Could the Press Grow a Spine?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> If there was no enemy fire, or at least enemies present, why was the
> M-79 grenade fired?
>

You'd have to ask John Kerry.


>
> If so, why was the nomination accepted?
>

Unknown. The records have not been revealed.


>
> For Mr Hibbard to have first hand knowedge of the incident he would have
> had to witness it himself. He doesn't ocme out and say one way or the
> other but it seems that his account is based on what he heard from others,
> including Kerry, making it second hand, not firsthand.
>

Hibbard spoke with other crewmwmbers, who indicated there was no enemy fire.
Their information is first hand.


>
> Did you see this in USA TOday, or did you get it from somewhere else?
>

I saw it in USA Today. Except for an accompanying photo of Kerry and it's
caption, it's a direct scan.


>
> Oh, so Bush did get out of serving in Vietnam. Smart move, IMHO.
>

Mine too.


>
> I have seen only a handful of ads for Kerry and do not recall them
> even mentioning his service in Vietnam.
>

I have seen more than a handful and many have touted his Vietnam service.


>
> You can check out his website here:
> http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html
>
> I see no mention of his military service at all on the frontpage and
> only two sentences devoted to it in his biography.
>

Do you know if it was more prominent before the questions about his first
Purple Heart were raised?


>
> Ofhand, I'd have to say that your statement "Vietnam has been the
> key issue in their campaign to defeat Bush." is completely unfounded.
> AFACT, Iraq has been the key issue in their campagn to defeat Bush.
>

But you indicated you've not seen many of his ads. I have.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > State and Federal criminal laws, among others.
> >
> > It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
> > understand.
> >
>
> I was giving the benefit of the doubt. There's no similarity between
> someone stealing a car and Congress or the President or the USSC acting
> contrary to the Constitution.

IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
are typically hot air and sour grapes.

As to the Congress or the President, the USSC has just recently
stepped up to the plate and put them both in their places IRT
unconstituional law and unconstitutional executive action.

Even when ruings by the USSC are successfully defied, the
Constitution itself remains intact. The Constitution is
our contract with our government, the USSC is the arbiter
of that conract and when that arbiter sides with us it
is our job to collect.

Were essential elements of the Constitutino to be repealed, for
example to give the President the power to suspend habeas corpus,
levy taxes, or to establish courts martial then the Constitution
would no longer be intact. Until then, if our government
defies the Constitution successfully we can only blame our lack
wisdom and resolve as citizens for our failure to force our
government to comply with our Constitution.

Yet the Constituion itself will remain intact, patiently awaiting
enforcement by a people of higher character.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >Got a message ID we can use to compare what you say he said
> >with what he said?
>
> No, it was a series of exchanges under a thread topic I've long
> forgotten...along with "Walt".
>

I'm sure you realize that I am not inclined to trust your
paraphrasal of what you remember from a thread topic you've
long forgotten.

--

FF

[Jack]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
> are typically hot air and sour grapes.

[....]

> Even when ruings by the USSC are successfully defied, the
> Constitution itself remains intact. The Constitution is
> our contract with our government, the USSC is the arbiter
> of that conract and when that arbiter sides with us it
> is our job to collect.

[....]

> Yet the Constituion itself will remain intact, patiently awaiting
> enforcement by a people of higher character.


WELL SAID, FRED!

And, yes, that praise is appropriately shouted.

Thankfully there are a few here like you and Rasimus who know how to
state the case (not to mention also being able to see through the fog of
war, politics, & just plain BS in the first place).


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Mike Williamson]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>>
>> I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
>>3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
>>Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
>>close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
>>physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
>>shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
>>Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.
>
>
> If there was no enemy fire, or at least enemies present, why was the
> M-79 grenade fired?
>
>

I can not say this for certain, but it has been stated in other
threads that the grenade was fired during what is often termed
"reconaissance by fire." That is to say, if there MIGHT be an enemy
hiding in a tree line, or behind that haystack, or in those woods,
a grenade is a relatively cheap and (usually) safe way for you to
find out- and potentially avoid an ambush if there are in fact bad
guys there intent on doing you harm. If there isn't actually an
enemy around, then you've spent a grenade for peace of mind (and
a small shrapnel wound in the case in question- got to watch how
close you set off things that go boom).

Mike Williamson

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
> are typically hot air and sour grapes.
>

Then you are either unfamiliar with USSC rulings, the Constitution, or both.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> >...
> > For Mr Hibbard to have first hand knowedge of the incident he would have
> > had to witness it himself. He doesn't ocme out and say one way or the
> > other but it seems that his account is based on what he heard from others,
> > including Kerry, making it second hand, not firsthand.
> >
>
> Hibbard spoke with other crewmwmbers, who indicated there was no enemy fire.
> Their information is first hand.

And his is second hand though he said it was first.

> >
> > Did you see this in USA TOday, or did you get it from somewhere else?
> >
>
> I saw it in USA Today. Except for an accompanying photo of Kerry and it's
> caption, it's a direct scan.

Ok.

>
> >
> > I have seen only a handful of ads for Kerry and do not recall them
> > even mentioning his service in Vietnam.
> >
>
> I have seen more than a handful and many have touted his Vietnam service.
>
>
> >
> > You can check out his website here:
> > http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html
> >
> > I see no mention of his military service at all on the frontpage and
> > only two sentences devoted to it in his biography.
> >
>
> Do you know if it was more prominent before the questions about his first
> Purple Heart were raised?

Dunno, I never looked at the webpage before.

>
>
> >
> > Ofhand, I'd have to say that your statement "Vietnam has been the
> > key issue in their campaign to defeat Bush." is completely unfounded.
> > AFACT, Iraq has been the key issue in their campagn to defeat Bush.
> >
>
> But you indicated you've not seen many of his ads. I have.

I saw two or three in Ohio. Maybe a sentence like "Three times
decorated Vietnam Veteran' was in the ad, I don't recall. But it
wasn't the cornerstone of the ad, and I ahve a hard time beleiving
that it would be.

This is probably regional variation. Here in Maryland and in
neighboring DC almost any Democrat is a slam dunk for the
Presidency nad in Virgina any Republican. Consequently there
is virtually no political advertising going on around here.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
> > are typically hot air and sour grapes.
> >
>
> Then you are either unfamiliar with USSC rulings, the Constitution, or both.

Or you won't show an example of a USSC ruling that goes against the
Constitution. I'll agree as they occur, but they are rare.

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 7/10/2004 11:58 PM Pacific

>Or you won't show an example of a USSC ruling that goes against the
>Constitution. I'll agree as they occur, but they are rare.
>

The SCOTUS over ruling a state supreme Court.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> >Date: 7/10/2004 11:58 PM Pacific
>
> >Or you won't show an example of a USSC ruling that goes against the
> >Constitution. I'll agree as they occur, but they are rare.
> >
>
> The SCOTUS over ruling a state supreme Court.
>
>

That's part of their job.

IMHO, half of the decision in Bush v Gore, the 7 - 2 finding that
the equal protection clause was violated by the FL electoral system
was in agreement with the Constitution. In view of this, one finds
the 5 - 4 decision forbidding FL from correcting the situation
particularly boggling.

--

FF