Last week the New York Times ran an editorial by Obama entitled 'My Plan for Iraq'. Understandably, Senator McCain decided to write his own editorial this week and submitted it to the times as a rebutal. The response?
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.' http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm
So......An Obama editorial is fine, but McCain does't meet the NYT standards? This is bullshit.

Of course, the NYT denies any bias. Is it a coincidence that the editor served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter?

Sounds like McCain tried to pull something.

The NYT prints Kristol, so their standards are not the issue.

I'd have to see the peice, compare it to Obama's and hear the editor's objections before making a judgment.

In the Times' defense, it printed an excellent article last week questioning the media's treatment of Obama. It has been one of the few domestic news organizations that has questioned how the 4th estate is handling Obama.

What a loser, can't he even write a decent editorial?

I'd have to see the peice, compare it to Obama's and hear the editor's objections before making a judgment.

Obama's:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And McCain's is at the bottom of the article linked to in the OP:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm
But, in my opinion, I don't see why the NYT cares about the content of the McCain piece. If it runs an editorial by one candidate, how can they justify not running one by the other?

The NYT prints Kristol, so their standards are not the issue.

Oh SNAP! :roflmao:

It would seem to me the NYT should allow McCain to write whatever it is he would want to and let him be given the same opportunity as Obama. If they don't everyone will see what favoritism they have with one candidate over another. People will start to discuss the NYT as "unfair" or "biased" in many circles of readers and that will tend to make the NYT show it only deals with favoritism to those it supports only.:(

Openly exposed by the New York Times, the left wing liberal bias of the New's Media.

The editorial page is nothing more than a forum, much like this one, with mod's who censor those they do not favor.

Editorial is opinion, and as such if it is a Politician who writes the editorial, his opponent should be given free expression is reply to that Editorial, not censored by anyone.

As for Obammas plan? a vague bunch of generalities based on what is in the future, and as we have seen his crystal ball is very cloudy, he was against the surge which made it possible for him to visit Iraq.

Even he now admits that the surge worked, remember he voted against the surge, and now he want to repeat the same thing in Afghanistan that he voted against.

And guess what there is already plans, to stage a surge in Afghanistan, and Obamma isn't even the President yet.

It would seem to me the NYT should allow McCain to write whatever it is he would want to and let him be given the same opportunity as Obama So what opportunity was Obama given ? There is no indication that the NYT would have printed just anything he submitted, and certainly not something like McCain's little Limbaugh-level attack piece.

Why should they print for McCain stuff they would not print for Obama ?

I don't think the New York Times is obligated to carry Republican propaganda. Assuming the allegations of bias against the Times are true, which they are not, I have no sympathy for the Republican arguement until they are willing to conceed equal time on radio shows like Limbaugh and TV News Networks like Fox News.

In reading both, I can understand why the Times would have issues with the McCain article. It was full of false smears, and frankly to all but stalwart Republicans, reflects poorly on McCain. So the Times is really doing McCain a great favor in asking him to revise his article and not publishing it in it's current state.

If McCain has a chance at winning the election he is going to have to appeal to someone besides the stalwart Republican base.

It is nice to hear that they don't allow just any AARP member with dementia publish an op-ed....

But they allow a FOB(Friend of Bill) to decide who is more news worthy?

They charge that Shipley let his personal opinion on the superiority of Obama's Iraq position interfere with the news value of McCain's piece. They also charge that The Times has an obligation to provide equal access to its editorial page to both candidates, regardless of the content of their submissions.

The fact is that, Shipley is a former speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton.

But they allow a FOB(Friend of Bill) to decide who is more news worthy?

They charge that Shipley let his personal opinion on the superiority of Obama's Iraq position interfere with the news value of McCain's piece. They also charge that The Times has an obligation to provide equal access to its editorial page to both candidates, regardless of the content of their submissions.

The fact is that, Shipley is a former speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton.

I read the article Buffalo, you should be thanking the FOB (Friend of Bill) for not publishing it. It would have done your canididate much more harm had he allowed it to be published. Now you and the other Republicans can use this as your rallying call...your proof of unjust oppression. You have the best of both worlds. You are saved from the embarasment of publication and have a cause to rally around. He could not have given you a better gift.

I wish the Times would have published it in its unaltered form. It would have been much better for the Democrats...though not very good reading for the Times readers.

I have no sympathy for the Republican arguement until they are willing to conceed equal time on radio shows like Limbaugh and TV News Networks like Fox News.What is it with the Left and Fox News? It's not enough that you control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and PBS. If just one network dares question the Liberal orthodoxy, it's the end of the world. Are your ideas that weak that they can't stand just a little bit of rebuttal?

It's not enough that you control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and PBS the first 4 have a slight left wing bias in social matters and a moderate right wing bias in economic matters. and pbs does news?

I read the article Buffalo, you should be thanking the FOB (Friend of Bill) for not publishing it. It would have done your canididate much more harm had he allowed it to be published. Now you and the other Republicans can use this as your rallying call...your proof of unjust oppression. You have the best of both worlds. You are saved from the embarasment of publication and have a cause to rally around. He could not have given you a better gift.

I wish the Times would have published it in its unaltered form. It would have been much better for the Democrats...though not very good reading for the Times readers.


Where did you read his article? The best I can piece together is what Drudge reported, of which is not embarassing at all.

This is a clear case of pandering to Obama. Not that McCain is anything to write about, either way we are in big trouble.

So stick with the basic facts, NYT favors Obama, period.

Fine, you stalwart so called Republicans have fun. I find the whole episode amusing. Aside from Fox I find no other network or media outlook biased. In fact, I see them falling all over themselves trying not to be biased. And always questioning themselves to see if they truely are unbiased in their reporting...none of which happens at Fox.

Now there are show on CNBC that have a liberal bent to them. But the network also hosts shows with a decidely conservtive bent, unlike Fox which only spins in one way.

CNN is the most fair and balanced of all of the networks. They have a news show anchored by a host to is outwardly INDEPENDENT and on their Headline News they have a decidedly conservative host, Glen Beck. And the network has No liberal hosts.

So where you so called Republicans come off calling everyone but Fox biased against you is just sheer paranoia in my book, and frankly kind of scary.

Beck is one man amidst a host of not-likeminded folks at CNN. Let's not forget, CNN had Begalia and Carville as pundits during the 2004 election, despite the fact that both had taken money from Kerry.

And, of course, CNN's handling of the Republican debate was farsical.

Beck is one man amidst a host of not-likeminded folks at CNN. Let's not forget, CNN had Begalia and Carville as pundits during the 2004 election, despite the fact that both had taken money from Kerry.

And, of course, CNN's handling of the Republican debate was farsical.

Begalia and Carvile are openly Democratic and do not represent themselves as being anything but and they are always accompanied with Republicans of equal skills whenever they appear on TV as a Democratic spokesperson.

As for the Republican debate...I never saw anything unfair and or biased. Being non biased does not mean you have to go out of your way to make one side look better than the other. It means giving each side and equitable hearing.

Aside from Fox I find no other network or media outlook biased.
Than you are so biased yourself you've become blind to it. Just consider the flcck of reporters following Obama around like a bunch of groupies
Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois, was swarmed by media as he arrived in Baghdad yesterday for a meeting with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders.
with the one reporter who greeted McCain when he flew into New Hampshire:
In Manchester last night, there was just one reporter and one photographer waiting for McCain as his plane -- a white, blue and gold Boeing 737-400 emblazoned with his campaign slogan, "Reform, Prosperity, Peace" -- touched down on the Wiggins Airways tarmac.http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=McCain+returns+to+NH+with+vi sit+to+Rochester&articleId=248d6f19-aaa4-40a4-b95b-b365fcaff562

Than you are so biased yourself you've become blind to it. Just consider the flcck of reporters following Obama around like a bunch of groupies
with the one reporter who greeted McCain when he flew into New Hampshire:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=McCain+returns+to+NH+with+vi sit+to+Rochester&articleId=248d6f19-aaa4-40a4-b95b-b365fcaff562

Yea right Mad, the difference in coverage is related to the canididate and not about media bias. Obama is more news worthy, most people do not know much about the guy. He is new and charismatic as opposed to McCain who has been in the public spotlight for decades. McCain is a known commodity. Obama has only been in the national press for a few years. And face it and admit it, listening to McCain speak is about as exciting as watching grass grow. This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative view points or media bias. It has everything to do with new versus old...charisma versus the stale and boring.

