Ok i posted this near the end of the thread but for those who read this here i go again:p

Politics is getting cloged up again with "Bush\republican suck, no the democrates suck" threads so i have resurected this sticky and from now on i am dumping all these types of threads here. If a thread is about half decent posts and half of this type then i will split it but if its just a few posts in a thread then i will just delete them (sorry i dont have unlimited time to split a thread, select a few posts and then merge it with this one).

If thats the only point of your thread then PLEASE do me a favor a just post it here

i've posted this in 2 threads already but people haven't noticed or conveniently ignored it.

so here it is (http://www.swiftvets.com/): Vietnam veterans who fought along side Kerry condemn him as a liar, unfit to lead, when the tough gets going him crawling under a rock, etc. etc.

make sure that you read the titles of who the speakers are.

maybe Kerry shouldn't have opened that Pandora's box... waving around his Vietnam service is not such a good idea if his service was a sham.

this video is a few days old. but give it a week or 2 and it'll reach the mainstream.
do you think Hanoi John's Vietnam record will be a liability or an asset?

i think this ad was run on CNN or other TV networks his ratings would drop by a coupla points at least. let's see how truly unbiased the networks are

Kerry has disgraced the US Navy by going against all the three core values of the US Navy: Honor, Commitment and Courage.

Many choose to ignore this because it is the truth and it reminds me of the famous movie quote that some people "...can't handle the truth!"

I can imagine Fox to air this but it will totally be quite a surprise for me if CNN will ever even mention this.

Thank you for the link, it is good stuff!

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face. Truth my ass. The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, and even if he hadn't won three purple hearts and three medals (I think?) he'd still be a hero.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.

Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

Is this what you are refering to? :

John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

Al French: "I served with John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "I served with John Kerry."

George Elliott: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Al French: "He is lying about his record."

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate."

Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry ...

Bob Hildreth (off-camera): John Kerry cannot be trusted."

Announcer: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

Weak, guys, really weak. How did he lie? What was his first injury that it didn't deserve a purple heart? What exactly was the lie that resulted in his getting a bronze star? What was the difference between Kerry's account and what actually happened? To serve your country and then speak up about the horrors that occurred in the great mistake called Vietnam is the height of patriotism, in my opinion.

Shall we talk about George W. Bush, and the strings his daddy pulled to get him a cushy situation in the National Guard, from which he was AWOL, instead getting high on coke, and driving around drunk?

i just don't understand why someone's Vietnam record is such a big deal. Clinton didn't serve a day in the army and he was elected to be a president. why is it all of a sudden the issue?

it's irrelevant who served where. does every cover CIA operative deserve a shot at the presidency just cause he pulled some Rambo shit?

the point is that Kerry shouldn't wave his dick around when it comes to Vietnam.

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face.
the veterans that support him are also partisan. by the way, i think that hearing Kerry's former commanding officer or commander telling you straight up that "Kerry is not fit to lead" has some value in it.

The guy volunteered for river boat duty
the term "semi-volunteered" is often used when describing Kerry's army service. i'm not sure what that means but at least i'm sure it wasn't completely Pat Tillman type of volunteering. partially it was a draft

he'd still be a hero
a hero is someone who went above and beyond. he did a typical tour of duty. if he saved these 2 men from enemy fire or whatever then he is a hero.. but if he just pulled them out of the river that's no heroism. that's the bare minimum a soldier should do.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.
the way he slandered all the soldiers as war criminals and practically destroyed the morale of the entire US army?
i'd spit on him if i was a Vietnam vet.

the way he slandered all the soldiers as war criminals and practically destroyed the morale of the entire US army?
i'd spit on him if i was a Vietnam vet.

Single handedly destroyed the morale of the U.S.Army? I think a quick study of the Vietnam conflict would show the U.S. government was far more responsible. Surely you overestimate his impact.

I'd like to see proof that he portrayed all of our soldiers as criminals.

it's public record.
additionally, when Vietnam vets came home from their tours of duty they were spat on for being "baby killers", without any investigation whether they personally committed any "war crimes".
whether he said "every single soldier did it" or not, the effect was devastating regardless. any soldier was considered by the masses a war criminal upon return.

it's of course arguable who was more responsible, but he did have a huge impact.

You're the one claiming he said it. I'd like a reference, or a link to one.

I've heard the spit in the face stories as well. It appears they may just be urban legends.

NEW YORK--A haunted young man whose face bears too many lines for his years, jetlagged and limping from a wound sustained in the defense of his country half a world away, emerges from a jetway at San Francisco International Airport. A woman about the same age awaits in the terminal. A peace-sign necklace hanging above a loose floral-print dress billowing about her unshaven legs, the hippie chick scornfully scans his uniform, spits in his face and screams: "Baby killer!" The veteran scans the crowd for support, but sees only contempt in the faces of passersby.

It's a powerful, tragic cliché of the Vietnam era, dramatized in the "Rambo" movies, and a cautionary tale for today's antiwar left. But according to Holy Cross College professor Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam vet and author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam," it never happened.

"If you go back and look at the historical record, like I did--newspaper accounts, police records, and also just things historians have written," says Lembcke, "you don't find any record or any evidence that these things happened--or even that they were being claimed as happening--in the late '60s and early '70s." There isn't even one letter written by a soldier at the time referencing such an incident.
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040713

Did Kerry claim to have witnessed anything even close to as bad as the Mei Lai massacre? Now there was an incident that tarred the Army as baby killers.

Actually it is now being considered as urban legend that Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon...

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224

Did you ever consider why you have never seen a video of this, or heard a vet talk about it?

As far as Kerry is concerned, I have heard one vet say he pulled two men out of the water during enemy fire, another claim that he swam across a river to kill an already injured Vietnamese soldier. I simply do not know what to believe, because I am hearing so many contradictory statements.

Opps... looks like repo man beat me out :D

otheadp, are you voting for Bush? Because you know Ashcroft will crack down on your pot, there are already hints of this, a report that came out about how it's so much stronger now so it should be taken more seriously...and Tommy Chong is in prison for selling bongs! Everybody sells goddamn bongs, WTF! And Bush's talent for pissing off the Arabs is NOT going to help Israel at all...

i just don't understand why someone's Vietnam record is such a big deal. Clinton didn't serve a day in the army and he was elected to be a president. why is it all of a sudden the issue?

I agree. Why are you making it the issue?


These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face.
the veterans that support him are also partisan. by the way, i think that hearing Kerry's former commanding officer or commander telling you straight up that "Kerry is not fit to lead" has some value in it.

Of course they have points of view -- they're human beings. I even agree with your last sentence above, that the commander's statement "has some value". Some. The world is gray, not black and white.

But most of the individuals who were there with him confirm his service and his valor. The story about the boats coming under fire, beaching the boat and running on shore to take out the attacker is one of the most dramatic stories I've ever heard from that theater. And I've heard a lot of them. There is something visceral, human, integral, immediate and absolutely horrifying about that story. If that's not an act of valor, I don't know what is.


he'd still be a hero
a hero is someone who went above and beyond. he did a typical tour of duty. if he saved these 2 men from enemy fire or whatever then he is a hero.. but if he just pulled them out of the river that's no heroism. that's the bare minimum a soldier should do.

I meant that as a statement of opinion, not objective fact. In my book they're all heros, whatever they did over there. But in my opinion you're very, very wrong in your assessment of Kerry's actions in pulling two men out of the river. NOTHING that ANYBODY ever does under fire is "the bare minimum", and they were ALWAYS in somebody's crosshairs on that river.


I just don't think you have any idea how much this weakens your pro-Bush stance. The whole line of reasoning is just pattently ridiculous.

The whole line of reasoning is just pattently ridiculous.

Don’t be surprised….

As relating to the Kerry, Vietnam scenario what makes his situation rather unique is that he did not have to go. How many Yale grads and members of Skull and Bones went to Vietnam voluntarily? I’d vouch not much, we know that Bush didn’t, we know that Cheney and Clinton avoided going as well. Kerry as an American citizen has every right to criticize a war that was ethically, materially, and strategically wrong. It’s easy for us to say “he’s a bastard who threatened the entire US military” without understanding that he knew what was happening in Vietnam first hand. Aren’t we supposed to respect the veteran’s? Vietnam was his war, and he fought it unlike so many who now bitch, alas GWB. Kerry took one of the most dangerous jobs in the war, patrolling the Mekong Delta, with heavy foliage, with the Vietcong hiding in that foliage, and his job was to attract fire to his boat! Kerry’s record as a war veteran simply has no compare in this election.

