Dan Rather apologizes

[Cub Driver]

Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:

********************************
After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
documents in question."

*****************************

In the Washington Post, which has covered this story honestly from the
beginning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Bill]

In article >,
wrote:

>Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:
>
>********************************
>After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
>in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
>journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
>question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
>these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
>raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
>knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
>story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
>documents in question."
>
>*****************************
>
>In the Washington Post, which has covered this story honestly from the
>beginning:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html
>
>

"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
without fear or favoritism."

What faith? What fear?

[Greasy Rider]

>
> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
> without fear or favoritism."

Favoritism? Nah, not the Clinton Broadcasting System.

[Jack G]

Guess they are claiming "faulty intelligence" for misleading them into a
"quagmire" from which there is no way out except to "replace the leader"
responsible for making the decision to "go to war" (against Bush).

Jack G.

"Greasy Rider" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
> > of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
> > without fear or favoritism."
>
> Favoritism? Nah, not the Clinton Broadcasting System.
>
>

[Bob Coe]

It was a wardrobe malfunction.

[Greasy Rider]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:flG3d.27364$ni.12445@okepread01...
> It was a wardrobe malfunction.

LFMAO!

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:
>
> ********************************
> After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
> in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
> journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
> question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
> these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
> raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
> knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
> story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
> documents in question."
>
> *****************************
>

Also:
"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without
fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "

No favoritism?
Fair?
Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
That's a new definition of fair to me.
Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
This story's mere presence on a highly watched news show this
close to an election demonstrates favoritism.

I have questioned the credibility of television news, 60 Minutes in
particular and CBS in general ever since they ran the Audi unintended
acceleration stories back in the 80's. There have been many, many
instances of biased journalism from this crew since then.

This story bears an uncanny resemblance to NBC's rigged gas tank
explosions in 1992.

Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kevin Brooks]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...

<snip cogent and accurate assessment>

>
> Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
> before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.

Yep. It says the first is well left-of-center and the second
is...nonexistent. ISTR Danny Boy was also leading the pack when it came to
trying to trash the reputations of the SBVT after they had the temerity to
dare question Kerry's military experience using his own (therefore not even
a chance of any forgery or slander/libel being involved) past conflicting
accounts; his one-sided (or should I say left-sided) approach to the "news"
is a well established fact.

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Leadfoot]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:
> >
> > ********************************
> > After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
> > in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
> > journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
> > question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
> > these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
> > raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
> > knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
> > story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
> > documents in question."
> >
> > *****************************
> >
>
> Also:
> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
without
> fear or favoritism.
>
> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
>
> No favoritism?
> Fair?
> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
> That's a new definition of fair to me.
> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?

Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS would
kill for one.

Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals is
that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy investigation in
a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want ignored)

I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is smarter.
You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)




> This story's mere presence on a highly watched news show this
> close to an election demonstrates favoritism.
>
> I have questioned the credibility of television news, 60 Minutes in
> particular and CBS in general ever since they ran the Audi unintended
> acceleration stories back in the 80's. There have been many, many
> instances of biased journalism from this crew since then.
>
> This story bears an uncanny resemblance to NBC's rigged gas tank
> explosions in 1992.
>
> Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
> before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Leadfoot]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip cogent and accurate assessment>
>
> >
> > Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
> > before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.
>
> Yep. It says the first is well left-of-center and the second
> is...nonexistent. ISTR Danny Boy was also leading the pack when it came to
> trying to trash the reputations of the SBVT after they had the temerity to
> dare question Kerry's military experience using his own (therefore not
even
> a chance of any forgery or slander/libel being involved) past conflicting
> accounts; his one-sided (or should I say left-sided) approach to the
"news"
> is a well established fact.

I guess your ignoring Lambert (who is voting for Bush) and Roods story on
what really happened in two incidents that Kerry was decorated for. I find
it interesting that Thurlow was in the drink when he says he witnessed all
ths crap he is lying about

http://tinyurl.com/48bja

http://tinyurl.com/4nxp4

http://tinyurl.com/4jubk

http://tinyurl.com/4lohz

Read this and you'll find SBVT are lying sacks of ****!!!!