So just because he is getting more press coverage does not mean the media is biased. It means he is a more news worthy subject. Wittness the swift boat ads of four years ago. They were a crock of shit, not a shred of truth to them. But all you heard for weeks on end was swiftboat shit from the so called liberal press. They covered the swift boat nonsense forever not because it was truthful or relevant to the elections but because it drove ratings and it was a dull news cycle.

I think it is you my friend who is bias and blinded by his emotions. I am an ENTP, ENTPs are not prone to biases. We are very logical folks us ENTPs, and we don't miss the forrest for the trees. We are very good at understanding the big picture.

One more thing Mad. since the Fairness Doctrine is no loner in place. The media is no longer required to provide equal time to both canididates. I and the Democrats are on record favoring the Fairness Doctrine. The Republicans are on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine. When you guys come onboard and support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, I think you have a leg to stand on in this arguement. But until then, all this noise about Obama getting more press attention than McCain is just Republicans doing what they do best...it is just another Republican hypocrisy.

Yea right Mad, the difference in coverage is related to the canididate and not about position of the canididate. Obama is more news worthy, most people do not know much about the guy. He is new and charismatic as opposed to McCain who has been in the public spotlight for decades. Obama has only been in the national press for a few years.

A few years? He'sonly been in the senate for 180 days.

Now show were he has been in the national news before 2006?

So just because he is getting more press coverage does not mean the media is biased.

Who has decided that he is news worthy?


Wittness the swift boat ads of four years ago. They were a crock of shit, not a shred of truth to them. But all you heard for weeks on end was swiftboat shit from the so called liberal press.

You were in Vietnam with John Kerry?, in his unit?, side by side with him?, so you know what is the Truth?

All I heard, was weeks on end, from the liberal press trying to destroy the Men of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

I served in Vietnam, and I know the bullshit I was there stories, from the real, There I was stories, and Kerry stories are the, I was There Stories and usually start out with, "These really happened, no shit".

Midnight in Cambodia on the Mekong River...........:puke:

I think it is you my friend you is bias and blinded by his emotions. I am an ENTP, ENTPs are not prone to biases. We are very logical folks us ENTPs, and we don't miss the forrest for the trees.

:wtf::roflmao:

Well yes, I served in the Navy at the time. I did not serve with Kerry's unit. But if you were in the military you know it is not like the Boy Scouts. You don't submit yourself for medals. Others nominate you for the medals and there is a review process. The Secretary of the Navy, a Republican, affirmed that Kerry earned his medals.

When most of the so called Swift Boat veterans were not even in the Navy. Yea, something is fishy! And when the all the guys that served with Kerry backed him up. The Swift Boat affair was the slimest thing I have ever seen in American politics. I honestly don't know how you Republicans can live with yourselves when you resort to that kind of scum. But enough of that, it pains me to know my country has degraded to this level.

Obama first appeared in the national spotlight in 2004 at the Democratic Convention. He delivered the keynote address and he has been active in state politics for year. But you appear to conceed my point, Obama is a new face especially as opposed to McCain.

News my dear, is all about ratings. Obama is generating the ratings. The news viewers are telling the media Obama is news worthy. As a capitalist, you should understand business delivers what the customer wants. And unfortunately for you and your canididate, the views want Obama.

Where did you read his article? The best I can piece together is what Drudge reported, of which is not embarassing at all.

This is a clear case of pandering to Obama. Not that McCain is anything to write about, either way we are in big trouble.

So stick with the basic facts, NYT favors Obama, period.

I sort of agree, for the most part McCain's piece was fine when he stuck to the facts. His attempts at spin, however, were obvious and dishonest:

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Maliki hasn't endorsed the timetable in name only. He's pretty much said the 16-month window is right on target.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges.

False, McCain himself has been a proponent of the Korea/Japan/Germany style occupation in Iraq. He simply refuses to acknowledge it as a presence.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.

Ugh.

Aside from that, if McCain had struck by his main point, especially these two lines right here:

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

without getting into the other points mentioned above, I think he would've had a very successful and persuasive piece. And this is coming from someone who still to this day would prefer an immediate withdrawal.

The NYT prints Kristol, so their standards are not the issue.

Bingo.

mega dittos Ashura


Buffalo, look up Briggs-Myers

Well yes, I served in the Navy at the time. I did not serve with Kerry's unit. But if you were in the military you know it is not like the Boy Scouts. You don't submit yourself for medals. Others nominate you for the medals and there is a review process. The Secretary of the Navy, a Republican, affirmed that Kerry earned his medals.

Blue Wate or Brown?

Kerry put himself in for his medals.

The Secretary of the Navy, a Republican, affirmed that Kerry earned his medals.

No the secretary of the Navy only condfermed that Kerry was awarded those medals.

The guys in his unit and his commander would know if he earned those medals, Kerrys first Commander refused to forward the recomendations.

When most of the so called Swift Boat veterans were not even in the Navy. Yea, something is fishy! And when the all the guys that served with Kerry backed him up. The Swift Boat affair was the slimest thing I have ever seen in American politics. I honestly don't know how you Republicans can live with yourselves when you resort to that kind of scum. But enough of that, it pains me to know my country has degraded to this level.

Just who of the Swift Boat Veterans, wasn't in the Navy?

Not all the Guys that served with Kerry back him up.

I have read the information from those who served on the boats with Kerry, and having been a Rotor Head, in Vietnam, in my unit, I may not have flown on the same birds with everyone in my unit, but I knew the reputations and actions of everyone in the unit, it is all one big happy family, and all your strength and weakness are known by everybody you serve with in the unit.

They know wether you are a liar, a jack rabbit, if you will pull a trigger, or if you just fold up and hide, they know if your there trying to build a reputation, and if you really deserve any medal that is given to you, it is something that isn't taken lightly among service men, especially the Purple Heart, and Kerr's Purple Hearts were bull shit awards, and he wrote himself up for those awards.


Obama first appeared in the national spotlight in 2004 at the Democratic Convention. He delivered the keynote address and he has been active in state politics for year. But you appear to conceed my point, Obama is a new face especially as opposed to McCain.

So new, he doesn't have enough experence or record to prove any thing, and State politics isn't national news.

News my dear, is all about ratings. Obama is generating the ratings. The news viewers are telling the media Obama is news worthy. As a capitalist, you should understand business delivers what the customer wants. And unfortunately for you and your canididate, the views want Obama.

No the News is telling the viewer that Obama is news worthy.

If the News is delevering what the customer wants then why are their advertising revenues dropping in free fall, and their viewership is in the Tank.

And we have the same problem with Obama, a well padded resume, mostly from his own word, and news media propaganda.

Let look at what Kerrys commander has to say.

The purpose of the missions is not in dispute. According to Schachte:

"I had gotten Hibbard's permission to conduct some skimmer missions out of our base when we appeared to have actionable intelligence. The bombing pause of North Vietnam was on and we expected more infiltration traffic of supplies down the coast, particularly at night.
We would generally tow a 'skimmer' (a Boston Whaler stripped down for a lower silhouette) behind a Swift boat into a likely area leaving the noisier Swift boat offshore and taking the skimmer in quietly to observe and fire on targets of opportunity. The areas we operated in were 'free fire zones.' All personnel in the specified area we investigated presumed to be enemy and having been selected by intel as worth taking a look at."

