lie - or were they ignorant? How naive are you?

Likewise from your site - they fail to tell you that Kerry's crew refused to back him up on the Cambodia story. But they sure do go on about O'Neill.

Everything I found on that site uses exactly the same tactics - misdirection, distraction, insinuation and obfuscation. Of course, I didn't check ALL the links yet - did I miss something - or did you? :)

MOWGLI

09-15-2004, 21:50

Yes, for the most part we can agree to disagree......

Good, I'm glad. BTW - I base virtually all my feelings on my reaction to seeing & hearing Dubya try and explain the record himself. Not on anything else.

Blue Jay

09-16-2004, 08:56

bunbun

09-16-2004, 22:09

Sorry Bunbun, to move this away from your favorite subject, John Kerry, but you appear to be one of the few rational Bush supporters I have read. If we are even slightly worried about domestic terrorism, why has the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that of illegal aliens from countries supporting terrorism who had been ordered to be deported, only 6% of those not in custody were actually removed.

There are many reasons for this according to the OIG. The border patrol's electronic finger print ID system has limited criminal data and in fact cannot talk to the FBI system. The INS can hold individuals until they can be deported however, state law enforcement authorities are not permitted to hold them for long. If Homeland Security agents do not show up promptly, which is clearly very often, THEY ARE LET GO. For less than 1% of money spent on the Iraq War. We could protect ourselves, why don't we? Could it be there is no terrorism threat? That we are being scammed.

BJ - Rational? Sheesh - do you have any idea what some other people call me? :D

Now let's answer some questions -
First off - I don't have the answer to your direct question - and it's one of the things *I* have a problem with - not just with this adminstration, but with previous ones as well. Oh my God - I just said I had a problem with "Bush" didn't I.

So what's new - I've said that before. But let's take a closer look at it. Personal experience - When we (my wife and I) finished the CDT at the Mexican border, we crossed the border to get a beer - and no one even looked twice at us. Nor did anyone question us when we came back across the border. A week later we visited a friend in Sonoita on the Arizona border. Not only was there no problem crossing the border, but if you walked 50 yards west from the border crossing station, there was a hole in the fence that you could drive a pick-em-up truck through. And from the tracks, there were people who obviously did just that. When we started the PCT at the Mexican border there was a Border Patrol agent watching the fence - but when we got to the Canadian border - nobody even questioned us until we tried to get on a train in Vancouver to get back into the States - and then they got right nasty with us. Wide open border? Yep - Is it still that way? Dunno. But I'll find out in 2006 when we go back there to do the CDT again. Another problem to lay at Bush's feet, right? WRONG. This was in 1999 and 2000. Remember who was President back then?

The problem is that the border has been wide open for so long that it'll take a long time to close it off entirely. They've built fences in some of the most "used" corridors - and they're building more. And the illegals tunnel under them, fly over them, climb over them - and just keep on coming. Is Bush doing anything? Yeah - but it takes time and money. And just throwing money at it doesn't get the job done - it STILL takes time.

Now - do I have a problem with Bush ? Yeah - more than one. I have a problem with the way Tora Bora was handled - there was a lesson there that was learned by the Romans 1400 years ago, so Osama-baby escaped. I have a problem with the fact that Franks & Co allowed whole divisions of the Republican Guard to escape near Baghdad - I'm not sure how they missed the fact that those puppies were gonna start a guerilla war, but they did. And I have a problem with the fact that Homeland Security is another damn bureaucracy with all the problems that go with that. But it's still better than what we had before - and at least they got rid of the damn "wall" that Bubba & Co put up between agencies.

So - is that reason for anyone to start the "lynch Bush" chant? Let's not get stupid here. How much do you know about WWI --- or WWII? Do you have any idea how many of those same kind of errors were made during those wars? Or maybe you'l like to ask Baltimore Jack how many lives were lost in the first day at Antietam during the Civil War? Generals are human - they make mistakes. Presidents are human - they make mistakes. Just like you. Yeah, I know - their mistakes cost more lives than yours do - sometimes.

Sometimes? Yeah - cause if enough people allow themselves to be flummoxed into voting for the wrong person in this election, as I've said before - you ain't never seen a wreck like this one's gonna be.

The 9/11 killers could have been stopped from coming in to the country. On whos watch were they allowed in and why is the door still open? Iraq is a diversion, a damned good one.

Really? Some of the 9/11 killers were in this country before Bush was even elected. It was, in fact, Bubba & Co who instituted the "wall" between the CIA and the FBI so they couldn't exchange information. It was Bubba & Co that cut the intelligence budgets to the point that there was no money (and therefore, no people) to accomplish the mission. Whose watch are we talking about?

Straight talk - NO President prior to Bush took terrorism all that seriously. Reagan had other concerns - like the Cold War. He even allowed the State Dept to dictate the defense (or lack of defense) procedures for the Beirut barracks. Yeah - he made some mistakes, too. Then came Bush Sr. He had Iraq to think about - the Gulf War I. Terrorism was a minor concern - not zero but not high on the priority list either. Then came Bubba. And terrorism became less important than his golf game. Read "Dereliction of Duty" and find out how he missed bagging Osama-baby because he was playing golf and didn't want to be interrupted. Or maybe you remember how he refused to accept Osama when he was offered up free-of-charge by Sudan? Hmm - do you even know about the time we had a Seal Team in place to bag him and Bubba failed to give the "go" until it was too late? The best (worst?) thing that Bubba did to the terroists was to send in some cruise missiles and blow up a couple mud huts. Y'see, Bubba looked at terrorism as a "criminal" matter. He never understood that they'd declared war on us. No - I'm not beating up on him - just reminding you of some facts.

And getting to the point - how do you think Kerry would handle terrorism? He's already said that "We'll respond to it." You DO understand that the word "respond" means "after the fact", don't you? Don't you think it's a little late to be "responding" after Ahab the Arab has set off a pocket nuke in downtown New York? Well, I do - I don't need another President that's flipfloppy about how to handle terrorists. I don't need another "legalist" whose idea of punishing terrorists is to "capture them and put them on trial."

And I for sure don't need someone who can't make up his mind.

Blue Jay

09-17-2004, 07:48

Good answer, Bunbun. I'd like to give anyone else a try.

The Old Fhart

09-17-2004, 10:21

After a nice break away from this thread I check back and what do I find? Bunbun, you never cease to amaze! Your statements keep changing and getting dumber and dumber. You need to change your name to Dumdum (phonetic spelling)

Let me give you an example. You now say in post #654: ” They very carefully tell you that Giap never said that. What they fail to tell you is that General Bui Tin DID say it. And Bui Tin was the NVA General who accepted the surrender of the South in 1975. Did they lie - or were they ignorant? How naive are you? “

Whoa! Don’t you remember how you filled this thread with pages of your “facts” about Giap saying:
(Bunbun)-“You won't get this from the mainstream media, but if you look in the right places you'll find the quote by Gen Giap (the North Vietmnamese General) where he thanks John Kerry (among others) for giving the North Vietnamese the encouragement to keep the war going - after they'd decided it was lost and they were gonna quit.” Rhetorical question, of course, but you just want others to forget you not only said it but defended the Giap statement after I pointed out how false it was. Actually, a little preface to put this all into context;
(Bunbun Post #423)-I'm an engineer, an INTP and a pragmatic iconoclast. I deal in facts, I eat them for breakfast, I dream about them, I live with them, use them, play with them - and I get a severe case of monkey butt over those who have as little respect for them as those who've fed you the line of BS you seem to believe. Show me some facts, Well, here are Bunbun “facts”

Post #393-the Giap quote - I don't have it handy, but I'll find it again later.
Post #400-Got it - but you'll have to do some research. The place I saw the Giap quote recently was here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...10/222651.shtml
Post #414-Hmmm - really?? OK - I'll play -- first, your references are circular. Meaning - one source prints it, then the others reference the original, at which point it's become TRUTH. Now - OTOH I do like some of your sources --- and I'll likely use them in the future. BUT -- getting back to the subject at hand ---
Try this link (it's not one I have any control over - nor can it be said to be a right wing nut site) -
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...1547080-3193625
So - what's real and what's not, Fhart? I remember reading this a lot of years ago, but I don't have the book anymore. I suppose I should get another copy - but is it really worth it? Hmmm ---
Post #430-Actually - I just ordered the book, if you do likewise then we can compare notes.
Post #430-Bottom line - the book exists, someone said that the quote exists, I even remember the passage (but that doesn't count here). So since the book exists someone can go read the thing and find out if the quote is there. Why don't you do that?
Post #438-Have you ordered Giap's book yet? Better hurry - mine is on the way.
Post #475-Now - "lies and distortions"? - point'em out, Fhart You say you have - my question is - "WHERE DID YOU DO THAT?" Without going back and reading the whole thread again, memory says you haven't gotten to that part yet. Try again - and be specific. You posted most of this garbage after I showed you (my posts #403 and 427) that the source for this quote, from one of your own favorite links, had printed a retraction saying the whole story was an “urban legend”. http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8129.shtml (03-02-04) A few weeks ago in a column about Kerry, I referred to what has turned out to be an 'urban legend.' Specifically, based on a 'news' item that appeared on NewsMax.com, I repeated a reference to a volume of memoirs supposedly published by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1985 as the source of an assertion by Colonel Oliver North. After a reader requested a reference to Giap's 1985 "Memoirs," I did research that convinced me no such volume exists. For that matter, I haven't been able to verify through Fox News that Colonel North actually made the comments he is said to have made and which I repeated. My apologies to Colonel North and to WashingtonDispatch.com readers for including inadequately verified material in my piece on Kerry.
So what was your reaction when confronted with “facts” proving you were wrong and you were only parroting conspiracy theory crap? Predictable, you attacked me and use a laughable Amazon.com book review to support your distorted view of reality! I again showed you to be in error in post #427 but you still supported the false statement and said: “post #475- "lies and distortions"? - point'em out, Fhart You say you have - my question is - "WHERE DID YOU DO THAT?"