>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > --
> > Harry Andreas
> > Engineering raconteur
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/20/2004 11:31 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <D8O3d.329675$Oi.320638@fed1read04>
>
>
<snip>

>> Also:
>> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
>> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
>without
>> fear or favoritism.
>>
>> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
>> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
>>
>> No favoritism?
>> Fair?
>> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
>> That's a new definition of fair to me.
>> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
>
>Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS would
>kill for one.
>
>Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals is
>that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy investigation in
>a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want ignored)
>
>I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is smarter.
>You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)

Ignoring the slam on those of who went to Viet Nam voluntarily why not dredge
up kerry's political history? He won't talk about it. Maybe he has something to
hide.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:
> Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:
>
> ********************************
> After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
> in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
> journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
> question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
> these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
> raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
> knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
> story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
> documents in question."
>
> *****************************
>
> In the Washington Post, which has covered this story honestly from the
> beginning:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html

I heard an interesting spin on this story from Dan Shore of NPR.
It was a little editorial rather than a report, but shows a bit
of left-leaning thinking on his part IMO.

The documents were probably generated from someone's "remembrance"
of the content of the real things, which have since vanished.

So in effect, even though the paper might not be real, the *content*
is correct.

Hope springs eternal.


SMH

[Leadfoot]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/20/2004 11:31 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <D8O3d.329675$Oi.320638@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> Also:
> >> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the
spirit
> >> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
> >without
> >> fear or favoritism.
> >>
> >> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
> >> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
> >>
> >> No favoritism?
> >> Fair?
> >> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
> >> That's a new definition of fair to me.
> >> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
> >
> >Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS
would
> >kill for one.
> >
> >Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals is
> >that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy investigation
in
> >a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want ignored)
> >
> >I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is
smarter.
> >You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)



>
> Ignoring the slam on those of who went to Viet Nam voluntarily

It's sarcasm, did you see the ;-) ?


why not dredge
> up kerry's political history? He won't talk about it. Maybe he has
something to
> hide.



I could forgive bush being AWOL if he'd just talk about it. Still wouldn't
vote for the moron.

My vote will be more anti-bush than pro Kerry. Getting us into a needless
war is a firing offense. Not properly planning for the occupation of Iraq
is a second firing offense.

BTW Kerry killed a man to protect his crew and his boat. I think he has
what it takes to protect the US.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/21/2004 9:01 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <zuW3d.330293$Oi.227911@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/20/2004 11:31 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <D8O3d.329675$Oi.320638@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Also:
>> >> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the
>spirit
>> >> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
>> >without
>> >> fear or favoritism.
>> >>
>> >> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
>> >> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
>> >>
>> >> No favoritism?
>> >> Fair?
>> >> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
>> >> That's a new definition of fair to me.
>> >> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
>> >
>> >Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS
>would
>> >kill for one.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals is
>> >that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy investigation
>in
>> >a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want ignored)
>> >
>> >I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is
>smarter.
>> >You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)
>
>
>
>>
>> Ignoring the slam on those of who went to Viet Nam voluntarily
>
>It's sarcasm, did you see the ;-) ?
>
>
>why not dredge
>> up kerry's political history? He won't talk about it. Maybe he has
>something to
>> hide.
>
>
>
>I could forgive bush being AWOL if he'd just talk about it.

Prove he was AWOL. He was never cited for it or such proof would surely have
been presented by now.

Still wouldn't
>vote for the moron.
>
>My vote will be more anti-bush than pro Kerry. Getting us into a needless
>war is a firing offense. Not properly planning for the occupation of Iraq
>is a second firing offense.
>
>BTW Kerry killed a man to protect his crew and his boat. I think he has
>what it takes to protect the US.

He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him qualified. What is
his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us about his OWN
glowing achievemnts?


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John S. Shinal]

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

<quoting CBS>
>"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
>of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without
>fear or favoritism.
>
>Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
>our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "

Even their "apology" is a brazen lie.

When they

1. Ignore document experts who are counseling them that their
sources have questionable authenticity

2. Ignore relatives of the decedent who are counseling them
that their sources have questionable authenticity

3. Ignore the secretary that wrote documents for the very unit
at issue, when she counsels them their sources have questionable
authenticity

4. Sweepingly adopt a signature and handwriting expert's
opinion on one portion of a document, and apply it to the whole, while
clearly leading the viewers to believe the whole are being vetted



Then it's really hard to take CBS seriously when they say they
are committed to fairness and truthfulness. They knew plenty
beforehand that indicated the docs were questionable. They cheerfully
and quite intentionally ignored anything that did not fit their
predetermined conclusions.

Ditto CNN's "Tailwind" fabrications about nerve gas
Ditto CBS/Rather's Viet Nam Vet's "expose" about PTSD
Ditto the NBC (Dateline ?) rigged gas tank explosions for
Chevy trucks in side impacts
Ditto the NY Times /Jayson Blair

Once upon a time, people actually investigated to see if the
points they presented were actually true.

Those days are sadly, long gone.

>Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
>before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.

and a cast of thousands more...