Schachte says he designed the missions for two officers and one enlisted man to run the boat. He commanded forward with an M-60 7.62 machine gun, the other officer would carry an M-16 with a starlight scope scanning the shoreline or an M-14 with an infrared scope if it was cloudy. He wanted two officers because as an intelligence-generated mission he wanted to make sure two men on the boat had been cued in at the 4PM operations meeting on what to look for in the area to be explored. Enlisted men did not attend that meeting.

Schachte says he personally led seven out of the eight skimmer missions he ran at Cam Ranh, and the one he didn't lead was not led by what Hibbard terms "a 'rookie' who knew nothing about the concept or tactics involved to command the skimmer." Schachte points out that if he had risked the lives of two enlisted men with a green officer on a difficult night mission like this he should have been reprimanded. Kerry, after all, was an "officer in training" at Coastal Division 14. Kerry had never had a command and had not yet been released to a first command of his own. His job was to go on missions with veterans and learn.

In fact, the one mission Schachte didn't lead was led by veteran Swift boat skipper Tedd Peck, two nights after the Kerry mission, to the same place, with Peck as leader with two other officers, Stephen Hayes and Mark Janes. In advance of the mission, according to Peck, "Schachte made us go down and have a gunner's mate train us with the M-60 machine gun which was not part of the Swift boat arsenal at the time, but was the main armament of the skimmer. It took two hours and we finished it just before we left on the mission."

Kerry and his men describe a magical mystery tour - that same night and that same time in a parallel universe - in a traffic-jammed Nha Trang Bay that apparently had scheduled a starlight sampan regatta that evening. According to Kerry's account to Brinkley, "Most of the night had been spent being scared shitless by fishermen whom we would suddenly creep up on out of the darkness..." In Brinkley's summary, "For the next four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought boatloads of fisherman they found in sampans... back to the Swift. It was tiring work."

"Tiring work?" If you ever tried to paddle an almost 15-foot long Boston Whaler with three in crew, loaded with arms, ammunition, and a bunch of jabbering Vietnamese fishermen crammed onboard, 2 ½ miles out to a Swift boat a number of times in monsoon seas you would enthusiastically agree and want to shoot the idiot who refused to use the engine.

But wait a minute... . Didn't Kerry point to the phony "photograph of the skimmer being towed behind his Swift boat, insisting that it could barely fit three people, himself and two others"?

How many Vietnamese fishermen can you put on an armed skimmer with a three-man crew and still paddle miles out to a Swift boat without swamping it in a heavy monsoon chop? According to my interview with Bill Zaladonis, "three to four." Why do this? According to Zaladonis's interview with Lisa Myers, "I assume they were interrogating them - turning them loose or whatever." "Whatever," indeed.

joepistole here read this:

Swiftee John O'Neill Speaks Out On John Kerry's Vietnam Clai...
Unfit for Command-Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by John ... JOHN O' NEILL: No. First, on the first Purple Heart, I have interviewed ...

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/... - 42k - Similar pages

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9456804

The fact there are troops in Korea/Japan/Germany does not in any way mean they are occupying it, so this terminology needs to be cleaned up right away.

In terms of leaving troops in Iraq after the insurgency is quelled, if the Iraqis allow us to maintain bases there, we'd be fools not to for obvious political and foreign policy reasons.

Back on subject, having read McCain's piece and compared it with Obama's, I find little difference between them. Both advocate a position and try to put forward conclusions of the candidate. The only editorial difference, from a professional standard, that I can see is that perhaps the Times is worried that having let one candidate make a statement it doesn't seem fair to let the other attack it (McCain's piece was much more about Obama than Obama's was about McCain). Perhaps the Times didn't want to start a war of words? Still, it's difficult to wrap my head around that one. The Times routinely allows writers to publish Op-Eds rebutting other Op-Eds.

joepistole here read this:

Swiftee John O'Neill Speaks Out On John Kerry's Vietnam Clai...
Unfit for Command-Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by John ... JOHN O' NEILL: No. First, on the first Purple Heart, I have interviewed ...

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/... - 42k - Similar pages

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9456804

Buffalo, you disappoint me. Below is a link to and objective description of the Swift Boaters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
Your own canididate, John McCain, a Navy Vietnam veteran, is on record as describing the swift boat veterans as false, dishonorable and disgusting. And I agree. If you are a veteran, you should know that the Secretary of the Navy approved his Silver Star...that is the law.

Kerry's commanders you referenced never even met the guy as they did not serve with him in Vietnam. They served in the units of which Kerry was a part after Kerry left Vietnam and the units. If they had any sense of wrong doing, they were obligated to bring it forth as soon as it became known to them...not forty years later.

Two, you know the media is ratings driven not politics driven. Politics does not pay their bills nor does it pay their stockholders. However, ratings do.

Three, you completely ignored the issue of the Fairness Doctrine.

The fact there are troops in Korea/Japan/Germany does not in any way mean they are occupying it, so this terminology needs to be cleaned up right away.

In terms of leaving troops in Iraq after the insurgency is quelled, if the Iraqis allow us to maintain bases there, we'd be fools not to for obvious political and foreign policy reasons.

This is true, I'm a bit of a radical on this issue and let my views inject a spin that shouldn't have been injected. Replace the word 'occupation' with McCain's own word 'presence' in my earlier post, the point still stands.

Buffalo, you disappoint me. Below is a link to and objective description of the Swift Boaters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
Your own canididate, John McCain, a Navy Vietnam veteran, is on record as describing the swift boat veterans as false, dishonorable and disgusting. And I agree. If you are a veteran, you should know that the Secretary of the Navy approved his Silver Star...that is the law.

Wiki? I also read the a lot of the References, and Kerry's records almost exclusively come from his own sources.

Three minor wounds and he went home? he gamed the system for his own benifit, and he wanted out, before he really got his ass shot.

There were a lot of grunts, rotor heads, track jockeys, and swabbies that didn't get that option, and paid the ultimate price during their tour's.

Kerry ran like the politician he was, He wanted to become the Next JFK, well JFK completed his tour, he didn't leave after being injured, he stayed with his unit, and his men.

Really and you can prove that?

And as for Kerry's Silver Medal I haven't attacked that, I question his Purple Hearts, and the way he gamed his way out of harms way.

Kerry's commanders you referenced never even met the guy as they did not serve with him in Vietnam. They served in the units of which Kerry was a part after Kerry left Vietnam and the units. If they had any sense of wrong doing, they were obligated to bring it forth as soon as it became known to them...not forty years later.

The combat records, interview and the affidavit show that he was Kerry Commander.

Now please provide the record showing that Rear Adm. William Schachte, wasn't Kerry's Commander.

Explain Steve Gardner, who served with Kerry for two full months of a 4 month tour.

Or David Alston, who was there for a fairly short period of time, perhaps as little as a week.

Now which man would have the best knowledge of Kerry as a boat commander?

I can recognize all of the people I served with in my unit, and I know what their actions were, in the unit.

Two, you know the media is ratings driven not politics driven. Politics does not pay their bills nor does it pay their stockholders. However, ratings do.

Three, you completely ignored the issue of the Fairness Doctrine.

New media ratings are driven by what they produce each and ever day and night, and that includes politics, and if they are so bad on the regular news why would they be any better on politics?

News Media revenues are dropping like a stone in a well, and their viewer ship has went into free fall.

What Fairness Doctrine?

New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent
Jul 23, 2008 ... New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent. July 23, 2008 - 9:13am. NEW YORK (AP) - New York Times Co. says its second-quarter earnings fell ...

www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1445351

Fairness Doctrine requires media give equal time to opposing sides. You guys are against it. As on the whole this currently favors your side. Were it in place, they would have to give McCain equal time.

As for your defense of the swiftboaters, no defense is possible when rational thought is not a basis for discourse as is the case here. There is no amount or quality of proof you will accept; as you are married to the idea so carefully fed to you and nutured by your hatred and biases by the so called swiftboaters.

