|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2004 08:20:04 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
And which side has as a central theme of its candidacy "there are two Americas: the 'other' America is evil, hates you and wants to kill your children, and only we can protect you"?
|
Seeing you put that in quotes, I'm assuming you can show your source? I'm interested in seeing where anybody made that comment.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 08:43:28 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
August 4th, 2004 11:37 am
The Case Against George W. Bush - by Ron Reagan
|
Aren't you flirting with copyright infringement here? A link would have been sufficient, and not bog the thread down. Neve mind that a link to the original would support the author and the magazine... |
Did you not notice "by Ron Reagan / Esquire" under what you quoted in my original post? Also I didnt get it there, I got it here |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 08:43:34 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
And which side has as a central theme of its candidacy "there are two Americas: the 'other' America is evil, hates you and wants to kill your children, and only we can protect you"? |
All right, I'll accept your little dig [given the ;) at the end of your sentence]. However, don't mis-represent/mis-interpret what the "Two Americas" theme actually illustrates. The theme is shorthand for pointing out that some Americans are being left behind; while many others (especially the richest amongst us), are insulated from the difficulties that many Americans have to deal with -- whether it's health-care costs, our children's education, college costs, etc.
I don't mean this as a dig in any way, but: if you're like many Americans that simply get their news from A.M. talk radio, you're being done a disservice and are being purposely misinformed as to what those that support Mr. Kerry stand for.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 08:58:50 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by Flash:
bdobe,
1st....I am far from uninformed.
2nd....you can and will support whomever you choose.
3rd....10 out of 10 terrorists still agree. |
Flash, I wish I had not used "uninformed," as it's arrogant. However, I do believe that associating the "loyal opposition" with terrorism is misguided, corrosive and counter-productive; since it closes us (the voters) from listening to those that offer reasonable and strong alternatives to the failed policies of the current administration.
I do not hope that you'll change your mind about whom to vote for come November 2nd. However, please don't associate opposition to Mr. Bush as supporting terrorism -- even in jest. Because it devalues our nation's 200-plus year tradition of respecting the "minority party," and it devalues my -- and many others' -- loyal service to the country we all love. |
bdobe,
You have let your emotions skew your interpretation of the post. I read 6 news outlets a day. 2 conservative (The Washington Times and Fox News) and 4 Liberal/Independent (CNN, Yahoo News, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press). I try to catch the Washington Post as well but there is only so much time. In one of the conservative reads, I saw that 10 out of 10 terrorists.......and it talked to me directly. I remember specifically thinking that I totally agree with the premise that "no terrorist wants Bush to continue his assault" against their operations. My mindset for agreeing with this comes from 2 historical reads. 1 is Sun-tzu's The Art of War, whereby students are instructed to ALWAYS negotiate from a position of strength. This has been reinforced by almost 30 years of watching a large corporation and a large international union engage in politics.....whereby, whomever had the strength - won and watching the Asians take automobile market share. 2nd, is a business book where the main character is Attila the Hun. In it, he is attributed as stating "Huns never prefer war, but sometimes war is necessary to bring your adversary to the peace table". It is these 2 works and the recent current events of primarily christian hostages being executed while muslim hostages were freed that triggered my agreement with the phrase of "10 out of 10 Terr.....". Having read several of these threads over essentially the same points, it seemed a good insertion into this one. The intent was strictly literal and not figurative as you and certainly others have taken it. I truly believe that 10 out of 10 terrorists do want Kerry to be president, and I believe it because I think that he is weaker and therefore in a poorer negotiating position. I also believe that Kerry has thrown some real curves to his core constituentcy by his recent attempt to garner some key undecideds. However, his core supporters don't believe his rehortic and "know" that his true intent is to make their case.