So after filling pages with your conspiracy crap that you knew to be lies, you post #520:
“- So - as long as we've gotten there, let's settle that piece of business - the Giap book (How We Won the War) states in two places that the antiwar movement helped to forge a climate of public opinion that contributed to the loss of the Vietnam war. Both places were in the foreword which was written by a member of the US antiwar movement, and he made it plain that people like Kerry and Fonda were a great asset to the Communist propaganda effort. So - whether North was right or wrong in his reference (and that has yet to be established), the basic concept has been proved - even though Giap did NOT write the specific words.
BUT - the words that Weary and Fhart objected to WERE written - not by Giap but by one of his cohorts (General Bui Tin) in his memoirs. Reference: http://www.vwam.com/vets/buitin.html Oh, so now you admit you were wrong, that Giap never made that statement (I told you so) but you claim that he was thinking that or someone else in the same country made the statement! Totally pathetic! Where are your facts? Checking your own reference on Tin, he states: “Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor." Where does he mention Giap saying anything? You have no facts so, as usual, you resort to innuendo, distortions, and conspiracy theory. Now you claim Bin Tin made the statement, who next, Jack Ruby? This is a shining example of your facts: “So - whether North was right or wrong in his reference (and that has yet to be established), the basic concept has been proved - even though Giap did NOT write the specific words. Your posts should be transferred to the humor thread. All your so-called facts are so limp that there isn’t enough Viagra in the world to help them pass muster! It is so funny that you use a convicted liar, Oliver North, to help support your statements!

One last thing, you mention on post #581 “The "right wing fringe propaganda sites like "newsmax"" as you call them - along with cnsnews.com - and realclearpolitics.com and gazette.com and townhall.com and humaneventsonline.com and washingtondispatch.com/ - and talk radio and other "alternative outlets" -- present news that the NY Times fails to consider news because of their liberal/left bias. Actually, all these sites you mention are the same ones that posted the Giap-Kerry urban legend as “fact”. Their believability is 2 steps below the National Enquirer! The reason they print garbage like that is they are spoon-feeding this crap to people like you who willingly gobble it up. The mainstream press, while not neutral, avoids printing obvious lies and fabrications. So remember your statement: “ I deal in facts, I eat them for breakfast……………? Try showing us some facts for a change of pace. You are going to wither away on your present diet.

I’ll leave you to your predictable ranting and raving about how I’m distorting your actual words. You might want to note that you’re the only one on this thread that believes you. Everyone else is having a good laugh at you.

bunbun

09-17-2004, 14:42

Y'know, Fhart - whatever you're on, you should really switch to a better brand. :)

Let me give you an example. You now say in post #654: ” They very carefully tell you that Giap never said that. What they fail to tell you is that General Bui Tin DID say it. And Bui Tin was the NVA General who accepted the surrender of the South in 1975. Did they lie - or were they ignorant? How naive are you? “

Whoa! Don’t you remember how you filled this thread with pages of your “facts” about Giam saying: Rhetorical question, of course, but you just want others to forget you not only said it but defended the Giam statement after I pointed out how false it was.

First - you should really get the man's name correct - it's GIAP -- not Giam.

The original question, Fhart, was whether Kerry and the antiwar movement gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The question was NOT specifically "did Giap say this or did someone else say it", but whether ANYONE knowledgable said it. Bui Tin qualifies as knowledgable. You should pay more attention. ;)

Greg Lewis did retract his statement. Ollie North did NOT. WHY? I don't know - but since you want to continue playing here - I've asked him. I'll let you know when he gets back to me.

In the meantime, your contention that there are no 1985 Giap Memoirs is an "assumption" on your part. I know - Greg Lewis couldn't find them, but if you check, you'll find that there is a volume of Giap Memoirs covering the years up to 1950. It's labelled Volume 1. Presumably there was a Volume 2. Maybe not, but until we find out, you should really hold onto your jockstrap.

And - if you recall - my "defense" of the "Giap statement" was to challenge you to get the same book that I got so we could both be on the same page and working from the same information.

So what was your reaction when confronted with “facts” proving you were wrong and you were only parroting conspiracy theory crap? Predictable, you attacked me and use a laughable Amazon.com book review to support your distorted view of reality!

My reaction, Fhart, was to find the correct reference - and put it out on Whiteblaze. Which is a more honest - and useful - reaction than your frothing-at-the-mouth responses.

I also got a copy of Giap's book "How We Won the War" and read it again. In the Foreword, Danny Schecter writes in, not one, but two places, that the US antiwar movement was of great help to the North Vietnamese in their "liberation struggle." If you really want it, I'll get you the exact wording. The book is on the shelf at home.

You seem to forget that I also challenged you to match the effort I was making to verify the information. I notice you didn't bother to get the book.

Note carefully - I HAVE NOT attacked you - yet. If I ever do, there'll be no question in anyone's mind about what's happening.

So after filling pages with your conspiracy crap that you knew to be lies, you post #520: Oh, so now you admit you were wrong, that Giam never made that statement (I told you so) but you claim that he was thinking that or someone else in the same country made the statement!

I already said that, Fhart. Now - the words you seem to have neglected to mention - from the Wall Street journal interview with Bui Tin:

"Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was."

"If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Which is pretty much what I said in the first place - and what Weary specifically objected to.

And your next quote was incomplete - the complete quote should read like this (I've changed the emphasis to illustrate what you left out):

"Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor." .

Where does he mention Giap saying anything?

A couple paragraphs back there, Fhart - pay attention.

You can find more here:
http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp
http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapons/colonelbuitinpage.htm
http://www.vwam.com/vets/buitin.html

You have no facts so, as usual, you resort to innuendo, distortions, and conspiracy theory. Now you claim Bin Tin made the statement, who next, Jack Ruby?

Well - you're the one who came back with the partial Bui Tin quote, babe. :-?

It is so funny that you use a convicted liar, Oliver North, to help support your statements!

I won't argue about the "liar" thing re: North - but that doesn't change the fact that Kerry is both a liar and an unindicted war criminal :D

I’ll leave you to your predictable ranting and raving about how I’m distorting your actual words.

What? You think you aren't?

You might want to note that you’re the only one on this thread that believes you. Everyone else is having a good laugh at you.

Cool - at least this is all good for something. :D

Tim Rich

09-17-2004, 19:43

Greetings,

I'll have to say that Jim's not alone in his views. I'm right there. I'll freely admit that I'm having a good laugh, but not at Jim. I have no intention of exerting any energy for the lost cause of trying to sway those on the list or defend those who need no defending from this tiny, tiny little slice of the world.

I will post a link to one of my favorite authors, Thomas Sowell. One hour of browsing his archived columns would do everyone on this list good.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml

Other than that, hiking talk is just fine with me.

Take Care,

Tim

weary

09-17-2004, 20:33

Bun Bun try to be honest and admit that you were sucked in by a whole lot of right wing "news" agencies. Start reading the honest press and you may discover some truths.

Yes. Bun Bun, no press source is always correct, or ever totally correct for that matter. I rarely have been at a news event that the press got totally accurate. But it is not the result of a vast left wing conspiracy, that's a figment of your imagination. It's just that the press is made up of human beings with ordinary human failings. Absolute truth is not possible. Yes. Dan Rather has outlived his usefulness. His reporting was inexcusable. His unwillingness to admit the same means it's time to go.

But that doesn't mean that he or anyone else deliberately distorted the story. I worked in the business for nearly 40 years. I've known and worked beside hundreds of reporters. With one or two exceptions they were all honest, hardworking, albeit somewhat incompetent people, seeking the truth to the limit of their abilities.

Anyone who thinks this is a left wing conspiracy is simply dreaming. Or didn't read the press during Clinton's years in office. Never in my experience was have I seen greater pack journalism than the effort to win a Pulitzer Prize by uncovering some critical bit of information that would destroy Clinton's presidency.

But like Rather, you can't bring yourself to admit mistakes, Jimmy. You can't admit that you were sucked in by false information spouted by a cabal that doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.

You're as bad as our president, who when asked if there was anything he now wishes he had done differently, couldn't think of a single example.

Many thanks to Old Fhart for taking the time to point out your many inconsistencies and falsehoods. Knowing the press and knowing your sources, my instincts told me that your messages were mostly crap. I just lacked to energy to document and research them out as he has done.

Weary

bunbun

09-17-2004, 22:20

Bun Bun try to be honest and admit that you were sucked in by a whole lot of right wing "news" agencies. Start reading the honest press and you may discover some truths.

So - you think Dan Rather is "honest"?

Yes. Bun Bun, no press source is always correct, or ever totally correct for that matter. I rarely have been at a news event that the press got totally accurate. But it is not the result of a vast left wing conspiracy,

You're right about the "seldom get it right" stuff - most of the time it's the result of simple ignorance compounded by arrogance - and sometimes with a little stupidity mixed in. Well - that's how it used to be. But I've noticed a change over the last 10 or 15 years - and it's not for the better.

that's a figment of your imagination. It's just that the press is made up of human beings with ordinary human failings. Absolute truth is not possible. Yes. Dan Rather has outlived his usefulness. His reporting was inexcusable. His unwillingness to admit the same means it's time to go.

Ah - but Dan isn't the only one. Recent survey - Washington journalists favor Kerry 12 to 1. Now, telling me that that doesn't affect their reporting is simply dumb. In fact, one of them is even honest enough to admit to the bias - and figures it's worth about 15 points in the polls for Kerry because of the way the news is slanted. If true (and I have no reason to doubt him) then an honest press would result in Kerry being essentially out of the race by now. But then, he never should have been in it from the start. :-?

