Does this qualify as hypocrisy?

No.

reaching for the roof on a ladder with busted rungs seems silly, at best. Hope you don't break a leg or somethin'.

Re: Does this qualify as hypocrisy?


aaarrrrgggghhhhhhhh....
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg


Does this qualify as hypocrisy?

I have no idea what this means,so I will ignore it.

I am just holding Kerry to the same standard that he seems to hold Rumsfeld to.If Rumsfeld isnt qualified,then under the same standards neither is Kerry.

Also,lest we forget,it was the dems that started this whole dog and pony show about who served and how.

"What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

This doesn't even make sense. You are seriously comparing running a defense department with actions done during wartime?



You might want to double check on that one.

Cycloptichorn

the devil is in the details or facts as it were.

The reports that have come out recently definitely slap Rumsfeld around the head and face. The reports weren't prepared by Kerry, weren't commissioned by Kerry - Rumsfeld has enough troubles that Kerry's just a fly buzzing around, on this issue.

I think it would probably have looked better to let someone else take this on though. I think Kerry would do better to talk about what's important to Americans (or at least what they're telling pollsters) - and Vietnam, Guantanamo, and Iraq aren't high on the list. The economy, healthcare, declining education standards ... that's what keeps popping up on polls where people aren't directed about what's worrying them.

Do the puppetmasters need Rumsfeld? Can they sacrifice him?

bethie

I'm sure you've noticed how remarkably absent Rummie has been for about 8 or 12 weeks now? They'll try desperately to suppress investigation (or findings) which might make it necessary to fire Rummie, because the portrait they are pushing is "Bush leads a strong team" and that they don't make mistakes. They'll draw him back from the public eye (they've done it with Rice too) to keep accumulated negatives out of mind, and in order to push Bush forward as the vote-getter.

No, John Kerry did NOT testify that he committed atrocities; in fact he did not even testify that in his own experience he knew of atrocities committed in Viet Nam.

He said that he spoke with over 100 veterans who told him of specific atrocities they had committed or witnessed.

Do a search for:

John_Kerry+testimony+atrocities

I did so on MSN, and the very first article was the testimony which Kerry gave before the congressional committee during the war in Viet Nam. Its address is:

http://www.urich.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

And would you please learn to use the spacebar after commas?

p.d, as usual you point out the fact, not the spin. unfortunately we have to do it over and over. i suspect a lot of the awifty fans never bother to follow your links. so let's help them out with the following copy and paste from the 1971 transcript that addresses this part of their complaint...

Statement of Mr. John Kerry

...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....

WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

that, is what he said...

Mr. Don't Tread-On-Me; Mr John Kerry:---No Ice Fishing with either of these Laff-A-Minute Types.

Mr. Don't Tread-On-Me; Mr John Kerry:---No Ice Fishing with either of these Laff-A-Minute Types.

now that was a convincing rebuttal. a real double whammy.
:wink:

PDiddie,
You are absolutely right,he didnt testify that he committed atrocities,he said it on "Meet the Press" in 1971.
My source is CNN,and the left has claimed CNN is the only true news.
Here is the link,AND his quote.
Now tell me he didnt say it...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/hughes.kerry.vietnam/

"In an interview on NBC's "Meet The Press" last Sunday, Kerry was asked about statements he made about Vietnam War atrocities during an interview with the same program in 1971, when he was a leader in the antiwar movement:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones, I conducted harassment and interdiction fire, I used .50-caliber machine guns which 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," Kerry said in 1971."

And from the History News Network,here is the actual transcript of his statement on Meet the Press...
http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

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.

So,are you still going to say he didnt say it?
You want another source?

BTW,you do realize that Kerry also ADMITTED to breaking the law,by meeting with the enemy?

I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971


----------
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

-- U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Section 953: Private correspondence with foreign governments

As a commissioned Naval officer (he was still in the reserves) he was duty bound and honor bound to report the names of ANYONE that committed war crimes, but he didnt.That makes him guilty also, of covering it up.

So, I repeat my original premise,that if Rumsfeld isnt qualified,then Kerry is also NOT qualified, for the same reason. They BOTH committed war crimes,using the left's definition.

Every candidate must pray for the ardent support, zeal and enthusiasm you so passionately bring to this forum in his behalf.
While I may respectfully not agree with you, I salute your admirable advocacy.

So Chuck,
Does that mean that you are disputing What I am saying,or are you saying Kerry didnt say what he is quoted as saying?

I am saying that I respect your work. I will vote to re-elect Bush. Kerry is a sign of our 21st Century insanity.