Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry? [Archive]

david raoul derbes

August 21st 04, 04:45 PM

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:50:45 GMT, David Fritzinger
> wrote:
>
>>The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
>>says they are. Whether they are paid for by Bush, or by his supporters
>>seems not to be the point, since Bush does have a history on this sort
>>of thing. REmember what he did to McCain in the 2000 primaries, and to
>>Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
>
>Two points to be made here. One, I personally know and respect Paul
>Galanti who appears in the most recent Swiftie ad. He has nothing to
>gain and much to lose from his participation in the outing of John
>Kerry. He is truthful and most assuredly not in the employ of the Bush
>campaign.

I haven't seen the ad, and I am willing to posit that both you yourself
and Paul Galanti are honorable, brave men who have served this country
well. Thank you for that service.

There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.

That said, I want to make three points.

First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
_other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
had told him that. Remember, Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War, and as such a spokesman. Unfortunately there is no
doubt that atrocities were committed; I am old enough to remember the
name of William Calley and the town of My Lai. I'm sure that you
remember these names as well. They were aberrations, and those who
committed these crimes were punished; but they did happen. They happen
in every war. It would be passing strange had they not happened in
Viet Nam, a particularly nasty war as wars go. Let me say at once that
in my opinion, the crimes committed by the other side were far more
frequent than on ours.

Next, I believe that Mr. Galanti and many other veterans are angry at
Kerry for his testimony, and believe that they were tarred with the
brush of being a war criminal. I do not believe that was the main
thrust of Kerry's testimony, by the way; I think he was trying to say
that the war was badly conducted, and one of the symptoms of bad
conduct by the upper echelons of the military is that discipline had
failed in some cases, as evidenced by these few atrocities. I remember
many returning veterans were accused by idiots my own age with being
baby killers and all the rest. There is no excuse for the terrible
behavior of those who weren't there insulting those who were. Mr.
Galanti and others, perhaps including you, have much to be angry about.
I'm not sure that John Kerry is the appropriate target for that anger,
but I wasn't there, and I don't know.

Finally, I want to say that while Mr. Galanti is doubtless an honest man,
there are many dishonest men in the employ of the Bush administration
who will make whatever use they can of honest, decent men who happen to
share their opinions about Kerry not being the right choice for the next
President. I would be very careful about who I let get me in front of a
camera were I your friend. By all means let Mr. Galanti and others do what
they wish to re-elect Bush, but it should be on their own terms. Mr. Rove
and Mr. Perry have, in my opinion, demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards
the truth, and that is putting it very charitably.

Best wishes to you, sir.

David Derbes

>
>Second, someone has to pay the bill for getting the word out. The
>underwriting of the Swift boat vets campaign has come from
>contributions from people concerned about the issues. The argument
>that since a wealthy Republican in TX contributes $100k therefore the
>ad is sponsored by the Bush campaign seems to be drastically overcome
>by the George Soros sponsorship of moveon.org and his investment of
>several million bucks on behalf of his side of the argument. If it all
>right for Soros, then it must be equally acceptable for the Swifties
>to be heard.
>
>And, simply as an aside, it should be remembered that Max Cleland is
>most assuredly a sympathetic figure who lost much in service to his
>country, did not receive his injuries in combat but through an
>accident which was largely his own fault. The fact that he was injured
>by whatever means does not leave him immune to political criticism on
>his record in the Senate.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org

Steven P. McNicoll

August 21st 04, 08:01 PM

"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
>
> That said, I want to make three points.
>
> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
> had told him that.
>

Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals."

John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

BUFDRVR

August 21st 04, 08:49 PM

analyst41 wrote:

>How do you "answer" a group that
>
>(1) said nothing for 30 odd years, or said/wrote in the past the exact
>opposite of what they are saying now ?

Wrong. Kerry was publically opposed by several members of the Swift Vets when
he first ran for public office. Kerry invited these men to organize when he
made his service in Vietnam the center piece of his Presidential campaign.

>(2) Say that Kerry is lying, Kerry's boatmates are lying, Rassmann is
>lying

Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire. Sounds like you've got
guys with nothing to gain telling one story and guys with much to gain telling
the other.

<snip other "lies">

>These guys can lie endlessly and there is simply no way of refuting
>their allegations completely.

Well, if Kerry would personally address the issue instead of sending out his
surrogates to attack the messengers we would at least have two sides to the
story.

>But these guys have put themselves out there and they already stand
>discredited from the motive standpoint

What motive? Lets pretend Bush himself is organizing this, what could he offer
these guys as payment for their work? Cabnit positions? Money? Face it, these
guys have nothing to gain and that is what makes their story so compelling and
dangerous to the Kerry campaign.

>These are small-timers who might even crack under the pressure the
>Kerry campaign is going to bring to bear on them

The only pressure the Kerry campaign has brought to bear is on the book
publishers and TV stations. This follows the Kerry campaigns absolute
embracement of Michael Moore. Can you say hypocritical?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Wise

August 21st 04, 09:50 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
> surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire.

Odd that he is claiming to just now being aware of why he received his
medal. Was his bronze star awarded to him in silence and w/o any
documentation????

The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.

This will be entertaining.

--Mike

Paul J. Adam

August 21st 04, 10:35 PM

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>Sure, I will. I read the NYT story yesterday and forwarded it to a
>friend who believes that the NYT is an unbiased source. Even he
>blushed to admit that it might as well have been an infomercial.

I read the NY Times story and came away unconvinced of anything other
than "a plague on both their houses". Lots of political BS on all sides.

>It struck me as the sort of whitewash that would convince only the
>individual who paid for it.

It was better whitewash than that, but I'm suspicious of both Kerrey's
claims and the Swift Boats Veterans. (If only because there's no 'Delta
Dart Drivers' club bashing Bush Jr.)

>I don't know what the truth might be in this matter, but I hope the
>Swifties will pursue it until the last "Bush AWOL" site is taken down
>and the owner apologizes for defaming an F102 pilot who did his job
>and by all accounts did it well. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

I'd class myself as centrist, which doubtless is a misspelling of either
"communist fellow-traveller" or "fascist baby-eater", on this issue. At
top level, Kerrey was not in a safe, routine, Stateside assignment, nor
was he 'photocopier officer' on a ship well out of harm's way, but he
spent a few months in direct-fire range of the enemy and may even have
got shot at himself on a few occasions.

On the other hand, George Bush Jr. qualified to fly and logged many
hours in the F-102 Delta Dart: while it may not have been the newest or
*most* dangerous aircraft available, it killed a sad roll-call of pilots
and was more dangerous than its replacements. And flying a fighter is
*not* easy. He "skipped his extended service"? Really? Where's the memo
calling him up to train to fly F-106s or F-4s? And where's the training
slot left empty because he never showed?

I've decided that I thoroughly dislike the policies of both candidates,
I don't get a vote on the issue, and I wish all the partisan ********
would go away so r.a.m can get back to talking about military aviation.
But both of them appear to have rendered respectable service thirty-some
years ago.

Why not concentrate on "what they'd do now and for the next four years"
rather rhan obsess about "what they did thirty years ago"?

>I see that the Swifties' book was the number-one seller on Amazon
>yesterday. I reckon it has legs.

Al Franken and Ann Coulter have both sold well. Doesn't make either of
them right.

(Coulter is *scary* from what she says here, not seen a UK interview of
Franken)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

BUFDRVR

August 21st 04, 10:43 PM

Mike wrote:

>> Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
>> surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire.
>
>Odd that he is claiming to just now being aware of why he received his
>medal.

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make sense to
him. Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and moved
on.

> Let's get Bush
>and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
>country.

Unlike Kerry, Bush isn't interested in discussing issues un-related to the
Presidential election.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Steven P. McNicoll

August 21st 04, 11:03 PM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
> and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
> country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
> the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.
>

Right. Anything to avoid discussing Kerry's record since he left the Navy.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 21st 04, 11:13 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was better whitewash than that, but I'm suspicious of both Kerrey's
> claims and the Swift Boats Veterans. (If only because there's no 'Delta
> Dart Drivers' club bashing Bush Jr.)
>

Why would there be? Bush did nothing to defame F-102 pilots.

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 12:02 AM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >> Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
> >> surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire.
> >
> >Odd that he is claiming to just now being aware of why he received his
> >medal.
>
> No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense to
> him.

Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

The person in question is Lt. Larry Thurlow, a leading member of the
leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth' commanded a boat
alongside Kerry during the 1969 incident in question.

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined." [conspicuous omission acknowledging his award docs said he was
under fire at the time]

Thurlow went on to say:

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

So just this week, he's saying he believed he got his Bronze Star for
coming to the rescue of a mined boat.