Well put.

are you voting for Bush?
if i was an American

Because you know Ashcroft will crack down on your pot
good. i hate weed. it's just a nickname, you know? ;)

Bush's talent for pissing off the Arabs is NOT going to help Israel at all...
i believe pissing them off is the right way to go... but that's not the topic here so we'll leave it to another thread

Why are you making it the issue?
i'm responding to it already being (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040805/photos_ts_afp/040805074054_ra2v9mdy_photo1) an issue (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040730/ids_photos_india_wl/ra368021054.jpg). i don't think his record has much relevance since there are other army officers who had done more heroic deeds yet they are unfit to lead a country

But most of the individuals who were there with him confirm his service and his valor.
i heard it's the other way around. in addition, there's enough evidence against Kerry for a 250 page book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/qid=1091725536/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-7912390-9131246?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
also, check out what googling for "Vietnam vets for kerry" (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=vietnam+vets+for+kerry) has produced. not a single pro-Kerry website.
looks like many veterans simply hate his guts

now, if he is such a hero, why does the doctor who treated Kerry, Kerry's commanding officer(s) and fellow soldiers, at least 2-dozen of them are calling him a liar? do you think all of them just have a "political agenda"?

and it's still besides the point - his military record could be the best of all time - it doesn't matter. what matters is he can be a good president.
it's like saying "well, i'm the fastest runner in the class, therefore i will ace my math exam"
what's one thing got to do with the other?

finally, i'll repeat what i've already written and been quoted on :
"if he saved these 2 men from enemy fire or whatever then he is a hero.. but if he just pulled them out of the river that's no heroism. that's the bare minimum a soldier should do"

and it's still besides the point - his military record could be the best of all time - it doesn't matter. what matters is he can be a good president.

Is this a serious criticism? JFK went through this military experience in a small patrol boat in the Pacific war, and that is regarded as one of the most heroic, and most influential things that JFK has ever done (Does anyone feel that the JFK, and JFK has a lot in common, because I do?). What do you think “commander and chief” connotates? Although it is true that really it doesn’t prove his campaign promises, what it shows is his personal valor, and tenacity . He has proven in Vietnam that in a war situation he takes charge that cannot be said for Bush. Kerry’s war experience is a valid, and relevant point that he can make. If Bush had the same experience you wouldn’t be complaining, and this would be exploited as well. The man can say “I saved lives, and protected America”, something reserved for very few people.

Sorry, quoting partisan sources doesn't cut it with me. What won me over to considering Kerry's war record to be valid are the non-partisan sources, such as the medals and awards he received, the duty he chose. Some of the more moderate testimony on both sides has some value to me, but that's about it.

Spinning an issue in a partisan fashion is like sleeping with pigs. This smells to hog heaven. Feel free to have the last word.

By the way, Undecided and Tiassa, I hope you took note of how I responded to this.

Feel free to have the last word.
i most certainly will, thank you.

i've asked a question: now, if he is such a hero, why does the doctor who treated Kerry, Kerry's commanding officer(s) and fellow soldiers, at least 2-dozen of them are calling him a liar? do you think all of them just have a "political agenda"?

and you've answered: What won me over to considering Kerry's war record to be valid are the non-partisan sources.

i don't know. am i that "partisan" that i can't look at it objectively?

there are many groups of vets out there against Kerry, they simply hate him for his testimonies. they've probably never met him even. but here you have his doctor, his comrades, his commanding officers... are they partisan?

am i that "partisan" that i can't look at it objectively?


Is that a question, or a statement?

By the way, Undecided and Tiassa, I hope you took note of how I responded to this.

Indeed I have. Thank you for clearing it all up.

(On edit: What finally sold you on the Bush camp?)

Well I will say Pangloss it's a step in the right direction...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.mccain.ap/index.html

Apparently Republican and Bush backer, and senator from my own state John McCain thinks this swiftboat veterans add is a load of crap too. Its worth pointing out that for over half the add the vets seem to be commenting on the duality of Kerry's having faught in the war and then protested it, but it is presented as if they are saying he lied about ever doing anything great in the war.

[b]and it's still besides the point - his military record could be the best of all time - it doesn't matter. what matters is he can be a good president.

Well we already know that the goof ball we've got in office isn't qualified for the job by any stretch of imagination, so I'd say it's worth a try to see if Kerry's got what it takes.

i just don't understand why someone's Vietnam record is such a big deal. Clinton didn't serve a day in the army and he was elected to be a president. why is it all of a sudden the issue?

Maybe Bush keeps reminding people that we are in the time of war? That is, before he flip flops and tells everybody he's the peace president.

John Kerry lost four best friends because of the war. What they're doing to him is absolutely despicable. These vets are right wing thugs first and objective judges a way distant third. They're purely concerned with Kerry's politics, not his valour or courage. Anybody who had the courage to fight in a swift boat is a hero, period.

And if Kerry's a "coward" for his meagre deeds in Vietnam, then LOL, what does that make Bush? This is not an effective angle in the long run because trying to contrast Vietnam careers is not a winning issue for the RNC.

God bless John McCain. I hope people listen to his sane voice.

He has proven in Vietnam that in a war situation he takes charge that cannot be said for Bush.

OTH, I'll bet you can't find a single member of the national guard who found fault with the way Bush led. He didn't leave anyone with a bad impression. Dubya's a patriot.

Bush lead someone in the air guard?

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face.

Wrong. HE BROUGHT IT UP.

Truth my ass.
I just heard an interview with the doctor who treated him for his first injury, which was NOT incurred under enemy fire according to the doctor's account of the scenario as reported by the enlisted members on his boat. Further, the doctor also said that he was reportedly scolded by his fellow officers for poorly handling the grenade launcher that caused the injury. He supposedly fired it at the shore while his boat was too close. That caused debris from shore to end up stuck in his arm. He reported the injury was a match stick size piece of metal sticking out of his upper arm. The doctor removed the metal with forceps and put a bandaid on the injury, which Kerry himself had cause while NOT under enemy fire at all.

The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, and even if he hadn't won three purple hearts and three medals (I think?) he'd still be a hero.
I disagree. Brave in intent, cowardly in action. The doctor recieved a request for issuance of a purple heart and denied it. He reported that papers were signed two months later by somoene entirely removed from Kerry's chain of command. It was also reported that he told his men on more than one occasion that he was going to be the next JFK.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.
Not if they knew the real story (if the doctor and the swift boat guys are truthful, which I have no reason to believe they aren't considering the number of them seeming to corroborate the story. okay at the same time it's possible that it's all lies, the truth is hard to find when the media is all you have to go on). It's quite obvious to me that he, like many members of the military, was just using any excuse to get a medal because it looks good on paper.

Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

I find THAT unbelievable, especially considering that it is KERRY making vietnam an issue. If you don't believe it, listen to his VP candidate's intro from his trip to missouri the other day. His service in Vietnam was the crux of his introduction. I think Kerry is a scumbag and I do not appreciate his service whatsoever, as it is abusive bitches like him that shame the military. Remember, three purple hearts and he's out of there. Note his anti-war speeches right after his return. IMO, his purple heart seeking got him two things that he desperately wanted. 1) Out of vietnam and 2) Good looking paper he could abuse as testimony to his character. I don't blame him for wanting out of vietnam, but that is not "brave" or "honorable" in any way. It's simply human, and his actively circumvent his chain of command to achieve a purple heart of all things, is apparently a testimony to the WEAKNESS of his character. He LIED to get it.

Note that I wouldn't necessarily object so strongly if HE didn't make this shit such an issue. Man he makes me sick and is was a disgrace to the military. Don't forget his speech after his return was used against POWs like Mckain.

Kerry: Apparently a true American slimeball.

EDIT: Oh, and medals in the military is a highly politicized affair. You don't necessarily have to do anything to get one except kiss the right person's ass. In war time, each commander has incentive to award his troops as many medals as he can halfassed justify, as it reflects back on the commander and makes him more likely to get promoted. I don't know if that's the case here, but medals aren't necesarily reflective of anything positive. I've seen it first hand. LOL. In Saudi, a number of people in my unit got all kinds of medal for simply doing their jobs. I saw no particular outstanding performance, yet medals galore. I believe my commanding officer scored a silver star for merely halfassed doing his job. Note my unit was never even close to coming under fire. This isn't a complaint, I merely intend it to inform you if you haven't been in the military.

The Swift Boat advert has caught many pundits off-guard with its ferocity. Excerpts from the August 5, 2004, prime-time edition of MSNBC's After Hours:

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Joe, we knew that (unintelligible) in politics, you can find an end run around any of these ads. The Watergate reforms—people went right around them.