In Bush, I know he lied in the WMD pre-war hype. Cheney is a Corporate Head from way back and 30 years of watching corporate heads lie to me has been demonstrated again. But I also know, from every fibre of my soul.....that those negotiating from a position of strength will win and as Attila says......sometimes a war is necessary... |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:26:39 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You have let your emotions skew your interpretation of the post. I read 6 news outlets a day. 2 conservative (The Washington Times and Fox News) and 4 Liberal/Independent (CNN, Yahoo News, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press). I try to catch the Washington Post as well but there is only so much time. In one of the conservative reads, I saw that 10 out of 10 terrorists.......and it talked to me directly. I remember specifically thinking that I totally agree with the premise that "no terrorist wants Bush to continue his assault" against their operations. My mindset for agreeing with this comes from 2 historical reads. 1 is Sun-tzu's The Art of War, whereby students are instructed to ALWAYS negotiate from a position of strength. This has been reinforced by almost 30 years of watching a large corporation and a large international union engage in politics.....whereby, whomever had the strength - won and watching the Asians take automobile market share. 2nd, is a business book where the main character is Attila the Hun. In it, he is attributed as stating "Huns never prefer war, but sometimes war is necessary to bring your adversary to the peace table". It is these 2 works and the recent current events of primarily christian hostages being executed while muslim hostages were freed that triggered my agreement with the phrase of "10 out of 10 Terr.....". Having read several of these threads over essentially the same points, it seemed a good insertion into this one. The intent was strictly literal and not figurative as you and certainly others have taken it. I truly believe that 10 out of 10 terrorists do want Kerry to be president, and I believe it because I think that he is weaker and therefore in a poorer negotiating position. I also believe that Kerry has thrown some real curves to his core constituentcy by his recent attempt to garner some key undecideds. However, his core supporters don't believe his rehortic and "know" that his true intent is to make their case.
In Bush, I know he lied in the WMD pre-war hype. Cheney is a Corporate Head from way back and 30 years of watching corporate heads lie to me has been demonstrated again. But I also know, from every fibre of my soul.....that those negotiating from a position of strength will win and as Attila says......sometimes a war is necessary... |
***
Sorry, Flash, but I think you are terribly mistaken if you believe that CNN, Yahoo, USA Today and Detroit Free Press are liberal.
If you are thinking that Attila the Hun (a barbarian, murderer and plunderer) has a good philosphy...well, then that explains why you are in the Bush Camp.
What strengths has Bush shown and what weaknesses do you see in Kerry?
Kerry has already pledged to send 40,000 more troops overseas if he's elected.
Also, if you think this war against terror is necessary, please tell me how you think either Bush or Kerry should fight it. From what I can see, Bush gave up the war on terror to fight a war for oil. If you think Bush did in fact lie to the US public about the WMD;s in Iraq, then I wonder what else Bush is lying about? Don't you think that's a crime then, leading the country into a war against false stated facts by the administration?
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 22:00:34. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:28:18 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by louddog:
If one is okay, so is the other. No hypocricy allowed! |
and if neither are okay ? |
Then both are wrong.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:50:10 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
As far as service in the country's armed services. There seems to be a big ado about Kerry's service versus Bush's service. What is the point? Both have served (and please don't cite to implications and innuendo which might imply that Bush did not). Service in the military is not the litmus test for leading the country. I have seen posts from these same people who question Bush's service applaud the "high moral character" of servicemen who have deserted their military obligations and fled to Canada but call into question whether Bush completed his service or not. It really does not matter. Did you question Bill Clinton's conduct in avoiding military service? Did that make him less able to serve as a president?
|
***
So then what you're saying is that it's ok for politicians to change their minds as the wind blows in their favor, but not a common citizen? A serviceman/woman? I see a big difference between someone being sent to kill and possibly being killed as opposed to someone making the decisions to send men and women to kill or be killed. |
Wow Olyuzi, are you for real??? I made the simple point that these attacks about a candidate's military service are inappropriate in general. How a candidate completed his military service is not important to their ability to be president. Liberals have attacked Bush for the possibility that he didn't complete his military service. The right is attacking Kerry for lies and atrocities he admitted to committing when he served. My point is that these attacks are pointless and irrelevant to their ability to lead, just as evading military service was not an indicator of Clinton's ability to serve. I further took the opportunity to point out the hypocracy in attacking Bush for not fully completing his service and praising a serviceman for deserting.
NOWHERE did I make the statement you so recklessly attribute to me. Such continued reckless, baseless and emotion based statements, which do not actually respond to the points being raised, and which are designed only to inflame, actually serve to turn people off of your point of view and will never serve to convince anyone other than those who are already believers. In fact, you have proven my point, which is that many of the repeat posters here, rather than deal with fact and reason, take every opportunity to distort and inflame. Since I see (by other posts as well) that my attempt at reason here has failed, I will move on and try to help other lost souls. Have fun.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 10:03:02 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Kerry has already pledged to send 40,000 more troops overseas if he's elected. |
Olyuzi, before others jump on you, let me refer you to what Mr. Kerry has actually pledged:
"We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives - and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists."