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(John S. Shinal) wrote in
:

> Once upon a time, people actually investigated to see if
> the points they presented were actually true.
>
> Those days are sadly, long gone.

I can think of few better cases to support that than to watch the
average White House press conference and the invited journalists
almost complete lack of criticism or challenge phrases to what
they're being presented.

If I didn't know better I'd say it looks more like a prestigee
thing than sound critical journalism these days.


Regards...

[John Szalay]

Greasy Rider wrote:

>>"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
>>of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
>>without fear or favoritism."
>
>
> Favoritism? Nah, not the Clinton Broadcasting System.
>
>

http://www.kcomposite.com/saintclinton.com/

[Leslie Swartz]

Hey Leadfoot:

Remove the "spin," and what the USN IG said was

NOT

"an investigation has determined that kerry earned his medals"

BUT INSTEAD

"their appears to be insufficient reason for an investigation"

Bi-i-i-i-i-i-ig difference, homes.

Steve Swartz




"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:D8O3d.329675$Oi.320638@fed1read04...
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:
>> >
>> > ********************************
>> > After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence
>> > in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
>> > journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
>> > question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
>> > these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been
>> > raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
>> > knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
>> > story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
>> > documents in question."
>> >
>> > *****************************
>> >
>>
>> Also:
>> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit
>> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
> without
>> fear or favoritism.
>>
>> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
>> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
>>
>> No favoritism?
>> Fair?
>> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
>> That's a new definition of fair to me.
>> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
>
> Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS
> would
> kill for one.
>
> Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals is
> that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy investigation
> in
> a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want ignored)
>
> I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is smarter.
> You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>> This story's mere presence on a highly watched news show this
>> close to an election demonstrates favoritism.
>>
>> I have questioned the credibility of television news, 60 Minutes in
>> particular and CBS in general ever since they ran the Audi unintended
>> acceleration stories back in the 80's. There have been many, many
>> instances of biased journalism from this crew since then.
>>
>> This story bears an uncanny resemblance to NBC's rigged gas tank
>> explosions in 1992.
>>
>> Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
>> before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.
>>
>> --
>> Harry Andreas
>> Engineering raconteur
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Hey Leadfoot:
>
> Remove the "spin," and what the USN IG said was
>
> NOT
>
> "an investigation has determined that kerry earned his medals"
>
> BUT INSTEAD
>
> "their appears to be insufficient reason for an investigation"
>
> Bi-i-i-i-i-i-ig difference, homes.

No diference at all MORON,

ROTFLMAO

>
> Steve Swartz

Lets print the whole article, you repugnants seem to be in love with
snippage

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy has rejected a legal watchdog group's
request to open an investigation into military awards given to Democratic
presidential nominee John Kerry during the Vietnam War, saying his medals
were properly approved.
"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver
Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval
process was properly followed," the Navy's inspector general, Vice Admiral
Ronald Route, said in a memo written to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly
delegated authority to do so. In addition we found that they correctly
followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."

In rejecting the request for an investigation made by Judicial Watch last
month, Route said that "conducting any additional review regarding events
that took place over thirty years ago would not be productive."

Kerry has been criticized by a group of Vietnam veterans called Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, about whether he earned the decorations Kerry's campaign
has touted during his campaign for the presidency.