No - it's not my imagination, Bob - Read "Weapons of Mass Distortion". I know - you won't. You have some things in common with Rather. Well, then read Stossel's "Give me a Break" - he's a journalist of sorts and it's a fun book. Well, it's fun for me - but then it would destroy too many of your illusions.

Fact is - I didn't come to the "media bias" conclusion because of what others say or write - I did that all on my own - all I had to do was to take an honest look at what was being written in the Washington Post and compare it to what I knew was happening cause I talk to some of the people they were writing about and know some of the situations they cover. And I did that 25 years ago - long before the Internet and talk radio. :)

But that doesn't mean that he or anyone else deliberately distorted the story. I worked in the business for nearly 40 years. I've known and worked beside hundreds of reporters. With one or two exceptions they were all honest, hardworking, albeit somewhat incompetent people, seeking the truth to the limit of their abilities.

Now you're verging on stupidity. The memos are fake but the story is true nonetheless? Give me a break - it doesn't work like that, Bubba. If you're gonna insult the intelligence of everyone on Whiteblaze, at least be a little subtle about it. Hell man, you can't even fool the liberals about that - his ratings in New York since this flap started have dropped to dead last - after every other news source. Pay attention, man!

Anyone who thinks this is a left wing conspiracy is simply dreaming. Or didn't read the press during Clinton's years in office. Never in my experience was have I seen greater pack journalism than the effort to win a Pulitzer Prize by uncovering some critical bit of information that would destroy Clinton's presidency.

Of course you have - over the last six months. And particularly over the last couple weeks. Or aren't you paying attention - like to the fact that the Democrats baldly stated that they were gonna attack Bush's service right up till the election. How did you miss that - it was even in the Washington Post - and there was no apology for the fact that they had nothing new to offer at the tiime - just the same recycled crap that they'd trotted out 4 times previously. And once again, the media is playing puppy-dog for the liberal/left.

But like Rather, you can't bring yourself to admit mistakes, Jimmy. You can't admit that you were sucked in by false information spouted by a cabal that doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.

If I was sucked in, I'd admit it - I don't have that much ego wrapped up iin this. But so far nobody's managed to even attempt to show me any proof of that. Where's the beef, Bob? In fact, where's ANY factual informaton to disprove ANYTHING I've put out here in the last couple weeks? You can't even pick up on the places where I actually do make mistakes.

Like Rather, your attitude seems to be - "I know it's true so I don't have to prove it." And that's called arrogance - among other things.

You're as bad as our president, who when asked if there was anything he now wishes he had done differently, couldn't think of a single example.

Well - truth be known, I've been waiting for someone - anyone - to bring up a couple errors that I'd made in this thread. Nothing major, but I'm still waiting. Now - I could have corrected those errors - but it's kinda like the mapmakers who leave small errors in their maps so they'll know when someone is plagiarizing their work. In this case, what the lack of response tells me is that either NOBODY here has done any research on their own in order to find those errors - or the very few who are actually open-minded and intelligent enough to check things out for themselves agree with me. Or dont care. As I told Shades - I may be hangin' out here swingin' in the breeze by myself - but it's my ass --- and I ain't seein' any competition yet.

Many thanks to Old Fhart for taking the time to point out your many inconsistencies and falsehoods. Knowing the press and knowing your sources, my instincts told me that your messages were mostly crap. I just lacked to energy to document and research them out as he has done.

You didn't actually read what he read - much less read my answers, did you? Remember when I told someone one time about the 4 foot piles of horse crap in the Wyoming desert? Well, your post just exceeded the height of his - and his pile of horse pucky was higher than those the horses left out there in the desert. :D

If the Fhart actually managed to point out any inconsistencies and falsehoods, maybe you could point them out to me? I think we took care of most of his objections this afternoon. Of course, I have great faith that he'll find new ones - after all, he DOES have an agenda to protect.

BTW - while you're at it - you might check the UPI releases for April 6, 2004 under the title "A mini-Tet Offensive". Has some interesting words about the anti-war movement and General Vo Nguyen Giap. It even confirms Ollie North's words. I'm still working on finding the source for the Giap quote - see, the problem here is that I heard or read that quote about 25 years ago. It was actually common knowledge back then - so I know it's out there. The only question is - which of his books does it show up in - and can I get a copy? Preferably in English - my Vietnamese sucks.

I know - you won't read anything, you won't check anything. But then, that's not a surprise. I never expect anything like real research out of you - just opinion. I learned that long ago.

Finally - hi, Tim - and thanks for the vote of confidence. :banana

The Old Fhart

09-18-2004, 09:45

(Bunbun)-First - you should really get the man's name correct - it's GIAP -- not Giam.

In my last post I misspelled Giap’s name 3 times but in all my previous posts, and in the quotes where the name appears 13 times in my last post, I spelled the name correctly. But I really think we should all mark this down, for once, Bunbun was right- I made a spelling error. I have edited the post to correct that error.

However, that’s the only legitimate fault he could find in my post. His biggest complaint was I never bought a book to prove his quote on Giap was wrong (Bunbun was indeed very wrong). His feeble response now is: “The question was NOT specifically "did Giap say this or did someone else say it", but whether ANYONE knowledgable said it. Bui Tin qualifies as knowledgable. You should pay more attention.” Well, Bunbun, YOU should pay more attention. You set the criteria by continually stating that people use facts and do real research. If you charge that Giap said something, produce an exact quote that supports that statement, not that someone he knew might have said something not even close, that is called hearsay.

BunBun-“You won't get this from the mainstream media, but if you look in the right places you'll find the quote by Gen Giap (the North Vietmnamese General) where he thanks John Kerry (among others) for giving the North Vietnamese the encouragement to keep the war going - after they'd decided it was lost and they were gonna quit.” First, Bunbun - you should really get the people's name correct - it's VIETNAMESE -- not Vietmnamese.

Nothing you have posted in multiple pages has even come close to supporting that debunked urban legend spread by North and others. Oh, and besides your back peddling on many other points, remember your good buddy Ollie North and you saying:” Ollie North is neither a liar nor an unindicted war criminal? Well now you say: I won't argue about the "liar" thing re: North - but that doesn't change the fact that Kerry is both a liar and an unindicted war criminal”

In your last weak response you include non-relevant information that you claim I didn’t want to post: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. “ What’s your point? You’ve only showed they listened to the radio- big deal. That quote doesn’t have anything to show that Giap or Tin made your alleged statement or anything close to that. It only shows that the VC were doing the same thing that has been done in all wars by all sides and that is gather intelligence. Show us where anyone: “thanks John Kerry (among others) for giving the North Vietnamese the encouragement to keep the war going - after they'd decided it was lost and they were gonna quit.” You can’t do it because it doesn’t exist and you can’t show anything close to that. You should reread the Bui Tin reference you cite and show me where Tin says anything support your conspiracy theory. What he said was: “Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.” Congratulations! You have just “proved” that Tin and Giap knew each other, what a surprise. But one of your own reference goes on to say:
“Bui Tin was particularly appalled at the political humiliation of his long-time mentor, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the hero of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. But what turned him totally and irrevocably against the communist regime was the colonial attitude of his country's leaders toward Laos and Cambodia, which Vietnam's army invaded in 1979. Bui Tin fled Vietnam in 1990 and became a powerful critic of the communist regime from the safety of the U.S.” So you not only proved they knew each other but they came to hate each other. Even with this animosity you still can’t show either of them making your conspiracy theory statement.

Instead of the Giap or the Tin book, you should have recommended that I buy and read “Alice in Wonderland” because that is almost as fanciful as your posts and it is, at least, logical. Oh, I make lots of spelying mistakes, keep checking. :)

smokymtnsteve

09-18-2004, 09:45

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040918/ts_nm/nuclear_korea_dc

weary

09-18-2004, 11:06

Now you're verging on stupidity. The memos are fake but the story is true nonetheless? Give me a break - it doesn't work like that, Bubba. If you're gonna insult the intelligence of everyone on Whiteblaze, at least be a little subtle about it. Hell man, you can't even fool the liberals about that - his ratings in New York since this flap started have dropped to dead last - after every other news source. Pay attention, man!

Almost no one seems to remember seeing Bush where the Guard thought he was supposed to be in Alabama. And I've seen no evidence that he took a required physical

You didn't actually read what he read - much less read my answers, did you? Remember when I told someone one time about the 4 foot piles of horse crap in the Wyoming desert? Well, your post just exceeded the height of his - and his pile of horse pucky was higher than those the horses left out there in the desert. :D

Yeah, Jimmy, Your facts are hard to verify.

If the Fhart actually managed to point out any inconsistencies and falsehoods, maybe you could point them out to me? I think we took care of most of his objections this afternoon. Of course, I have great faith that he'll find new ones - after all, he DOES have an agenda to protect.

Read the Fhart's answer and then tell me who best resembles Dan Rather!

grrickar

09-18-2004, 11:14

SMS, Has it been proven that Bush 'deserted' as you say? Sure there are documents flying around that no one can prove or disprove, same as the testimony of the Swift Boat Vets - can anyone prove anything? Is it just one group of liars against another? Bush was honorably discharged from the service.

Here's my issue with the whole mess: Kerry came back from Vietnam and bashed his brothers in arms. That is a fact. Whether you want to argue that he was bashing the administration at the time or not I heard the man say that war crimes were committed by all. Pretty far-reaching statement.

I don't think we should criticize either candidate for their service. It seems petty.

I know Vets who served honorably and would rather not talk about what they experienced during the war. Kerry was there for like 4 months, right? And he came back making comments regarding the war like he really knew what was going on? My issue with Kerry is the statements he made. As for the medals, who knows if he deserved them? He'll have to live with the fact he lied if he didn't.

Now for the question of did Bush serve honorably. He was discharged honorably.

So you see to say Bush deserted when he was honorably discharged is the same as saying Kerry's medals weren't deserved. In both cases the men were given those items by the military branch they served.