Read the rest here.
Flash,
Like many around here, I fancy my self an avid student of history and politics -- ha, believe or not, that's what I actually studied as an undergrad (but that's not important). I was going to go home tonight, and pull out the old-history books, and all, to respond to your use of Attila as a great military strategists; but, by God, my girlfriend would've killed me. Therefore, let me just rely on Mr. Clinton, in stead:
"Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.
We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to."
And...
"Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists - don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values - they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both. His first priority will be keeping America safe. Remember the scripture: Be Not Afraid."
Read the rest here.
I agree with Mr. Clinton, history has taught us one lesson: cooperation/coalitions trump unilateralism every time. This does not mean that we forfeit our right to self-defense; however, there's a world of difference between defending against an eminent danger and pursuing a war of choice.
And now, to my girlfriend, whom I'm sure is ready to kill me... we were supposed to have met for dinner over 30 minutes ago.
P.S. If you have the source to that poll you refer to, I sure would like to see it... I just hope it's reputable.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 10:07:44 PM · #134 |
Word of advice, don't tell your g-friend that you were late because you valued arguing politics on the internet more then being on time for her :)
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 10:19:48 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
As far as service in the country's armed services. There seems to be a big ado about Kerry's service versus Bush's service. What is the point? Both have served (and please don't cite to implications and innuendo which might imply that Bush did not). Service in the military is not the litmus test for leading the country. I have seen posts from these same people who question Bush's service applaud the "high moral character" of servicemen who have deserted their military obligations and fled to Canada but call into question whether Bush completed his service or not. It really does not matter. Did you question Bill Clinton's conduct in avoiding military service? Did that make him less able to serve as a president?
|
***
So then what you're saying is that it's ok for politicians to change their minds as the wind blows in their favor, but not a common citizen? A serviceman/woman? I see a big difference between someone being sent to kill and possibly being killed as opposed to someone making the decisions to send men and women to kill or be killed. |
Wow Olyuzi, are you for real??? I made the simple point that these attacks about a candidate's military service are inappropriate in general. How a candidate completed his military service is not important to their ability to be president. Liberals have attacked Bush for the possibility that he didn't complete his military service. The right is attacking Kerry for lies and atrocities he admitted to committing when he served. My point is that these attacks are pointless and irrelevant to their ability to lead, just as evading military service was not an indicator of Clinton's ability to serve. I further took the opportunity to point out the hypocracy in attacking Bush for not fully completing his service and praising a serviceman for deserting.
NOWHERE did I make the statement you so recklessly attribute to me. Such continued reckless, baseless and emotion based statements, which do not actually respond to the points being raised, and which are designed only to inflame, actually serve to turn people off of your point of view and will never serve to convince anyone other than those who are already believers. In fact, you have proven my point, which is that many of the repeat posters here, rather than deal with fact and reason, take every opportunity to distort and inflame. Since I see (by other posts as well) that my attempt at reason here has failed, I will move on and try to help other lost souls. Have fun. |
***
I'm sorry, but I put the wrong quote in the response and as a result you didn't understand where my question was coming from. My fault. Has nothing to do with me responding by making "reckless, baseless and emotion based statements."
I was referring to this statement of yours: "Do any of you really think that politicians do not change positions on issues to suit their own ambitions and needs? Kerry does it, Bush does it, and I am fairly certain every other politician does it. By many of these posts, it seems that it is acceptable for one to do it, but not the other? Nonsense. Rather, the more important thing is that if there has been a change in position, we need to understand the reasoning underlying that change, the significance or importance to ourselves individually and as a society, and decide the significance of that change in terms of the integrity of the candidate."
In another thread, the one you were referring to in your initial post, you argued vociferously against an enlisted man's right to change his position about completing his service obligations because he had a contract and had to complete it's obligations. I argued as you laid out your position above, that "if there has been a change in position, we need to understand the reasoning underlying that change, the significance or importance to ourselves individually and as a society, and decide the significance of that change in terms of the integrity of the candidate," and apply it to this enlisted man.
That's how I got to ask the question I did..."So then what you're saying is that it's ok for politicians to change their minds as the wind blows in their favor, but not a common citizen? I hope you will answer it, because it seems to be contradictory in that you are saying it's ok for politicians to change their stands, but not the common man. Please explain. I was not trying to assert that you made any kind of statement and even posed my statement in the form of a question. Perhaps it is you who are evading the real issues and responding from a place of emotion?