So which is it: did he accept his Bronze Star knowing that it was for
actions under fire and simply "shrugged and moved on" as you are now
making an unsubstantiated claim of or did he get his award not knowing
it stated prominently that he had been under fire (despite the fact that
the award text would have been read to him when presented as well as in
his service record) and only now, 35 years later, become aware of the
citation text????

Your version of events does not jibe with what the Mr. Hurlow himself is
saying.

> Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
> Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and moved
> on.

Only he did not do that. He's claiming that all along he believed his
award was for rescuing the crew of a mined boat.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them and
there were written entries in my service record stating why as well.

> > Let's get Bush
> >and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
> >country.
>
> Unlike Kerry, Bush isn't interested in discussing issues un-related to the
> Presidential election.

The Republican Party made actions during the Vietnam war a related
presidential election issue from 1991-2000...why is it now unrelated?

--Mike

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 12:05 AM

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > The presidential debates will certainly be interesting. Let's get Bush
> > and Kerry mano-y-mano discussing both their roles in service to
> > country...w/o advisors and partisan-financed groups trying to control
> > the message and w/o advisors and staff speaking for them.
> >
>
> Right. Anything to avoid discussing Kerry's record since he left the Navy.

That will be there as well. And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
pack...much less the country.

--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll

August 22nd 04, 12:12 AM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> That will be there as well.
>

Not if the Democrats can help it.

>
> And that record will not include the loss of
> 2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
> his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
> pack...much less the country.
>

Well, of course it won't, as that has not happened.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 22nd 04, 12:29 AM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
>
> You mean that's what you goose-stepping, neocon wingnut Bush
> bootlickers and lapdogs consider consider "liberal" to mean.
>

No, that's the way it is.

>
> Not the real world.
>

It appears you're out of touch with the real world.

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 12:31 AM

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > That will be there as well.
> >
>
> Not if the Democrats can help it.

Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
know reason not to focus on record.

We shall see soon enough.

> > And that record will not include the loss of
> > 2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of
> > his own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout
> > pack...much less the country.
> >
>
> Well, of course it won't, as that has not happened.

Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.

Q. When did Bush become president?
A. January 2001

Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president?
A. a few days after 9/11

Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop
him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF
was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11?

A second bonus question....

Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In
terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial
center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the
last time Bush came to SF since becoming president?

A. Never.

The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
office?

--Mike

David Lesher

August 22nd 04, 02:22 AM

(BUFDRVR) writes:

>>The point is more whether the ads are lies. Everything I've seen on it
>>says they are.

>Obviously "every where" you've looked for your "everything" doesn't include any
>unbiased sources. The swift vets claims have yet to be answered by Kerry, so
>determing truth or lies hasn't even been made yet. I do know that Kerry's lies
>about Cambodia have been exposed by the Swift vets so if anyone is turning out
>to be a liar, it appears to be Kerry.

Just saw this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Feb. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
Anti-Kerry vets not there that day

By William B. Rood
Chicago Tribune
Published August 21, 2004

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more
than 35 years ago-three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of
those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28,
1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the
focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of
swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve
the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and
three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us-the rivers, the ambushes,
the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for
interviews about Kerry's service-even those from reporters at the
Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The
critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts
on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has
splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those
of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue,
especially when they come from people who were not there.

.......

You can use bugmenot.com if you want to eschew registration.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

david raoul derbes

August 22nd 04, 03:28 AM

In article . net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
>> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
>> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
>> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
>> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
>> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
>>
>> That said, I want to make three points.
>>
>> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
>> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
>> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
>> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
>> had told him that.
>>
>
>Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>
>"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
>shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
>search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
>established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
>criminals."
>
>John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The sorts
of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of things
you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between misdemeanors
and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
that he used.

My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
different thing from rape.

David Derbes

Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)

August 22nd 04, 03:42 AM

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:11:14 GMT, BOB > wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell in message >:

>You

<plonk>
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with. But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell

"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 )

"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system. They're guilty as charged. But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events." Alexa connects some totally different dots. 8/6/04 )

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

B2431

August 22nd 04, 05:12 AM

>From: David Fritzinger
>Date: 8/21/2004 8:10 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article .net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "David Fritzinger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > No one thinks Bush paid them out of his own pocket, but you've got to
>> > admit that there is quite a history of people connected to Bush defaming
>> > Bush opponents.
>> >
>>
>> Please cite some of that history.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > We saw it with McCain in the 2000 S. Carolina primary,
>> > and we saw it in the 2002 Georgia senate race.
>> >
>>
>> Did we? Prove it.
>
>What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
>South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
>accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in
>the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
>a pattern here.
>
>--
>Dave Fritzinger

But that's not proof. For proof you need to be able to name and cite evidence
each and every single step between person A doing action B and having it affect
person C.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 05:43 AM

Mike wrote:

>> No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
>to
>> him.
>
>
>Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

>In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
>he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
>mined."

The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.

>You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
>nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
>awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them

Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.

>The Republican Party made actions during the Vietnam war a related
>presidential election issue from 1991-2000

Close, they made it an issue in 1992. When that failed, they *did not* make any
mention of Vietnam in '96. They did tout Dole's WWII record, but did not make
it the center piece of the campaign.

>why is it now unrelated?

I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry himself
stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
wounds. What's changed since '92?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 05:47 AM

Michael Wise wrote:

>Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
>during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
>find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
>this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.

What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly large.
If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you would have
claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House. Furthermore, not
visiting and ignoring are entirely different matters. The inverse is also true.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 05:55 AM

David Lesher wrote:

>Feb. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
>Anti-Kerry vets not there that day
>
>By William B. Rood
>Chicago Tribune
>Published August 21, 2004

<snip>

Great. Now all we need to hear from is Kerry and we can decide who is telling
the truth. Why would this man's story sway anyone? Why is Kerry calling other
people to tell their side of the story while avoiding doing the same himself?
Personally I don't care what happened on a river in SE Asia 35 years ago, I
don't find it relevent to the election, but what I do find relevent is Kerry's
evasive actions and already proven lies (Cambodia for Christmas).

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 05:58 AM

David Fritzinger wrote:

> Same thing happened in 2002 in
>the Georgia Senate race.

Bush was running for Senator in Georgia?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 07:20 AM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
> >during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
> >find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
> >this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.
>
> What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly
> large.
> If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you would
> have
> claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House.

We don't need that to make that claim true. Nobody is saying he should
visit everywhere...but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
stewarding? We're not talking Topeka here. He also rarely comes to the
largest state in his country and has never set foot in SF.

We've seen the pattern from Day 1: he snubs the areas of the country
which voted against him. A president needs to rise above juvenile
pettiness and represent everybody....not just the people who think he's
not an idiot.

--Mike

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 07:37 AM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >> No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
> >to
> >> him.
> >
> >
> >Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?
>
> From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
> fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.

He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him, that he disagrees with it, and that if the wording is
in fact true...he doesn't deserve that Bronze Star.

This seems in stark contrast to what he claims in your account of ABC
interview where he claims he knew the citation said he was under fire
and just "shrugged" it off.

One Mr. Thurlow is lying, as both accounts cannot simultaneously be true.

> >In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
> >he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
> >mined."
>
> The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
> Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.

Didn't say it was...but Mr. Thurlow's citation for his Bronze Star
states he was under fire (as do the post op reports). Being the senior
officer on scene, he must surely have been aware of that. And if he
wasn't then, he would have when his award citation was read.

>
> >You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
> >nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
> >awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them
>
> Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.

Neither was I, but it was still verbalized none the less. How is it Mr.
Thurlow missed the repeated instances of "under enemy fire" in his
citation?

> >why is it now unrelated?
>
> I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry
> himself
> stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
> Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
> wounds. What's changed since '92?

I'm not a Democrat, so I wouldn't know. I imagine it might have
something to do with the media making it an issue from the start.

--Mike

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 02:13 PM

Michael Wise wrote:

>but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
>not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
>stewarding?

If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8 months. Can
you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months? And once
again, I don't believe you ignore a part of the country just by not visiting
there and conversly I believe you can visit an area of the country multiple
times and ignore their needs.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 02:20 PM

Michael Wise wrote:

>And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
>remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
>Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
>well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.
>

That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version
of it simply because it's ridiculous. You are trying to say that a man just
realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years. The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and received
it in the mail and never read the citation.