SBVT are slime dogs







>
>
>
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:D8O3d.329675$Oi.320638@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Somewhat smarmy, but welcome nevertheless:
> >> >
> >> > ********************************
> >> > After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the
confidence
> >> > in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them
> >> > journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key
> >> > question of how our source for the documents came into possession of
> >> > these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have
been
> >> > raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I
> >> > knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the
> >> > story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the
> >> > documents in question."
> >> >
> >> > *****************************
> >> >
> >>
> >> Also:
> >> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the
spirit
> >> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting
> > without
> >> fear or favoritism.
> >>
> >> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in
> >> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
> >>
> >> No favoritism?
> >> Fair?
> >> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
> >> That's a new definition of fair to me.
> >> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
> >
> > Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS
> > would
> > kill for one.
> >
> > Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals is
> > that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy
investigation
> > in
> > a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want ignored)
> >
> > I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is
smarter.
> > You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> This story's mere presence on a highly watched news show this
> >> close to an election demonstrates favoritism.
> >>
> >> I have questioned the credibility of television news, 60 Minutes in
> >> particular and CBS in general ever since they ran the Audi unintended
> >> acceleration stories back in the 80's. There have been many, many
> >> instances of biased journalism from this crew since then.
> >>
> >> This story bears an uncanny resemblance to NBC's rigged gas tank
> >> explosions in 1992.
> >>
> >> Dan Rather's rush to get this story into the news and smear Bush weeks
> >> before the election speaks volumes about his politics and ethics.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Harry Andreas
> >> Engineering raconteur
> >
> >
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:01 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <zuW3d.330293$Oi.227911@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >> >Date: 9/20/2004 11:31 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <D8O3d.329675$Oi.320638@fed1read04>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> Also:
> >> >> "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the
> >spirit
> >> >> of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative
reporting
> >> >without
> >> >> fear or favoritism.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust
in
> >> >> our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. "
> >> >>
> >> >> No favoritism?
> >> >> Fair?
> >> >> Running a bash-the-candidate story 8 weeks before the election?
> >> >> That's a new definition of fair to me.
> >> >> Where is the bash Kerry story that should be there for balance?
> >> >
> >> >Give them a good story to bash Kerry with. I think at the moment CBS
> >would
> >> >kill for one.
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately for the repugnants is that the latest on Kerry's medals
is
> >> >that they were all awarded legitimately according to a navy
investigation
> >in
> >> >a DOD press release on Friday (the day to release news you want
ignored)
> >> >
> >> >I have to admit that I understand why people would think Shrub is
> >smarter.
> >> >You have to be really dumb to go to Vietnam if you don't have to. ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ignoring the slam on those of who went to Viet Nam voluntarily
> >
> >It's sarcasm, did you see the ;-) ?
> >
> >
> >why not dredge
> >> up kerry's political history? He won't talk about it. Maybe he has
> >something to
> >> hide.
> >
> >
> >
> >I could forgive bush being AWOL if he'd just talk about it.
>
> Prove he was AWOL. He was never cited for it or such proof would surely
have
> been presented by now.

Yeah daddy bush sure would have been happy with that one


>
> Still wouldn't
> >vote for the moron.
> >
> >My vote will be more anti-bush than pro Kerry. Getting us into a
needless
> >war is a firing offense. Not properly planning for the occupation of
Iraq
> >is a second firing offense.
> >
> >BTW Kerry killed a man to protect his crew and his boat. I think he has
> >what it takes to protect the US.
>
> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him qualified.
What is
> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us about
his OWN
> glowing achievemnts?

Why is he unqualified to defend the US?

You do realize Dubya is the best recruiter Osama Bin-laden ever had.

http://tinyurl.com/6wztn



>
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Leslie Swartz" > wrote:

> Hey Leadfoot:
>
> Remove the "spin," and what the USN IG said was
>
> NOT
>
> "an investigation has determined that kerry earned his medals"
>
> BUT INSTEAD
>
> "their appears to be insufficient reason for an investigation"
>
> Bi-i-i-i-i-i-ig difference, homes.

It looked to me to be more on the order of "the process in place at the
time seems to have been followed...that's all we're saying".

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
>news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >
<snip>

>> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him qualified.
>What is
>> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us about
>his OWN
>> glowing achievemnts?
>
>Why is he unqualified to defend the US?

Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Leadfoot]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
> >> >
> <snip>
>
> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him qualified.
> >What is
> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us about
> >his OWN
> >> glowing achievemnts?
> >
> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>
> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.

So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for him,
just is he qualified to be CINC?

Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for bush.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >> >
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him qualified.
>> >What is
>> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
>> >> about
>> >his OWN
>> >> glowing achievemnts?
>> >
>> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>>
>> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
>
> So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for him,
> just is he qualified to be CINC?
>
> Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
> bush.
>

Why don't you show him where he said Kerry is unqualified?

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04...
> >
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
> >> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
qualified.
> >> >What is
> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
> >> >> about
> >> >his OWN
> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
> >> >
> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
> >>
> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
> >
> > So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for
him,
> > just is he qualified to be CINC?
> >
> > Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
> > bush.
> >
>
> Why don't you show him where he said Kerry is unqualified?

Why don't you show me where I said he said it.


>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:Pbk4d.330529$Oi.213302@fed1read04...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
>> news:s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04...
>> >
>> > "B2431" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >> >> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
> qualified.
>> >> >What is
>> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
>> >> >> about
>> >> >his OWN
>> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>> >>
>> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
>> >
>> > So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for
> him,
>> > just is he qualified to be CINC?
>> >
>> > Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
>> > bush.
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you show him where he said Kerry is unqualified?
>
> Why don't you show me where I said he said it.
>

I'm just interested in why you refuse to answer his question.