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 22:43:38. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 11:07:10 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm sorry, but I put the wrong quote in the response and as a result you didn't understand where my question was coming from. My fault. Has nothing to do with me responding by making "reckless, baseless and emotion based statements."
I was referring to this statement of yours: "Do any of you really think that politicians do not change positions on issues to suit their own ambitions and needs? Kerry does it, Bush does it, and I am fairly certain every other politician does it. By many of these posts, it seems that it is acceptable for one to do it, but not the other? Nonsense. Rather, the more important thing is that if there has been a change in position, we need to understand the reasoning underlying that change, the significance or importance to ourselves individually and as a society, and decide the significance of that change in terms of the integrity of the candidate."
That's how I got to ask the question I did...So then what you're saying is that it's ok for politicians to change their minds as the wind blows in their favor, but not a common citizen? I hope you will answer it, because it seems to be contradictory in that you are saying it's ok for politicians to change their stands, but not the common man. Please explain. |
Well, not quite as bad, but you still completely ignore the point I made, and inserted a completely irrelevant hypothetical to inflame emotion again. I was addressing the repeated posts regarding the parties' "flip-flops." Specifically, I was addressing positions on issues and nothing more. My point was that rather than simply pointing out a change in position and calling a candidate names, we should pay more attention to any underlying reasons which prompted the shift. Sometimes new information becomes available, sometimes known facts change, sometimes the party itself pressures a particular position. It is the reason for the change in position, not the change in position in and of itself, which is important. Yes, the common citizen does this everyday too; peoples opinions, values and ideals change all the time, again, based on their specific circumstances. Aren't you trying to get people to do just that with all you posts -- to change their position on specific issues? its just that, on the whole, no one cares what the common citizen does. But when a candidate does it, everyone blindly yells "FLIP-FLOP" without bothering to understand what prompted the change in position.
Also, note that what I am talking about is changing opinions on an issue. This is NOT the same as unilaterally acting on that opinion inappropriately. I know you are going to respond with the ridiculous argument that I must therefore agree that Mr. Hinzman merely changed his opinion about the military and the war and therefore we need to consider the underlying reasons for his desertion. This is incorrect. Mr. Hinzman may very well have had a change in opinion. He may well have even had a valid reason for that change. I have no problem with that. However, he further took the inappropriate action of fleeing the country and leaving his assignment without authorization. The only problem I have with his "position" is that he acted without authority. Note that I never said that a change in position justifies inappropriate behavior.
I am not going to get caught up in a discussion of moral character and other "justifications" for Mr. Hinzman's conduct. What he did was in contradiction to established laws, rules and regulations of which he was aware. You cannot allow people to simply pick and choose obligations they can ignore and justify it based on morality.
Again, the problem is that you took my initially simple statement which was directed equally at both sides, and managed to try to inflame people by making inflamatory implications whcih have nothing to do with what I said or the point I ws making.
All I have been saying here is that both sides should, rather than resorting to name-calling, the spouting of rhetoric and the distortion of facts to support some irrelevant or unimportant point, try dealing with real facts, issues and the actual circumstances which surround them. Try remembering that not everyone is perfect, not everyone will agree with you, and that not everyone sees things as you do... that is the nature of this country. Neither Bush nor Kerry divided this country. It has been divided since its inception and it always will be. Please tell me that you don't envision a time when everyone will agree on every single issue and candidate. It is the nature of our society to be divided.
You are all now free to return to your political hatred and candidate bashing. I will bother you no more :)
EDIT: It really isn't fair to edit your post after I already started my response. The quote above was your original post and I believe my response anticipated the argument which you edited in.
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 23:10:10.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 11:09:37 PM · #137 |
<<< I dont know who said it, but lately I been thinking alot about this quote, "I didnt leave the party, the party left me." >>>
It was Ronald Reagan, referring to the democratic party, who said it while addressing the 1988 republican convention.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 04:27:08 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by SoCal69:
You are all now free to return to your political hatred and candidate bashing. I will bother you no more :)
|
Thank you for the clarification of your position. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 10:21:19 AM · #139 |
NEW STATS SHOW BUSH'S DEFICIT DISHONESTY
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly promised America that they would get their record-deficits under control. Last year, President Bush said "My Administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it."[1] Similarly, Vice President Cheney said "I am a deficit hawk. So is the president."[2] But according to congressional sources, the government is soon expected to project a record federal budget deficit, even as President Bush demands more money for war in Iraq[3] , and a $1 trillion proposal for more tax cuts.[4]
The Associated Press reports the government will project "that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion" - a record[5]. The President last year tried to deflect blame for the deficit, claiming that "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.[6] " While it is true that the President has spent more than $166 billion on the war,[7] the statistics show that his failed economic policies and massive tax cuts for the wealthy are the largest factors contributing to the fiscal demise[8]. Even the White House budget director essentially acknowledged the President's dishonesty about the cause of the deficit, saying "even if we had never been attacked, and incurred no costs of war or recovery from September 11th, and no tax relief had become law, we still would have gone into deficit[9]."