So did Bush skip out on his service and go AWOL? He might have. And Kerry might have lied about the circumstances in which he recieved all or some of his medals.

See my point? Does it really matter now? I think integrity matters, so I would be very disappointed to see that either candidate lied, but as close as this election is I think either side will use any dirty trick they can to bring down the other side. Such is the nature of partisan politics. A bunch of good old Dems and Pubs patting themselves on the back for their self-serving agendas while we sit and watch in disgust.

weary

09-18-2004, 18:08

Chappy

09-18-2004, 22:53

Bandana Man

09-19-2004, 03:23

I have seen no serious evidence either on this list or elsewhere that his service (John Kerry's) was not completely honorable -- and no evidence that his messages to Congress were other than the honest beliefs of a bright, conscientious young man, dedicated to his country.

Weary

How about John Kerry's own words? Might they be considered "serious evidence" I wonder?

In 1971, John Kerry admitted to committing atrocities and war crimes in Vietnam in 1971. In 2001, he did so again. In 2004, however, he denied it.

Now, either he did commit atrocities back then and he is lying now (atrocities=not honorable service) or he did not commit atrocities back then (lying to Congress about atrocities=not honest)

Hmmmmm....

On April 18, 1971, John Kerry gave an interview for the Washington Evening Star. Kerry was asked about statements he made that the U.S. policy in Vietnam was genocide and asked if he had personally committed atrocities or war crimes. Kerry responded that he had committed atrocities and war crimes.

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: 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 calibre 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 is 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.

On May 6, 2001, John Kerry gave an interview to Tim Russert on Meet The Press. Kerry was asked if he stands by his 1971 statement. Kerry backed down from the statement that U.S. policy was genocide, but he stood by the rest of his story.

MR. RUSSERT (after showing the videotape of the 1971 interview): Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

(http://www.hnn.us/articles/3552.html)

Then on April 18, 2004, Kerry again appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. Kerry was asked again about the 1971 statement where he claims he committed atrocities.

MR. RUSSERT (after showing the videotape of the 1971 interview): 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.

(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030)

weary

09-19-2004, 09:17

How about John Kerry's own words? Might they be considered "serious evidence" I wonder?

In 1971, John Kerry admitted to committing atrocities and war crimes in Vietnam in 1971. In 2001, he did so again. In 2004, however, he denied it.

Now, either he did commit atrocities back then and he is lying now (atrocities=not honorable service) or he did not commit atrocities back then (lying to Congress about atrocities=not honest)

Hmmmmm....

On April 18, 1971, John Kerry gave an interview for the Washington Evening Star. Kerry was asked about statements he made that the U.S. policy in Vietnam was genocide and asked if he had personally committed atrocities or war crimes. Kerry responded that he had committed atrocities and war crimes.

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: 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 calibre 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 is 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.

On May 6, 2001, John Kerry gave an interview to Tim Russert on Meet The Press. Kerry was asked if he stands by his 1971 statement. Kerry backed down from the statement that U.S. policy was genocide, but he stood by the rest of his story.

MR. RUSSERT (after showing the videotape of the 1971 interview): Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

(http://www.hnn.us/articles/3552.html)

Then on April 18, 2004, Kerry again appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. Kerry was asked again about the 1971 statement where he claims he committed atrocities.

MR. RUSSERT (after showing the videotape of the 1971 interview): 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.

(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030)

Many thanks for providing us with the dialogue that backs up my statement that: "I have seen no serious evidence either on this list or elsewhere that his service was not completely honorable -- and no evidence that his messages to Congress were other than the honest beliefs of a bright, conscientious young man, dedicated to his country."

Weary

Percival

09-19-2004, 09:27

This is about to overtake thr Rules and Regulations thread (7,493 views) as one of the most viewed bickering threads ever on Whiteblaze. Wonder if it is THE most viewed.

weary

09-19-2004, 10:02

Weary, the military was trying to get rid of people 1971-73. Don't you remember the RIF (Reduction in Force)? Bush wouldn't have been missed, just as I wasn't missed when they curtailed my time by four months (and I was active duty). Please play fair!

Marian Knox, who was secretary to Bush's commanding officer, agrees that the latest documents are bogus, but said, "However, the information in there is correct," adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with."

Weary

Bandana Man

09-19-2004, 10:29

Many thanks for providing us with the dialogue that backs up my statement that: "I have seen no serious evidence either on this list or elsewhere that his service was not completely honorable -- and no evidence that his messages to Congress were other than the honest beliefs of a bright, conscientious young man, dedicated to his country."

Weary

Weary, you need to read the quotes again but this time without your blinders on. Either Kerry DID commit atrocities in Vietnam and he is lying now, which means he did not serve honorably, OR he did NOT commit atrocities in Vietnam, which means he lied to Congress about the atrocities back in the 1970s and is not honest. You cannot have it both ways.

Percival, it is difficult to express an opposing opinion without it sounding like bickering. So far, we haven't descended to the name-calling phase, which is when it really becomes bickering! I hope we keep this discussion at a level of respect where we just share our different opinions without resorting to personal attacks. I have nothing personal against Weary; I just have a different opinion that I would like to express. Are we cool?

Bandana Man

09-19-2004, 10:47

Marian Knox, who was secretary to Bush's commanding officer, agrees that the latest documents are bogus, but said, "However, the information in there is correct," adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with."

Weary

Good article in the Washington Post about how CBS bungled the story. Hope this link works for you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18.html

Also, it appears CBS got the memos from former Sen. Max Cleland, who is working closely with the Kerry campaign. Can you imagine the fury from the left if Fox News presented forged documents from a Republican ex-Senator and tried to pass it off as proof that John Kerry did not deserve his medals? :-?

Go to this link: http://www.ap.org/
and click on the story "Man linked to Bush memos contacted Cleland"

P.S. Don't ya just LOVE that new CBS slogan? "Forged but accurate news". Or how about "All the news that's fit to forge."

weary

09-19-2004, 11:16

Also, it appears CBS got the memos from former Sen. Max Cleland, who is working closely with the Kerry campaign. Can you imagine the fury from the left if Fox News presented forged documents from a Republican ex-Senator and tried to pass it off as proof that John Kerry did not deserve his medals? :-?
."

Bandana: Those were helpful links. But they do not suggest that Cleland gave the memos to CBS. I suspect Bill Burkett gave the forged memos to CBS and tried to give them to Kerry through Cleland.

The links provide some credibility for my speculation that the White House knew the documents were forgeries, but declined to alert CBS in order to weaken what the White House considered a hostile news outlet, and in order to allow the emergence of fake documents to raise suspicion about all accounts of Bush's wartime service.

Weary

Bandana Man

09-19-2004, 11:49

Yep, we're both just speculating. No way to know yet. We'll Just have to wait and see what happens next.

bunbun

09-20-2004, 17:29

However, that’s the only legitimate fault he could find in my post. His biggest complaint was I never bought a book to prove his quote on Giap was wrong (Bunbun was indeed very wrong).

No - the "fault" was and is that you keep misquoting me. This time you did it by failing to include this -

The original question, Fhart, was whether Kerry and the antiwar movement gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

If you have any doubt about that, then maybe you should talk to these people -

Kenneth W. Cordier, Canton , OH - POW time: 6 yrs, 3 mos, 1 day
Awards: Two Silver Stars, Defense Superior Service medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, Purple Heart

George E. "Bud" Day, Sioux City, Iowa - POW time: 5 yrs, 7 mos, 13 days
Awards: Medal of Honor, Air Force Cross, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross

Leo K. Thorsness, Walnut Grove, MN - POW time: 5 years, 19 days
Awards: Medal of Honor, Silver Star, Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, Ten Air Medals, Two Purple Hearts

And about a dozen more - all of whom appear on the new DVD "Stolen Honor". The Website for the DVD is here - http://www.stolenhonor.com/

Do you have the balls to watch it? I may bring a copy to the Gathering and maybe we'll find out.

If you charge that Giap said something, produce an exact quote that supports that statement, not that someone he knew might have said something not even close, that is called hearsay.

I also told you to hang onto your jockstrap. You don't hold on very well. :)
Now - you don't like Ollie North's statement as to what Giap said - so try this one - http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-032203-3282r

Also - keep in mind that the man who wrote that has forgotten more about the Vietnam War than either of us ever knew - and he writes:

With the Vietcong wiped out in the Tet offensive, North Vietnamese regulars moved south down the Ho Chi Minh trails through Laos and Cambodia to continue the war. Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

Now, do you really suppose he pulled that out of his ear - or do you think maybe he knows something you don't? What memoirs is he talking about, Fhart? Don't you think you should find out before denying their existence? Or are we into "Ratherism" here? You know - the "I've made up my mind, so don't confuse me with facts" mode.

Well now you say: I won't argue about the "liar" thing re: North - but that doesn't change the fact that Kerry is both a liar and an unindicted war criminal”

Yup - and at one time this country had the intelligence, the cojones and the moral fiber to hang war criminals. Now we make them Presidential candidates. :-?

In your last weak response you include non-relevant information that you claim I didn’t want to post: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. “ What’s your point? You’ve only showed they listened to the radio- big deal.

ROTFLMAO -- and just WHY do you think they'd be listening to the radio at that time of day? Y'know - during "working hours"? And why do you think that statement was directly connected to this - "Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses............."

What? You think maybe that was coincidence? No - it wasn't "non-relevant" at all. Those two sentences are both complimentary and synergistic.

That quote doesn’t have anything to show that Giap or Tin made your alleged statement or anything close to that. It only shows that the VC were doing the same thing that has been done in all wars by all sides and that is gather intelligence.

LOL - Gathering "intelligence"? From the evening news on CBS? Yeah - don't forget that 9AM in Vietnam is evening news time in the US. So - just what "intelligence" do you think they were gathering from the "Rather" network? Although at that time it was more like the "Cronkite" network.

