Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

revel wrote:

Bush and those multi talks things didn't work either. He is now openly creating them is the only difference.

So much time for Iraq but so little for North Korea?

I was looking through links and it is not only North Korea and Iran that did not sign that treaty thing about not creating more Nuks but also Israel. Wonder why they are not included in the axis of evil thing.

Simple - They are not evil.

I also wonder why both Bush and Kerry mentioned Israel so much in connection with Iraq. That is sure to set the Arab/Muslim world off. And they did watch it. The whole world apparently did. But I forget, we can't be appeasing the terrorist so we got to go the other way and piss them off.

Let's see: Iraq is in the Middle East, and Israel is in the Middle East. Nope, that can't be it. Israel is our ally and warrants our consideration. Nope, that can't be it. Iraq, under Saddam, tried to curry favor with the Arab/Muslim world (and, unfortunately succeeded) by launching Scuds at Israel and paying $50,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian sucicide bombers. Nope, that can't be it. Must be that they were trying to piss the terrorists off. Damn, when will they learn that we have to be sensitive to the hatreds of Arabs? Especially Kerry! What's wrong with him?

I am done here. I am about sick of the whole nine yards from beginning to end. I don't even think I will vote this year even though I think Kerry did a good job last night and swept away all the flip flop accusations although it is like the other side seems to oblivious to the facts.

You're right. It is disgusting, and I wouldn't blame you for not voting. Hell, I encourage you not to vote.

The media is going to town trying to be bush cheer leaders and make last night a victory for Bush.

The bastards! You're right -- don't vote.

Think I will take time off to try and write novel. Anybody know any good editors?

You probably need to at least start that novel before you concern yourself with an editor. You're right though -- don't vote.

0 Replies

Xena wrote:

This is just one of thousands of Vets who have said the same thing. It's not just the Swiftboat Vets. All of them will tell you he didn't HAVE to leave Vietnam. He couldn't wait...

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/08/hero_speaks_out.html

You make no sense. If you were wounded three times in four months with your life in danger every day and had the rightful opportunity to leave would you? Where do you think he was? On the ranch with Dubya sucking back a couple of cold ones? If I were in constant danger of losing my life on a daily basis well then I couldn't wait to get out of the situation either.

0 Replies

He said he was in Cambodia. Smile

0 Replies

LOL, Finn!!!!! Smile

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

He said he was in Cambodia.

While Bush was busy doing lines and getting busted for DWI in Maine. . . Do you really want to bring up 30 years ago?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art/bushdui1.gif

0 Replies

Quote:

He said he was in Cambodia.

So did John O'Neil:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~29805~2358908,00.html

0 Replies

Oh goody, Joe found another incriminating document. Be sure to send that right over to Dan Rather.

0 Replies

RfromP wrote:

...

What is your experience in military decorations that leads you to believe as you put it, "3 purple hearts and however many medals sounds fishy" to you? Or do you have any knowledge of the subject? ...

As it happens, I have not only relevant but in some respects congruent, or at least overlapping experience ... and it sounds fishy as hell to me. Not impossible, mind you, but highly improbable and, IMHO, not particularly valorous.

Quote:

... In total, Kerry served on active duty for four years with eleven months in Vietnam. Not four months as you suggest ...

7 of those months were spent not in a combat command position, but in non-command, non-combat administrative duty aboard a destroyer, the USS Gridley, a vessel tasked with picket duty and which rarely ventured within 5" main-gun range of the coast. At the time Kerry transferred to Swiftboats, they were not inland-combat-deployed, but were assigned to coastal patrol duty, with little likelihood, and scarce history, of encountering hostile fire. Two weeks following Kerry's arrival, the Swiftboat mission was changed.

Quote:

... In accordance with military regulations Kerry was entitled to an early departure from Vietnam (subject to approval by the Bureau of Naval Personnel), because those who had been wounded three times, "regardless of the nature of the wound or treatment required...will not be ordered to serve in Vietnam and contiguous waters or to duty with ships or units which have been alerted for movement to that area."

Wouldn't you want to get your "rice-ridden ass" out of there too?

You said, "When any other sodiers [sic] would have stuck it out with his crew, he ran home." Please enlighten me as to the qualifications of your expertise into the mindset of soldiers.