Sources:
1. "The President's Budget Proposal," New York Times,2/04/03.
2. Transcript of Meet the Press, 9/14/03.
3. "Bush asks for $25 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan ," CNN.com, 5/06/04.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay," Washington Times, 1/20/04.
5. "White House to project record deficit," Seattle Post Intelligencer, 7/28/04.
6. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, Whitehouse.gov, 4/28/03.
7. "$166 Billion and Counting",Mercury News 9/15/03.
8. "Deficit Picture Even Grimmer Than New CBO Projections Suggest",Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/26/03.
9. Testimony of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director of Office of Management and Budget Before House Ways and Means, Whitehouse.gov, 2/4-5/03.
Visit //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=48189 for more about Bush Administration distortion. --> |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 05:12:26 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
[
Speaking for the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman (ret.) said:
"Swiftboat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 members, many of whom were wounded or highly decorated in Vietnam.
We purchased with our blood and service the right to be heard, to set the record straight about our unit, and to tell the truth about John Kerry's military service record.
We respect Senator McCain's right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well, and Senator McCain did not." |
It is my understanding that not a single member of the so-called Swift Boat Veterens for Truth actually served on a boat with John Kerry.
Their assertions that they "served with him" mean simply that they also were in that theater. If my understanding is correct, this deception is about as filthy as you can get.
Can someone tell me - just how does the process of giving out medals take place? Do you nominate yourself? I think not.
These smear-meister veterans are besmirching, it seems to me, the entire dignity of the medal system and the honor it implies, for ALL soldiers, in their twisted quest for political treasure.
In case you missed it, as it was easy to do with no coverage on the major networks, the soldier whose life Kery saved, spoke about his rescue at the Democratic convention, as did other members of Kerry's crew.
If you heard their first-hand testimony, there can be no doubt of just how stinking is the pile of bullshit being stacked up by the Swift-Boat veterans for "Truth". |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 05:28:54 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Flash,
Like many around here, I fancy my self an avid student of history and politics -- ha, believe or not, that's what I actually studied as an undergrad (but that's not important). I was going to go home tonight, and pull out the old-history books, and all, to respond to your use of Attila as a great military strategists;.......
"Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.
|
bdobe,
I sincerly hope that your evening went well and both enjoyed the time together. Regarding history, I am certainly no history buff nor can I claim a significant comprehension of politics. My career is testament to that. The issue that I believe you touched upon is the one of shared vs. individual responsibilities. There is a commercial currently playing in my area where a piece of trash is laying next to a waste can. Several people observe it and a crowd gathers exclaiming how terrible it is that "someone" would let it be there. Then along comes an individual who simply bends down, picks it up, places into the recepticle and continues on their way. This is my view of shared vs. individual responsibilities. I do not feel it is my job to pay taxes for your/others childrens education. I do not feel that I should pay taxes for immigrants health care. I do not feel that I should pay taxes so that some socially "shared" responsibility program can help someone who will not help themselves. I am litterally tired of people standing around the trash can telling me it is my job to pick up the trash, while their job is to spend my money. I am fed up with the international community telling me that there is a piece of trash (Govt)somewhere (Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria) and they stand around talking about it while people die. They pass a resolution, another law, or some other feel good piece of legislation, when what should happen is "action" not more words. Conservatives, IMO believe in individuals acting. An article today was speaking to the increase of gang violence in LA and a once sacred "recovery" group loosing 2 of its members recently. One point of the article was that "some" folks have no problem flying in to protest misconduct on the part of an officer, but are conspicuously silent when thousands of teens kill each other in the streets over turf wars. This is the problem that I have with Liberals and shared responsibility. It is always someones elses fault or job to fix it. Well it is not. It is your job, my job, our neighbors job. Each individuals job to reach down and pick up that piece of trash, placing it in the recepticle as it belongs.