>He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
>surprise to him

That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Bill & Susan Maddux

August 22nd 04, 04:49 PM

(" That will be there as well. And that record will not include the loss of
2+ million jobs; starting a war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his
own country; and generally being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less
the country.") --Mike

Excuss me if I am wrong, but how did all these jobs get lost, NAFTA?
Crimmial Actions by Large companies. When did these things start....Under
the Clinton presidency. Now Kerry is claiming he will fight to have
companies bring back jobs to the US. How about starting with his WIFEs
companies to show he means what he says. Oh then theres the green side of
kerry..that America needs to drive cleaner cars, and burn less fuel, except
for him, flying is privite jets, 5 climate controled masions year round,
driving SUVs that are his when he is talking to auto makers in Michigan, and
the same SUVs belonging to the family not him when talking to eco-freaks.
Military records stand out more because Kerry has no other record to stand
on. he voted to raise gas taxes way to many times, he and Clinton hurt this
countries military in the 90s, voting to cut inteligent agencies. I believe
every thought we did not need the CIA,NSA,DIA after the cold war ended. But
lets face it the Middle East has always been a hot bed for the American way
of life, and the only importance it has to our intrests is the Oil. Kery has
missed votes while in office because it conflicted to his schedules. It is a
known fact that Iraq had WMDs, and that the fact we have not found them yet
has to deal with where they are, or what country or group has them now.

After 9-11 we had a president willing to go after any state that habored
terrorists, Iraq included becasue it had training camps. After the '93 world
train center bombing Clinton stated that the people involved will be brought
to justice....after the Cole he stated the samething, after the embacies in
Africa the same....Clinton made this country appear weak to a group of
people that want to kill AMERICANs. So they struck, thinking that we would
not do anything but talking tough. Every American wanted revenge on the
people behind 9-11....but now that troops are dying, they want to pull camp
and run. Yeah there was mistakes made in Iraq, but the outcome is the same
it had to be done.

I join the military with the knowledge that someday I could be called to
action. I served fpr 8 years with B-52s on Alert against the Soviet war
machine. I went to the Big sand box for the first Gulf War..Infact I
volunteered on Aug 3rd 1990 while still on alert. I went in Jan 91 and came
home in May 91.

I honor veteran everyday...as I treat there medical conditions as a nurse
for the VA. All wars, all branches, because they gave of themselves,
drafted, volunteered does not matter.

bill

analyst41

August 22nd 04, 05:46 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> analyst41 wrote:
>
> >How do you "answer" a group that
> >
> >(1) said nothing for 30 odd years, or said/wrote in the past the exact
> >opposite of what they are saying now ?
>
> Wrong. Kerry was publically opposed by several members of the Swift Vets when
> he first ran for public office. Kerry invited these men to organize when he
> made his service in Vietnam the center piece of his Presidential campaign.
>
> >(2) Say that Kerry is lying, Kerry's boatmates are lying, Rassmann is
> >lying
>
> Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
> surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire. Sounds like you've got
> guys with nothing to gain telling one story and guys with much to gain telling
> the other.
>
>
> <snip other "lies">

You have rather conveniently snipped the provable lie about bullet
holes that O'Neill is able to repeat with impunity on his endless TV
appearances - and so poor is Kerry's defnders' performance that he
never gets called on it.

from the Washingtom Post:

A report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat mentions "three 30 cal
bullet holes about super structure." According to Thurlow, at least
one of the bullet holes was the result of action the previous day,
when he ran into another Vietcong ambush.

Thurlow, Chenoweth, Pees and several of their crew members who belong
to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say neither they nor Kerry came under
fire. "If there was fire, I would have made some notation in my
journal," Chenoweth said. "But it didn't happen that way. There wasn't
any fire." Although he read his diary entry to a reporter over the
phone, he declined to supply a copy.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Rassmann said, "are not just
questioning Kerry's account, they are questioning my account. I take
that very personally. No one can tell me that we were not under fire.
I saw it, I heard the splashes, and I was scared to death. For them to
come back 35 years after the fact to tarnish not only Kerry's record,
but my veracity, is unconscionable."

Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come
only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently
contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of
either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of
firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne
D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that
was directly behind Kerry's.

Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of
enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks.
Langhofer, who now works at a Kansas gunpowder plant, said he was
approached several months ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth but declined their requests to speak out against Kerry.

End quote.

Thurlow has now been caught - confronted with documented evidence of
bullet holes - all he can come up with is that "at least one" was from
a previous engagement.

>
> >These guys can lie endlessly and there is simply no way of refuting
> >their allegations completely.
>
> Well, if Kerry would personally address the issue instead of sending out his
> surrogates to attack the messengers we would at least have two sides to the
> story.
>
> >But these guys have put themselves out there and they already stand
> >discredited from the motive standpoint
>
> What motive? Lets pretend Bush himself is organizing this, what could he offer
> these guys as payment for their work? Cabnit positions? Money? Face it, these
> guys have nothing to gain and that is what makes their story so compelling and
> dangerous to the Kerry campaign.

Why should motive only be positive ? these guys hate Kerry for what
he did after coming back from Viet Nam - that is a large part of their
motivation. Any under the table deals with the Bush campaign haven't
been unearthed yet.

>
> >These are small-timers who might even crack under the pressure the
> >Kerry campaign is going to bring to bear on them
>
> The only pressure the Kerry campaign has brought to bear is on the book
> publishers and TV stations. This follows the Kerry campaigns absolute
> embracement of Michael Moore. Can you say hypocritical?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

RobbelothE

August 22nd 04, 07:29 PM

>
>
>Of course Bushs commercials will be negative. He has NOTHING to show after
>four miserable years of laziness and incompetence.
>
>
>

This is CLEARLY in contrast with Kerry's nearly 20 years in the Senate during
which he's sponsored two (count them -- two) bills intended to help commercial
fishermen from Massachusetts. Other than that, I can't recall a single thing
he's done other than miss most of the meetings & votes on the committees he's
was/is a member of. I'd be grateful if someone can provide specifics of some
bills/laws I may have missed.

Ed
"If an enemy power is bent on conquering you, and proposed to
turn all of his resources to that end, he is at war with you;
and you -- unless you contemplate surrender -- are at war with
him." --Barry Goldwater

Steven P. McNicoll

August 22nd 04, 08:52 PM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
> know reason not to focus on record.
>

Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on
Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide.

>
> Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.
>

You need to find better sources of information.

>
> Q. When did Bush become president?
> A. January 2001
>
> Q. When did Bush first set foot in NYC after becoming president?
> A. a few days after 9/11
>
>
> Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported him)
> during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
> find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
> this country (NYC) until after it was attacked. Then you couldn't stop
> him from mugging for the camera with his arms around a firefighter. WTF
> was Bush in NYC prior to 9/11?
>
> A second bonus question....
>
> Q. San Francisco is a fairly large urban city on the West Coast. In
> terms of population, it's not the largest, but it is the financial
> center as well as the most urban city on the West Coast. When was the
> last time Bush came to SF since becoming president?
>
> A. Never.
>
>
>
> The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
> ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
> those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
> fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
> office?
>

Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon.

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 08:58 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
> >not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
> >stewarding?
>
> If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8 months.
> Can
> you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?

I never really paid attention to it in the past. Living in SF, I noticed
that Bush avoided (and continues to avoid) facing 3/4 of million people
he is supposed to represent. Then I took a look around and figured out
he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.

It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
capital of the West Coast, although he has come as close as 50 miles
from here (San Jose) and then conspicuously avoided coming to NorCal's
real urban center. Do you find that not odd?

A president needs to rise above that pettiness.

> And once
> again, I don't believe you ignore a part of the country just by not visiting
> there

Not just by that, but couple it with actions like Bush saying nothing
and refusing to get involved while his buddies at Enron were royally
fleecing California on electrical power.

--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll

August 22nd 04, 09:04 PM

"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> >"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
> >> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
> >> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
> >> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
> >> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
> >> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
> >>
> >> That said, I want to make three points.
> >>
> >> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
> >> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
> >> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
> >> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
> >> had told him that.
> >>
> >
> >Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
> >
> >"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
I
> >shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
> >search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
> >established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
war
> >criminals."
> >
> >John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
>
> What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
sorts
> of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
things
> you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
misdemeanors
> and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
> a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
> as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
> that he used.
>

You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
people said." He said he committed atrocities himself.

>
> My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
> into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
> different thing from rape.
>

Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 09:05 PM

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Your imagination does not translate into reality. The Democrats have
> > know reason not to focus on record.
> >
>
> Of course they have a reason, they want to win the election. Focus on
> Kerry's record and Bush wins in a landslide.

We'll see who is saying that after the first debate.

> > Really? It most certainly has and continues to happen.
> >
>
> You need to find better sources of information.

I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
to be incorrect???

> > The fact is the Bush regime has established a pattern since Day 1 of
> > ignoring those who did not support them while showering all attention on
> > those who did. Is that representing the entire country? Is that
> > fulfilling of the job and moral responsibilities of the presidential
> > office?
> >
>
> Okay. That confirms it. You're a loon.