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/22/2004 11:57 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >> >
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him qualified.
>> >What is
>> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us about
>> >his OWN
>> >> glowing achievemnts?
>> >
>> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>>
>> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
>
>So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for him,
>just is he qualified to be CINC?
>
>Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for bush.
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

So you can't back up your assertion I said kerry is unqualified?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/22/2004 2:16 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Pbk4d.330529$Oi.213302@fed1read04>
>
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
>> news:s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04...
>> >
>> > "B2431" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >> >> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
>qualified.
>> >> >What is
>> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
>> >> >> about
>> >> >his OWN
>> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>> >>
>> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
>> >
>> > So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for
>him,
>> > just is he qualified to be CINC?
>> >
>> > Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
>> > bush.
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you show him where he said Kerry is unqualified?
>
>Why don't you show me where I said he said it.

See above.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Leadfoot]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/22/2004 11:57 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
> >> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
qualified.
> >> >What is
> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
about
> >> >his OWN
> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
> >> >
> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
> >>
> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
> >
> >So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for him,
> >just is he qualified to be CINC?
> >
> >Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
bush.
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> So you can't back up your assertion I said kerry is unqualified?

Where did I say that you said kerry is unqualified?

And why are you so afraid to go on record and say if Kerry is qualified or
not" Shrub has certainly shown over the last 4 years he is unqualified.
I'm not afraid to say Shrub is unqualified. He has committed numerous
firing offenses for a president. Lets replace him and his team with someone
else.







>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/22/2004 5:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <yan4d.333258$Oi.89988@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/22/2004 11:57 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >> >> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
>qualified.
>> >> >What is
>> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
>about
>> >> >his OWN
>> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>> >>
>> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
>> >
>> >So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for him,
>> >just is he qualified to be CINC?
>> >
>> >Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
>bush.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> So you can't back up your assertion I said kerry is unqualified?
>
>Where did I say that you said kerry is unqualified?
>
>And why are you so afraid to go on record and say if Kerry is qualified or
>not" Shrub has certainly shown over the last 4 years he is unqualified.
>I'm not afraid to say Shrub is unqualified. He has committed numerous
>firing offenses for a president. Lets replace him and his team with someone
>else.


Look above and see where you wrote "Why is he unqualified to defend the US?"
which implies I said he was unqualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:yan4d.333258$Oi.89988@fed1read04...
>
> Shrub has certainly shown over the last 4 years he is unqualified.
> I'm not afraid to say Shrub is unqualified.
>

Actually, Bush has shown that he is qualified. Kerry is an unknown to some
degree. As a Senator he opposed adequately defending the US.


>
> He has committed numerous firing offenses for a president.
>

Such as?


>
> Lets replace him and his team with someone else.
>

On defense matters the Bush team has done an excellent job. It's his
domestic agenda that is troublesome.

[Leslie Swartz]

Correct.

Leadfoot, however, appears to have a reading comprehension problem.

The USN IG was very careful to specifically NOT endorse kerry's medals NOR
indict the process in place.

The only way to do that, and not lie to the public, was to say that an
investigation was not warranted (because the administrative side [minor
correction] of hte procedures in place at the time were follwoed."

The IG specifically did NOT comment on either the process or the specific
people and circumstances that led to the approval of the medals.

Pretty much not the same thing as saying "kerry deserved his medals" or
"kerry was exonerated" or anything of the sort.

Steve Swartz


"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote:
>
>> Hey Leadfoot:
>>
>> Remove the "spin," and what the USN IG said was
>>
>> NOT
>>
>> "an investigation has determined that kerry earned his medals"
>>
>> BUT INSTEAD
>>
>> "their appears to be insufficient reason for an investigation"
>>
>> Bi-i-i-i-i-i-ig difference, homes.
>
> It looked to me to be more on the order of "the process in place at the
> time seems to have been followed...that's all we're saying".

[Leadfoot]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >Date: 9/22/2004 5:39 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <yan4d.333258$Oi.89988@fed1read04>
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >> >Date: 9/22/2004 11:57 AM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
> >> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
> >> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
> >qualified.
> >> >> >What is
> >> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
> >about
> >> >> >his OWN
> >> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
> >> >>
> >> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
> >> >
> >> >So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for
him,
> >> >just is he qualified to be CINC?
> >> >
> >> >Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
> >bush.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >> So you can't back up your assertion I said kerry is unqualified?
> >
> >Where did I say that you said kerry is unqualified?
> >
> >And why are you so afraid to go on record and say if Kerry is qualified
or
> >not" Shrub has certainly shown over the last 4 years he is unqualified.
> >I'm not afraid to say Shrub is unqualified. He has committed numerous
> >firing offenses for a president. Lets replace him and his team with
someone
> >else.
>
>
> Look above and see where you wrote "Why is he unqualified to defend the
US?"
> which implies I said he was unqualified.