Democrats are hoping to remove a piece of trash. Haul it off to the dump. Republicans are trying to keep one from taking up residence. Only time will tell. You are exactly correct on the difference between liberals and conservatives. It is a matter of shared vs. individual.
Olyuzi,
I have read your posts for some time. I can assure you that we do not think alike. I respect you right to think and speak your mind, however it is unlikely that I will be a follower. To claim that my mention of Atilla explains my pressence in the Bush camp is truly off base. I request that you re-read my post and find 2 points. 1st Atilla is a character in a book and 2nd that Huns prefer to avoid war. His military strategy was garnered in Rome where he spent many years as an exchange. Young children were exchanged so the opposing sides could learn the strengths and weaknesses of their contempories, in case they became enemies. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 05:52:35 PM · #142 |
Update:
The key member of the Swift boat veterans for "Truth", who had accused Kerry of being undeserving of a Silver Star, has now recanted his testimony, saying he never should have signed an affadavit to his accusation for the soon-to-be-published book.
He says he made a terrible mistake, and the fault in the whole matter is his, not that of John Kerry.
Glad to hear it. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 06:18:37 PM · #143 |
gingerbaker:
Veteran backs off attack on Kerry's war record
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
Anti-Kerry Ad Is Condemned by McCain
McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry on Vietnam War Record
This one is pasted below. Bold highlights my own.
Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad
Bush campaign distances itself from commercial
Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A veterans group that has been sharply critical of Sen. John Kerry launched an ad Thursday that accuses the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his Vietnam war record.
"John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," former Lt. Shelton White, one of the veterans, says in the ad.
Kerry's campaign quickly pointed out that not one of the men featured in the commercial served in the two patrol boats Kerry commanded in Vietnam and that some of them had previously been quoted as praising Kerry.
Kerry's campaign also released material noting that the group has gotten some financial backing from Bob Perry, a homebuilder in Houston, Texas, who is a contributor to the Republican Party. (Texan, GOP donor helps finance anti-Kerry veterans group)
President Bush's re-election campaign distanced itself from the ad. Campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the president's re-election effort "has never and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The election will be about the future."
And, in an interview with The Associated Press, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- a former prisoner of war in Vietnam -- denounced the ad as "dishonest and dishonorable."(McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad)
McCain told the AP the ad was "the same kind of deal they pulled on me" during his 2000 presidential race, when the Arizona lawmaker ran against Bush in the Republican presidential primaries.
At the time, McCain's backers accused Bush allies of using telephone surveys to spread rumors about McCain. The Bush campaign said it knew nothing about the tactics and couldn't do anything about them.
In response to McCain's criticism, the veterans group released a statement saying it had "the right to be heard" and asserting the veterans knew Kerry better than McCain.
The ad comes from a group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It comprises more than 220 veterans from the naval units in which Kerry served in 1968-69.
Kerry led a pair of high-speed, 50-foot crafts, known as swift boats, that patrolled the Mekong Delta to disrupt Viet Cong supply lines.
In the commercial, former sailors accuse Kerry of lying to receive two of his combat decorations, a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star, and criticize his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam.
Kerry also received a Silver Star for valor in combat and two other Purple Hearts during his service on the swift boats in Vietnam.
Larry Thurlow, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the ad, told CNN that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.
"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."
But Jim Rassman, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."
"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassman, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.
The Navy's own letter awarding Kerry the Bronze Star also appears to be at odds with what the anti-Kerry group asserts.
The letter states Kerry exhibited "great personal courage under fire" in rescuing Rassman, an Army Green Beret officer who recommended Kerry for the decoration.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is registered as an independent "527" committee, named for the section of the federal tax code under which similar groups are organized. Its contributors include several major Republican donors.
Kerry, now a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, has made his Vietnam record a major theme of his presidential campaign.
At a Washington conference of minority journalists Thursday, he said the country needs a president "who understands the test before you send young people to war."
When Kerry accepted the Democrats' presidential nomination last week, 14 of his former crewmates appeared on stage with him, and Rassman spoke of how Kerry had saved his life in Vietnam.
Veteran Thomas MacDonnell, a Kerry supporter, waits Tuesday for the start of a campaign rally in Jefferson City, Missouri.
In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of "unregulated soft money activity."