I see your pattern of resorting to insults when you are incapable of
responding with facts (an all too frequent occurrence) is alive and well.

Why bother even jumping in on a thread when you have nothing to add but
juvenile retorts and insults?

--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll

August 22nd 04, 09:22 PM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
> president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
> to be incorrect???
>

You wrote:

"And that record will not include the loss of 2+ million jobs; starting a
war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his own country; and generally
being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less the country."

What in hell has any of that to do with living in San Francisco?

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 09:40 PM

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > I live in SF and I can tell you Bush has never been here since becoming
> > president. What better source of information is there demonstrating me
> > to be incorrect???

> "And that record will not include the loss of 2+ million jobs; starting a
> war based on lies; ignoring large chunks of his own country; and generally
> being unfit to lead a Boyscout pack...much less the country."
>
> What in hell has any of that to do with living in San Francisco?

The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own
country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11
when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his
admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his
presidency.

--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll

August 22nd 04, 09:44 PM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own
> country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11
> when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his
> admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his
> presidency.
>

It is irrelevant to what we were discussing. Follow the thread.

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 09:58 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
> >remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
> >Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
> >well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.
> >
>
> That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version
> of it simply because it's ridiculous.

> You are trying to say that a man just
> realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years.

I just located the source I got the info from: Washington Post,
08.19.04, Michael Dobbs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

Here are some relevant excerpts:

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

Seems to me he's claiming he always believed his award was for coming to
the rescue of the mined boat and the fact that his citation states in
numerous instances that he was under fire.

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?

But it gets better...

------------------------------------
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.
------------------------------------

This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent. Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.

> The only way this
> is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and received
> it in the mail and never read the citation.

Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what
his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other
claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award
was for all along and just "shrugged" it off?

> >He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
> >surprise to him
>
> That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no?

It seems absurd until confronted with Mr. Thurlow's own words.

--Mike

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 10:06 PM

Michael Wise wrote:

>> Can
>> you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?
>
>
>I never really paid attention to it in the past.

So you have no idea if Bush is doing any thing any other President has done.
That settles that!

>Then I took a look around and figured out
>he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
>lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.

However, you have no idea if this is buisness as usual for a sitting President
since you never paid attention to any President but Bush. You may be whining
about Presidential SOP.

>It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
>capital of the West Coast

I don't believe you need to visit any location to still represent them and work
in their behalf. So what he never visited San Fran, has he ignored your issues?

>A president needs to rise above that pettiness.
>

Again, you don't know if your asking Bush to do what every other President in
the past has also failed to do. Doesn't seem fair, but I've come to expect that
from the anti-Bush crowd.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 10:07 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> Or just watch Bush's tv commercials. Every one I have seen
>> in the Philadelphia area has been completely negative.
>>
>
>"Negative" does not mean "smear".

Well, the DNC has broadened the term considerably this election. Any mention of
Kerry's senate voting record is considered "going negative".

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 10:12 PM

Michael Wise wrote:

>The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own
>country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11
>when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his
>admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his
>presidency.

This from a guy who's already admitted he has no idea if any past President
visited NYC in his first 8 months. This guy fits nicely into the "Everything
Bush does is bad/wrong" catagory. Had Bush visited NYC in February 2001, this
guy would be arguing that 9/11 happened because Bush was too busy running
around the country.Sad.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 10:23 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >> Can
> >> you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?
> >
> >
> >I never really paid attention to it in the past.
>
> So you have no idea if Bush is doing any thing any other President has done.
> That settles that!

I never paid attention to it, because I can't recall a time where
presidents avoided major areas. When glancing through newspapers and
such, I have always been accustomed to seeing reports of President
such-and-such in town or in the biggest city.

It's not something one stops to think about...until one notices that a
president is not and has not done so.

>
> >Then I took a look around and figured out
> >he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
> >lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.
>
> However, you have no idea if this is buisness as usual for a sitting
> President
> since you never paid attention to any President but Bush. You may be whining
> about Presidential SOP.

Clinton came to SF multiple times; Reagan came to SF; and Bush Sr. came
to SF. All of them also went to NYC. I didn't keep my journal open
waiting for that to happen...it just happened. Bush Jr. brought the
phenomenon to my minds eye by conspicuously shunning the areas which
overwhelmingly voted for his opponent.

>
> >It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
> >capital of the West Coast
>
> I don't believe you need to visit any location to still represent them and
> work
> in their behalf. So what he never visited San Fran, has he ignored your
> issues?
>
> >A president needs to rise above that pettiness.
> >
>
> Again, you don't know if your asking Bush to do what every other President in
> the past has also failed to do. Doesn't seem fair,...

I do know that the previous three presidents all came here during their
terms. Not too hard to use deductive reasoning to formulate an opinion
why Bush Jr. continues to shun certain areas.

--Mike

BUFDRVR

August 22nd 04, 10:25 PM

Michael Wise wrote:

>How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
>the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
>exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
>off?

I never claimed he stated he "shrugged it off", just that the impression I got
was that the citation containing enemy fire didn't seem like a surprise to him.

>Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
>enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
>under fire," he said.

Sounds pretty definitive to me. Exactly what has this guy to gain by saying
this? Nothing.

>This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
>his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
>to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent.

Sounds like that to me too.

>Naturally, he
>doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
>"fraudulent" award revoked.

Lots of luck on that mission. A 35 year old Bronze Star doesn't jump to the top
of the list of a Board for the Correction of Military Records.

>> The only way this
>> is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and
>received
>> it in the mail and never read the citation.
>
>
>Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
>his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
>believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
>returning home.

So do you doubt this guy got his citation after seperating and just put it in a
trunk somewhere without reading it? Sounds very likely to me, especially since
he wound up losing it.

>Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what
>his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other
>claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award
>was for all along and just "shrugged" it off?

I never claimed he made any statement about "shrugging it off", those were my
words. In the ABC interview he did not seem surprised that his award included
what he felt to be inaccurate information.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 10:42 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >The relevant passage for that is "ignoring large chunks of his own
> >country." SF is just one example. NYC is another...that is until 9/11
> >when Bush all of the sudden seemed to care about the city and people his
> >admin/campaign had ignored throughout his campaign and well into his
> >presidency.
>
>
> This from a guy who's already admitted he has no idea if any past President
> visited NYC in his first 8 months.

I said nothing of the sort. I said I have not in the past paid
particular attention as to when presidents pay business visits to NYC.
Bush stood out by his conspicuous avoidance of it (as well as
California)...at least until it suited him to mug for the camera with
real heroes at Ground Zero.

> This guy fits nicely into the "Everything
> Bush does is bad/wrong" catagory. Had Bush visited NYC in February 2001, this
> guy would be arguing that 9/11 happened because Bush was too busy running
> around the country.Sad.

I have not not now nor have I ever claimed that Bush (or any other US
president, for that matter) has any blame for what happened on 9/11...so
you can pack your straw man up.

--Mike

Michael Wise

August 22nd 04, 10:53 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
> >the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
> >exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
> >off?
>
> I never claimed he stated he "shrugged it off", just that the impression I
> got
> was that the citation containing enemy fire didn't seem like a surprise to
> him.

Hmmmm, in the last few posts, you use the word impression...but just
yesterday, in the post this sub-thread was in response to, you wrote:

-----------------------------------------------
"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."
-----------------------------------------------

I don't see any mention there of that being merely your impression.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=60758fd6.04082
20846.159fedbc%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%2
6ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.aviation.military%26as_usubjec t%3DSwif
t%2520Boat%2520Veterans%2520For%2520Truth%26lr%3D% 26hl%3Den

> >Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
> >enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
> >under fire," he said.
>
> Sounds pretty definitive to me. Exactly what has this guy to gain by saying
> this? Nothing.

I wouldn't call attempting to influence the outcome of a presidential
election as "nothing."

>
> >This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
> >his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
> >to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent.
>
> Sounds like that to me too.
>
> >Naturally, he
> >doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
> >"fraudulent" award revoked.
>
> Lots of luck on that mission. A 35 year old Bronze Star doesn't jump to the
> top
> of the list of a Board for the Correction of Military Records.

Never the less, do you suppose we can expect the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth also lobby to have Thurlow's medal revoked? After all, they just
want the "truth"...right?

> >> The only way this
> >> is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and
> >received
> >> it in the mail and never read the citation.
> >
> >
> >Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
> >his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
> >believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
> >returning home.
>
> So do you doubt this guy got his citation after seperating and just put it in
> a
> trunk somewhere without reading it? Sounds very likely to me, especially
> since
> he wound up losing it.

No I don't doubt it, but it doesn't reconcile with your previous
contention of:

"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."