Some of the records are private so Kerry has to give permission. If he did not, you would nail him for failure to disclose. If he does, you say he is the reference so it cannot be believed. Damn if you do and damned if you don't. It seems to me that the burden of proof should be the so called swift boaters as all of the men present when Kerry won his medals said and continue to say he earned them.

As for the Purple Heart medals, a medical officer must sign off on it to validate the injury and put in a medal request. Purple Heart Medals are not like Boy Scout and Cub Scout Patches. You do not, cannot submit your self for the award. And the injury must be validated by a medical officer. All you have to do is be injured in a combat zone. You can have a vehicle accident or drop something on your foot in a combat zone and get a Purple Heart Medal.

I think the whole swift boat episode and the accusations made by the so called swiftboaters demeans the service all those who served and continue to serve. Your own canididate, McCain, said the swiftboaters were dishonorable and false in their accusations. McCain as you know is an ex Naval officer and prisoner of war.

They know wether you are a liar,
- - -
Kerry put himself in for his medals. So do they know you are the kind of liar who claims a fellow veteran put himself in for some medals when he didn't ?

We do.


Back on subject, having read McCain's piece and compared it with Obama's, I find little difference between them Really? I guess I'm not surprised.

Probably few responsible editors would have printed McCain's ghosted recapitulation of hit-squad talking points and erroneous implication unless paid by the column inch - if then. His little Rove squad of campaign tacticians have pulled off a coup here, getting a bunch of free repetition for their bytes as well as poisoning the well of future well-founded criticism of McCain, but the choice of abetting that standard result or printing such a scurrilous little innuendo screed should be pretty straightforward.

Oh, one more thing. You wanted to know the name of one of the swiftboaters who did not server on swift boats. Try the name T. Boone Pickens...never served a day in the military much less on a swift boat. T. Bone was a major finanical backer donating more than a million dollars to the group, not to mention being an oil man who made billions in the oil markets.

This is true, I'm a bit of a radical on this issue and let my views inject a spin that shouldn't have been injected. Replace the word 'occupation' with McCain's own word 'presence' in my earlier post, the point still stands.

So what's wrong with a presence? Again, having troops there makes sense. Removing them doesn't.

So what's wrong with a presence? Again, having troops there makes sense. Removing them doesn't.

I didn't make any sort of judgment call on us having a presence there in this thread, only on McCain's language in his letter:

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges.

False, McCain himself has been a proponent of the Korea/Japan/Germany style occupation presence in Iraq.

I don't think he's been a "proponent" of that. I think he's acknowledged the reality, which is that US troops might be there awhile. That doesn't mean they will be fighting, etc.

I and the Democrats are on record favoring the Fairness Doctrine. The Republicans are on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine. When you guys come onboard and support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, I think you have a leg to stand on in this arguement. But until then, all this noise about Obama getting more press attention than McCain is just Republicans doing what they do best...it is just another Republican hypocrisy.

First, I could care less about McCain. He is a loser. However, your statement about the Fairness Dcotrine shows your ignorance. The FD has nothing to do with fairness. It is intrusive on free speech and is anti-capitalist. But, of course, I and other right wingers are for free speech and capitalism. When you leftist/marxist get on board then you can talk all you want about how fair the FD is!!!!!!!

Fairness Doctrine requires media give equal time to opposing sides. You guys are against it. As on the whole this currently favors your side. Were it in place, they would have to give McCain equal time.



Showing your cluelessness again!!!!!
:)

I and other right wingers are for free speech and capitalism. When you leftist/marxist get on board then you can talk all you want about how fair the FD is!!!!!!!

Please, the Republicans have controlled all three branches of Government for years (up until the 06 massacre). Under your stewardship we were attacked at multiple locations on 911, record deficits, a trillion dollar unnecessary War in Iraq. Gross incompetence during Katrina, loss of civil liberties through the Patriot Act and FISA bills, and astronomical gas prices. Please, you've had your chance. That's why Republicans are losing in states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Even your base is fed with the direction of the Republican party. That's why your most liberal member (McCain) prevailed in the primaries.

Please, the Republicans have controlled all three branches of Government for years (up until the 06 massacre). Under your stewardship we were attacked at multiple locations on 911, record deficits, a trillion dollar unnecessary War in Iraq. Gross incompetence during Katrina, loss of civil liberties through the Patriot Act and FISA bills, and astronomical gas prices. Please, you've had your chance. That's why Republicans are losing in states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Even your base is fed with the direction of the Republican party. That's why your most liberal member (McCain) prevailed in the primaries.

just ignore him. Its easier than trying to educate him.

Oh, one more thing. You wanted to know the name of one of the swiftboaters who did not server on swift boats. Try the name T. Boone Pickens...never served a day in the military much less on a swift boat. T. Bone was a major finanical backer donating more than a million dollars to the group, not to mention being an oil man who made billions in the oil markets.


He never claimed to have served on the boats, he just backed the money.

So do they know you are the kind of liar who claims a fellow veteran put himself in for some medals when he didn't ?

We do.

Really, I am a liar? and where have you served in combat? what awards have you earned? what is your military career?

You know jack shit about what Kerry did, all you jhave is something you read in the Wiki, I lived withe Kerry and his shit from the time I was in Vietnam and for 38 years after, Kerry the Winter Soldier, Kerry the Back Stabber, Kerry the wantabee JFK.

Yes I know that someone else put him in for his Silver Star and Bronze Star, but Kerry wrote himself up for his Purple Hearts, which he used to get his ass out of Nam after 120 days.

Something a lot of other Troops weren't given the benefit of.

Really, I am a liar? and where have you served in combat? what awards have you earned? what is your military career?

You know jack shit about what Kerry did, all you jhave is something you read in the Wiki, I lived withe Kerry and his shit from the time I was in Vietnam and for 38 years after, Kerry the Winter Soldier, Kerry the Back Stabber, Kerry the wantabee JFK.

Yes I know that someone else put him in for his Silver Star and Bronze Star, but Kerry wrote himself up for his Purple Hearts, which he used to get his ass out of Nam after 120 days.

Something a lot of other Troops weren't given the benefit of.

Your full of shit you know that if you honestly were offended by that you would also be pissed about bush. and him deserting from the god damn champaigne squardren.

Your full of shit you know that if you honestly were offended by that you would also be pissed about bush. and him deserting from the god damn champaigne squardren.

Why should I be pissed at Bush? He served his time, and received a Honorable Discharge.

What do you know of Lt.Bush's career?

A hack job, slander, by a Hack Partisan who didn't even have the brains enough to use the correct typewriter fonts, in trying to forge the documents for the frame job.

What pisses me of is a piss ant like you trying to tell me who I should be offended at.

You don't have the brains to get out of the water when a shark aleart is issued.

Why should I be pissed at Bush? He served his time, and received a Honorable Discharge.
This just shows your a worthless partisan hack. Far more evidence to question bush's record than kerry's so which one is your knickers in a twist.

What do you know of Lt.Bush's career? Appartently more than you.

A hack job, slander, by a Hack Partisan who didn't even have the brains enough to use the correct typewriter fonts, in trying to forge the documents for the frame job. I noticed you ignored the fact no can find evidence of him showing up for duty in alabama. Guess what thats called..deserting

What pisses me of is a piss ant like you trying to tell me who I should be offended at. I am not telling you you should be offended i am just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your views.

You don't have the brains to get out of the water when a shark aleart is issued. alert. for fucks sake i can spell worth shit and your lack of spelling is even worse than mine. Why do you feel the need to insult some one supposedly a third of your alleged age.(I don't think your really the age you claim. You don't have the maturity). God i mean quite being an insecure fuckhead and act your age.

This just shows your a worthless partisan hack. Far more evidence to question bush's record than kerry's so which one is your knickers in a twist.

Appartently more than you.