Aw poor little baby, were your feelings hurt?

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:yan4d.333258$Oi.89988@fed1read04...
> >
> > Shrub has certainly shown over the last 4 years he is unqualified.
> > I'm not afraid to say Shrub is unqualified.
> >
>
> Actually, Bush has shown that he is qualified. Kerry is an unknown to
some
> degree. As a Senator he opposed adequately defending the US.

Find me a vote where it was his vote that was critical.

>
>
> >
> > He has committed numerous firing offenses for a president.
> >
>
> Such as?

Invading Iraq not only needlessly but diverting assets away from are real
enemy al-queda.

Not being prepared for the occupation of Iraq. These guys have been
planning this since 1998.

Tora Bora: Using Afghan troops. You think maybe someone who had been to
Vietnam might have known better?

>
>
> >
> > Lets replace him and his team with someone else.
> >
>
> On defense matters the Bush team has done an excellent job.

Invading Afghanistan was done very well. The iraq diversion was were he fell
apart.

It's his
> domestic agenda that is troublesome.
>
>

[Leadfoot]

So every one who got a medal in vietnam is under a cloud right?

[B2431]

>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 9/22/2004 11:31 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <lks4d.333332$Oi.218825@fed1read04>
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >Date: 9/22/2004 5:39 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <yan4d.333258$Oi.89988@fed1read04>
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >> >Date: 9/22/2004 11:57 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >> >Message-id: <s9i4d.330513$Oi.209650@fed1read04>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> >From: "Leadfoot"
>> >> >> >Date: 9/21/2004 9:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >> >> >Message-id: <gJ54d.330384$Oi.126319@fed1read04>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:20040921115409.16546.00000959
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> He was a company grade officer. That alone doesn't make him
>> >qualified.
>> >> >> >What is
>> >> >> >> his political record? Why does he slam Bush instead of telling us
>> >about
>> >> >> >his OWN
>> >> >> >> glowing achievemnts?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why is he unqualified to defend the US?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Show me where I said kerry is unqualified.
>> >> >
>> >> >So is Mr Kerry qualified or not? Doesn't mean your going to vote for
>him,
>> >> >just is he qualified to be CINC?
>> >> >
>> >> >Give you a hint, Gen Franks says he is even if he is going to vote for
>> >bush.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >>
>> >> So you can't back up your assertion I said kerry is unqualified?
>> >
>> >Where did I say that you said kerry is unqualified?
>> >
>> >And why are you so afraid to go on record and say if Kerry is qualified
>or
>> >not" Shrub has certainly shown over the last 4 years he is unqualified.
>> >I'm not afraid to say Shrub is unqualified. He has committed numerous
>> >firing offenses for a president. Lets replace him and his team with
>someone
>> >else.
>>
>>
>> Look above and see where you wrote "Why is he unqualified to defend the
>US?"
>> which implies I said he was unqualified.
>
>Aw poor little baby, were your feelings hurt?

I guess I shouldn't have expected a mature response from you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:vrs4d.333334$Oi.275509@fed1read04...
>>
>> Actually, Bush has shown that he is qualified. Kerry is an unknown
>> to some degree. As a Senator he opposed adequately defending
>> the US.
>>
>
> Find me a vote where it was his vote that was critical.
>

Irrelevant.


>>
>> Such as?
>>
>
> Invading Iraq not only needlessly but diverting assets away from are real
> enemy al-queda.
>

There was no needless invasion of Iraq, the war on terror was never limited
to al Queda.


>
> Not being prepared for the occupation of Iraq.
>

Not everything in war goes according to plan.


>
> These guys have been planning this since 1998.
>

Bush has been president since only 2001.



>>
>> On defense matters the Bush team has done an excellent job.
>>
>
> Invading Afghanistan was done very well. The iraq diversion was were
> he fell apart.
>

Iraq was not a diversion and nothing has fallen apart.

[Leadfoot]

> >
> >Aw poor little baby, were your feelings hurt?
>
> I guess I shouldn't have expected a mature response from you.

I can be like a mirror sometimes


>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:vrs4d.333334$Oi.275509@fed1read04...
> >>
> >> Actually, Bush has shown that he is qualified. Kerry is an unknown
> >> to some degree. As a Senator he opposed adequately defending
> >> the US.
> >>
> >
> > Find me a vote where it was his vote that was critical.
> >
>
> Irrelevant.

In other words you can't do it.