--Mike

david raoul derbes

August 23rd 04, 01:29 AM

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
> wrote:
>
>>What do you want as proof. Bush was in trouble against McCain in the
>>South Carolina primary in 2000, and suddenly people were making
>>accusations about McCain's patriotism. Same thing happened in 2002 in
>>the Georgia Senate race. Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
>>a pattern here.
>
>You seem to have a selective memory. No one ever questioned McCain's
>patriotism. What was questioned (and in retrospect, rightly so) was
>McCain's conservativism. While he might clearly be acceptable to a
>fiscal/traditional conservative, he was not viewed as acceptable to
>the social conservative (AKA religious right) of the Republican Party.
>He was not strongly pro-life and he was a bit erratic on gun control.
>

Those would have been fair questions.

What was decidedly not fair was the assertion (in pamphlets) that John
McCain had had a child out of wedlock, of mixed race. In fact he and
his wife had adopted one (and since, two) children from Pakistan.

These assertions were racist, false, and designed to make McCain
unpalatable to many citizens of South Carolina. They succeeded admirably
in that aim.

As a confirmed liberal, I think John McCain is a fine man. I don't often
agree with his politics, but were he running for president, I can easily
imagine voting for him.

What the Bush people did to him was outrageous.

David Derbes

>Pointing out an opponent's position on controversial issues isn't
>really "smearing", particularly when it is a primary and the opponent
>is out of step with the mainstream of the party ideology.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org

BUFDRVR

August 23rd 04, 02:08 AM

Michael Wise wrote:

>Clinton came to SF multiple times; Reagan came to SF; and Bush Sr. came
>to SF.

So your beef is strictly with SF. Fine. Did any of the other Presidents, within
their first term, fail to visit other "important" cities? How do you a guy from
St. Louis doesn't have a gripe with Clinton or Reagan because they failed to
visit during their first term? Like I said before, its a big country.

>I do know that the previous three presidents all came here during their
>terms. Not too hard to use deductive reasoning to formulate an opinion
>why Bush Jr. continues to shun certain areas.
>

Faulty logic unless you know every other President has visited every other
major city during their first term. Your data is incomplete.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 23rd 04, 02:15 AM

Michael Wise wrote:

> I said I have not in the past paid
>particular attention as to when presidents pay business visits to NYC.
>Bush stood out by his conspicuous avoidance of it (as well as
>California)...at least until it suited him to mug for the camera with
>real heroes at Ground Zero.

So because Bush, during his first 8 months, did not visit NYC, he should have
not visted after 9/11? That's a joke and you know it. Had Bush failed to show
up, you would have taken issue with this. Furthermore, you cannot provide any
evidence that every other President visited NYC within their first 8 months in
office. So...as far as you know, Bush's actions, in regards to visiting NYC are
no different than any other President. This is the sad, typical unfairness I
spoke about earlier.

>I have not not now nor have I ever claimed that Bush (or any other US
>president, for that matter) has any blame for what happened on 9/11...so
>you can pack your straw man up.

No, you didn't claim he was responsible, but had Bush, during his first 8
months in office visited NYC and San Fran, you would have complained about his
lack of activity at the White House. As it stands now, you are complaining
about his lack of travel to NYC (within his 1st 8 months) without any proof
that any other President has done that.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 23rd 04, 02:20 AM

Michael Wise wrote:

>Hmmmm, in the last few posts, you use the word impression...but just
>yesterday, in the post this sub-thread was in response to, you wrote:
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
>sense to him."

I should have been more clear, however I never did claim he said anything
specifically. I was giving my impression of the interview.

>Never the less, do you suppose we can expect the Swift Boat Veterans for
>Truth also lobby to have Thurlow's medal revoked? After all, they just
>want the "truth"...right?

The consequences of an "unearned" Bronze Star awarded 30+ years ago is hardly
as relevent (to the Swift Vets) as their percieved concerns about Kerry.
Personally I don't care about either issue and wish they would go away. The
problem is, Kerry won't let them go away.

>"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
>sense to him."

Again, my impression, not his words.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

August 23rd 04, 02:30 AM

jenn jenn wrote:

>failed economic leadership

Many leading economists credit Bush's tax cut plan for minimizing the impact of
the recession (begun in the Spring of 2000) and subsequent recovery. Doesn't
sound like failed leadership to me.

>failed military leadership

As someone in uniform, you'll have to provide me an example of this as I cannot
think of 1 incident of failed mlitary leadership. Bush has increased military
pay and nearly undone the damage Clinton did in regards to equipment and
readiness.

>abdication in the war on terror

I'm sure you can give me an example of this? No?

>left Osama to rebuild his international terror
>organization,

Bin Laden hasn't been "left" to do anything. You need to read more on the
subject.

> failed to unite allies in a war against terrorist because
>Irag was an idee fixee

No matter who was U.S. President, they were not going to unite France, Germany
and Russia which leaves us the alternative of having our national security
policy dictated by other nations. This is one of the clear cut differences
between Kerry and Bush. Kerry will subjugate U.S. security to the U.N., Bush
refuses to do that.

>and of course he lied repeatedly to the
>American people

Of course he didn't lie once.

>and we didn't even mention his failure to make any effort whatsoever to
>prevent terrorism in the US making it a low priority

Example?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

david raoul derbes

August 23rd 04, 02:32 AM

In article >,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
...
>> In article . net>,
>> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> >
>> >"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> There is nothing wrong with you, Mr. Galanti or whoever opposing Kerry,
>> >> obviously, indeed it's a duty to do so if you don't like him as a
>> >> candidate. The new ads are in my opinion more of a problem for Kerry,
>> >> in that it is video of him testifying in Congress. No one disputes that
>> >> he did so. Previously, there were disputes as to whether or not there
>> >> was gunfire, and so on; here we have a videotaped record.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I want to make three points.
>> >>
>> >> First, the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed
>> >> has been to a small extent taken out of context. He was quoting what
>> >> _other_ people said. He did not say that he, Kerry, had witnessed
>> >> decapitations or rapes or other war crimes, but that others had, and
>> >> had told him that.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>> >
>> >"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that
>> >I
>> >shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
>> >search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
>> >established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are
>> >war
>> >criminals."
>> >
>> >John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
>>
>> What you've posted is not completely contradictory to what I said. The
>sorts
>> of things I was writing about (rapes, decapitations) and the sort of
>things
>> you're talking about are, in my opinion, the differences between
>misdemeanors
>> and felonies. I think that Kerry's calling these things "atrocities" was
>> a weird way of trying not to smear his fellow soldiers, i.e., I'm just
>> as guilty as you are. It was dumb, and he regrets some of the language
>> that he used.
>>
>
>You said the testimony of Kerry saying that atrocities were committed was to
>a small extent taken out of context, that he was "quoting what _other_
>people said." He said he committed atrocities himself.
>
>

And I answered that. But here it is a second time.

I believe that Kerry regarded himself then, and regards himself today,
as a spokesperson for all those who served in Viet Nam.

He was testifying in Congress angry not so much at himself, or his
fellow veterans, but at the politicians and probably to a lesser
extent at his superior officers.

He was reporting on the "Winter Soldier" conference, in which people
claimed to have committed actual atrocities (e.g., mutilation of
corpses.) I do not know if rape was among these atrocities; I have not
read any of the "Winter Soldier" testimony.

Now, if he was going to say that terrible things had taken place, rather
than put himself up on some pedestal, he was going to say that he had
himself "committed atrocities". I'm sure that in his mind, nearly any
action in this God-forsaken war was an atrocity, because the war itself
was an atrocity. Firing into a group of people, only some of whom were
actually combatants, is probably an atrocity. I'm sure that quite a few
Viet Nam veterans did just that; and had I been there, I've no doubt I
would have done the same, given enough fear or anger or frustration.
Do I think that Kerry mutilated corpses? I doubt it. Did he take part in
a My Lai-style massacre? I doubt it, but as many readers may recall,
Bob Kerrey, a Senator, did, and confessed to it about a year ago. (Kerrey's
actions were not nearly so culpable as William Calley's in my opinion,
but Kerrey feels very, very guilty about it.)

I do not believe that Kerry in any testimony accused any soldier by name
of any atrocity; I do not believe that Kerry implied that all soldiers
had committed atrocities (though many, many Viet vets think that this is
precisely what he did). This is the source of their anger. I believe it
is misplaced, but as I told another poster, I did not serve in Viet Nam,
and it is not my place to comment on how those brave men feel.

>>
>> My guess is that many, many soldiers of the last century fired randomly
>> into places out of fear, anger or were ordered to do so. This is a very
>> different thing from rape.
>>
>
>Yes it is, but I don't recall Kerry mentioning rape.