I noticed you ignored the fact no can find evidence of him showing up for duty in alabama. Guess what thats called..deserting

I am not telling you you should be offended i am just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in your views.

alert. for fucks sake i can spell worth shit and your lack of spelling is even worse than mine. Why do you feel the need to insult some one supposedly a third of your alleged age.(I don't think your really the age you claim. You don't have the maturity). God i mean quite being an insecure fuckhead and act your age.

And no one can find the evidence that he didn't, the records were lost, so now prove that he wasn't their, or that he didn't have permission to be absent.

Words after the fact about a incident from 30 years ago don't constitute evidence.

Didn't say anything about your spelling, I was questioning your logic and comprehension, thanks for making my point.

I was questioning your logic and comprehension, thanks for making my point. I applaud your courage questioning something you don't understand. I didn't prove your point because you failed to make one.

as for losing his records the milatary is a buerocarcy they make copies of every thing. and even still they should be some record of him being in the area. other then a dental receit of questionable legitmacy there is nothing. Ocam's razor is the simplest answer is ussally correct. simplest answer he deserted.

I applaud your courage questioning something you don't understand. I didn't prove your point because you failed to make one.

as for losing his records the milatary is a buerocarcy they make copies of every thing. and even still they should be some record of him being in the area. other then a dental receit of questionable legitmacy there is nothing. Ocam's razor is the simplest answer is ussally correct. simplest answer he deserted.

No, the simplest answer is that he completed his enlistment, The Twisted conspiratorial answer is that he want AWOL.

And we already have a good example of your comprehension and logic capabilities.

alert. for fucks sake i can spell worth shit and your lack of spelling is even worse than mine. Why do you feel the need to insult some one supposedly a third of your alleged age.(I don't think your really the age you claim. You don't have the maturity). God i mean quite being an insecure fuckhead and act your age.

Didn't say anything about your spelling, I was questioning your logic and comprehension, thanks for making my point.

And nothing was ever turned up to show that he didn't finish his enlistment, all the documentation was proven to be forgeries.

Now for the forged documents that CBS forwarded as originals:

They were typed in Microsoft Word, a program that didn't exist in 1973.

Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

What was Real was that:

1971 OER on Bush, signed by Killian and Harris: "Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot."....[a dozen sentences of positive detail]... This endnote is added by Hodges: "Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to this unit." Thus, three commanders signed this OER report.

1973 OER on Bush, signed by Killian and Harris: "Lt. Bush ..[has moved] to [187th Group at Dannelly ANG base in] Montgomery, Alabama...[since May 1972] has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying capacity."

Sites for Lt. Bush's OER....4 O all the way.

http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer_70-71.htm

http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer_5-2-73.htm.

No, the simplest answer is that he completed his enlistment, The Twisted conspiratorial answer is that he want AWOL.
its only the simplest if you ignore the fact there is no evidence for him being in alabama. which of course you have been doing.

1971 OER on Bush, signed by Killian and Harris: "Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot."....[a dozen sentences of positive detail]... This endnote is added by Hodges: "Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to this unit." Thus, three commanders signed this OER report.

1973 OER on Bush, signed by Killian and Harris: "Lt. Bush ..[has moved] to [187th Group at Dannelly ANG base in] Montgomery, Alabama...[since May 1972] has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying capacity."
neither of which say he he showed up for duty in alabama.

its only the simplest if you ignore the fact there is no evidence for him being in alabama. which of course you have been doing.

Is there any evedence that he didn't?

neither of which say he he showed up for duty in alabama.

And we already have a good example of your comprehension and logic capabilities, thank you for another.

“ “ Originally Posted by pjdude1219
alert. for fucks sake i can spell worth shit and your lack of spelling is even worse than mine. Why do you feel the need to insult some one supposedly a third of your alleged age.(I don't think your really the age you claim. You don't have the maturity). God i mean quite being an insecure fuckhead and act your age. ”

“ Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
Didn't say anything about your spelling, I was questioning your logic and comprehension, thanks for making my point. ”
”

Is there any evedence that he didn't?

still looking. have been looking for years now and still nothing. which is rather strange. Him being a senators son and than to just drop of the radar is well a sign of something weird.

still looking. have been looking for years now and still nothing. which is rather strange. Him being a senators son and than to just drop of the radar is well a sign of something weird.

Look for ever, hell will freeze over before you find something that doesn't exist.

The documents as to Lt.Bush being AWOL were forged, they even know what program was used to forge the documents, the Military in 1973 didn't use computers, they used Typewriter, not word processors and computer programs.

Microsoft Word is Microsoft's flagship word processing software. It was first released in 1983 under the name Multi-Tool Word for Xenix systems.

I have looked for two hours now and I have found all kind of documentation that Lt. Bush was a outstanding Officer, with 4-O efficiency ratings all the way, and received a Honorable Discharge from the Texas Air National Guard.

A Honorable Discharge, that kind of OER doesn't speak of some one who went AWOL, or didn't complete his service.

Probably few responsible editors would have printed McCain's ghosted recapitulation of hit-squad talking points and erroneous implication unless paid by the column inch - if then. His little Rove squad of campaign tacticians have pulled off a coup here, getting a bunch of free repetition for their bytes as well as poisoning the well of future well-founded criticism of McCain, but the choice of abetting that standard result or printing such a scurrilous little innuendo screed should be pretty straightforward.

I've acknowledged that McCain goes after Obama more than Obama does McCain, but besides that they are making claims and arguing positions. The fact you agree with one and not the other doesn't speak to their editorial worth. These are columns being penned by men who would be president.

And even if McCain's is little more than a Rovian rant, why not print it and let the world see it? Then it can make up its mind about the man whose name it ran under, right?

First, I could care less about McCain. He is a loser. However, your statement about the Fairness Dcotrine shows your ignorance. The FD has nothing to do with fairness. It is intrusive on free speech and is anti-capitalist. But, of course, I and other right wingers are for free speech and capitalism. When you leftist/marxist get on board then you can talk all you want about how fair the FD is!!!!!!!

Yea, I can see you are a regular Einstein...can't even spell doctrine. And the Fairness Doctrine has everything to do with FAIRNESS. It simply requires equal time for both sides. You ditto heads accept the party line without question, and the party line is let's protect our monopoly on the press and when the opposing party gets a little attention, let's scream unfair...bias. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent the media from being biased as it is today. Democrats and many independents such as myself want to return to the days of unbiased reporting. I think we had much better government then. We certianly didn't have any GWBs, who is going down as the worst president in American history.

Really, I am a liar? - - - Kerry wrote himself up for his Purple Hearts, which he used to get his ass out of Nam after 120 days. Kerry was actually wounded three times in Vietnam.

Kerry served more than 120 days there.

The last time you wrote that lie about a fellow soldier, I called you on it and supplied you with the exact dates of Kerry's service in Vietnam. You cannot claim ignorance. You are a liar.
I've acknowledged that McCain goes after Obama more than Obama does McCain, but besides that they are making claims and arguing positions. McCain does not argue positions, in that essay - which he did not write, obviously.
And even if McCain's is little more than a Rovian rant, why not print it and let the world see it? This is the new kind of "balance" that has been so destructive of news and public discourse in the media.

We are told we must balance reasonable discourse and argument with equivalent amounts of dishonest rant and scurrilous innuendo, merely because it supports the other political faction in some disagreement.

There's no reason to print it, because it's worthless. It contributes nothing to anyone's comprehension of McCain's or Obama's positions and views and actions as candidates for President. We already have plenty of familiarity with Rovian tactics in political rhetoric, and another example is long past the limit of diminishing returns. And it takes up space where worthwhile stuff could be.

McCain does not argue positions, in that essay - which he did not write, obviously.

But Barrack wrote his, right?

Whatever. . .

And yes, McCain does argue positions. He argues the surge has been more successful than Obama allows, as well as different approach for reducing troops in Iraq.