Show us where anyone: “thanks John Kerry (among others) for giving the North Vietnamese the encouragement to keep the war going - after they'd decided it was lost and they were gonna quit.” You can’t do it because it doesn’t exist and you can’t show anything close to that.

Um - you wanta bet that when Kerry met Madame Binh in Paris, she didn't thank Kerry for giving her the opportunity to show the world her pet American traitor? The one who "supported" the Communist cause in Southeast Asia and supported their screams of outrage at American "war crimes"? Or didn't you know that that's how it was played out to the rest of the world? And is still playing out - or don't you know that the Vietnamese used Kerry's Senate testimony about two weeks ago to once again belabor American "war crimes"? They think Kerry's testimony is the "gift that keeps on giving."

Or maybe you think Giap didn't thank the antiwar movement after this scenario (from the above reference) -

But Congress balked, first by cutting off military assistance to Cambodia, which enabled Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge communists to take over, which, in turn, was followed by a similar Congressional rug pulling from under the South Vietnamese, that led to rapid collapse of morale in Saigon.

The unraveling, with Congress pulling the string, was so rapid that even Giap was caught by surprise. As he recounts in his memoirs, Hanoi had to improvise a general offensive -- and then rolled into Saigon two years before they had reckoned it might become possible.

Why do you think Congress balked? Why do you think they pulled out of a SEATO treaty commitment? And how did you miss the role of the antiwar movement and the antiwar Democrats in that abrogation of American commitment? Do you really think Giap didn't thank the antiwar movement - including Kerry? I know - if you're picturing Giap getting on his knees and thanking God, I have a problem with that picture too. But then, the Vietnamese DID thank Kerry by putting his picture in the Ho Chi City War Crimes Museum - in the section reserved for those who contributed to their cause. Tell me - if someone helped you to achieve a major objective a couple years early - wouldn't you thank him? :)

Now - quitcher whining while I keep on doing the research that you either can't or won't do - and we'll eventually see if Giap actually said anything of the sort.

Congratulations! You have just “proved” that Tin and Giap knew each other, what a surprise. But one of your own reference goes on to say: So you not only proved they knew each other but they came to hate each other. Even with this animosity you still can’t show either of them making your conspiracy theory statement.

What conspiracy theory? You want conspiracy? Go find out what Ion Mihai Pacepa has to say on the subject of the US antiwar movement. He's the highest ranking Soviet defector (a two star general) ever to come across to the West - and his words about the US antiwar movement boil down to the Russian term for "Useful Idiots." Go find out how much of the US antiwar movement was funded and run by the KGB - and how much of what the antiwar movement screeched so loudly about were the product of the KGB disinformation section. I'll give you a clue - it wasn't zero. And this time - do your own research for a change.

Instead of the Giap or the Tin book, you should have recommended that I buy and read “Alice in Wonderland” because that is almost as fanciful as your posts and it is, at least, logical. Oh, I make lots of spelying mistakes, keep checking. :)

Actually - "Alice" might be appropriate for some people. Remember who wrote it - and what he smoked. :)

And I make my own spelying mistakes, thank you. ;)

bunbun

09-20-2004, 18:01

It's clear that Bush did not desert. But it is increasingly clear that Bush escaped going into battle and failed to fulfill many of the ordinary requirements of Guard service and got away with it with the help of a powerful family, while still emerging with an honorable discharge.

Two thoughts -
1/ You didn't have the "powerful family" - and yet, by your own admission, you also "escaped going into battle."
2/ Bush's "failure to fulfill many of the ordinary requirements of Guard service" is libel unless you can prove it.

It's also clear that Kerry had the same political background and family friends needed to escape going to Vietnam and chose to go instead. He served two missions in or near the battle areas. One on a destroyer. A second on a Swift Boat. The latter earned him two medals and three purple hearts.

No - his first "tour" was not by his own choice, but the Navy's. And, just in the interest of accuracy, it was a guided missile frigate.

His second tour WAS by his choice - sorta. But what he volunteered for was what he saw the Swift Boats doing during his first tour - off-shore traffic interdiction (Operation Market Time). He squawked like a scalded chicken when the mission was changed to riverine operations. That's why he was reassigned to a less dangerous duty station after his first couple days at An Thoi.

He left Vietnam disillusioned by the war -- like many of us at the time -- and by how we were conducting the war.

No - he STARTED the war as an antiwar activist - he was chairman of the Political Union at Yale and used his commencement address to rail against Johnson and the war.

He reported his disillusion to Congress. I have seen no serious evidence either on this list or elsewhere that his service was not completely honorable -- and no evidence that his messages to Congress were other than the honest beliefs of a bright, conscientious young man, dedicated to his country.

Honest beliefs? Maybe - but also misguided, short-sighted, illegal, destructive and traitorous. And the dedication was not to his country, but to his own self interest without regard for the wreckage he left behind for others to deal with. But what goes around, comes around - and hopefully he's about to get his "reward."

sloetoe

09-20-2004, 19:30

Weary, the military was trying to get rid of people 1971-73.

The draft was active *through* 1973.

sloetoe

09-20-2004, 19:38

Dang, bunbun.
For a while there I thought you were writing of Kerry, but then I read this. Phew! I'm all cleared up now.

Honest beliefs? Maybe - but also misguided, short-sighted, illegal, destructive and traitorous. And the dedication was not to his country, but to his own self interest without regard for the wreckage he left behind for others to deal with. But what goes around, comes around - and hopefully he's about to get his "reward."

Couldn't have said it better.

The Old Fhart

09-20-2004, 21:28

Bunbun, you are so full of it you contradict yourself every other sentence. Any of your references are far less factual than the Rather documents and they keep changing every time I point out your lies and distortions, one after the other. Nothing in your last post showed anything new, just more of the same old song and dance. Any of your posts are totally disjointed and show no logic whatsoever but this last one takes the cake! However, there was one thing in your last pile of excrement that really caught my eye:

Another Bunbun so-called “quote”, post #678:

(Bunbun) Originally Posted by The Old Fhart
But Congress balked, first by cutting off military assistance to Cambodia, which enabled Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge communists to take over, which, in turn, was followed by a similar Congressional rug pulling from under the South Vietnamese, that led to rapid collapse of morale in Saigon.

The unraveling, with Congress pulling the string, was so rapid that even Giap was caught by surprise. As he recounts in his memoirs, Hanoi had to improvise a general offensive -- and then rolled into Saigon two years before they had reckoned it might become possible.
Where the hell did that come from? Show me anywhere, in any of my posts where I made the above quote you “claim” I made. Obviously you don’t understand that a quote is what a person actually says, not some disjointed rambling from God knows where, or what you “thought” they might say. I want to see the post # where that statement appears. Your inability to prove anything you say causes you to flail and start fabricating more and more fantastic stories. You are a pathetic liar and you can’t keep your lies straight. I have consistently shown where you misquote or outright lie to try to support your idiotic claims but this is too easy! Come on Einstein, where is the reference for that quote? Did that also appear in the Amazon book review you used for “evidence”?

Try posting again when you sober up.

hacksaw

09-20-2004, 22:14

SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO POSTS AND THIRTY FIVE SCREENS!!!???????

Not only has this horse been beaten to death, it ain't nothin but a VERY SMALL greasy spoty somewhere out there on the cyber highway.

Out of curiosity I had one of my staff research this thread to count personal attacks, slanderous and liabelous statements and misrepresentatrions that could be defined as such under current Federal and/or Georgia Law (What can I say, I live in Georgia and my library is full of Georgia Law books as well as an 2001 CFR, annotated.)

I could file over seven hundred fifty civil suits and start no less than one hundred criminal investigations based on information contained herein, and that's only the "sure things".

BTW, the staffer is using this thread for a Masters thesis.(With permission of the webmaster, requested under separate cover)

She spent over THREE HUNDRED HOURS in her research for which I paid her salary.

Surely you have better things to do with your time.

A-Train

09-20-2004, 22:49

Let me say for the record I haven't been following this thread, or any like it for the most part. Out of curiosity, how can you file criminal investigations based on political banter on a hiking website? I'd love to hear it.

I wholeheartedly agree this thread, and others like it are a waste of time. I'm glad they've died down. But it doesn't make sense to criticize a bunch of people who's words you used to do research. At least all the research was there for you to use, free of charge.

Just my 2 cents

weary

09-20-2004, 22:55

Two thoughts -
1/ You didn't have the "powerful family" - and yet, by your own admission, you also "escaped going into battle."
2/ Bush's "failure to fulfill many of the ordinary requirements of Guard service" is libel unless you can prove it.

Bun Bun, you obviously don't know anything about libel law.

As for proving it. Somethings are not provable 30 years after the fact. But the evidence is overwhelming. The latest is the comment by Bush's commanding officers secretary, that the officers used to "snicker " about all the things Bush managed to get away with.

If your other unsupported statements are on a par with your cracks about my war service, they aren't worth much. I was drafted. I served. I followed orders. I was assigned to Korea with six months and three days left to serve. By the time I arrived with the required gear at Fort Lawton I had five months and 29 days left to serve. REgulations said no one could be sent overseas who didn't have six months left in the Army.

Since no one quite knew what to do with me and several others who missed the same boat, I kicked around SEattle for three months, taking long weekends to climb in Rainier National Park, and cruise in Puget Sound.

Then I was sent to an Army desert testing station 30 miles north of Yuma, Arizona, where I was assigned to drive a crew of Civilian electricians, and grew to love the desert almost as much as I did mountains.

One year, 11 months and 11 days after reporting to Fort Devens, Mass. I was honorably discharged as a private E-3 from a base in the Texas panhandle, the name of which I've long since forgotten.

Weary

Happy

09-20-2004, 23:11

I would like to say that since I have been a subpar member of less than 500 on white blaze and been lucky to meet Hacksaw this past February 29th and that I attended Law School for two years, that his researcher is probably correct.