Can't much speak to "the mindset of soldiers", per se, or of sailors or airmen, for that matter, since I was a Marine. However, in my experience, which consisted of more than one full tour In-Country, in a direct, ground-poundin', rifle-totin', multiple-wound-resultin', citation-gatherin', doin'-the-job-every-day combat role in a line combat outfit, most folks, myself included, felt pretty strongly their first duty and loyalty were to their unit and their fellows. There were exceptions, of course, but mostly, even if it meant goin' home, gettin' shot up left one feelin' bad about leavin' ones buddies to carry the load. While personally I knew of many folks who woulda qualified for an "early out" such as Kerry took, I know of none who even applied for one, let alone took one. It was in fact quite common for a wounded troop to want to return to his unit as quickly as possible, even against medical advice and to the extent of essentially just disappearing from hospital without formal release and reporting back for duty ... often havin' to hitch-hike and avoid the Shore Patrol and MPs for a day or so in order to get back. Got myself yelled at some that way a couple times. Figured then, figure now, along with lotsa others, that it just was the thing to do.

Quote:

You said, "Couldn't wait to use his "experiences" to run for office."
He was discharged from active duty in March 1970 and did not hold political office until 1982. Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982. Two years later, he was elected to the United States Senate and he has won reelection three-times since. He is now serving his fourth term, after winning again in 2002. Not exactly the definition of "couldn't wait" is it?

In '72, the first campaign season in which he was eligible following his return to The US, Kerry ran for Congress as a Democrat from Massachusetts. He lost. Following his defeat, he attended law school at Boston College, graduated in 1976, and became an Assistant District Attorney, an "eye-on-the-prize" political patronage job if ever there was one, exceedingly common in the career paths of those who go on to state and/or national legislative office. Having established a suitable network, he re-entered the electoral arena, where exclusively he has remained for nearly a quarter century.

Quote:

... I prefer to form opinions/conclusions based on research and contemplation of facts obtained from legitimate sources and not based on what others say I should think ...

Me too. Pretty much figure its the thing to do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh goody, Joe found another incriminating document. Be sure to send that right over to Dan Rather.

Dan's busy. He got a copy of Britney Spears newest marriage license which could be a forgery. He thinks he's onto something big.

Smile

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

revel wrote:

Bush and those multi talks things didn't work either. He is now openly creating them is the only difference.

So much time for Iraq but so little for North Korea?

I was looking through links and it is not only North Korea and Iran that did not sign that treaty thing about not creating more Nuks but also Israel. Wonder why they are not included in the axis of evil thing.

Simple - They are not evil.

I also wonder why both Bush and Kerry mentioned Israel so much in connection with Iraq. That is sure to set the Arab/Muslim world off. And they did watch it. The whole world apparently did. But I forget, we can't be appeasing the terrorist so we got to go the other way and piss them off.

Let's see: Iraq is in the Middle East, and Israel is in the Middle East. Nope, that can't be it. Israel is our ally and warrants our consideration. Nope, that can't be it. Iraq, under Saddam, tried to curry favor with the Arab/Muslim world (and, unfortunately succeeded) by launching Scuds at Israel and paying $50,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian sucicide bombers. Nope, that can't be it. Must be that they were trying to piss the terrorists off. Damn, when will they learn that we have to be sensitive to the hatreds of Arabs? Especially Kerry! What's wrong with him?

I am done here. I am about sick of the whole nine yards from beginning to end. I don't even think I will vote this year even though I think Kerry did a good job last night and swept away all the flip flop accusations although it is like the other side seems to oblivious to the facts.

You're right. It is disgusting, and I wouldn't blame you for not voting. Hell, I encourage you not to vote.

The media is going to town trying to be bush cheer leaders and make last night a victory for Bush.

The bastards! You're right -- don't vote.

Think I will take time off to try and write novel. Anybody know any good editors?

You probably need to at least start that novel before you concern yourself with an editor. You're right though -- don't vote.

I am not going to try and write under your points as I find it aggrivating.

So I will just number them.

1. The point about it not making any difference in North Korea and how we go about it was that foxfrye made out like Clinton's way didn't work. I merely pointed out that Bush's way didn't either. That guy from North Korea said once that the only North Korea would stop developing Nukes (easier to spell) was for the leader of North Korea to die.

2. About Israel being evil, I imagine that is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that Saddam Hussien was just sucking up to the Arabs/Muslims with giving the suicide bombers money.

However neither is to the point. The point is this from one of my previous links.

Quote:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty mentions five "Nuclear Weapons States" (NWS), which are allowed under the treaty to possess nuclear weapons. None other among the 188 countries that signed the treaty are allowed to have Nuclear Weapons programs. The five NWS are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, France, and the United Kingdom. Other countries with nuclear weapons, none of which has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, are India, Pakistan and Israel

Isreal did not sign the Non Proliferation Treaty so they are not supposed to be able to possess Nuclear weapons. They have broke just as many UN agreement as any other "evil" nation. Yet somehow they are exempt from any censure or name calling from the US.