And even if it was just an attack on Obama, so what?

The Times routinely prints Op-Eds which are attacked, debunked or argued against by subsequent Op-Eds. A famous example would be the Pollack piece you so froth at the mouth about. Frank Rich did little more than belittle that piece a few days later.

So again, why not publish McCain?

This is the new kind of "balance" that has been so destructive of news and public discourse in the media.

We are told we must balance reasonable discourse and argument with equivalent amounts of dishonest rant and scurrilous innuendo, merely because it supports the other political faction in some disagreement.

In order for this to be taken seriously, you first have to qualify how Obama's peice is OK and McCain's isn't. Or more specifically, what about McCain's peice is "dishonest"?

No, wait.

Don't answer that.

We all know, from numerous interactions, what you consider dishonesty to be, don't we? You think anyone holding an opinion contrary to your own is dishonest. . .

There's no reason to print it, because it's worthless. It contributes nothing to anyone's comprehension of McCain's or Obama's positions and views and actions as candidates for President. We already have plenty of familiarity with Rovian tactics in political rhetoric, and another example is long past the limit of diminishing returns. And it takes up space where worthwhile stuff could be.

Karl Rove is gone. Deal with it. Continually bringing him or Bush or Reagan or whatever other Republican demon you think will stir the hearts of the faithful is exactly the cheap sort of campaign trick you're accusing others of making. Grow up.

I have looked for two hours now and I have found all kind of documentation that Lt. Bush was a outstanding Officer, with 4-O efficiency ratings all the way, and received a Honorable Discharge from the Texas Air National Guard. Why do you keep blathering on about the texas guard. the one in question is the alabama guard.

Why do you keep blathering on about the texas guard.

Because that is were most of his records are from, they show a excellent Soldier, with a exemplary record of service and achievement.

the one in question is the alabama guard.

He,Received his Honorable Discharge from the Alabama National Guard.

He argues the surge has been more successful than Obama allows, as well as different approach for reducing troops in Iraq. No, he claims and asserts, directly, without argument.

And even if it was just an attack on Obama, so what?

The Times routinely prints Op-Eds which are attacked, debunked or argued against by subsequent Op-Eds. If he had actually attacked, debunked, or argued against Obama's Op-Ed, there would be less of a problem here.
A famous example would be the Pollack piece you so froth at the mouth about. Frank Rich did little more than belittle that piece a few days later. With argument, reasoning, and so forth.

The Pollack piece, like "McCain's" little hit job, should never have been presented as it was, or published by a responsible newspaper in that form. That kind of mistake should not be taken as a precedent, and garbage like "McCain's" little essay should not be allowed to use the editorial pages of the NYT simply because something like Pollack's piece once got by the editors.

So again, why not publish McCain? 1) Because space is limited, the NYT is supposed to be a responsible newspaper, and worthwhile prose exists 2) The NYT has clearly offered to publish "McCain", jsut not that kind of stuff. Are you implying that McCain's hired writers cannot defend McCain or attack Obama in a worthwhile manner ?
btw: Karl Rove is gone. Deal with it. No he isn't. He is around, involved in the Republican campaigns and media affairs, in person, with great influence. Do you actually not know that ?

And the continuation and expansion and entrenchment of Atwater's legacy that his name represents is central to Republican (and therefore American) politics, right now.

I think historians will show that George II ducked service in Vietnam by joining the Texas National Guard. I grew up in that era. I enlisted in the Navy. Many of my peers were trying to get into the National Guard to avoid service or going to Canada to avoid service. Getting in to the National Guard was only reserved for those with political influence. Me being a poor white guy from a poor family had no other options but service in the military.
The National Guard of the 1960s and 1970s was not the National Guard of today. At that time the Guard was viewed as a safe place as the Guard were troops of last resort..intended only to safeguard the continental United States.
A sea change in military usage occured in the 1980s when it was decided to reduce active duty troops and rely more on the Guard and reserves to fight overseas "temporary" conflicts.

I think historians will show that George II ducked service in Vietnam by joining the Texas National Guard. I grew up in that era. I enlisted in the Navy. Many of my peers were trying to get into the National Guard to avoid service or going to Canada to avoid service. Getting in to the National Guard was only reserved for those with political influence. Me being a poor white guy from a poor family had no other options but service in the military.
The National Guard of the 1960s and 1970s was not the National Guard of today. At that time the Guard was viewed as a safe place as the Guard were troops of last resort..intended only to safeguard the continental United States.
A sea change in military usage occured in the 1980s when it was decided to reduce active duty troops and rely more on the Guard and reserves to fight overseas "temporary" conflicts.

So you joined the Navy a stayed, Blue Water and or State side, no chance of getting your precious little ass shot off.

I knew a lot of guys that went Navy to stay out of Vietnam, off shore. The Navy at the time I enlisted had a waiting list for men to join.

A buddy of mine did the same thing, he joined the Navy as a Medical Corpsman, so he wouldn't have to worry about being in Vietnam, did he get the shock of his life, the Marines draw their medical personnel from the Navy, after he finished his AIT, at Fort Sam Houston, he was sent to the Marines for Marine Boot Camp as a Medic, and was sent to Vietnam with the Marines as a Combat Medic.

I picked him up on a lift from the field, one day, after a 14 day sweep.

I was in the same boat, I was going to be drafted, so I joined and went Army Aviation, and new that I would end up in Vietnam.

So you joined the Navy a stayed, Blue Water and or State side, no chance of getting your precious little ass shot off.

I knew a lot of guys that went Navy to stay out of Vietnam, off shore. The Navy at the time I enlisted had a waiting list for men to join.

A buddy of mine did the same thing, he joined the Navy as a Medical Corpsman, so he wouldn't have to worry about being in Vietnam, did he get the shock of his life, the Marines draw their medical personnel from the Navy, after he finished his AIT, at Fort Sam Houston, he was sent to the Marines for Marine Boot Camp as a Medic, and was sent to Vietnam with the Marines as a Combat Medic.

I picked him up on a lift from the field, one day, after a 14 day sweep.

I was in the same boat, I was going to be drafted, so I joined and went Army Aviation, and new that I would end up in Vietnam.

Don't be such a shit head Buffalo! I was a corpsman and served with the Marine Corps...willingly knowing full well what they do and what I was expected to do.

For those of you who do not know. The Marine Corps is a part of the Department of the Navy. The Navy supports the Marine Corps. A hospital corpsman provides frontline medical support for the Marine Corps. Hospital Corpsman go wherever the Marines go. Corpsman go on the front lines along with every other Marine. When a Marine gets hit, it is the Corpsman who rescues him. It is his job. It is his reason for being.

By the way I was not going to be drafted. I never signed up for the draft. I just signed with the Navy right after high school...about a month after graduating. I was 17 at the time. But when I signed up whole classes of hospital corpsmen were being sent directly do Vietnam because the casualty rates on corpsmen were so very high.

Don't be such a shit head Buffalo! I was a corpsman and served with the Marine Corps...willingly knowing full well what they do and what I was expected to do.

For those of you who do not know. The Marine Corps is a part of the Department of the Navy. The Navy supports the Marine Corps. A hospital corpsman provides frontline medical support for the Marine Corps. Hospital Corpsman go wherever the Marines go. Corpsman go on the front lines along with every other Marine. When a Marine gets hit, it is the Corpsman who rescues him. It is his job. It is his reason for being.

By the way I was not going to be drafted. I never signed up for the draft. I just signed with the Navy right after high school...about a month after graduating. I was 17 at the time. But when I signed up whole classes of hospital corpsmen were being sent directly do Vietnam because the casualty rates on corpsmen were so very high.

A really?

I was 18 when I graduated, my birth day being in December, so I was already signed up for the draft, and I was in service before my 19th birthday.

I had once ask you if you were Brown or Blue Water Navy, and you didn't answer then, so now why after I give the story about my friend being a Corpsman in the Navy and ending up in the Marine Corps, do you suddenly become a Marine Corpsman? Very convenient, and at 17 to.