But let me talk to this ad. My problem with this ad is this ad is incomplete. This is the first time I‘ve heard it. And you have about seven or eight or nine or ten people saying he‘s dishonorable, you can‘t trust him, but only one individual makes an allegation that I know of, which is that there was a phoniness about his Purple Heart.

Now, this ad, I believe, was built upon a book called “Unfit to Command” written by a fellow named John O‘Neill, whom I do know, who served honorably, who‘s enormously bitter, as these fellows are, that Kerry came back to the United States and said their service was dishonorable, they‘re engaged in rapes and murders and massacres. And there‘s enormous bitterness out of this.

What we got to get to, Joe, is what is the truth? I mean, these—look, these guys served. Kerry served. Let‘s go back and find out if there‘s truth or allegation in what they said and have Kerry directly answer any specific charges they‘ve got. But there‘s only this one that I‘ve seen in this ad.

• • •

MIKE BARNICLE, “THE BOSTON HERALD”: I think, Joe, that some people do know the complete story, and the complete story‘s been out there in the past. It‘s been written about and spoken about ad nauseam, in Senate races that Kerry has participated in, as well as earlier this year and last year.

SCARBOROUGH: So this isn‘t a new attack?

BARNICLE: No, it‘s not. It‘s a regurgitation of attacks that have been made over the past 20, 25 years against John Kerry.

The first point that ought to be made is that this isn‘t an ad, it‘s political pornography. That is exactly what it is. The commendations that John Kerry received, he didn‘t get one of them for his service in Coronado, California, or Newport, Rhode Island. He got them in the field of fire in South Vietnam. The Mekong River at some points is as wide as the Mississippi. It is to Vietnam and was to Vietnam then the way I-95 is to the United States of America. You could not survive as a farmer raising rice or whatever else without living on that river. And they were out there on that river under orders to shoot at anything that appeared in a free-fire zone at certain times. That‘s what happened with John Kerry.

You want to talk—none of those guys in that ad, incidentally, served on Fast Boat 94. Here‘s the list of the crew from Fast Boat 94. I‘ve spoken to every one of these guys. I‘ve spoken to every one of the guys on that boat and each of the guys who were present at each and every individual action that John Kerry received a commendation for. The difference between their story and what we hear on that ad is literally night and day. Saying they served with John Kerry is like saying you were in the Army at the same time with Eisenhower in World War II.

DREIER: Could I ask—could I ask Mike a question here? Mike, I just wanted to ask—you said that this is a story that has been regurgitated over and over again through campaigns of the past. Are these people who we just saw in that ad—and again, it‘s the first time I‘ve seen it, and Pat said the same thing. Are these people who have come forward in past senatorial campaigns for John Kerry, or is this a new group of people you haven‘t seen before?

BARNICLE: Some of them are familiar, Congressman, and some obviously are new. Pat just referred to John O‘Neill. John O‘Neill has honorable service in the military during Vietnam. He has had a burr under his saddle for John Kerry out of resentment since the early 1970s. Admiral Hoffman (ph) has had a clear burr under his saddle for John Kerry since the issuance of John Kerry‘s biography written by Professor Brinkley.

There‘s all sorts of things going on here. Part of it is politics, part of it is pure personal resentment of John Kerry. But that ad is just outrageous. And I think people know it‘s outrageous when you see . . . .

• • •

REAGAN: But you know, we‘ve seen this kind of stuff before.

BUCHANAN: You know what‘s interesting, Pat?

REAGAN: And we saw it with John McCain in the 2000 campaign, where they attacked his military record, before they got around to attacking his wife and small child. Our panel is going to stick around. And later, we‘ll take your phone calls.

Source: MSNBC "After Hours" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5621606/)

Furthermore, some pundit somewhere--I'm searching for a reference--noted that in addition to impugning John Kerry's character as a liar, so also does this ad impugn the characters of the men who served with John Kerry. The ad by proxy of doubting Kerry also doubts the men who served with Kerry. Additionally, there is the tale told by Jim Rassman (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html). We can say what we want about Kerry being a politician, but if Rassman says Kerry saved his life, I'm inclined to believe it.

This strategy could end up backfiring, and calling attention back to Bush's service record. And heaven knows, that's the last thing the GOP or the Bush/Cheney campaign want.
____________________

• Transcript. "After Hours." MSNBC, August 5, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5621606/

See Also

• Transcript. "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics." CNN, August 5, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face. Truth my ass. The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, and even if he hadn't won three purple hearts and three medals (I think?) he'd still be a hero.

The proof is the fact that if he weren't running for office there's not a Republican voter in this country who wouldn't stop to salute this man on the street and thank him for his service to the country.

Unbelievable. Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this.

Indeed many intelligent (thats a comparative term) republicans are distancing themselves from this crap. McCain, Bush, etc have all come out against this ad. These people are shooting themselves in the foot for my opinion.

Lets compare that to ole spoiled silver spoon that choose to dodge active service and may or may not have actually been AWOL part of that. Certainly he took duty time to participate in politics. That is part of the public record.

I just heard an interview with the doctor who treated him for his first injury...
That was not the doctor on record who actually treated Kerry. They are LIERS.

That was not the doctor on record who actually treated Kerry. They are LIERS.

How do you know? The guy on Neal Boortz said he was the actual guy. He said "I removed the shard" or whatever. They were quite clear.

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

What’s really pathetic about all this is that since they are calling Kerry a liar they are also calling all the members of his crew liars as well. I don’t buy these ads because they are obviously not based on fact, they are based on 527 money. The same people who funded this ad are the same people who funded the anti-McCain ads which attacked him personally as well in 2000 when he went up against Bush and sadly lost. Kerry and the Democrats this year aren’t going to allow the Republicans to smear them, or their campaign without a fight. McCain and even the Bush campaign have denounced the ad. Also the Bush team is smart enough to state that they will state nothing against Kerry’s service, because the more the GOP makes it an issue the more of a liability it becomes for them, it will then focus attention on Bush’s national guard service, and Cheney simply skipping the war altogether.

Gack. What a mess:

""This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

From Rassman, whom I heard directly contradict that statement on O'Reilly last night. He said he didn't know if their charges were false, and appeared to know that the people DID serve with Kerry.

What a mess. I believe the doctor dude. He said the guy who signed the paper was one of his men, processing paperwork for him. He also said that the men were kind of giggling about it because it was an extremely minor injury that he had caused to himself. That injury did not deserve a Purple Heart.

As for the rest of the claims, I don't know what to think... as there are people who claim "facts" on both sides of the argument.

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 - 1965), Speech during 1952 Presidential Campaign

That's all the GOP was hoping for... to cause confusion. Legend has it that Lyndon Johnson, while engaged in a particularly hard fought political battle early in his career, directed an aide to put out the word that his opponent fucked pigs. Aghast, the aide replied, "But...but...you know that's not true!"
Lyndon continued, "You know it. I know it. But, let's make the sumbitch DENY it!"

It seems to me that both sides utilize similar methods.

Such an act is not representative of one's political affiliation, rather it's representative of lacking character. I've seen plenty of folks on both sides of the fence that seem devoid of it... not to mention the agendas of those who present us with information.

i was just curious if there was anyone else out there who really thinks kerry will win by a significant margin november.

I'm hearing stuff about how 2004 will be like the 1980 election, where down the homestretch, the undecideds broke in huge waves for Reagan instead of Carter. About 45% of America want Bush, and 45% want Kerry. There are 10% of the undecided. They have already seen 4 years of Bush rule, and if they're undecided after that, they are probably more likely to jump into the Kerry camp than Bush's. What Kerry has to do is gradually win them over. It will probably not happen with one speech or one state visit, but as he cultivates his message, and attacks Bush's, he will strengthen his appeal with the swing voters.

The only elections that matter are those in swing states, principally Florida, Ohio, and Michigan. Kerry has a lead in all three states and hopefully he can keep that up. With the US economy slowing down rather significantly over the past couple of months and with Iraq potentially ready to explode again Kerry can win.

It's up to Kerry to corral the undecideds. I'll call them UDs from now on. If they're not for Bush after having four years to judge him, there's little he can do in three months to suddenly make them dedicated followers. The only thing Bush can hope for is a huge fall from grace by Kerry that will repel the UDs. The economy shows no sign of suddenly spiking within three months and Iraq can only get worse. The only hope for Bush is for him to possibly capture OBL and raise some hellfire propaganda that will rally support a la 9/11.

It would be good for our nations soul to have a landslide victory for Nader, but dreams don't come true, do they?

I know everyone set out to vote for the Democrats before the elecion campaigns began. Well, what if Kerry is a bigger idiotic bastard than Bush?

well kerry has shown in the past that he is capable of achieving things on his own in this world, unlike bush. i believe he is capable of making reasonable, rational decisions.