3. I wonder just how is Israel our ally? What have they done for us that is so special that we have to treat them so special? So they are in the middle east, some would argue that is the whole problem. Israel has launched missles at Palestine and other parts of the world yet we are not going to war with them.

4. you guys must be worried if you feel you got to encourage every democrat not to vote. Kind of unpatriotic.

What I was expressing was my growing tiredness of the poltical game. It is fast getting old.

5. I know I can't spell and I my grammar sort of blast the myth about liberal democrats being elistist. But I would like to write something and get it published before I die.

0 Replies

Hang in there, revel. You're going to make it.

0 Replies

In between the die-hard Armageddon-seeking Christians, and the Gung-ho gimme-a-gun-I'll-kill-the-bastards Militants... W has a solid faction.

Mr. Kerry, however, has to tailor his appeal to the remainder... chief among which are the RATIONAL Americans.

Do we really need another knee-JERK administration?

0 Replies

Speaking of forgeries:

http://www.masstort.org/fox/FOXNews_com%20-%20You%20Decide%202004%20-%20Trail%20Tales%20-%20BTrail%20Tales-B%20What's%20That%20Face.htm

Quote:

Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president.

"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.

With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.

Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.

"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.

Anybody see anything wrong with this FOX news article?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Anybody see anything wrong with this FOX news article?

You mean other than someone being foolish enough to try to make an issue out of silliness? No.

0 Replies

Ah, Bill, your commentary on silliness as "an issue", accompanied as it is by your avatar...
( well, I will acknowledge that Cheese IS serious business)

0 Replies

Well Magnus, all kidding aside, this time of year I'd look pretty silly without my Cheese, now wouldn't I? :wink:

0 Replies

Here is something Kerry has proposed if he's elected:

Kerry's Proposal to Offer Iran A Nuclear 'Bargain' Draws Fire
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief
September 02, 2004

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - Sen. John Kerry's proposal to offer Iran a "great bargain" to retain its nuclear plants but give up nuclear fuels (which could give it weapons capability) has been questioned by critics who point to a similar Clinton administration initiative that failed to end North Korea's bid to build atomic bombs.

The plan was outlined by Democrat vice-presidential candidate John Edwards in a Washington Post interview earlier this week.

The paper quoted Edwards as saying that if Tehran rejected the proposal, it would effectively be admitting that it is pursuing a goal of nuclear weapons. A Kerry administration would then, in concert with European allies, subject Iran to "heavy sanctions."

Iran is becoming an issue in the presidential campaign at a time when the U.N.'s atomic watchdog is preparing to consider whether it should refer the Islamic republic's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council.

The 35-member governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will hold a crucial meeting on Iran in Vienna beginning Sept. 13.

Iran denies U.S. charges that it is pursuing nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear program -- being built with Russian help -- is a peaceful one designed solely to generate electricity.

A new IAEA report to governing board members says no definitive evidence has been uncovered pointing to a bomb program, but notes that Iran is preparing to refine about 37 tons of "yellowcake" uranium into a form that could, in turn, be processed further and used to make nuclear weapons.

In response, John Bolton, the administration's chief arms control official, said in a statement Wednesday that Iran's actions showed how urgent it was that the Security Council considers the matter.

Bolton believes the time to report Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council is long overdue.

"To fail to do so would risk sending a signal to would-be proliferators that there are not serious consequences for pursuing secret nuclear weapons programs," he said in a recent speech at the Hudson Institute.

The Security Council could in theory vote on sanctions, although widely-predicted opposition by Russia, for one, makes that highly unlikely.

In his Washington Post interview, Edwards criticized President Bush's policies, arguing that Iran was closer to nuclear weapons capability now than it had been when he took office.

He said the administration had abdicated responsibility for the Iranian threat to the Europeans -- a reference to efforts by Britain, France and Germany to get Iran to end its nuclear-enrichment program. Tehran reached an agreement with the EU trio last October, but has since renounced it, saying it reserves the right to enrich uranium.

The "great bargain" proposal outlined by Edwards appears to mirror the Clinton administration's Agreed Framework, a 1994 initiative which sought to end North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions.

Under that agreement, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in return for U.S. fuel aid and the provision by the U.S. and its Northeast Asian allies of alternative, civilian reactors for power supply purposes.