"We will not and have not questioned Sen. Kerry's service record in Vietnam," he said. "This is another example of the problem of unregulated soft money."
The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate the discourse."
The Bush press secretary said he "hopes the Kerry campaign will join us in calling for an end to all unregulated ads."
Asked whether the campaign will demand the ad be pulled from the air, he said, "We are calling for a cessation of all unregulated ads and hope the Kerry campaign will join us."
CNN's Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 06:56:54 PM · #144 |
I posted the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth response to McCain's request yesterday:
Speaking for the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman (ret.) said:
"Swiftboat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 members, many of whom were wounded or highly decorated in Vietnam.
We purchased with our blood and service the right to be heard, to set the record straight about our unit, and to tell the truth about John Kerry's military service record.
We respect Senator McCain's right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well, and Senator McCain did not."
Why should these men, who actually served in Vietnam, not be able to express themselves? What gives McCain any more credibility to say the things he does? The Swiftboat Vets for Truth have way more insight into what happened over there than anybody else.
And who cares that they received funding from Bob Perry? Do I need to bring up the tens of millions in contributions that radical activist George Soros has made to organizations like MoveOn.org to "defeat Bush at any cost?"
And what difference does it make if they weren't on the exact boat that SKerry was on? The swiftboat patrols operated in close vicinity with each other; each boat holds 5 people... they aren't all alone like some "stealth patrol" where nobody else could see. How can this be any different than the vets who stood behind him at the DNC? Only a few of those guys actually served with him on his boat.
The only "besmirching" going on is in the media when they attack the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. Why won't the media address SKerry's Vietnam past? Because it isn't on their "agenda", so they only want to discredit the brave men who actually served our country in a time of war.
I ask again: what do these veterans have to gain by making these statements that you think are "fake" or "untrue"? I'm certain they realized the intense public scrutiny and reaction the liberal media would have to their story, and yet they still felt strongly enough about getting the truth out there to forge ahead. What's in it for the 250 members of that organization? Why would they stir up controversy with "lies" and risk libel and slander lawsuits? They simply want to educate the public about SKerry's real military "adventures", and they have just as much right as anybody else in this country to tell their side of the story.
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 19:10:39. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:06:21 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Kerry's campaign quickly pointed out that not one of the men featured in the commercial served in the two patrol boats Kerry commanded in Vietnam and that some of them had previously been quoted as praising Kerry. |
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:08:57 PM · #146 |
Also, if Kerry was so horrible, why did none of this come out in his 20+ years in the senate? He has been in public office and in public eye ever since he got back from Vietnam.
Also, I doubt if when the army gave him medals in the 70's they had political intentions for the year 2004. If they did, I want them in charge of our government from now on; we need that kind of foresight!
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:12:52 PM · #147 |
Actually SKerry did have that kind of forethought. See the first post in this thread:
"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."
How many other vets do you know that have as much film footage of themselves in Vietnam as SKerry? He was thinking about a political career way back then. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:20:12 PM · #148 |
And by the way, Swiftboat Vets for Truth is not the only veteran group who think SKerry lied and are trying to make their case known. There are other organizations such as ScaryJohnKerry.com (which explains that 12 vets in a photo with SKerry are threatening to sue him for using their image as if they support him; in reality, only 1 of his "crewmates" in the photo support SKerry), Vietnam Veterans for Truth, Green Berets Against Kerry, wintersoldier.com, Vietnam Special Forces against Kerry and POW/MIA Families Against John Kerry.
And answer this: why won't SKerry release his military record if he is so proud of what he did in Vietnam?
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 19:38:34. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:20:17 PM · #149 |
I'm not on either side of this. I consider it the same as F911, but I saw this today:
//humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html
Anti-Kerry Vietnam Veterans Hold Strong
The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is in response to an article appearing in the morning edition of the Boston Globe (“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry”) which implies that one Vietnam Veteran wishes to retract an affidavit he signed regarding John Kerry’s actions during and after Kerry’s time in Vietnam. The signed affidavit can be seen below.
"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played. [See both affidavits below.]
“Additional documentation will follow. The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.
“Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam.”
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 07:25:57 PM · #150 |
Are you making fun of the man who served his country under fire?
That is sick !
Shame....
How did you serve your country EdyG and Louddog,did you spent time in service under fire?
Or by hiding behind the computer keyboards and bashing people who did !
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 19:32:40. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/26/2025 04:38:14 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/26/2025 04:38:14 PM EDT.
|