Obama love:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403924_pf.html

And no bias, right?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

A really?

I was 18 when I graduated, my birth day being in December, so I was already signed up for the draft, and I was in service before my 19th birthday.

I had once ask you if you were Brown or Blue Water Navy, and you didn't answer then, so now why after I give the story about my friend being a Corpsman in the Navy and ending up in the Marine Corps, do you suddenly become a Marine Corpsman? Very convenient, and at 17 to.

You know I don't really give a shit what you think is or is not convenient. Until now I used to have some degree of respect for you. But not now. I never answered your question about brown or blue water because I don't consider it important.

I enlisted before I had to register for the draft. And I have always been a Marine Corpsman. And frankly Buffalo, you can shove it up your ass. I would not be caught dead in the Army. I joined the Navy simpley because it is the best of the services. Not everyone can join the Navy. But virtually anyone can join the Army.

You are just another slimey republican ditto head!

You know I don't really give a shit what you think is or is not convenient. Until now I used to have some degree of respect for you. But not now. I never answered your question about brown or blue water because I don't consider it important.

I enlisted before I had to register for the draft. And I have always been a Marine Corpsman. And frankly Buffalo, you can shove it up your ass. I would not be caught dead in the Army. I joined the Navy simpley because it is the best of the services. Not everyone can join the Navy. But virtually anyone can join the Army.

You are just another slimey republican ditto head!

Just calls em, like I see's em.

Just calls em, like I see's em.

That is why you are severely deluded!

Obama love:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...403924_pf.html

And no bias, right?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...01702713742569 So we have a bunch of journalists asking McCain-framed questions of Obama wherever he goes (why won't you admit the surge is working ? ) and carefully including McCain-framed questions and answers from McCain himself (do you think the press is behaving responsibly, or are they biased toward Obama ? )

and we have a scene in which Obama manipulates his image in his favor by controlling the pictures and reducing the influence of the journalists (very competently, btw)

and along in there a casual mention, not expanded on, that Obama has just lately begun joking around a little bit with the press, as McCain has been comfortable and safe doing for years ( no mention of why that is, say of what the media have been doing all along with any of Obama's off the cuff statements even tangentially misinterpretable, compared with their handling of McCain's far more risible informalities and misstatements )

and that is presented as "Obama love".

Evidence of McCain framing, embedded in an exemplification of further McCain framing, is presented to us as "Obama love". Seriously.

And we have a breakdown of political donations between Republicans and Democrats in the news business, and that is presented as evidence of bias favoring Obama in the delivered news.

Right on top of accounts of reporters asking hardball questions of Obama and softball questions of McCain, on top of further repetition by yet more media figures of the ubiquitous question "are we treating McCain unfairly, and coddling Obama " followed by "how can we make up for treating Obama better than we treat McCain" , we have assertions of bias against McCain in the delivered news based on Party donations from the newsrooms.

Rove would be proud. McCain's not much to work with, and there's still the chance that the media will come out of its fog and suddenly start treating McCain the same way they've been treating Obama, or the way they treated Kerry, or worse, but so far so good.

That is why you are severely deluded!

No, I am not the one who is severely deluded, I leave that to you, anyone who would still back Kerry after his performance at Detroit, in the Winter soldier Program, and his testimony before Congress.

Kerry slandered ever veteran who ever served in Vietnam, you included, if you were ever there.

Should it matter that the "Winter Soldier Investigation" has been widely discredited in these intervening years by various authors and Vietnam Vets as largely false propaganda delivered by false veterans who either never served in combat in Vietnam or embellished their accounts to achieve their stated political goals?

Senator Kerry has never disavowed the statements he made so long ago in their name. He's never publicly questioned their veracity. The question now is that he is running for president and about to capture the Democratic nomination, does any of this matter? It has been proven in various books, most notably in "Stolen Valor" by BG Burkett, that much of the testimony at that Howard Johnson's in Detroit was exaggerated, embellished, and in some cases boldly fabricated.

You know I don't really give a shit what you think is or is not convenient. Until now I used to have some degree of respect for you. But not now. I never answered your question about brown or blue water because I don't consider it important.

I enlisted before I had to register for the draft. And I have always been a Marine Corpsman. And frankly Buffalo, you can shove it up your ass. I would not be caught dead in the Army. I joined the Navy simpley because it is the best of the services. Not everyone can join the Navy. But virtually anyone can join the Army.

You are just another slimey republican ditto head!

Well joepistole, I wouldn't have been caught dead in the Navy, the reason the Navy could pick and choose at that time, was because a whole lot of people wanted into the Navy because it would keep them out of country, on the blue water, no worries about walking through the jungles.

If, you were a Navy Corpsman, you got the biggest shock of you life when you found out you were going in country and as a Marine Medic, shit your skivvies didn't you, you thought you were safe from ever having to walk the walk and the rice paddies were you could get your ass shot off.

People in that time frame didn't join the Navy to see combat unless they went brown water, SEAL, PC's, Pib's, or Air.

Was there and flew the mission, did the Time, knew the attitudes.



Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity. The first of these was the January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by "the usual suspects" among antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.

The second event was "Dewey Canyon III," or what VVAW called a "limited incursion into the country of Congress" in April of 1971. It was during this VVAW "operation" that John Kerry first came to public attention. The group marched on Congress to deliver petitions to Congress and then to the White House. The highlight of this event occurred when veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol, symbolizing a rebuke to the government that they claimed had betrayed them. One of the veterans flinging medals back in the face of his government was John Kerry, although it turns out they were not his medals, but someone else's.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

Buffalo, until I met you and I have met a lot of folks in my life, I didn't think it was possible to be so completely clueless.

By the way, in my lifetime it has always been more difficult to get into the Navy. The Navy has for a very long time been much more selective than the Army. I have a nephew who is currently serving in the Navy. He entered the service about 5 years ago. He wanted to enter the service with his buddy. But guess what, his buddy did not qualify for Naval service. So he went into the Army.
I have a son who just entered Naval service a few months ago. When he took the ASVAB the Army recruiters were taking Army guys to the induction center before the got the results for their tests. When he got to the induction center he was amazed at all of the waivers being granted to those entering the Army, criminal waivers, physical waivers.
As I told you before and as you ignored, I knew what I was getting into when I entered the service. I entered knowing full well what corpsmen do. If fact, I entered with a school guarentee. I watched the old WWII movies when the Marines screamed for corpsman. Just because you or your friends didn't know what corpsman do, does not mean that others don't know what they do. When I entered the service the demand for corpsmen was great, as I previously stated, because they were getting killed and injured in Vietnam. You really don't understand the bond between Marines or Marines and their corpsman.
You really need to get a grip on reality Buffalo! You will be much better for it. Get a life Buffalo. You have no clue why people joined the Navy back then nor now.

Buffalo, until I met you and I have met a lot of folks in my life, I didn't think it was possible to be so completely clueless.

By the way, in my lifetime it has always been more difficult to get into the Navy. The Navy has for a very long time been much more selective than the Army. I have a nephew who is currently serving in the Navy. He entered the service about 5 years ago. He wanted to enter the service with his buddy. But guess what, his buddy did not qualify for Naval service. So he went into the Army.
I have a son who just entered Naval service a few months ago. When he took the ASVAB the Army recruiters were taking Army guys to the induction center before the got the results for their tests. When he got to the induction center he was amazed at all of the waivers being granted to those entering the Army, criminal waivers, physical waivers.
As I told you before and as you ignored, I knew what I was getting into when I entered the service. I entered knowing full well what corpsmen do. If fact, I entered with a school guarentee. I watched the old WWII movies when the Marines screamed for corpsman. Just because you or your friends didn't know what corpsman do, does not mean that others don't know what they do. When I entered the service the demand for corpsmen was great, as I previously stated, because they were getting killed and injured in Vietnam. You really don't understand the bond between Marines or Marines and their corpsman.
You really need to get a grip on reality Buffalo! You will be much better for it. Get a life Buffalo. You have no clue why people joined the Navy back then nor now.