It would be good for our nations soul to have a landslide victory for Nader, but dreams don't come true, do they?

With a Republican congress, Nader will find it just as hard as Clinton to get any work done. That's the folly of Nader's top-down strategy, as opposed to David Cobb's much more intelligent down-top strategy. What good's a Green president when congress is dominated by Republicans and DLC Democrats? The problem with Nader is not that he presents a challenge to the Democrats, but that he simply despises and wants the Democrats destroyed. How else do you explain the fact that he has run campaigns against very liberal Democrats such as Paul Wellstone in senate races? If Nader truly wanted the best for a liberal Democratic party, he'd help guys like Wellstone and Feingold, and he would've worked to make Dennis Kucinich competitive in the primaries.

I remember people believing Bush was unbeatable. Now it looks like he can't win considering the economy and the war...unless Osama helps him out. How ironic.

Bush is trailing Kerry in all but one category: "Strong leader".

That is simply laughable in my opinion. Firstly, if history teaches us anything, it is that when danger comes, Kerry will volunteer for the most dangerous duty while Bush will rely on his connections to opt out. Secondly, most of that "strong leader" crap comes from the fact that people like how Bush toppled two regimes. Ha, the American military could topple about 90% of the world's governments! Only of course, they'd encounter great casualties, villification, and an extremely hard task of winning the peace, but nonetheless, they'd still be able to topple the government.

I'm still crossing my fingers that during the first Presidential Debate, A giant meteor suddenly strikes both Bush and Kerry killing them instantly. Cheney will pick up the republican ticket, and Wesley Clark the Democratic. Fearing a sudden heart attack from Cheny, Clark wins the White House easily.

Don't you mean Edwards?

Dude, don't wake up a dreamer. It's bad karma.

That's my job...http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

When Bush talks it looks like he LIKES a good drink, when Kerry talks he looks like he NEEDS a good drink badly, if Kerry makes a narrow win, the youthfull spirit of Edwards will probably make the small difference.

Oh!! I'll be guilty of cuting & pasting however this one is so muchj reflective of my own opinion;

*Get ready to vote again, suckers!
by Leon Fisher, Unknown News

Aug. 13, 2004

Okay zombies, get ready to vote again!

But first, sit down and feast on a delicious propaganda burger with a side order of lies followed by a fresh disinformation salad and a tall glass of Kool-Aid.

Now you're ready to vote for the corporate approved candidate of your choice.

For your convenience, the new Diebold voting machines are now at your disposal. Vote for candidate A and you might get candidate B, or visa versa depending, on how it's programmed.

It's the old switch-a-roo, but who cares? You will never know who stole the election this time -- that's the beauty of the new voting system.

Don't worry, whoever is elected, whether Democrat or Republican, he will be uniquely qualified to sell out your interests to the highest bidder while paying 'freedom' the lip service you assholes really deserve.

As usual, nothing of any good will come after this election. In fact, the war will continue, the economy will most likely worsen, the standard of living for working people will fall further, and higher taxes are a sure bet.

But don't worry, zombies -- there will be another election in four years, and another after that, and another after that.

Don't forget to vote, suckers!*

Well like i've mentioned before, the choosing of two pundits from the same old school, really no choice, just the lesser of two evils.

Godless.

It's interesting that while the Florida electronic system has acquired the most controversy so far, there is another controversy brewing in Indiana over the *paper* ballots. Voters there are annoyed at the problems with the paper system, and upset that the state didn't move to an *electronic* system!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

One candidate shut down the Bank of Commerce and Credit International and one candidate was in bed with Enron.

One candidate exposed the illegal arms deals of Iran-Contra and one candidate got drunk off his ass.

One candidate volunteered for service in Vietnam because of his privileges and one candidate skipped off to the Air National Guard because of his privileges.

One candidate led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one candidate was AWOL from National Guard duty.

One candidate speaks more than just one language, and one candidate never travelled outside of the States until he had to.

One candidate loves, embraces, and defends his opinionated wife, while one candidate keeps and shelters a typical Stepford wife.

One candidate has a history of bipartisan work, with people like Jesse Helms and John McCain, and one candidate thrives on division and extreme ideologues.

One candidate reads up to five papers a day, and one candidate breezes through the headlines.

One candidate wants to leave gay marriage out of the constitution, and one candidate wants a federal amendment.

One candidate shut down the Bank of Commerce and Credit International and one candidate was in bed with Enron.

Tell that to Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, now serving a five year prison sentence thanks to the administration you imply was on the take. And speaking of being on the take, Enron was doing the exact same thing under the Clinton administration, which did nothing about it *and* accepted campaign contributions from them. Janet Reno may not have known anything about Enron, but she certainly knew about shady dot-com IPOs, and did nothing about them thanks to massive contributions from the Street.


One candidate exposed the illegal arms deals of Iran-Contra and one candidate got drunk off his ass.

Not a valid comparison, that's just spin. It's valid to say that Kerry was involved in Iran-Contra (I've read the recent stories on that and they seem credible enough), but it's silly to cross-compare that with Bush getting drunk.



One candidate volunteered for service in Vietnam because of his privileges and one candidate skipped off to the Air National Guard because of his privileges.

Agreed.


One candidate led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one candidate was AWOL from National Guard duty.

No, that's wrong. If the reasoning behind shutting up the swift boat veterens is the eyewitness testimony of Kerry's pals, then the reasoning behind Bush not being AWOL because of the eyewitness testimony of his pals is also valid. End of the line.


One candidate speaks more than just one language, and one candidate never travelled outside of the States until he had to.

Agreed.


One candidate loves, embraces, and defends his opinionated wife, while one candidate keeps and shelters a typical Stepford wife.

Lol, that's just sad. Well I recently suggested Kerry's wife was a cross between Gloria Steinem and Leona Helmsley, so I guess I can't complain. (chuckle)


One candidate has a history of bipartisan work, with people like Jesse Helms and John McCain, and one candidate thrives on division and extreme ideologues.

I shudder at this a bit, because I think it's a little unfair, but I'm afraid I have to agree. That's certainly my problem with Bush in a nutshell.


One candidate reads up to five papers a day, and one candidate breezes through the headlines.

Nah, that's not right. Bush read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" (and commented on it), which is more than I can say for 99% of the posters on this forum.


One candidate wants to leave gay marriage out of the constitution, and one candidate wants a federal amendment.

Agreed.

These attacks on Kerry's war record are just disgraceful and so obviously partisan that they can be discounted on face. Truth my ass. The guy volunteered for river boat duty, some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam, you got that right!
anyway, that's something the current CIC, chickened out of, "Unfit to lead" is GW Bush's true calling,

pok-pok-pok, chickenhawk:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

when the war in Viet Nam called, that's something the current Commander-In-Chief, chickened out of,

"Unfit to lead" is GW Bush's true rank & title,
pok-pok-pok, chickenhawk:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

I was reading an article in a French newspaper in where some democrats actually want GWB to win this year.

http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/news/2004/LesEchos/d%E9mocratespr%E9f%E8rentunevictoiredeBush.htm

Now I will only translate the relevant part:



Even if the president Kerry has a solid popular support, you should not expect that the republicans accept defeat gracefully. They would take up probably a vigorous opposition to the Congress to cause to fail any try for instance to cancel it would be only a fraction of diminutions of levies approved by Mr Bush, as Mr Kerry recommends it to pay his plan on health. More in general, republicans' opposition would be more vigorous than pitiful effort provided by the democrats hanging the biggest party of the first mandate Bush. The republican majority in the House of Representatives, disciplined and filled with ideology, will return difficult life to a democratic administration.
-------------------------------------
Then, of course, there is also the conservative, highly efficient tank, ready to fight any democratic proposal fiercely. With the charged calendar which the Bush team is probably going to leave behind her in January, 2005, when Mr Kerry would take up his posts, it seems rather credible that the successor of Mr Bush will perform only a mandate, for lack of being able of solving the colossal problems from which he will inherit.
-----------------------------------------
Even more serious, the huge job of necessary cleaning, consisting of between others the definition of a viable strategy to go out of Iraq and the restoration of a healthy fiscal policy, will be probably difficult and anyway unpopular to the electorate. is for all these reasons that it would be justified - from a democratic point of view - to let Mr Bush stay in the White House for a second mandate. A win of Bush remains possible, as accept it easily behind closed doors numerous democrats in Washington, given Mr Bush's considerable financial advantage in relation to Mr Kerry and resistance of its popularity to poor news of Iraq. In case Mr Bush would really carry off a second mandate, the best screenplay for the democrats would be that the long-term consequences of policies of Mr Bush become obvious for the voters and that the republicans are discredited for numerous years. The voters would be so feeling disgust by the republican Party which they would inaugurate one period of democratic revival not only in the White House, but also in the Senate and perhaps even in the House of Representatives.