I agree that this thread has been beat to death and i refuse to participate in, and I am glad that a new topic has been added for people to participate in that has nothing to do with hiking. After years of experience with hiking I realize that you can only discuss so much in water bottles, pack weight and cooking systems but things of other natures bore me more!!! Just my 2 cents.

hacksaw

09-20-2004, 23:20

The information is there, the homeland (in)security statutes provide the laws and, except for the young lady on my staff who wants to use this thread for a totally non legal oriented paper I could care less about one word of this thread. I just can't fathom seemingly intelligent people wasting time on such pointless arguments and petty name calling, particularily on a hiking site.
Hacksaw

PS :Read your state's statutes regarding slander and liabel and you might find that it doesn't matter if it is written on a website (public domain) or a church bulliten Liabel is liabel.

Also, Whether you realise it or not your personal and civil liberties are being and have been slowly eroded, restricted or downright revoked over the past hundred years.

bunbun

09-20-2004, 23:37

Bun Bun, you obviously don't know anything about libel law.

As for proving it. Somethings are not provable 30 years after the fact. But the evidence is overwhelming. The latest is the comment by Bush's commanding officers secretary, that the officers used to "snicker " about all the things Bush managed to get away with.

For the libel thing - I think that's been answered.

And you obviously haven't paid any attention to such unimportant details as the interview with Killians son (also a Guard officer) who refuted Mrs Knox's contentions - or to th fact that Col Staudt also repudiated your view.

If your other unsupported statements are on a par with your cracks about my war service, they aren't worth much.

I made no crack about your service - what I did was to point out your inconsistency. But then your grasp of logic always has been sorta tenuous, hasn't it. :D

Chappy

09-21-2004, 00:07

The draft was active *through* 1973.

I'm telling you there was a Reduction in Force in the US Army in 1971 and the year following. I was on active duty in 1971 and received a four month curtailment of my obligation because the Army was downsizing. I was due to be release April 1972, but was voluntarily released in November 1971. those are the facts!

weary

09-21-2004, 09:51

For the libel thing - I think that's been answered.

Hmmm. By whom and when. The basic libel rule is that public officials cannot be libeled, especially not in a public discussion of their qualifications for office.

And you obviously haven't paid any attention to such unimportant details as the interview with Killians son (also a Guard officer) who refuted Mrs Knox's contentions - or to th fact that Col Staudt also repudiated your view.

As I said these things are unprovable after 30 years as memories fade, documents disappear and political battles warp the truth. On balance, from everything I've read, along with commonsense, suggests that political influence allowed Bush to leap to the head of a long waiting list and thus join the guard in the first place, and influenced how he was treated after joining.

[Quote} I made no crack about your service - what I did was to point out your inconsistency. But then your grasp of logic always has been sorta tenuous, hasn't it. [/QUOTE]

You're right. I don't detect any inconsistency. Perhaps your superior logic can explain the connections between the service of a Korean War private with what I'm sure is a thorough service record somewhere in the Army's files, and a National Guard officer with strangely missing files.

Even better, let's move on to a contemporaneous Bush. For instance you might use your logic to explain this dialogue with reporters at a photo op in the oval office, three months after declaring the war over:

Asked about why we went to war against Saddam Hussein, Bush replied, "we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

Tell us Bun Bun why Bush gave this totally fictitious account of events of global significance that took place only three months earlier, and in which he had been the central figure.

Or perhaps you believe he spoke the truth. Or misspoke? Or lied? Or perhaps Bush really doesn't know what he is doing? That he is a puppet of some unknown forces in the White House speaking whatever he is told to say, except when caught off guard by a questioner.

I don't have a clue. But I think it dangerous to have a president who could say such an astonishing thing -- with United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan standing beside him.

Weary

smokymtnsteve

09-21-2004, 09:55

"Representative government has broken down. Our politicians represent not the people who vote for them but the commercial interests who finance their election campaigns. We have the best politicians that money can buy."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY!

Lone Wolf

09-21-2004, 09:57

Bush/Cheney 04 Vote Republican

bunbun

09-21-2004, 10:39

Bunbun, you are so full of it you contradict yourself every other sentence. Any of your references are far less factual than the Rather documents and they keep changing every time I point out your lies and distortions, one after the other.

Y'know - you're lovely when you're frothing at the mouth like that. :jump

Tell ya what - try again. This time try to be coherent.

The basic question in this thread was whether Kerry and the antiwar movement gave aid and comfort to the enemy. You've made no real effort to prove otherwise, and you don't want to believe anything that does prove it. That's your privilege.

But maybe you'd like to explain the Foreword of the Vo Nguyen Giap book titled "How We Won the War". You know - the book that you apparently didn't bother to get or read - the book in which the VVAW website claims Giap didn't write anything like this. Well - they're sorta right - cause Giap didn't write the pertinent part, but they're also wrong cause the following passages WERE written in the Foreword by Danny Schechter. BTW, if memory serves, Danny-baby is (or was) a member of CPUSA (Communist Party USA). There are two separate quotes, but I'll put them in the same box as separate paragraphs.

There will be plenty of postmortems to come on how and why the U.S. lost Indochina. It might be more interesting to think about how the people won Indochina - and how the anti-war movement helped them do it. (p 12)

Politically, the Vietnamese always believed in the importance of the anti-war movement, small and impotent as it may have appeared to some of its supporters. They encouraged it as best they could, knowing that creating a climate of opinion hostile to the war would be one important way of ending it. In the end, their victory was accelerated by Congress' refusal to vote more aid. That refusal was a response to a climate of public opinion which the anti-war movement helped forge. (p 18)

Now while we're on the subject of Kerry's (and the anti-war movements) "aid and comfort to the enemy", you sure do ignore a lot of stuff - like the "Stolen Honor" website at http://www.stolenhonor.com/

What's your answer to those people, Fhart? How do you want to explain away their knowledge and experience? :-?

Where the hell did that come from? Show me anywhere, in any of my posts where I made the above quote you “claim” I made.

Now you're talkin' - fact is that I screwed that one up, didn't I? Mea culpa, mea culpa - I apologize. And I went back and fixed it. Hope that makes you happy.

Obviously you don’t understand that a quote is what a person actually says, not some disjointed rambling from God knows where, or what you “thought” they might say.

No - I know you'd never say that - it wouldn't fit with your apparent agenda. As I indicated in the text of message #678 that quote came from here: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID...06-032203-3282r

Or didn't you read that part?

I have consistently shown where you misquote or outright lie to try to support your idiotic claims but this is too easy! Come on Einstein, where is the reference for that quote? Did that also appear in the Amazon book review you used for “evidence”?

Y'know - there are two possible scenarios for your agita. One of them would make you crazy like a fox. The other one would make you crazy but not very bright. I'm not even gonna guess which one is true. Either way, I've put more than sufficient evidence out here for anyone who's got more than two brain cells to rub together and the intellectual honesty of a pissant.

Try posting again when you sober up.

ROTFLMAO - I sobered up 27 years ago, Fhart.

Finally - for all the times you've called me a liar, idiotic, contradictory, factually-challenged, etc - you should know this - you haven't managed to spike my blood pressure even once. I just think it's hilarious. Serious - but knee-slappingly funny. And pitiful - because for all your "I have consistently shown" claims - you haven't. All you've done is to challenge me to put more and more information out here, which you then dismiss out-of-hand without proof or logical rebuttal. You've provided little in the way of actual information or sources - and what you have provided don't get the job done.

S'OK - I'm here for my own purposes - and I at least stated my "agenda" clearly and plainly. So if you have a problem with it - well, it's *your* problem isn't it? You should deal with it. :D

bunbun

09-21-2004, 11:44

Hmmm. By whom and when. The basic libel rule is that public officials cannot be libeled, especially not in a public discussion of their qualifications for office.

No, Weary - Bush's qualifications for office were established in Texas 10 years ago and have been reconfirmed 3 times since then. His service in the Guard, even if it were as bad as you wish it to be, would not detract from his "qualifications" because he's proved those qualifications for 10 years now. Now - notice - I did NOT say that you should agree with him or his policies. I don't always - so why should you?

As I said these things are unprovable after 30 years as memories fade, documents disappear and political battles warp the truth. On balance, from everything I've read, along with commonsense, suggests that political influence allowed Bush to leap to the head of a long waiting list and thus join the guard in the first place, and influenced how he was treated after joining.

Dont get too carried away by your own rhetoric. There's nobody but a discredited political hack who's a close friend of Kerry's who's claimed that with any authority - and his own daughter has repudiated his statement.

As for the "how he was treated" - he went through flight school, Weary - he got absolutely zip in the way of "special treatment." They don't put up with that crap in flight school cause, if nothing else, the paperwork involved in explaining why you lost both a cadet and an aircraft is more than any flight instructor wants to get involved with.

Oh yeah - you're gonna take the word of an 86 year old woman who was led into the answers that Rather wanted from her - and who's been repudiated by others. Yep - that's what I've started calling a Ratherism - the "I don't have any real proof, but I WANT to believe it, so it MUST be true" attitude.

You're right. I don't detect any inconsistency. Perhaps your superior logic can explain the connections between the service of a Korean War private with what I'm sure is a thorough service record somewhere in the Army's files, and a National Guard officer with strangely missing files.

Let's take it form the top - you had 11 months and some days of service, Bush had nearly two years of training plus - what? almost 4 years of flying - which is considerably more dangerous than what you were doing. You diss him for not going in harms way even though he was with a unit that was not called up for that service - and yet when the rubber met the road, by your own words, you didn't volunteer to go in harms way either. You both have honorable discharges. I wouldn't demean your service over any of that, but that's exactly what you're trying to do to Bush - demean his service for political advantage.

The inconsistency, Weary, is that Bush did as much as you - and probably more, in terms of both time and exposure to danger - and all you can do is put him down for it. Pitiful.