I don't know; I meant only to suggest that the actions that Kerry may have
taken might well be in his mind atrocities, but in my mind they are different
from cold-blooded murder of noncombatants, mutilation of corpses, and so on.

The truly terrible thing about all this is that Kerry wanted nothing else but
to get all the men home from a war he was certain was a mistake, and badly
prosecuted in the bargain. Of course many good men and women did not want that;
they wanted to win a war against Communism. But I believe that most of the
soldiers just wanted to go home, and did not think that this was a war worth
fighting. In my opinion, those who thought Viet Nam a blunder were correct.
We failed to keep the North from overrunning the South. No doubt many innocent
people were executed. But civil wars are as old as human history. Has the
security of the United States suffered as a result of the North Vietnamese
conquest?

I happen to think that Iraq was a mistake, but not as grievous as Viet Nam
(as bad as Ho Chi Minh was--and he was a monster--he was Little Mary Sunshine
next to Saddam). The terrible thing is that it is being prosecuted in an even
more heinously stupid fashion than Viet Nam. I would have thought that almost
impossible, but George and his gang have managed it.

David Derbes

Chris Manteuffel

August 23rd 04, 03:12 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...

> Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>
> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
> search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
> criminals."
>
> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

Are you sure that that quote is correct?

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
group; their analysis of the testimony is at

http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf

It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.

I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
sourced document) is somewhat different.

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
everything."

From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

Chris Manteuffel

Chris Manteuffel

August 23rd 04, 03:50 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...

> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
> search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
> criminals."
>
> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971

A bit more research has turned up that this was from _Meet the Press_
on April 18, 1971, not sworn testimony in front of a committee a few
days later. When Kerry was on MtP again on April 18th, 2004, Russert
showed him a clip of that. (Transcript of that episode:
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/)

Relevant section below:

"MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam.
You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your
advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your
first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and
come back and talk about it:
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of
atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the
same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed
in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns
which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon
against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.
All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this
ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of
the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who
designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who
ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think
these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that
tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big
question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about
that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad
word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to
ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some
of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger.
It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I
think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I
don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you
to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the
soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I
think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that
and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but
on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think
that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were
policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of
warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled
that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found
a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you
talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter
soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited,
and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some
been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not
where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry
about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable
of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me
that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless
to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think
twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to
oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a
time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble,
you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more
artfully at times."

Chris Manteuffel

John Keeney

August 23rd 04, 07:27 AM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> Thurlow went on to say:
>
> "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
> Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
> Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
> coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
> anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."
>
>
> So just this week, he's saying he believed he got his Bronze Star for
> coming to the rescue of a mined boat.
>
>
> So which is it: did he accept his Bronze Star knowing that it was for
> actions under fire and simply "shrugged and moved on" as you are now
> making an unsubstantiated claim of or did he get his award not knowing
> it stated prominently that he had been under fire (despite the fact that
> the award text would have been read to him when presented as well as in
> his service record) and only now, 35 years later, become aware of the
> citation text????
>
>
> Your version of events does not jibe with what the Mr. Hurlow himself is
> saying.
>
>
>
>
> > Should he have stepped up, then and there, and pointed out the error?
> > Probably, but this guy did what 99.9% of would have done; shrugged and
moved
> > on.
>
> Only he did not do that. He's claiming that all along he believed his
> award was for rescuing the crew of a mined boat.
>
> You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
> nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
> awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them and
> there were written entries in my service record stating why as well.

Unrelated conversation of two weeks ago, a person I know confessed
to having received a Bronze Star and it was "the stupidest thing" for the
military to have awarded it.
Her belief was it was to provide support for her CO's effort to get
his own Silver Star.

John Keeney

August 23rd 04, 07:43 AM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> > >Bush visited a lot of places (all of which coincidentally supported
him)
> > >during his campaign and after his entry into office...but yet couldn't
> > >find the time to visit the largest city and the financial capitol of
> > >this country (NYC) until after it was attacked.
> >
> > What a joke. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this country is fairly
> > large.
> > If Bush had taken time to visit all the places you want him to, you
would
> > have
> > claimed he was neglecting his duties at the White House.
>
>
> We don't need that to make that claim true. Nobody is saying he should
> visit everywhere...but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
> not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
> stewarding?

No.

> We're not talking Topeka here. He also rarely comes to the
> largest state in his country and has never set foot in SF.

Why should he go to Alaska very often?
And not setting foot in San Fran is, well, only good taste.

> We've seen the pattern from Day 1: he snubs the areas of the country
> which voted against him. A president needs to rise above juvenile
> pettiness and represent everybody....not just the people who think he's
> not an idiot.

Ah, he should run around kissing up to those who didn't vote for
him the first time so that they might do so the next time. Like
a democrat would?

John Keeney

August 23rd 04, 07:45 AM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> > >but don't you find it odd for a sitting president to
> > >not make even a short stop in the LARGEST city of the country he is
> > >stewarding?
> >
> > If he had gone 4 years without a visit I'd find that odd, but not 8
months.
> > Can
> > you prove other Presidents have visited NYC in their first 8 months?
>
>
> I never really paid attention to it in the past. Living in SF, I noticed
> that Bush avoided (and continues to avoid) facing 3/4 of million people
> he is supposed to represent. Then I took a look around and figured out
> he and his administration was snubbing the geographic locations where he
> lost big and where he doesn't have a lot of fans.
>
>
> It's been nearly four years, and Bush still hasn't been in the financial
> capital of the West Coast, although he has come as close as 50 miles
> from here (San Jose) and then conspicuously avoided coming to NorCal's
> real urban center. Do you find that not odd?

So basicly your ****ed at being socially snubbed?

> A president needs to rise above that pettiness.

But... OK, you're not the President...

Cub Driver

August 23rd 04, 10:57 AM

Well said, Paul. But note that the NYT story was supposed to be about
the Swifties' claims but was actually an attack on them. "A plague on
both..." is actually a win for the Kerry campaign.

Instead of investigating the subject of the book (and ads, presumably,
though I watch no TV and see no ads), Kerry's supporters in the media
have undertaken to investigate the authors. Only a very few
conservative or right-wing newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Boston
Herald, Washington Times, New York Post) have given the subject the
treatment it deserves. (The same treatment that the Washington Post
and the Boston Globe so enthusiastically gave the "Bush AWOL" stories,
by the way, knowing that even a fair-handed treatment would leave some
slime behind.)

-- Dan Ford

(I attach your post below, so somebody can learn what I'm replying to
:)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:35:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>>Sure, I will. I read the NYT story yesterday and forwarded it to a
>>friend who believes that the NYT is an unbiased source. Even he
>>blushed to admit that it might as well have been an infomercial.
>
>I read the NY Times story and came away unconvinced of anything other
>than "a plague on both their houses". Lots of political BS on all sides.
>
>>It struck me as the sort of whitewash that would convince only the
>>individual who paid for it.
>
>It was better whitewash than that, but I'm suspicious of both Kerrey's
>claims and the Swift Boats Veterans. (If only because there's no 'Delta
>Dart Drivers' club bashing Bush Jr.)
>
>>I don't know what the truth might be in this matter, but I hope the
>>Swifties will pursue it until the last "Bush AWOL" site is taken down
>>and the owner apologizes for defaming an F102 pilot who did his job
>>and by all accounts did it well. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
>
>I'd class myself as centrist, which doubtless is a misspelling of either
>"communist fellow-traveller" or "fascist baby-eater", on this issue. At
>top level, Kerrey was not in a safe, routine, Stateside assignment, nor
>was he 'photocopier officer' on a ship well out of harm's way, but he
>spent a few months in direct-fire range of the enemy and may even have
>got shot at himself on a few occasions.
>
>On the other hand, George Bush Jr. qualified to fly and logged many
>hours in the F-102 Delta Dart: while it may not have been the newest or
>*most* dangerous aircraft available, it killed a sad roll-call of pilots
>and was more dangerous than its replacements. And flying a fighter is
>*not* easy. He "skipped his extended service"? Really? Where's the memo
>calling him up to train to fly F-106s or F-4s? And where's the training
>slot left empty because he never showed?
>
>
>I've decided that I thoroughly dislike the policies of both candidates,
>I don't get a vote on the issue, and I wish all the partisan ********
>would go away so r.a.m can get back to talking about military aviation.
>But both of them appear to have rendered respectable service thirty-some
>years ago.
>
>Why not concentrate on "what they'd do now and for the next four years"
>rather rhan obsess about "what they did thirty years ago"?
>
>>I see that the Swifties' book was the number-one seller on Amazon
>>yesterday. I reckon it has legs.
>
>Al Franken and Ann Coulter have both sold well. Doesn't make either of
>them right.
>
>(Coulter is *scary* from what she says here, not seen a UK interview of
>Franken)

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

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

Cub Driver

August 23rd 04, 11:00 AM

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:10:27 GMT, David Fritzinger
> wrote:

>Unless you are desperate to avoid it, there is
>a pattern here.