The part that is in red is the most important, another four years of Bush is almost certain to create a very bad outcome for Republicans in the long run, eventually Americans will see the folly of his ways and the long term consequences of re-electing Bush. This does have a historical comparison Herbert Hoover in 1932 lost the white house to the Democrats and the Republicans didn’t get it back until 1952! Why? Because it was Hoover’s inaction during the Depression that caused the GOP wallow in the background for 20 years. So for real republicans, they should ponder, is another 4 years of Bush really all that good? I’d vouch for no.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DICK CHENEY! YOU BASTARD! (hehe...)

Just because some fact is brought up by a biases source does not mean its untrue (look up Circumstantial Ad Hominem)

award, does that mean He will be a bad president? hell I don't see much Kerry did in that war as evidence for or against his run for presidency! Even Bush’s time during that war was not evidence that he was going to be a bad president.

after watching Bush's interview on CNN tonight (LArry King LIve, which i never watch american media, but this was too good to pass up) i realized that my hate for his man has more reasons that i thought. This man, honestly said that he is "breeding a culture of life" when describing why he does not like embryonic stem cell research. Someone needs to tell this man that because of HIM, 11,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed ACCIDENTALLY by American troops in Iraq. He is breeding a culture of violence and death, to all the youth in the world.

are there any archives of the show?

when the war in Viet Nam called, that's something the current Commander-In-Chief, chickened out of,
When the need for rationallity called, that's something the current Chickens-in-Chief vested out of.

Neither candidate should be running on their brief military records.

when the war in Viet Nam called, that's something the current Commander-In-Chief, chickened out of,

"Unfit to lead" is GW Bush's true rank & title,
pok-pok-pok, chickenhawk:

Oh Yeah...?!
Just Remember...

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/chickenhawk.jpg

Neither candidate should be running on their brief military records.
I disagree with that, during Viet Nam, Kerry served with honor, left under honorable circumstances, while George "pok-pok-pok, yellow" Bush, opted out of the National Guard under less than honorable circumstances,very clandestine, with disappearing & re-appearing records. Sort of like his service in Alabama. Suspicious, don't you think?

With the elections coming up and enough crapy threads about bush and kerry going around, I'm going to make the mother of them all: All bush/kerry bashing is going here and only here until the elections are over. I'm going to start merging all the present threads about that subject right here
just because you do not like politics, or whatever, does not mean that you should merge rival, multi-blah, etc... threads, you are practicing censorship, this is an open forum, as long as we abide by the rules, you should too!

Your supposed to be a moderator, not a dictator!
Release me!
De-merge me!
Release me!

Kerry is an Idiotic flunkie for anything that pays him well, you might as well throw you voter registration out the window if you use it on him. if he likes homosexuals and mexican americans and african americans so much why doesen't he have them as neighbors no you won't see him living next door to them because he lives in france and in neighborhoods most anyone can't afford but I bet you will see them in his house scrubbing his toilets and floors of his million dollar "homes". All Kerry cares about is money and himself. and he only spent four months in Vietnam a full tour is nine months and my father did four tours Kerry didn't even do one.

Isn't Bush richer then Kerry?

No, not according to tax filings, although I'd have to look it up to be sure.

I was going to respond to this thread but it's just way too off the deep end to even bother. There seems to be a trend around here for people to register just long enough to post some piece of hate-filled crap and then never return. It's kinda sad, really.

No, not according to tax filings, although I'd have to look it up to be sure.


Even separate of THK? I mean I remember on CNN they stated that Kerry himself is worth $6 million...Bush the man is certainty much richer then that. Cheney as well, it's a different kind of rich. Kerry's from a classier more European type of wealth, and the Bush's more of an American wealth.

Even separate of THK?

Oh no, I agree that may well be the case (Bush being richer than Kerry-THK).

Yes, John Kerry does indeed have a house in France, as he does have some French heritage. His mother, Rosemary, was a daughter of the wealthy Forbes family with roots in Saint-Briac, an upscale spa town on Brittany's Emerald Coast. He does not, however, live there. He apparently spent vacations as a child there, and still occasionally does return.

As for his wealth, THK is worth a half a billion dollars. The combination does, indeed, beat out the fortune that Bush claims for himself.

Even separate of THK? I mean I remember on CNN they stated that Kerry himself is worth $6 million...

You sure that's what it said? That doesn't seem like too much.

Who cares if Kerry is richer than Bush........If Bush is re-elected then the problems start all over again, especially when Bush decides to attack Iran and "he will" if he thinks he has found a 9/11 link there or if Iran's poses a nuclear problem someday. Bush the so-called "Peace President" is an idiot!

Yob Atta

Re: CNN - George W. & Laura Bush on "Larry King Live"

Link to transcript: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/12/lkl.00.html

• • •

Re: MSNBC - "Hardball" - Chris Matthews fires back

• Matthews on RNC video distribution and context of John Kerry's remarks: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5727982/
• "Hardball" episode August 16, 2004: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5733661/

From that last link:

MATTHEW: Do you think that was a fair cropping of what he had to say? You cut him off after he said, yes. And you did not let him continue on to say: “in the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have.”

DOWD: Yes. Senator Kerry said, yes, absolutely, he was the anti-war candidate. So yes, of course it‘s fair.

DEVINE: Chris, it‘s pathetic. OK? And the reason that they‘re doing this is they‘ve got nothing to say about creating jobs, providing health care or dealing with any of the issues that the voters want dealt with in this election.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Matt, are you going to have the president stop saying that John Kerry, on our show, on HARDBALL, because that‘s what he was referring to, clearly, 220 days ago when he said this, are you going to get him to stop saying that John Kerry declared himself the anti-war candidate, which is clearly not what he said because I used the word anti-war candidate and I referred to a number of them? You say what he said on my show and he didn‘t say that. That‘s all I‘m asking.

DOWD: Chris, I would love it if you would play the full 11-minute tape that shows Kerry‘s various positions on the war as it has happened the last two years. I would be happy for to you to play that tape.

MATTHEWS: That‘s an argument you‘re making. I‘m asking you, is the president going to keep saying that something that was said on this show wasn‘t said?

DOWD: Of course he is. Why wouldn‘t he, it‘s what Senator Kerry said?

MATTHEWS: Well, because you might show—why don‘t you show him a tape of the show for 10 seconds so he‘ll get it straight.

Source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5733661/)

That's the game, people. Remember that the GOP only has a point if you listen to them exclusively.

In the end, this is an unwise move from the GOP. Should the Democrats or, even, a Democrat at random decide to fight fire with fire, I can't even imagine how hilarious that would be. Everything from crusades to God being on our side to God ordering the invasion of Iraq all the way up to the Bush administration never ending its quest to find ways to hurt Americans.

As a personal review of the video, I'm with Dowd--people should see the whole thing. The ad is only effective political propaganda against John Kerry if one really does presume human beings and politicians alike to be as two-dimensional as the GOP represents itself. In the end, swing voters watching the ad will see a thoughtful Senator and candidate working reasonably the difficult landscape of American political interests.

All the GOP has done is stroke its already frothing, even smegmatic base.

Does it matter what Bush really thinks? He is acting on corporate orders anyway, well allmost, that's why they have watchdog Cheney to keep him in line...

Kerry Is An Idiot.

he only spent four months in Vietnam a full tour is nine months

He don't sound that stupid to me.

my father did four tours

Now that is stupid.
Dee Cee

If Kerry is an idiot....then what does that make Bush...an imbecile???

Madgreenwood, Kerry did two tours of duty, one on a ship near Vietnam, volunteered for another in country, saved his buddie's life, earned a silver star, bronze star, and three purple hearts, so stop lying, please. What was your candidate doing at the time? a beer bong?

That's the game, people. Remember that the GOP only has a point if you listen to them exclusively.

In the end, this is an unwise move from the GOP. Should the Democrats or, even, a Democrat at random decide to fight fire with fire, I can't even imagine how hilarious that would be..

Let's see this experiment:
MATTHEW: Do you think that was a fair cropping of what he had to say? You cut him off after he said, yes. And you did not let him continue on to say: “in the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have.”

DOWD: Yes. yes, absolutely, So yes, of course it‘s fair.

DEVINE: Chris, it‘s pathetic. OK? And the reason that they‘re doing this is they‘ve got nothing to say about creating jobs, providing health care or dealing with any of the issues that the voters want dealt with in this election.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Matt, are you going to declared? You say on my show that. That‘s all I‘m asking.