Asked about why we went to war against Saddam Hussein, Bush replied, "we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

How many UN resolutions, Weary? How many years? How many times did Saddam use proscribed weapons against not only the Iranians, but his own people? How many times were the inspectors forced to leave the country? How many times were the inpsectors forced to wait at the front door of a facility while Saddams boys moved the incriminating eveidence out the back door?

Tell us Bun Bun why Bush gave this totally fictitious account of events of global significance that took place only three months earlier, and in which he had been the central figure.

Or perhaps you believe he spoke the truth. Or misspoke? Or lied? Or perhaps Bush really doesn't know what he is doing? That he is a puppet of some unknown forces in the White House speaking whatever he is told to say, except when caught off guard by a questioner.

I don't have a clue. But I think it dangerous to have a president who could say such an astonishing thing -- with United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan standing beside him.

Or maybe he told the truth?

I think it's far more dangerous to have a President who, in the past, has supported those with whom this country was at war - during the war. That's called treason.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who can't find a stable position on any subject and stick to it. You do realize, don't you, that Kerry's speech yesterday set a new record, even for him, of position reversals (flipflops). Fourteen, by actual count.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who, by his own words is a habitual, if not congenital, liar.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who's spent the last 20 years as a Senator consistently voting AGAINST nearly every major weapon system that's in use by our Armed Forces today.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who's spent the last 20 years as a Senator consistently voting to cut the funding for the intelligence agencies.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who is so closed that he's refused to talk to his own press following (and they're on his side) ever since August 9.

I think it's dangerous to have a President whose reaction to something like the Swift Boat Vets is to threaten legal action against the stations that sold time for the Swiftees ads. He doesn't dare take legal action against the Swiftees because then he'd have to release theother 100 pages of his service records that are still in hock at the Navy Dept. The Swiftees would welcome legal action - and in fact, have invited him to do so.

I think it's dangerous to have a President whose secondary reaction to something like the Swift Boat Vets is to hire private investigators to dig up as much dirt on the Swiftees as possible, assemble the information into tightly controlled volumes called "brown books" and distribute those books to the media in an attempt to discredit the Swiftees.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who has no respect for the Constitution that he's sworn to defend. Specifically what comes to mind is both the First and Second Amendments, but we can discuss the others if you want as well.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who lies while he's campaigning about economic and employment numbers that are easily availabe to the most computer illiterate voter.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who hasn't the common sense to realize that his plan to engage our "European Allies" ain't gonna work because they don't have the resources that he wants them to put into Iraq. Al Quaeda would eat the Russian Army's lunch, France is tied up in Chad and other places, Germany's capability is limited to terrorist and small unit actions and Britain just cut their Armed Forces by 10% a month or so ago.

I think it's dangerous to have a President who hasn't the common sense to realize that his plan to engage our "European Allies" ain't gonna work because we broke their toy - the "Oil for Food" program, and thereby "stole" hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Euros from them by deposing Saddam.

We can go on with this litany for another couple pages if you want. How much do you want of it? Let me know - I know - you will.

weary

09-21-2004, 12:26

No, Weary - Bush's qualifications for office were established in Texas 10 years ago and have been reconfirmed 3 times since then. His service in the Guard, even if it were as bad as you wish it to be, would not detract from his "qualifications" because he's proved those qualifications for 10 years now. Now - notice - I did NOT say that you should agree with him or his policies. I don't always - so why should you?

Bun Bun. We are talking about libel and whether this discussion has libeled a president seeking reelection. Remember, Bun Bun. It's a question you raised. As you well know, the above babble in no way addresses the question and your pretensions that it does is simply your way of dodging admitting you were wrong.

The inconsistency, Weary, is that Bush did as much as you - and probably more, in terms of both time and exposure to danger - and all you can do is put him down for it. Pitiful.

Well. the mortality rate of military police who ended up going to Korea approached 50%. We were the guys that stood at the cross roads and directed convoys of troops. The north had only to kill one of us to throw the whole battle movement into disarray. Somehow. They figured that out without any traitors to alert them. Those damn North Koreans were almost as wise in such battle matters as those North Vietnamese. And they didn't even have a Kerry to coach them.

How many UN resolutions, Weary? How many years? How many times did Saddam use proscribed weapons against not only the Iranians, but his own people? How many times were the inspectors forced to leave the country? How many times were the inpsectors forced to wait at the front door of a facility while Saddams boys moved the incriminating eveidence out the back door?

Answer the question Bun Bun, you who are so fond of demanding answers from everyone else.

The inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. They left after Bush said he was about to bomb hell out of the country. Yet three months later Bush claimed he went to war because Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in!

Bush, as you may remember if you were paying attention, Bun Bun, took us into war with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and because of alleged Iraqian ties to terrorists. Three months later after no weapons had been found and the ties to terrorism were found to be nebulous at best, he claimed it was because Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in.

Bun Bun, you who take great pleasure in calling Kerry a liar because he has refined his views of the Vietnam War after 30 years of reflection, can't bring yourself to even discuss Bush's incredible distortions and contradictions.

Since you are fond of recommending books for us to read, let me make a recommendation. Read "The President of Good and Evil, The ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer. Published by Dutton. I'm still reading my copy, but so far it is by far the best analysis of the Bush presidency and the truth behind the President's noble rhetoric that I've seen.

Weary

Blue Jay

09-21-2004, 12:38

Even if every last thing you (Bunbun) have said in this thread is true I would still vote for Kerry or almost anyone else on the planet for several reasons. Bush is bankupting the US Treasury and every single one of us. He looked the other way (no matter how you justify it) causing the worst security failure in history and has not only done nothing to stop another one, but has in fact, made the situation far worse. You could not help Osama recruit troops better than the war in Iraq. He is the first president to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and occupation of a sovereign nation in order to force "democracy' on them (as if that was possible). He has cut health care benefits for veterans and other benefits to active duty troops DURING WARTIME. And last but not least, after the new electronic voting machines are in place, this will be the last time a nonRepublican will have even a chance of winning.

sloetoe

09-21-2004, 12:59

I'm telling you there was a Reduction in Force in the US Army in 1971 and the year following. ... those are the facts!

Yep. Facts is facts.

sloetoe

09-21-2004, 13:05

Bush/Cheney 04 Vote Republican

El-Dub, I totally disagree with your post above.
Totally totally totally.
BUT SHEEEESH, YOU GOTTA RESPECT A MAN WHAT GETZ HIZ POINT ACROSS IN 31 FREAKIN' SPACES.

sloetoe
libertarian, forced wide left in ought for.

Lone Wolf

09-21-2004, 13:17

Make that 32 freakin spaces out of 698. BUSH/CHENEY 04! :D

sloetoe

09-21-2004, 13:19

He is the first president to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and occupation of a sovereign nation in order to force "democracy' on them (as if that was possible).

Oh, it's better than that:
Bush has made the United States of America the only democracy in the past two-and-a-half THOUSAND years to initiate armed conflict. Let's try that again:
"No democracy in modern times has initiated armed conflict."
Oops.
Excepting the USofA.

Now *there's* a record to run on!

squirrel bait

09-21-2004, 13:36

The draft ended in 1973 my one and only time in it. When college deferments were cancelled in 1972 the draft ended the very next year. Alot of people fought long and hard to get the right to have a beer at 18, if you can be trusted to go fight you can be trusted to have a beer. How that got lost in the following years has always troubled me. It all seems so long ago.....

hacksaw

09-21-2004, 13:38

.....and on and on and on ad nauseum.

I hereby retire from this site.

Hacksaw

bunbun

09-21-2004, 13:42

I could file over seven hundred fifty civil suits and start no less than one hundred criminal investigations based on information contained herein, and that's only the "sure things".

BTW, the staffer is using this thread for a Masters thesis.(With permission of the webmaster, requested under separate cover)

She spent over THREE HUNDRED HOURS in her research for which I paid her salary.

Surely you have better things to do with your time.

Hacksaw - What's new? Some years ago on Trailplace the cell phone argument drew something like 5000 posts a month for several months. After the last election at-l drew up to 4000 posts per month for what seemed like forever.

Anyway - re: your staffers numbers -I have a question - has she broken her numbers down by individual poster? I've been trying real hard to avoid personal attacks, libel, general nastiness, etc but I'm not sure how well I'm doin' here. I do know it's been better than I used to be - but ............... I'd like to find out just how "bad" I've been, so I can work on improving some more. :)

Oh - yeah - I do have better things to do - which is why it sometimes takes me a couple days to respond to this crap.

sloetoe

09-21-2004, 14:04

... How many times did Saddam use proscribed weapons against not only the Iranians, but his own people?

Answer: "Never."

You knowwwwww, like others recently, I'm really just a spectator in the destructive silliness that is this thread, but in bopping through the crap, I saw this sentence jump out at me like it was in bold.

C'mon, Jim. That was no miscue from your keyboard. You deliberately wrote, AS PUTATIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR ILLEGAL INVASION, that Saddam Hussien used SCUDS and poison gas AFTER the proscription passed down via the Gulf War surrender. Just to set the tilted record back straight again, the use of weapons PRECEEDED the proscription by a decade, at which time, and just to rub it in, our CURRENT SITTING VICE PRESIDENT was cutting deals with Bagdad (in person -- woo-hoo!) to funnel "lawyers, guns, and money"* (oh, and missle technology) to anyone fighting those bad bad bad Iranians (those folx who were PREVIOUSLY our friends-for-life).

... How many times did Saddam use proscribed weapons against not only the Iranians, but his own people?

Answer: "Never."
The use of such weapons occured AFTER the US stepped in to arm Saddam Hussien's Iraq for profit (and revenge against the Iranians), and occured BEFORE the Gulf War surrender that occured YEARS later.

Phew. I'm getting out of this privy-pit.