>
>
> >>
> >> Such as?
> >>
> >
> > Invading Iraq not only needlessly but diverting assets away from are
real
> > enemy al-queda.
> >
>
> There was no needless invasion of Iraq, the war on terror was never
limited
> to al Queda.

No wmd and no constructive links to al-queda. For that matter they can't
even show any terror attack was planned by Iraq agasinst the US.


>
>
> >
> > Not being prepared for the occupation of Iraq.
> >
>
> Not everything in war goes according to plan.

Lame excuse


They've wanted this war since 1998, they've had contol since 2001, they
didn't plan ahead

>
>
> >
> > These guys have been planning this since 1998.
> >
>
> Bush has been president since only 2001.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Notice the names at the bottom.

>
>
>
> >>
> >> On defense matters the Bush team has done an excellent job.
> >>
> >
> > Invading Afghanistan was done very well. The iraq diversion was were
> > he fell apart.
> >
>
> Iraq was not a diversion and nothing has fallen apart.

What about the NIE that bush dissed that predict civil war?

>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

They are now . . .

And if they weren't ****ed off at kerry before (for the other reasons), they
should be for this one.

Steve Swartz

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:_us4d.333336$Oi.255112@fed1read04...
> So every one who got a medal in vietnam is under a cloud right?
>
>

[Leadfoot]

Tje only people who are doing that is your side
"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> They are now . . .
>
> And if they weren't ****ed off at kerry before (for the other reasons),
they
> should be for this one.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:_us4d.333336$Oi.255112@fed1read04...
> > So every one who got a medal in vietnam is under a cloud right?
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Coe]

A year from now, no one will even remember Kerry...



"Leadfoot" > wrote
> Tje only people who are doing that is your side
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote
>> They are now . . .
>>
>> And if they weren't ****ed off at kerry before (for the other reasons),
> they
>> should be for this one.
>>
>> Steve Swartz
>>
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote
>> > So every one who got a medal in vietnam is under a cloud right?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:LGF4d.333599$Oi.40866@fed1read04...
>> >
>> > Find me a vote where it was his vote that was critical.
>> >
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>
> In other words you can't do it.
>

No, it's that it's irrelevant. A vote against is a vote against whether or
not it's a deciding vote.


>> >
>> > Invading Iraq not only needlessly but diverting assets away from
>> > are real enemy al-queda.
>> >
>>
>> There was no needless invasion of Iraq, the war on terror was
>> never limited to al Queda.
>>
>
> No wmd and no constructive links to al-queda. For that matter they can't
> even show any terror attack was planned by Iraq agasinst the US.
>

At the time of the invasion every nation with intelligence capability agreed
that Iraq had WMD. Even those that opposed the invasion. Had there been no
invasion the world would still believe Iraq had WMD.

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:LGF4d.333599$Oi.40866@fed1read04...
> >> >
> >> > Find me a vote where it was his vote that was critical.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >>
> >
> > In other words you can't do it.
> >
>
> No, it's that it's irrelevant. A vote against is a vote against whether
or
> not it's a deciding vote.

You can't find even one can you?

>
>
> >> >
> >> > Invading Iraq not only needlessly but diverting assets away from
> >> > are real enemy al-queda.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There was no needless invasion of Iraq, the war on terror was
> >> never limited to al Queda.
> >>
> >
> > No wmd and no constructive links to al-queda. For that matter they
can't
> > even show any terror attack was planned by Iraq agasinst the US.
> >
>
> At the time of the invasion every nation with intelligence capability
agreed
> that Iraq had WMD. Even those that opposed the invasion. Had there been
no
> invasion the world would still believe Iraq had WMD.

Yeah but he didn't. Turns out a lot of people beleived Chalabi's nephew.
They either didn't know or didn't care the source had a little bit more bias
than say CBS news



>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:3Wk5d.335188$Oi.62956@fed1read04...
>
> You can't find even one can you?
>

I don't know, I didn't look for any. There's no point in looking for
something that's irrelevant.


>
> Yeah but he didn't.
>

Right. The Kurds gassed themselves.

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:3Wk5d.335188$Oi.62956@fed1read04...
> >
> > You can't find even one can you?
> >
>
> I don't know, I didn't look for any. There's no point in looking for
> something that's irrelevant.

No point if there aren't any.

>
>
> >
> > Yeah but he didn't.
> >
>
> Right. The Kurds gassed themselves.

What year was that?

>
>

[Pete]

"Leadfoot" > wrote

> > At the time of the invasion every nation with intelligence capability
> agreed
> > that Iraq had WMD. Even those that opposed the invasion. Had there
been
> no
> > invasion the world would still believe Iraq had WMD.
>
> Yeah but he didn't. Turns out a lot of people beleived Chalabi's nephew.
> They either didn't know or didn't care the source had a little bit more
bias
> than say CBS news

What day between 17 Mar, 1988 (documented use of WMD) and today, did the
statement "Saddam had no WMD's" become true?