DOWD: Chris, I would love you ... various positions I would be happy ... to play.

MATTHEWS: That‘s an argument you‘re making?

DOWD: Of course it‘s what ... said?

MATTHEWS: Well, how—why don‘t you show ... for 10 seconds so ... get it straight.

Source: MSNBC

ok, its not good soap opera, but its a start

tiassaism:
That's the game, people. Remember that the GOP only has a point if you listen to them exclusively.
So, the 'game' is about not even considering alternative points of view because that would automatically devalue your own invested points of view -- because your's are such absolutely, right-on points of view that surely they should be the only points of view available for universal consideration -- without the need for further discussion, and possibly belief-changing reflections from others who might possibly possess even just a very few different, suprisingly useful perspectives that could benefit your clan?

Inbreeding begets inbreeder mentality.

Kerry's from a classier more European type of wealth, and the Bush's more of an American wealth.

You mean like old money and nouveau riche?

John Kerry by himself is wealthy, but not THAT wealthy. When he was growing up, he wasn't as wealthy as he was privileged. Bush has about 15 million dollars of his own money, which he made from his sale of the Texas Rangers. Cheney has about 50 million, and Edwards has about 40 million. Kerry, without his wife's fortune, is the poor kid on the block.

And anybody who served on a swift boat in Vietnam did more than enough. It's the most dangerous job there is. "Only" served four months? I wouldn't bring that up, compared to a man who spent 0 years, 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days, and 0 minutes in Vietnam.

That's been my feeling as well. He served, that's really all I need to know. I don't really have a problem with a swift-boat vet saying what he feels, but this organized campaign really needs to stop. I also think it needs a stronger condemnation from the White House.

The darn thing just has legs, though. Go figure.

So, the 'game' is about not even considering alternative points of view because that would automatically devalue your own invested points of view -- because your's are such absolutely, right-on points of view that surely they should be the only points of view available for universal consideration -- without the need for further discussion, and possibly belief-changing reflections from others who might possibly possess even just a very few different, suprisingly useful perspectives that could benefit your clan?

That's how I read it according to Matthew Dowd, a senior strategist for Bush/Cheney. And hey, that seems to be the game the Bush administration has chosen to play so far.

Inbreeding begets inbreeder mentality

Case in point: the GOP.

You'll notice they're painfully aware of the need for new blood. Powell's decision to not attend the convention is rather unfortunate for them in this regard.

On the other hand, this Washington Times editorial seems to have some valid points:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040809-090612-9480r.htm

Writing for the Boston Herald in October 1979, Mr. Kerry said this: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Nixon certainly wasn't in office yet at Christmas 1968. I guess that might be an understandable mistake in hindsight, but he's actually pinning something on Nixon there and Johnson didn't send troops to Cambodia -- he's too early. So it does seem like something's not right there.

Still, it's something he said 25 years ago, and at the time it was about something that happened eleven years before. To me it just reads like something he said without careful enough deliberation, to make a point about Vietnam. While it might be erroneous, it's hardly criminal, and I'm not even sure it reaches the level of a serious problem.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html
Title: "Records Counter A Critic of Kerry's"
Date: August 19, 2004

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

. . . . "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html)

So ... Larry Thurlow is so sure of his story that he's willing to doubt the merit of his own award or anybody else's in the history of that war, or perhaps even the history of the armed services in the United States?

On more than a few occasions, I have referred to a certain degree of disbelief which I assert has worked to the Bush administration's credit: what has happened that has upset people over the last three and a half years would have been unimaginable and damn near treasonous (in a "Love it or leave it!" context) to suggest that a president could say some of the things that Bush has said, and do some of the things Bush has done.

I have to admit, in that age before the New Cynicism, holding your position at that cost would be damn near convincing. These days, it's not much. Everything else is for sale; the ad was the sort of thing we've come to expect from the 2000 primary and the 2002 general election; this is a longstanding grudge now staked against the highest office in the land; heck, we spent $40m on a blowjob; have gone to war because God said so .... Compared to the Rove School, yes, it's possible that stopping Kerry is so important to Thurlow that he will cast doubt on himself and every one of his fellow servicemen fighting in Vietnam.

It's an interesting, but nearly expected twist. If not expected, at least it's not outright surprising.
____________________

• Dobbs, Michael. "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry." Washington Post, August 19, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

but wait. there is more!

The Republican War Against Vietnam Veterans (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=840)

You mean like old money and nouveau riche?

Well yes, wealth has two connotations really one is the established wealth which is characteristic of New England. They have the historic and material wealth that not even Bush could ever really have. Bush is part of a wealth that is indeed nouveau riche, in the sense that these people aren’t classy they are just wealthy and don’t know how to be classy. They are basically like trailer park trash who has money, at least that the perception of nouveau riche.

Bush wants to be percieved as a president who has "Power" and he wants the control that goes along with it. Unfortuantely, this president whose motives (WMD) for going to war in Iraq "misled" the american people and we know now were not honest motives, but instead "self serving". If Bush is re-elected, we can expect more of the same (Iran's next on his invasion list). It's too bad that senator John MaCain, a much respected vietnam vet ex-prisoner of war has decided to support the Bush campagn for re-election.

Yob Atta

Well yes, wealth has two connotations really one is the established wealth which is characteristic of New England. They have the historic and material wealth that not even Bush could ever really have.
Uh, Bush is part of the same New England Elite as Kerry. He isn't just a regular guy from Texas.

I know Bush was born in NE, but his families wealth is not from that area.

I love all mighty George W. Bush! He will help the USA! So vote for me.. I mean Bush, hehehe.

Inbred the GOP may be, but so, too, are the Dems -- who can't bring themselves to direct the expressions of their hyperactive, skepticism genes toward one of their own inbred lineage.

Circus circus.

And people wonder why someone might not take you all as seriously as you command.

Bush as a president is a Joke! If you vote for Bush for re-election then america is asking for big big trouble ahead. If you thought the last four years we're bad, if Bush get's re-elected then you haven't seen anything yet...........

Yob Atta

Bush as a president is a joke!

Yob Atta

Vote for Bush! Then he'll be in the media, so we can watch the next time he chokes on a pretzel!

Why vote at all, they both are asholes!

Why vote at all, they both are asholes!
Vote Badnarik.

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/badnarik-kerry.jpg

Why vote at all, they both are asholes!

Both are "asholes or assholes"? You tell us.

Yob Atta :)

Kerry is certainly not perfect. I disagreed with him strongly in his supporting the war. I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his. However, I think that Kerry would increase international cooperation and I think that is what is needed to successfully end the war. So yes, I will vote for Kerry.

Kerry has disgraced the US Navy by going against all the three core values of the US Navy: Honor, Commitment and Courage.
and I suppose that George W. Bush up-held those core values real well?

honor? George?

committment? W.?

courage? BUSH!!!?

pok-pok-chickenhawk

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

oh, yeah! he wasn't in the Navy, my bad!!!
I guess the Guard isn't held to those standards? huh?

Bush didn't even buy his Crawford Ranch until 1999, one year before his presidential run. Believe it or not, when he ran in his first electoral race (for a congress seat in the House of Representatives), he was seen as a carpetbagger Yalie trying to pass himself off as a Texan. Somehow, from then until now, people have the notion he's some kind of cattle raising, born and bred Texan boy, when his roots are just like Kerry's. The Bush family is blue blood royalty, no matter how thick Dubya's drawl may be.

do you think it would have been a national security risk to send the son of the director of the CIA to vietnam?

Um, hello, Bush surely was a resident in Texas before he bought the Crawford Ranch. He was governor there, remember?

Inbred the GOP may be, but so, too, are the Dems -- who can't bring themselves to direct the expressions of their hyperactive, skepticism genes toward one of their own inbred lineage.

Well, what do you expect? The leadership runs through Arkansas and the blueblooded Northeast, for heaven's sake. As to the rank-and-file, the problem is diversity. The Democrats are simply unable to appease enough of the people who would otherwise vote for them.

Do you happen to watch the Daily Show? They did a piece on the Democratic convention that was both apt and hilarious. And this year, to hear delegates describing the platform as "the party is agreeing to disagree with itself" on issues pertaining to war and peace, well? Strangely, anti-Bushism is the only thing holding the Democratic party together right now. It's certainly not the DNC leadership.

Hey ... now there is a job for Howard Dean ....

Maybe we should start an online petition to ask Terry McAuliffe to resign, and that Howard Dean be given the reins of the Democratic party. Or maybe Al Sharpton.