Then how in the hell can you back Kerry?

Or were you one of those who?:

personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam

I can believe us troops shot cattle and dogs for fun. If it was anything like world war 2 they did. I remember my granddads stories of shooting monkeys and eating parrots.

I can believe us troops shot cattle and dogs for fun. If it was anything like world war 2 they did. I remember my granddads stories of shooting monkeys and eating parrots.

Monkeys and Parrots are not cattle.

Monkeys and Parrots are not cattle.

Yeah i know their harder to hit.

Yeah i know their harder to hit.

You have been there? Hell I thought you were only 23?

And now your claiming to be a Veteran of WWII?

Join the Army and learn to shoot.

Hell, you want to take care of dear old Mom? join the Army and have her declared as a dependent, and the Army will pay for her to.

Steady job, promotions, educational benefits, great health program, out standing life insurance, a pay check every two weeks.

Starting pay at $3,000 + a month, and see the world.

You have been there? Hell I thought you were only 23?

And now your claiming to be a Veteran of WWII?

You have been there? Hell I thought you were only 23?

And now your claiming to be a Veteran of WWII?

Join the Army and learn to shoot.

Hell, you want to take care of dear old Mom? join the Army and have her declared as a dependent, and the Army will pay for her to.

Steady job, promotions, educational benefits, great health program, out standing life insurance, a pay check every two weeks.

Starting pay at $3,000 + a month, and see the world.

??? I never claimed to be a world war 2 vet? If you honestly believe i claimed that go see a therapist because your delusional.

Then how in the hell can you back Kerry?

Or were you one of those who?:

I backed Kerry because he would have been a better president than George II. I backed Kerry because he had the balls to speak his convictions -even if I may disagree with him. I backed Kerry because he demonstrated leadership and heroism on the battlefield and did not whimp out in the national guard or on a college defermit. I voted for Kerry because he did not use underhanded campaign tactics. He had no Karl Rove. I voted vored for Kerry because my country was on the wrong track and I think that view has been widely validated. I voted for Kerry because I belive in honesty and honor.

I fought for my country because I believe in the values in our consitution and Bill of rights. I believe in freedom of speech. I belive in freedom from unwarranted intervention in our lives by goverment agents. I don't believe in sacrificing my principals for a man or a political party.

If you served in combat then you know there is truth in that old saying, "war is hell". There were atrocities committed in Vietnam, as in all wars. They are well documented. For you to insist otherwise is sheer self delusion.

I backed Kerry because he would have been a better president than George II. I backed Kerry because he had the balls to speak his convictions -even if I may disagree with him. I backed Kerry because he demonstrated leadership and heroism on the battlefield and did not whimp out in the national guard or on a college defermit. I voted for Kerry because he did not use underhanded campaign tactics. He had no Karl Rove. I voted vored for Kerry because my country was on the wrong track and I think that view has been widely validated. I voted for Kerry because I belive in honesty and honor.

I fought for my country because I believe in the values in our consitution and Bill of rights. I believe in freedom of speech. I belive in freedom from unwarranted intervention in our lives by goverment agents. I don't believe in sacrificing my principals for a man or a political party.

If you served in combat then you know there is truth in that old saying, "war is hell". There were atrocities committed in Vietnam, as in all wars. They are well documented. For you to insist otherwise is sheer self delusion.


Kerry, Balls, for speaking lies.:roflmao:

If you were in combat, You also know that, you don't fuck your buddies by back stabbing them for political gain, and that is Kerry from beginning to end of his 90 day war.

If they fuck up you confront them there, and deal with it there, it was done on more than one occasion, there was a place called LBJ, Long Binh Jail, and more than a few who didn't follow the Code of Conduct, and the UCMJ. and ROE, ended up in LBJ serving time, until they could be transferred to state side to finish their sentence, and get their Dishonorable.

That is why I don''t think you were there, to say Kerry had balls for repeating lies, none of those who spoke at Winter Soldier could or would back up their stories with dates, times, and locations, even when they were given immunity by the investigation, they refused to co-operate, and the other fact is that most of those who testified at Winter Soldier, were never in country, or never assigned to combat units, Winter Soldier was a propaganda campaign, that told lies.

I did two tours, I saw things that were atrocious, but I didn't see any one committing atrocities, I saw Boom Boom girls a plenty, servicing the Grunts even out in the field as we lifted from the PZ to the FB.

I saw dead more often than any medic, I had the privilege by flying them out to Graves Registration, or if NVA, in sling loads to the burial trenches.

I saw Villis caught in the middle of battles, because that's were the fight was, and the NVA were, I also saw Grunts risking their lives to save kids caught in the middle of those fights, I delivered a baby for a Humong woman that we were evacuating from a villis that was under attack.

Yes, Tell me that as a matter of course, and policy that we went around Vietnam committing atrocities, and I will call you what you are, a wanta be, pretender.

If you were in combat, You also know that, you don't fuck your buddies by back stabbing them for political gain, and that is Kerry from beginning to end of his 90 day war. You and your Swift Boat pals have been doing nothing but lie, backstab, and spread slander about Kerry for years now. What are we to make of someone who would lie the way you do about a fellow combat veteran ?

Buffalo the deluded, no one said we all went around commiting atrocities as a matter of policy. They only one that said that is you. American forces did not commit atrocities as a matter of policy. But they did happen. Two, while American forces tried to follow, and largely did, a line of morality. The Vietnamese police and army did not suffer from our issues with moral conduct of the war.
If you were in Nam, if you were in combat, you know atrocities are committed by all sides at some point in time.

American forces did not commit atrocities as a matter of policy. The aerial bombardment of civilians, with a variety of munitions (including herbicides, napalm, and anti-personnel) and from a variety of altitudes, was atrocity committed as a matter of policy.

The support of the torture prison system of the South client state, including the rendition of captives to that system for mistreatment (tiger cages etc), was atrocity committed as a matter of policy.

Buffalo the deluded, no one said we all went around commiting atrocities as a matter of policy. They only one that said that is you. American forces did not commit atrocities as a matter of policy. But they did happen. Two, while American forces tried to follow, and largely did, a line of morality. The Vietnamese police and army did not suffer from our issues with moral conduct of the war.
If you were in Nam, if you were in combat, you know atrocities are committed by all sides at some point in time.

Buffalo the deluded, no one said we all went around commiting atrocities as a matter of policy. They only one that said that is you

Please show me were I made such a statement?

This is the Statement I made:

I did two tours, I saw things that were atrocious, but I didn't see any one committing atrocities, I saw Boom Boom girls a plenty, servicing the Grunts even out in the field as we lifted from the PZ to the FB.

Buffalo the deluded, no one said we all went around commiting atrocities as a matter of policy. They only one that said that is you

Again please provide were I made such a statement? But John F. Kerry did in front of congress, quotes from his statement read into the congressional record:

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

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

This is his testimony, before Congress.

This is his testimony, before Congress. And what is your objection to it ?

It seems fairly straightforward.

Compared with McCain's editorial, just for relevance, it is much more reality or fact based, and less attacking the person.

Yes, and we all know how you define "fact."

And what is your objection to it ?

It seems fairly straightforward.

Compared with McCain's editorial, just for relevance, it is much more reality or fact based, and less attacking the person.

In 4,500+ hours of flying combat, support, supply and Medivac, I saw no such actions by any of our troops, after 730 days in country I never saw any such actions by any of the Troops I dealt with.

Not 30 days of cut and run.

I do also know that on occasion there were troops that violated the code of conduct, the UCMJ, and the ROE, and if serious enough they went to LBJ, I also flew few, very few of those people, like ONE, to LBJ for incarceration, after Courts Martial.