But in Oct. 2002, it emerged that Pyongyang had reneged on the deal by carrying out a covert uranium-enrichment program. When confronted with evidence, the North Koreans admitted to the violation, according to the State Department.

The Agreed Framework quickly unraveled: The U.S. and allies suspended fuel aid shipments and work on the civilian reactors; North Korea kicked out U.N. inspectors from nuclear facilities frozen under the 1994 deal and restarted a mothballed reactor.

Pyongyang then withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and later claimed to have reprocessed a stockpile of spent fuel rods - a step experts warned could provide sufficient material to build half a dozen nuclear bombs.

Three rounds of six-party talks have so far failed to resolve the North Korean crisis.

In the view of American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Tom Donnelly "the Kerry team has apparently learned nothing from the disastrous [Agreed Framework] deal."

"In that earlier 'bargain,' North Korea promised to halt work on nuclear weapons in return for American assistance with 'peaceful' nuclear programs," Donnelly wrote in an item posted on the AEI website.

"We now know that the North Korean government lied all along and used the agreement to proceed with its nuclear weapons programs."

Donnelly said the proposal was in line with the Democrat candidate's "generally soft approach to dangerous regimes like the one in Tehran," and recalled Kerry's assertion earlier this year that he sought a "non-confrontational" approach toward Iran.

Center for Security Policy president Frank J. Gaffney also noted that a deal like the one being touted by Kerry and Edwards had "failed abysmally" to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

"Based on what is known about Iran's program and intentions - let alone its history of animus towards us - only the recklessly naive could still believe that such a deal is necessary to divine the mullahs' true purposes," Gaffney said in a decision brief.

"While it may be inconvenient to say so, Iran is clearly putting into place a complete nuclear fuel cycle so as to obtain both weapons and power from its reactor and enrichment facilities."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

As it happens, I have not only relevant but in some respects congruent, or at least overlapping experience ... and it sounds fishy as hell to me. Not impossible, mind you, but highly improbable and, IMHO, not particularly valorous.

Kerry was not the approval authority of his own medals. If his Chain of Command saw fit to recommend approval of the award recommendations the issue is with them, not Kerry. It's just as easy to recommend disapproval as it is to recommend approval. Valorous may be a judgment call but who's to say how much shrapnel determines an award.

timberlandko wrote:

7 of those months were spent not in a combat command position, but in non-command, non-combat administrative duty aboard a destroyer, the USS Gridley, a vessel tasked with picket duty and which rarely ventured within gun range of the coast. At the time Kerry transferred to Swiftboats, they were not inland-combat-deployed, but were assigned to coastal patrol duty, with little likelihood, and scarce history, of encountering hostile fire. Two weeks following Kerry's arrival, the Swiftboat mission was changed.

timberlandko wrote:

It was in fact quite common for a wounded troop to want to return to his unit as quickly as possible...

As is I'm sure just as common those who wanted to go home as quickly as possible.

timberlandko wrote:

In '72, the first campaign season in which he was eligible following his return to The US, Kerry ran for Congress as a Democrat from Massachusetts. He lost.

This was a race for the Democratic Party primary to replace the pro-war Democrat Philip J. Philbin, who represented Massachusetts's third district. After failing to garner enough support, Kerry dropped out of the race and endorsed the Rev. Robert F. Drinan, a Jesuit priest and outspoken Vietnam War opponent. He later became Drinan's campaign manager. Kerry believed, "Congress was the logical extension of his activism to end the Vietnam War."

timberlandko wrote:

he attended law school at Boston College, graduated in 1976, and became an Assistant District Attorney, an "eye-on-the-prize" political patronage job if ever there was one.

I'm not interested in conjecture, just facts. It appears you may be getting your facts from a biased source or a source that presents the facts in favor of its agenda.

0 Replies

Guess what, a new twist to the report story.

New Document Indicates Kerry Wrote Disputed Vietnam Report

The New York Sun and Chicago Sun Times reporting this morning: http://www.nysun.com/article/2542 and http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip01.html

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 1, 2004

Did Kerry write own report of disputed clash?
October 1, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

A faded 35-year-old operations order recovered from the Naval Historical Center in Washington bears directly on the ongoing dispute between Sen. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about who wrote the key after-action report that ended Kerry's service in Vietnam. The report appears in the official Navy records and is posted on Kerry's presidential campaign Web site.

The report details Kerry's participation in a naval operation on the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, in such glowing terms that he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Special Forces officer James Rassmann out of the water while under heavy enemy fire. This third Purple Heart allowed Kerry to cut short his Vietnam tour after only four months.