Ah yes, the pattern!

The black helicopters -- the aliens pretending to be human -- the
PATTERN!

Arrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh!

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

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

david raoul derbes

August 23rd 04, 11:22 AM

In article >,
Chris Manteuffel > wrote:
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net>...
>
>> Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
>>
>> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
>> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
>> search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
>> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
>> criminals."
>>
>> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
>
>Are you sure that that quote is correct?
>
>http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
>is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
>of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
>format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
>been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
>Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
>group; their analysis of the testimony is at
>
>http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
>It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.
>
>I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
>testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
>sourced document) is somewhat different.
>
>"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
>not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
>everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
>in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
>military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
>hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
>that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
>guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
>[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
>Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
>in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
>and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
>killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
>That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
>everything."
>
>From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
>provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.
>
>Chris Manteuffel

There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
hosts.)

I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

David Derbes

Kevin Brooks

August 23rd 04, 05:30 PM

"david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Chris Manteuffel > wrote:
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> . net>...
> >
> >> Kerry did say that he had committed atrocities himself.
> >>
> >> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in
that I
> >> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined
in
> >> search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts
were
> >> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this
are war
> >> criminals."
> >>
> >> John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971
> >
> >Are you sure that that quote is correct?
> >
> >http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
> >
> >is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
> >of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
> >format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
> >been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
> >Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
> >group; their analysis of the testimony is at
> >
> >http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
> >
> >It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.
> >
> >I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
> >testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
> >sourced document) is somewhat different.
> >
> >"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
> >not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
> >everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
> >in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
> >military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
> >hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
> >that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
> >guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
> >[CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
> >Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
> >in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
> >and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
> >killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
> >That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
> >everything."
> >
> >From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
> >provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.

His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
statement instead on national television: "There are all kinds of atrocities
and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of
atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part
in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction
fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to
use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in
search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is
contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva
Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established
policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I
believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike
areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the
law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." 18 April 1971, "Meet
the Press", NBC

So there is absolutely NO question that he did indeed make that statement
(though the poster did apparently paraphrase it). When questioned about that
statement last April, again on "Meet the Press", he did not back down too
much from the war criminal accusation, instead saying only, "I wish I had
found a way to say it in a less abrasive way." Whew! How thoughtful of him
(sarcasm switch temporarily engaged). Are you thinking it only is valid if
he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?

> >
> >Chris Manteuffel
>
> There was a celebrated debate on, IIRC, the Dick Cavett show, between
> Kerry and John O'Neill, the main person involved in the Swift Boat Vets
> for Truth group. The language may have come out of that. I don't know.
> Then again, it may simply be folklore. (Dick Cavett was sort of like
> Charlie Rose thirty years ago, the most literate of the talk show
> hosts.)
>
> I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
> It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.

His "testimony", which you say was so "powerful", was based upon "voodoo",
which is about the best way to characterize the "Winter Soldier
Investigation" nonsense. That Jane Fonda sponsored circus has been pretty
thoroughly discredited as a "factual source" (the DoD investigators who
looked into the claims made in that "trial" threw their hands up after
finding that the "witnesses" were either not even who they claimed they
were, but often had never even been in Vietnam, or those who had were not
assigned to frontline combat units, etc.--see the excellent book by Burkett
and Whitley, "Stolen Valor", for a more complete indictment of WSI).

Of course, he *did* make personal claims as well during that testimony, such
as the following regarding an alleged incident where the ARVN supposedly
refused to come to his aid: "...I was in the Navy and this was pretty
unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or
something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused."
Odd, but I don't recall any of the myriad stories supposedly describing his
Vietnam heroics on a Swift boat including any cases where he became "pinned
down in a ditch" while recovering bodies", do you? Maybe this was "seared"
into his memory along with his recollection of where he spent Christmas Eve
1968 (which was either deep inside Cambodia or some fifty plus miles away at
a village in the RVN, depending upon *which* specific recollection of his
you care to believe).

As to his indictment of the bulk of US officers who served in Vietnam, he
offered the following when asked about the prosecution of William Calley:
"But I think that in this question you have to separate guilt from
responsibility, and I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened
there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire
zones. I think it lies with the men who encouraged body counts... I think if
you are going to try Lieutenant Calley then you must at the same time, if
this country is going to demand respect for the law, you must at the same
time try all those other people who have responsibility..."

Pretty broad brush he wields there, and in keeping with his "Meet the Press"
quotation above, and a view that he apparently still holds, though he would
apparently now express it less "abrasively"....

Brooks

>
> David Derbes
>

B2431

August 23rd 04, 07:55 PM

>For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 8/23/2004 1:17 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"jenn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
>> it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative --
>>
>
>What hard evidence do you have of that?

There is no hard evidence since it isn't true.

The fact remains those of us who were there were offended by kerry's
accusations and lies about us. Nixon didn't have to hire any vets.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Steven P. McNicoll

August 23rd 04, 08:02 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?
> >From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >Date: 8/23/2004 1:17 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> O'Neill was recruited by Nixon to attack Kerry in 1971 and has been at
> >> it ever since -- he is clearly a Rove operative --
> >>
> >
> >What hard evidence do you have of that?
>
> There is no hard evidence since it isn't true.
>

Bingo!

Steven P. McNicoll

August 23rd 04, 09:55 PM

"Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Are you sure that that quote is correct?
>

It's a copy and paste from The Boston Globe site. Here's the full
paragraph:

His personal ambitions notwithstanding, Kerry gave clear public voice to the
same position taken by the veterans group. In his appearance before William
Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry
volunteered this straightforward testimony: "I committed the same kinds of
atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used
harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and
burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top
down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."

Here's a link to it:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/01/19/a_skillful_chronicle_of_kerrys_conflicts/

>
> http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
> is a scan of the testimony as printed by the GPO. I have spent a lot
> of time with these transcripts from the same period and the font and
> format match the ones I have pulled out on paper exactly. If it has
> been edited someone has gone to a lot of trouble. Note that Human
> Events, the group that supplied the transcript, is an anti-Kerry
> group; their analysis of the testimony is at
>
> http://www.cwes01.com/13790/23910/ktpp179-210.pdf
>
> It never mentions any quote like that you provided either.
>

Gee. Do ya think The Boston Globe is an anti-Kerry group as well?

>
> I can't find any such quote where he admits to war crimes in his sworn
> testimony as recorded here. The closest I can find (p. 6-7 of the
> sourced document) is somewhat different.
>
> "We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is
> not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
> everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people
> in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the
> military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
> hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using
> that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more
> guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions,
> [CDM note- 1954 Geneva Conventions that created North and South
> Vietnam, not the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the laws of Land Warfare]
> in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search
> and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the
> killings of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
> That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of
> everything."
>
> From reading the testimony that is closest I can find to the quote you
> provide above. If you could provide a source I'd be much appreciative.
>

You're welcome.

GreyCloud

August 23rd 04, 11:25 PM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Are you sure that that quote is correct?
>>
>
>
> It's a copy and paste from The Boston Globe site. Here's the full
> paragraph:
>
> His personal ambitions notwithstanding, Kerry gave clear public voice to the
> same position taken by the veterans group. In his appearance before William
> Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry
> volunteered this straightforward testimony: "I committed the same kinds of
> atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used
> harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and
> burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top
> down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."
>

Does this mean that LBJ was a war criminal?

--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

BUFDRVR

August 24th 04, 12:05 AM

Osprey wrote:

>Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
>them.

He asked Kerry to do the same. What are the chances Kerry asks Moveon.org to
stop their slander campaign? How about Michael Moore?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 12:08 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Osprey wrote:
>
> >Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> >them.
>
> He asked Kerry to do the same. What are the chances Kerry asks Moveon.org
to
> stop their slander campaign? How about Michael Moore?
>

Zero. But you knew that.

BUFDRVR

August 24th 04, 12:35 AM

David Fritzinger wrote:

>> > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to fight a
>> > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
>> >
>>
>> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

>You seem to be very good at making statements like the above, but not
>so good at backing them up.

Anyone with even the most basic knowledge on the operations in Afghanistan know
that "jenn"'s statement is false.

>Why?

One assumes that when someone makes a statement on an issue, their informed on
the subject. In this case I believe "jenn" is just not up to speed on the
operation.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Chris Manteuffel

August 24th 04, 01:48 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

<snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
wrong attribution>

> Are you thinking it only is valid if
> he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then by
> the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?

No. I was engaging in primary research. And when I could not find it
in the cited work, I asked him for clarification.