Blue Jay

09-21-2004, 14:05

.....and on and on and on ad nauseum.

I hereby retire from this site.

Hacksaw

Oh the drama, oh the pathos. We're so sorry we wounded you, our Hamlet.

bunbun

09-21-2004, 15:01

Bun Bun. We are talking about libel and whether this discussion has libeled a president seeking reelection. Remember, Bun Bun. It's a question you raised.

I deleted your personal attack stuff - so ---- the definition of libel - "Libel - is a published or broadcast false and defamatory statement which damages the reputation of an individual." Or, from another souce " a written, printed or pictorial statement that defames ones character or reputation or exposes one to public ridicule."

And I believe that's specifically what your words were intended to do - don't you? Now - there are situations in which either custom or common law prohibits legal action - but that does NOT make those statements any less libelous. Nor does it make those statements more honest, ethical, reasonable - or true.

Uh - let's get the "process" straight for this stuff - first, you get the evidence (like NON-FORGED documents) - THEN, you hang the bastard. It's kinda like the old Viking joke - "rape and pillage FIRST - THEN burn." Ya gotta get the sequence right - otherwise it's a Ratherism and leads to great consternatioin and constipation. :)

Well. the mortality rate of military police who ended up going to Korea approached 50%.

It's not "mortality rate" you're talking about - that would be "casualty rate." There is a difference. And if memory serves - some of the MP units did well, but others were among the first to do the bugout-boogie. But that has nothing to do with you cause you weren't there. Be happy you weren't Infantry - as I recall, some of those units caught 150-200% casualties in the few first months.

Answer the question Bun Bun, you who are so fond of demanding answers from everyone else.

The inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. They left after Bush said he was about to bomb hell out of the country. Yet three months later Bush claimed he went to war because Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in!

Nitpickin', are we? The inspectors were in the country and accomplishing nothing - or don't you remember that? Saddam let them in - but not IN. Hey - if Clinton can do the "what's the definition of is" and you have no problem with it, how come you have different standards for others? :)

Never mind - I know the answer to the "double standard" question. So - if Bush misspoke, you think that's cause to impeach him? Really? Then maybe you'd better pay attention to what Kerry's doing out there cause his "misspeaking" is causing a lot of nightmares for his own advisors. His speech yesterday was a bloody disaster for anyone who was actually paying attention.

Bush, as you may remember if you were paying attention, Bun Bun, took us into war with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and because of alleged Iraqian ties to terrorists. Three months later after no weapons had been found and the ties to terrorism were found to be nebulous at best, he claimed it was because Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in.

How many times do you want to go through this idiotic argument?
1/ Saddam used WMD's 3 times - once on the Iranians and twice on his own people. Did he have WMD's - and the capability for manufacturing them? Any denial of his ability to do so is nothing but willful ignorance - and that's my personal definiton for stupidity.
2/ The intelligence agencies of over 100 countries stated categorically that he DID possess WMD's and those countries closest to Iraq believed he had the ability and the willingness to use them.
3/ In the last couple days, Powell stated that while WMD's were not found, Saddam retained the capability and the intent to manufacture such things - and he was only waiting until the sanctions were lifted to start production. You should read the Washington Post sometime.
4/ The 9/11 Commission report stated that Saddam was not directly connected to the 9/11 attacks on the US. The same report made it very clear that Saddam DID have ties to various international terrorist organizations. Abu Nidal died in Baghdad a couple years ago - do you think his presence was unknown to Saddam? Ansar al Islam had their main base in northeastern Iraq - maybe you think that was an accident? Abu Musab Zarqawi is still in Baghdad decapitating people - or didn't you know that he was given asylum and support by Saddam? Nebulous ties? I don't think so.

Bun Bun, you who take great pleasure in calling Kerry a liar because he has refined his views of the Vietnam War after 30 years of reflection, can't bring yourself to even discuss Bush's incredible distortions and contradictions.

Oh Bob - you REALLY should pay attention to what Kerry says - his speech yesterday was almost the exact same speech he gave 30 years ago. He hasn't changed at all. "Refined his view"? Go peddle that to someone who'll believe it.

Since you are fond of recommending books for us to read, let me make a recommendation. Read "The President of Good and Evil, The ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer. Published by Dutton. I'm still reading my copy, but so far it is by far the best analysis of the Bush presidency and the truth behind the President's noble rhetoric that I've seen.

Next time I go to the library I'll look for it.

bunbun

09-21-2004, 15:05

Answer: "Never."

You knowwwwww, like others recently, I'm really just a spectator in the destructive silliness that is this thread, but in bopping through the crap, I saw this sentence jump out at me like it was in bold.

Toey - Those "weapons" have been proscribed since World War ONE. It was NOT a miscue on my part - nor was it at all false. For reference, try the Geneva Accords. :-?

bunbun

09-21-2004, 15:14

Even if every last thing you (Bunbun) have said in this thread is true I would still vote for Kerry or almost anyone else on the planet for several reasons.

Yeah - I know. Weary and Sloetoe will be there with you. :D

sloetoe

09-21-2004, 17:12

Toey - Those "weapons" have been proscribed since World War ONE. It was NOT a miscue on my part - nor was it at all false. For reference, try the Geneva Accords. :-?

Geneva. You mean the things the USofA refused to be a part of for most of the last century? Ahhhhh. "Geneva." Those inconvenient little thoughts suspended by Rumsfeld,Ashcroft,&Bush incorporated, despite the F-ing NASTY implications for our troops who might similarly become guests or "detainees" of some other self-rightious gommint. Yeah. "Ass-Grab" Prison, here we come.

Ohhh, but you say (now) that the weapons (gas agents) had been proscribed "since WWI" -- yet all of your references in this thread were to recent events, and the weapons proscribed post-Gulf War. Owwww, forgive my mistake of taking your statements in their own context. You see, I get captured by nasty little facts like, as I mentioned first off, we the USofA KNOWINGLY armed the sucker to begin with (thanx to people like dick changey), and then blocked out noise agi'n him til he went off the reservation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,784314,00.html

Dang, Jim, get a clue.
(Yeah, right.)

Alright, enough toxins for me.
Y'all have a day.

sloetoe

09-21-2004, 17:15

Yeah - I know. Weary and Sloetoe will be there with you. :D

What? We have a clue?

donthitsenddonthitsenddonthitDOTE!

smokymtnsteve

09-21-2004, 17:22

Oh the drama, oh the pathos. We're so sorry we wounded you, our Hamlet.

I;ll miss HACKSAW, I know him, but the fact of the matter is if you don't want to read and be a part of this thread...we'll lets just say I'm RO_CHOICE..you have the choice to read this thread or not...

FREEDOM...CHOICE,,it's an AMERICAN THANG.

ANTI-CHOICE is ANTI-AMERICAN !!!!

weary

09-21-2004, 21:22

I deleted your personal attack stuff - so ---- the definition of libel - "Libel - is a published or broadcast false and defamatory statement which damages the reputation of an individual." Or, from another souce " a written, printed or pictorial statement that defames ones character or reputation or exposes one to public ridicule." And I believe that's specifically what your words were intended to do - don't you? Now - there are situations in which either custom or common law prohibits legal action - but that does NOT make those statements any less libelous. Nor does it make those statements more honest, ethical, reasonable - or true.

No Bun Bun. We are talking about Freedom of Speech, which is a part of the American Constitution. Those of us who know history and Constitutional Law 101, know that there is virtually no such thing as libel against an elected official. Why? Because both common sense and our earliest and most consistent court decisions decreed that the right of politicians to defend against libel has to be balanced against the right of citizens to debate the background and beliefs of those seeking public office.

Name just one elected official who has ever collected a dime for libel and I'll revisit this argument. Until then I'll conclude as I did several posts ago that you have no understanding of libel and should therefore stop pretending that you do.

Uh - let's get the "process" straight for this stuff - first, you get the evidence (like NON-FORGED documents) - THEN, you hang the bastard. It's kinda like the old Viking joke - "rape and pillage FIRST - THEN burn." Ya gotta get the sequence right - otherwise it's a Ratherism and leads to great consternatioin and constipation.

No, Bun Bun. You look at the totality of the evidence over many years. And ignore forged documents from a self-confessed sick man that have no bearing one way or the other on the total evidence. Though if you are a cynic like me, you suspect that Bush may have had a hand in pretending that the forged documents were real in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of real documents

It's not "mortality rate" you're talking about - that would be "casualty rate." There is a difference. And if memory serves - some of the MP units did well, but others were among the first to do the bugout-boogie. But that has nothing to do with you cause you weren't there. Be happy you weren't Infantry - as I recall, some of those units caught 150-200% casualties in the few first months.

I'm not going to debate relative casualty rates. All I know is that when I was assigned to MP duties at Fort Devens scores of Master Sargeants came back from Korea knowing nothing about police work. On many patrols I was partnered with people who outranked me by many grades. The roster always said, Private E-2 Cummings in charge. I was told these were all battlefield promotions, given to people who volunteered or had been assigned the most dangerous MP duties.

BTW, being a curious type I researched the regs and discovered that Private e-2s were required to be discharged had they not achieved e-3 status after a year or 14 months. Everyone promptly got promoted, except that nuicance Cummings.

I didn't press the matter, because I still hoped to go overseas. I almost made it. Had I succeeded, Bun Bun, there's a good chance you wouldn't have had weary to push around.

Nitpickin', are we? The inspectors were in the country and accomplishing nothing - or don't you remember that?

Well they didn't find weapons of mass destruction, nor have we after winning the war and then managing to be losing control under Bush and his team of incompetents.

... So - if Bush misspoke, you think that's cause to impeach him?

No. But it is enough to scare the hell out of me. A President -- three months after the fact, who can't remember why he took us into a war that killed more than a thousand Americans, injured many, many thousands, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and increased 100 fold the numbers of those willing to die to kill Americans.

Weary