When was that?

Specifically....what day could be celebrated as "No WMD Day"?

Pete
"You've got to be very, very careful, general. We have spoken with Saddam
Hussein. He is a madman. He has weapons of mass destruction, biological
weapons. And he will use them against your troops."
Hosni Mubarak talking to Gen. Tommy Franks

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:34:15 GMT, "Pete"
> wrote:

> "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
>brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
>... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
>..."
>Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

I'd love to have a cite for that quote. (Assuming I can't get it
simply by pasting it into Google, which I will now try.)

Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Brett]

"Cub Driver" > wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:34:15 GMT, "Pete"
> > wrote:
>
> > "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
> >brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents
a
> >particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> >miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
> >continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
> >... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real
> >..."
> >Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
>
> I'd love to have a cite for that quote. (Assuming I can't get it
> simply by pasting it into Google, which I will now try.)

It is from a speech he gave on that date at Georgetown University, try this
site for the full text:

http://www.seanrobins.com/national/kerry_speeches_statements.htm

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
> brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
> particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
> continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
> ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
> real
> ..."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
>

Kerry lied about WMD!

[Leadfoot]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote
>
> > > At the time of the invasion every nation with intelligence capability
> > agreed
> > > that Iraq had WMD. Even those that opposed the invasion. Had there
> been
> > no
> > > invasion the world would still believe Iraq had WMD.
> >
> > Yeah but he didn't. Turns out a lot of people beleived Chalabi's
nephew.
> > They either didn't know or didn't care the source had a little bit more
> bias
> > than say CBS news
>
> What day between 17 Mar, 1988 (documented use of WMD) and today, did the
> statement "Saddam had no WMD's" become true?
>
> When was that?
>
> Specifically....what day could be celebrated as "No WMD Day"?

ROTFLMAO

Maybe when Clinton and Blair bombed the **** out of Iraq in 1998




>
> Pete
> "You've got to be very, very careful, general. We have spoken with Saddam
> Hussein. He is a madman. He has weapons of mass destruction, biological
> weapons. And he will use them against your troops."
> Hosni Mubarak talking to Gen. Tommy Franks
>
> "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
> brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
> particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
> continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
> ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real
> ..."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
>
>

[Leadfoot]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
> > brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents
a
> > particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> > miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his
> > continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction
> > ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
> > real
> > ..."
> > Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
> >
>
> Kerry lied about WMD!

He was lied to like the rest of us about WMD. Nowhere does he say how he
would have disarmed Saddam. I think if he had gone to war he would have
put together a better coalition than George "my way or the highway" Bush.
You guys still can't seem to grasp that Bush has a hard time working with
other do you?

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:5UB5d.335366$Oi.109435@fed1read04...
>>
>> Kerry lied about WMD!
>>
>
> He was lied to like the rest of us about WMD.
>

Kerry said Saddam had WMD. Saddam didn't have WMD. The bottom line is
Kerry lied about WMD.

[Pete]

"Leadfoot" > wrote

> >
> > Specifically....what day could be celebrated as "No WMD Day"?
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Maybe when Clinton and Blair bombed the **** out of Iraq in 1998

Yeah, right.

[From Congress, to the President - August 11, 1999 ]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec99/letter.html
" *International Inspections no longer constrain Saddam's Weapons of Mass
destruction (WMD) programs. Up to and during Operation Desert Fox,
Administration officials expended considerable energy explaining to the
international community, Congress, and the American people why it was
necessary to use force to compel Saddam to submit to comprehensive
international inspections. Without inspections, we were told, Saddam could
begin to reconstitute his WMD capabi1ity within a matter of weeks. Operation
Desert Fox was necessary to compel him to stop obstructing inspections.
Since Operation Desert Fox, however, there have been no inspections at all.
Now, rather than emphasize the danger that Iraq's WMD programs may be
reconstituted, Administration officials apparently claim that they have "no
evidence" that Saddam is reconstituting his capabilities. In fact, there is
considerable evidence that Iraq continues to seek to develop and acquire
weapons of mass destruction."

TRENT LOTT [signed]
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN [signed]
JESSE HELMS [signed]
J. ROBERT KERREY [signed]
RICHARD C. SHELBY [signed]
SAM BROWNBACK [signed]
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN [signed]
HOWARD L. BERMAN [signed]

Pete