Kerry is an Idiotic flunkie for anything that pays him well, you might as well throw you voter registration out the window if you use it on him. if he likes homosexuals and mexican americans and african americans so much why doesen't he have them as neighbors no you won't see him living next door to them because he lives in france and in neighborhoods most anyone can't afford but I bet you will see them in his house scrubbing his toilets and floors of his million dollar "homes". All Kerry cares about is money and himself. and he only spent four months in Vietnam a full tour is nine months and my father did four tours Kerry didn't even do one.

=_ first of all it's it good that he like the minorities... and what's wrong with a canidate having a house in france...

Isn't Bush richer then Kerry?

i believe this is correct:: bush:: $228,743,338 :: kerry:: $186,593,248 :: (sadly) Nader :: $1,517,808 =(

... whats up with these one time bad postes...

... whats up with these one time bad postes...

What's up with your post? You either like Bush or you don't (hopefully you don't). The same for Kerry or do you have someone else in mind?


Yob Atta :)

LOL well kerry sux too but is a better alterinative then bush by... maybe a few light years

... whats up with these one time bad postes...
I don't know, but the signal to noise ratio keeps getting lower and lower in here.

lets just overthrow the american govt already and give them a working system, or even better: put the US under canadian rule

Better yet, on election day just buy a couple of bottles of cheap wine, light up a couple of cigars and place a poster of George Bush on your bathroom wall above the toilet.......At least you have something to remind you of the great american one-term "Peace President" we once had after Kerry wins the election!

Yob Atta

lets just overthrow the american govt already and give them a working system, or even better: put the US under canadian rule

Shhhhhhhh...that's the plan.

lets just overthrow the american govt already and give them a working system, or even better: put the US under canadian rule


NICE!!!! i agree 100% and im USian

If we thought Clinton was bad, George W. Bush will re-write history on what "Bad" is all about! I think Michael Moore could do a better job as president than Bush. I'll vote for Moore.

Yob Atta

=_ Did everyone here see farinhieght(however the hell you spell it) 911. I had 2 problems with the moive. To me no new info about bush and co. 2. I wish it was more about trying to get the bush voters to switch there votes. not to get non-bush voter feel better =_

I think Michael Moore's fine documentary "Farenheit 9/11" got the message across that Bush is a "joke" as a president. Any would-be Bush voters who see the movie will certainly think twice before they cast their ballot in the Nov. election. Hopefully, we won't see Bush again after Jan. of 2005!

Yob Atta :)

by chance do you live in the US... if you do have you ever seen most of the bush voter... LOL

It really doesn't matter where I live to see where america is heading under the leadership of the so-called "Peace President" George W. Bush! Anyone who wants to invade another country under the false premise of "WMD" and tries to convince the american public that Iraq is dangerous and will ultimately try and destroy the U.S. and U.S. interests abroad under the regime of the most dangerous man on earth, Sadam Hussein is a joke! Let's face it, Bush tried to "misel" the american people into believing his WMD story. If Bush is re-elected, he'll find a reason to invade Iran. Don't believe it? Re-elect Bush.......wait & see!

Yob Atta :)

=_ maybe iran i tough it was somewhere else thou LOL. I like when moore was on the bbc and he said "Bush has an excuse for attacking iraq. He's just stupid, But blair doesn't have an excuse to being talked into the iraq war. He's brilliant"

Lets face it, america has had one or two good presidents in the past. Even though some of their decision making and foriegn policy may have been flawed from time-to-time, at least their motives for making policy was more honest and not so self-serving, which is contrary to what the american public can expect from Bush and his band of cronies, his "Yes" men & "Yes" women (staff) that inhabit the White House commonly called his adminsistration. At least Michael Moore has the guts to expose Bush and his camp of stooges (staff) for what they are......STUPID!

Yob Atta :)

Yeah, we suck.

Should just nuke us or something.

Yeah, we suck.

Should just nuke us or something.

I guess we know who you're going to vote for in Nov., don't we............

Yob Atta :)

Um, hello, Bush surely was a resident in Texas before he bought the Crawford Ranch. He was governor there, remember?

Of course I know Bush lived in Texas. How else could he have bought the Texas Rangers and run for governor? I said that I was surprised to hear that he only bought his ranch back in 1999. With all the time he spent there during his presidency, I always assumed he had it for a very long time.

I always assumed he had it for a very long time.

I believe that was the general idea.

This subject has been covered before (where is hype BTW) but nobody seemed interested at the time.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34749
Dee Cee

do you think it would have been a national security risk to send the son of the director of the CIA to vietnam?
GHW Bush was not the director at the time, but my point is two-fold;
1) if the elite do not serve, it sends the message that only the poor need die for the good ol' US, the elite are the 'master class'
2) if the elite know that their sons & daughters will also be in harms way, it will control their 'itchy' trigger fingers, they'll think twice before going after those elusive WMD's in the first place

from:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/George_H._W._Bush

He later lost his second attempt at a Senate seat in 1970 to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen...
ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973),
director of the CIA 1976–1977

*searches for a nuke* =P

*searches for a nuke* =P

Sounds like "searches for a nuke* =P is part of the Bush equation which is:

Stupidity divided ignorance = Bush

Yob Atta :)

Kerry is certainly not perfect. I disagreed with him strongly in his supporting the war. I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his. However, I think that Kerry would increase international cooperation and I think that is what is needed to successfully end the war. So yes, I will vote for Kerry.
Kerry did not "support the war" unconditionally. What he voted for was to give the president the power to use war IF several conditions were met:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, IF, diplomatic means were not working (and we had inspectors on the ground), and war was consistent with fighting those responsable for 9/11, (which it was not), then congress gave Bush the power to invade. I don't think Bush ever reported to congress 48 hours later on his determinations, (because they were based on lies).


link (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm)

RESUME OF GEORGE W. BUSH



Past work experience:

I ran for congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company
went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took
land using taxpayer money.

Biggest move:

Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With my father's help and nearly the same name, was elected Governor of
Texas.

Major accomplishments:

I changed pollution laws for oil and power companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the nation.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government in billions in borrowed money.
I set a record for most executions by any governor in American history...

more:http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

you're preaching to the choir. I appreciate your thoroughness but all your points have been made... repeatedly. In retrospect, bush (like most politicians) is scary. It's too easy to dissect people after-the-fact.

It's more productive to focus on the present, especially in this case.

Talk about down playing a valiant effort buffys.

I think that such work is necessary in order to give people a better perspective of the past 4 years. It is quite useful to have patient efforts of information gathering.. especially when reformated in an original manner.

(Universities seem to think its usefull; minus the originality)

Thanks for the read masoups, will send to friends.

Bush "resume" refutations are all over the internet. Most of the "facts" in the more popular "resumes" are false.

hmmm i hate bush, no i dont, i dont like him, thats slightly more accurate.
however, he hasnt done terribly in his four years, although some terrible things have happened during his four years.
that begs the question, is he really that bad, or perhaps,
bush barely does anything- has everything done for him.

if its the first, no need to worry, his past has been a bad ghost that came out of his closet and stayed there for a very long time.

if its the latter, no need to worry, since on that surmise its quite obvious that whoever is the White House, America + world (;)) keeps spinning exactly the same:

"In with the new boss, same as the old boss"

You just have to admire people that make their opinions sound like arguments, but then leave the room without actually showing any verifiable facts. For example:

"Bush "resume" refutations are all over the internet. Most of the "facts" in the more popular "resumes" are false."

We must thank such people who share with us the best of what the information age has to offer us: immediate and consistent imaginary representations of possibly existing ideas.

I am sick and tired of hearing Chris Tucker (from CNN's crossfire) implying that J. Kerry is trying to censure and impede the rights of individuals right to free speech by going to the courts in order to block the hostile ads.

First of all, anyone and everyone has the right to order a cessation of public defamation (especially if statements can be shown to be false or misleading).

Secondly, Bush went so far to say that he wishes an end to "all 527 groups: privately funded political and unregulated ad campaigns".

Why are the same republicans that cry wolf on Kerry, but then decide to omit the fact that their own president/candidate seeks to ban any and all privately (or unregulated) political ads?

Kerry wants to call the courts on one ad and Bush says that every unregulated ads should be outlawed since they are "bad for the system".

If someone deserves the title of "oppressor of free speech"... if one should deserve it... who would it be?

Prisme

the Swift Boat Ad's and the smears against John Mcain (R) and Max Cleland (D)are proof that the Bush team are the lowest scum on the earth and they are just like animals or insects- buzzards, jackals, and the flies that breed in shit.

Bush is no more or no less than what history will say about him.........Right now, when a president (Bush) decides to put at risk (Iraq war: Looking for WMD?) his nation's best interests for his own self-serving interests (Oil & Power), then history will say as much!

Yob Atta

You just have to admire people that make their opinions sound like arguments, but then leave the room without actually showing any verifiable facts.