The report in question described a mission of five swift boats ambushed by a mine explosion that seriously damaged one boat while the swift boats received heavy fire from both banks. The fire continued for three miles, the report said. Roy Hoffman, the admiral who commanded the swift boats in Vietnam, finds that detail alone absurd. Hoffman, a member of the anti-Kerry swift boat veterans group, says: "There was never an incident under my command in all of Vietnam where my boats were engaged by continuous fire from both banks of a half mile in length, much less three."

'It never happened'

The report mentions two other mines detonating as well. So according to this report, which now stands as the official Navy record, this swift boat mission concluded by running a three-mile gantlet of enemy fire from both banks, the detonation of three mines, and yet the only casualties occurred on the boat that hit the first mine. The boats managed to escape and, even more miraculously, retrieve the sinking boat, PCF-3, without getting a single bullet hole in any vessel or crew member.

"It is miraculous all right because it never happened," recalls Larry Thurlow, a Kerry critic who commanded the mission. "PCF-3 hit a mine; all of my boats directed suppressing fire on both banks, expecting the mine to be followed up by gunfire. But after a couple of minutes, we ceased firing and took steps to aid the sinking PCF-3 and its injured crew members. There was never a shot fired at us, and no additional mines went off, either. And if we had been facing gunfire from both sides of three miles of riverbank, I would have called in the standby air support. I didn't."

After he returned to the United States the following month, Thurlow was surprised to find that he had received a Bronze Star himself because of his activities described in the after-action report. When Thurlow first saw the report last July, he didn't recognize the mission it described. The Kerry campaign pointed to Thurlow's own citation, referring to his being "under constant enemy small arms fire," when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first contested Kerry's account in August.

As the commander of the mission, normally Thurlow would have filed the disputed after-action report. But he denies writing it. And the after-action report supports his denial. It was written by someone designated "TE 194.5.4.4/1."

An operations order by Adm. Hoffman two months earlier set the format for the designation. The operations order procedures, originated by the operational commander of the Coastal 11 An Thoi unit Kerry served with, Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale, was the basis for the terms of designation used in this kind of report subsequently. Upon seeing the report, Lonsdale, a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member, recognized it and recalled the procedures it required as being followed in his command.

"TE" refers to a "task element," which is defined by the numbers to the right, which show the command structure over the task element in action. "194" is Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Hoffman's swift boat command; "4" is Lonsdale's command, and the last "4" is Capt. George Elliot's swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. The last "1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."

According to a Navy communications expert, Chief Petty Officer Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night.

Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer, John Kerry, Dick Pease and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, stationed about 25 nautical miles away, leaving only Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 p.m.

Could Droz have somehow written the report? Lonsdale says command precedence of days in swift boat service alone rules this out. "According to the command procedure I set down, Kerry would have been the only logical candidate. Kerry had been in Vietnam since November. Droz just arrived at An Thoi in February." Thurlow adds, "I never liked the paperwork anyway. I was happy to have Kerry write them up."

Operations order verified

And there is another factor. Thurlow ordered Droz to take care of the wounded after the action on the Bay Hap. Droz had ferried them 40 miles out to the Spencer and now had to take them 25 miles back to the USS Washtenaw County. Moving wounded on and off a 327-foot cutter from a 50-foot swift boat on the open sea was not something Droz was likely to leave unsupervised long enough to dash off a report. Kerry had no duties other than reporting to the sick bay, where according to his doctor he was seen at 7 that night. And he spent the night on the Spencer.

The head of the Operational Archives Branch of the Naval Historical Center in Washington, Kathy Lloyd, has verified Hoffman's operations order. Neither Kerry's campaign nor his swift boat veteran critics contest the validity of the after-action report by "TE 194.5.4.4/1." Kerry spokesmen have repeatedly insisted that Kerry denies writing the report and that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were arguing with the official Navy record.

But if "the official Navy record" now turns out to have been written by Kerry himself, the principal beneficiary of its glowing references to his performance, the swift boat critics' charges look far more consequential.

After all, the report completely leaves out how Kerry's own boat, PCF-94, ran down river leaving James Rassmann overboard and the other three boats to deal with the ambush and the sinking PCF-3. All of the living boat commanders on that mission are in firm agreement on that action by Kerry and agree that the report is a fraudulent misrepresentation of an action they remember well.

The Kerry campaign didn't return calls for this article. But members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. And Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.

Thomas Lipscomb is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future in New York.

0 Replies

Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know