Pfft. And then there are people who are rude to others just to save themselves a trip to Google.

The famous "The Truth" refutation, in PDF format, is available here:
http://www.filestash.net/The_Truth.pdf

It's a huge collection, over a megabyte of text, fully annotated and cross-referenced.

So there.

When the U.S. suddenly decided (when Bush was president mind you), that it wasn't going to support the Koyoto protocol - which is meaned to reduce greenhouse gas emmisions, I was suddenly swayed in my opinion and faith for the future....

Come on, we're already witnessing changing weather patterns, seemingly getting slightly worse year after year, and still, the U.S., who leads the world, is making absolutely NO PROPER attempts to correct the situation!!!

I am truly disgusted.

We'll be having fun when things start collapsing in about 40 years time.
With $500 for a litre of oil or something..

PEACE.

Is it me or does that resumé get shorter and simpler every time we see it?

Hey!
Y'all missed out his War Service! (http://www.ericblumrich.com/topgun.html)

Refutation anyone?
Dee Cee

Is it me or does that resumé get shorter and simpler every time we see it?

I've noticed that as well.

I think you need to change the name of this thread to just Bush bashing. The problem most of these Vietnam Vets have with Kerry isn't so much what he did in Vietnam, but what he did when he got back. Accusing the US military of atrocities on par with Genghis Khan whose policy was to kill every man, woman, and child in his path. As one vet said in one of the swiftboat ads, he gave the enemy for free what POW's endured torture and still refused to give them. You can't trust a man who turns on his own.

"You can't trust a man who turns on his own."

I agree. Kerry's life has exhibited a telling flip-flop on criticizing wrongful warfare and the war crimes that result when American troops are placed into the gut-wrenching position of being committed to a situation lacking any possible honorable military outcome.

I don't trust Kerry, because he lacks the courage and leadership to unequivocally condemn our occupation of Iraq. At the same time, I understand his pragmatic compromise, because the American majority is still unwilling to confront the injustice and folly of our Vietnam and Iraq quagmires. Anyone with honesty about such issues is unelectable, because America remains in denial about our place in the world. Many difficult compromises and failures are ahead because of illusions that only consequences, and not Presidencies, are going to awaken America to.

Accusing the US military of atrocities on par with Genghis Khan whose policy was to kill every man, woman, and child in his path.

are you suggesting that the american involvement in the vietnam war was executed perfectly whilst observing rules of engagement?

Where have the 'old enough to vote generations' been in the past 30 years?

Out of every war in the history of the U.S., Viet-Nam is one of the only conflicts that:

1- Lasted so many years (a decade or so)
2- Imposed the draft, and thus had untrained professionnals fighting a war they didn't want to be in.
3- Had the youngest serving army (avg. yrs.) in the history of the U.S.
4- Employed non-orthodox tactics to win be fought and won (agent orange, destruction of weapon caches hidden in coerced villages, unclear definition of the enemy -ei: who are the VC?-)
5- They fought an enemy which was ten fold more motivated than the american soldiers and which was better suited to wage long-term guerrilla warfare.
and
6- Is renowned for leaving veterans with a deep sense of injustice (be it social or political at home)


All of these factors which are invariably attributed to the viet-nam war -and I won't get in what some people in Hollywood has shown us about the war- demonstrates to me that the Viet-Nam war was the first conflict which both sides thought each other how to fight belowe the belt, and resulted in the transformation of conventional warfare throughout the world.

This said, I would not be surprised that unmotivated, unwilling and demoralized individuals would result in drastic measures to vent their stress and frustrations. The trainees in Abu Graib did it and they weren't even under significant war-time pressure... they were in a jail!!!

Finally, I cannot understand veterans and non-veterans alike that interpret these allegations (or even evidences) as some sort of rogue branding of all the soldiers who went in viet-nam. I think nobody ever believed or said that every single viet-nam vet or even the majority of them were war criminals and were dishonorable to the military.. except maybe some hippies in the 70's which I think we all know Kerry was not and nothing shows that he was.
In any case, how can you 'turn' on your own people if you are telling the truth? Why not own up to what some have chosen to do and not downplay or exagerate the honor of an entire army composed of a myriad of different types of individuals?

In conclusion, except for certain people who were admitted to the Texas air reserve with a 24/100 flight test result and who miraculously passed more than thousands of names on a waiting list in order to make his high elect father feeling his son is safe... I have not been demonstrated that military records were so often/easily manipulated. If the army said that they were satisfied with Kerry in the 70's why should we doubt their findings 30 years later? I mean, everything was written down and approved by officers and commanding officers; you'd think people wouldn't get american medals while doing nothing right?
I just think that the media and people seem to be more concerned about wild accusations (swift boat ads) which are contradicted by the written facts and military approved facts.

I'm not saying the militray never made a mistake. But it would have to be quite a conspiracy, one to which no real motive could be given, to have the entire army system lie about what its soldiers were or were not doing... especially in the regular army (ei: not Navy seals or delta force).

Prisme

I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his.

If there were two candidates in the primaries who could not be more similar in both ideology and background, it's Dean and Kerry. Probably explains why they were such rivals. They were both the liberal NE candidates with left-centrist views. Dean may have opposed the Iraq war, but his plan was to finish the job, just like Kerry's. Dean was also pro-civil unions, not pro-gay marriage (leave it to the states), which is Kerry's position. Dean was also a fiscal conservative, and Kerry's advocating a balanced budget. There's no real difference between them really, 'cept one's kinda stocky and loud and the other's lanky and Catholic.

The problem most of these Vietnam Vets have with Kerry isn't so much what he did in Vietnam, but what he did when he got back. Accusing the US military of atrocities on par with Genghis Khan whose policy was to kill every man, woman, and child in his path. As one vet said in one of the swiftboat ads, he gave the enemy for free what POW's endured torture and still refused to give them. You can't trust a man who turns on his own.

Yeah, and that's what they did.

If those particular veterans thought Vietnam was the greatest war in the world and hated Kerry for leading the protests against it, then they should've come up with an ad that said "We, who are Vietnam veterans, will vote for Bush because we disagreed with Kerry's march in the National Mall, etc." But that wasn't cutting enough was it? What they actually did was concoct lies that are easily refuted by first-hand accounts and U.S. Navy records and pass them off as truth. Now that virtually every reliable news source has proved them false, they will try and weasel their way into questioning Kerry's protest record. The fact that they lied repeatedly on national television should not be forgiven.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37224-2004Aug26.html
Title: "The Pressure-Cooker Theory"
Date: August 27, 2004

Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"

Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.

Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic . . . .

. . . . What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37224-2004Aug26.html)

Man be a man, tell me what's on your mind.
If you take a little chance
Who knows what you'll find?
I can give you all the reasons
But I can't make you think;
You can lead a horse to water
But you can't make him drink.

Tommy Shaw (http://www.styxnet.com/styxlyrics/shaw/oitr.htm)

Krauthammer's victimizing Democrats for being human. 'Tis a shame because Democrats need only embrace their humanity in order to be real Democrats.

In the meantime, Democrats win when people think; liberalism is the greater intellectual challenge as well as the greater societal reward. Of course, Krauthammer, in his zeal to tack the Democrats to the wall, seems to overlook the diverse range of people who are angry with Bush for something or another. If Krauthammer wonders about the level of venom, it may be so simple as that's what George W. Bush inspires in people by his example.

And that's a lot of venom invested in the opposition to George W. Bush. Of course it's still a funny article.
____________________

• Krauthammer, Charles. "The Pressure-Cooker Theory." Washington Post, August 27, 2004; page A21. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37224-2004Aug26.html

am i that "partisan" that i can't look at it objectively?


Is that a question, or a statement?

It would be interesting to see how many posters here have served in the military much less VNam.

I was at Ft Brag when I was called to report to the Col. I reported and he said have a seat. I sat down and he then said I have a problem, and pushes some papers my way.

He then said I have two sets of orders here for you. One you can start clearing post today and attend Nuke School or you can start clearing post today and go with us to VNam.

My response was "You mean I have a choice?"

I choose getting an education. Though I lost contact with them and don't know, I suspect that many of my former friends got killed.

Am I embarassed about my choice. Not for a minute. Would I have served had I not been given that faithful choice? You bet.

I of course have no direct knowledge about Kerry's service but I do know Vets, including my brother-in-law, that was shot up pretty good. They were overrun and he dragged a Lt that had been shot into a fox hole and he manned a machinegun all night fending of VC.

The next morning at daylight support arrived and he learned that he and the Lt were the only ones left alive. He was shot up pretty good and got several metals but for years he refused to discuss his