As you will note, I posted a correct cite, with complete trancript to
his present day thoughts and authortative cite, a full half a day
before you posted this message
).

Chris Manteuffel

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 02:19 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made that
> statement instead on national television:
>

How do you know that? According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 02:20 AM

"Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
> <snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
> wrong attribution>
>

How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

Kevin Brooks

August 24th 04, 05:22 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he made
that
> > statement instead on national television:
> >
>
> How do you know that?

Because I read the entire transcript of his testimony and did not find the
bit about him acknowledging that he had himself supposedly committed "war
crimes", which was the subject in question?

According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
> Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Then the Globe is wrong. He DID say it, but he said it during an interview
on "Meet the Press", not during his Senate testimony. During his testimony
he was more wishy-washy, though he still managed to indict virtually the
entire leadership chain from company level on up--but his allegations were
all based upon his having bought into the WSI crap, hook, line, and sinker.
If you really want to question his testimony itself, then ask for the
details of that alleged case where he claimed to have been "pinned down in a
ditch while retrieving bodies" bit...sounds like another tall tale from
Kerry, IMO.

Brooks
>
>

Kevin Brooks

August 24th 04, 05:25 AM

"Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
> <snip of stuff I had already posted about, correcting Mr. McNicoll's
> wrong attribution>
>
>
> > Are you thinking it only is valid if
> > he did so during his congressional testimony? If that is the case, then
by
> > the same logic we cannot accept anything he says when not under oath?
>
> No. I was engaging in primary research. And when I could not find it
> in the cited work, I asked him for clarification.

Oddly enough, I just did a quick Google and got the answer in about three
minutes--and BTW, I have yet to see the post where you responded (maybe my
newsserver did not catch it, or it got deleted by me along with a slew of
other posts by accident).

>
> As you will note, I posted a correct cite, with complete trancript to
> his present day thoughts and authortative cite, a full half a day
> before you posted this message
> ).

Great, then you agree Kerry has indeed made these claims.

Brooks

>
> Chris Manteuffel

forge

August 24th 04, 06:49 AM

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> It's a copy and paste from The Boston Globe site.

'Cuz the Boston Globe is a MUCH more reliable source than the actual
transcripts of the actual meeting where he supposedly actually said this.

forge

August 24th 04, 07:03 AM

In article >,
(david raoul derbes) wrote:

> As a confirmed liberal, I think John McCain is a fine man. I don't often
> agree with his politics, but were he running for president, I can easily
> imagine voting for him.

I think the Republicans REALLY dropped the ball on this; if they'd let
McCain run unfettered, I (a lifelong Democrat) would definitely have
voted for him, and they'd have had me feeling all positive about a
Republican for the first time in my life. Heaven forfend that actually
happen.

Chris Manteuffel

August 24th 04, 01:37 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> Oddly enough, I just did a quick Google and got the answer in about three
> minutes

Indeed, once I realized that the cite was incorrect, getting a correct
cite was trivial. However, I tend to trust cites provided by other
people, and so I specifically looked for the senate testimony, and
after I read it wanted further clarification.

> --and BTW, I have yet to see the post where you responded (maybe my
> newsserver did not catch it, or it got deleted by me along with a slew of
> other posts by accident).

I have provided the message-id of that post that I made, which should
allow you to find it on your server. If that doesn't work for you,
here it the google reference:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2889635018d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=1cbcee05.0408221850.30444af3%40posting.google .com

> Great, then you agree Kerry has indeed made these claims.

Yes. However, I am not the person who was in this argument before, and
he did not dispute the accuracy of this quote either. All I wanted was
a correct cite for a quote, and when I checked the reference material
the cite turned out to be wrong, so I wanted to get it correct. I am
not trying to get involved in a xposted flamewar at all. The only
issue I brought up was where the cite was. And now that I know that
the Boston Globe got the cite wrong, everything should be clear.

Chris Manteuffel

Michael Wise

August 24th 04, 06:25 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> >them.
>
> He asked Kerry to do the same. What are the chances Kerry asks Moveon.org to
> stop their slander campaign? How about Michael Moore?

Can anybody objectively demonstrate those ads are slander as has been
the case with the SWBVT ads?

--Mike

B2431

August 24th 04, 07:53 PM

>From: Michael Wise
>Date: 8/24/2004 12:25 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>> >Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
>> >them.
>>
>> He asked Kerry to do the same. What are the chances Kerry asks Moveon.org
>to
>> stop their slander campaign? How about Michael Moore?
>
>
>Can anybody objectively demonstrate those ads are slander as has been
>the case with the SWBVT ads?
>
>
>
>--Mike

No one on either side has been proven to have committed slander.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

August 24th 04, 08:16 PM

>From: David Fritzinger
>Date: 8/23/2004 11:51 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >>
>> > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>> portraying
>> > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>> >
>> > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>> > do with them:
>> >
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>> >
>>
>> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
>> anything to do with those ads.
>
>No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.
>
>--
>Dave Fritzinger

And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see kerry
condemning them?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 08:32 PM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> > >Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to
pull
> > >them.
> >
> > He asked Kerry to do the same. What are the chances Kerry asks
Moveon.org to
> > stop their slander campaign? How about Michael Moore?
>
>
> Can anybody objectively demonstrate those ads are slander as has been
> the case with the SWBVT ads?
>

Can anybody objectively demonstrate that the SBVT ads are slander?

Michael Wise

August 24th 04, 08:41 PM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >> > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> >> portraying
> >> > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> >> >
> >> > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> >> > do with them:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
> >> anything to do with those ads.
> >
> >No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.

> And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see kerry
> condemning them?

What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
negative or financed by partisan supporters.

What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
group is not relavant.

Got it?

--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 08:56 PM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
> ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
> negative or financed by partisan supporters.
>
> What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
> and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
> group is not relavant.
>
> Got it?
>

An ad which is demonstrably false and obviously deliberately so would be
easily refuted and the group behind it discredited. Kerry is not even
attempting to do that. Why not?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 10:40 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he
> > > made that statement instead on national television:
> > >
> >
> > How do you know that?
> >
>
> Because I read the entire transcript of his testimony and did not find the
> bit about him acknowledging that he had himself supposedly committed "war
> crimes", which was the subject in question?
>

How do you know that transcript contained all of his statements?

> >
> > According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
> > Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
> >
>
> Then the Globe is wrong.
>

Maybe. The reviewer at The Boston Globe described the work as "
well-researched biographical history". How do we know your research is
better than his?

Kevin Brooks

August 24th 04, 11:32 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > >
> > > > His quoted words in question were not delivered to Congress; he
> > > > made that statement instead on national television:
> > > >
> > >
> > > How do you know that?
> > >
> >
> > Because I read the entire transcript of his testimony and did not find
the
> > bit about him acknowledging that he had himself supposedly committed
"war
> > crimes", which was the subject in question?
> >
>
> How do you know that transcript contained all of his statements?

You know what Steven? I am a pretty firm supporter of Bush, but your
continued catterwalling about this is beginning to make me rethink the
situation...(not really, but if this is how you handle the folks who are
anti-Kerry, then you might want to rethink your strategy or lack thereof).

Yes, it was a complete transcript of his testimony, from gavel to gavel, to
include the questioning posed to him by the committee members. If you are
really interested in reading it yourself, do a Google on "Kerry Vietnam
testimony transcript" and you should be able to find it yourself.

>
>
> > >
> > > According to The Boston Globe he said it before the
> > > Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
> > >
> >
> > Then the Globe is wrong.
> >
>
> Maybe. The reviewer at The Boston Globe described the work as "
> well-researched biographical history". How do we know your research is
> better than his?

Go and dig up your own trnscript and read it, then go and read a transcript
of his 18 April 71 "Meet the Press" interview; you will find the quote of
interest in the latter, and not the former. When you have found said
transcript, see if YOU can find the quote in question--if you do, get back
to me and I'll happily apologize (I'd be just tickled if he could be shown
to have made that statement in his testimony as well as on national TV). If
you can't you owe me one, OK? Now toodle off and do your homework and get
back to me. Stop acting as if this is the first time a newspaper has screwed
up in regards to the details. And that is all you are arguing--the details,
since I have already told you that yes, he did say it, but in a different
forum from what you though it to be.

Brooks

>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

August 24th 04, 11:59 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> You know what Steven? I am a pretty firm supporter of Bush, but your
> continued catterwalling about this is beginning to make me rethink the
> situation...(not really, but if this is how you handle the folks who are
> anti-Kerry, then you might want to rethink your strategy or lack thereof).
>

Whoa, there. Go to your happy place. Count to ten. Calm down. These are
simple questions, they have simple answers.

>
> Yes, it was a complete transcript of his testimony, from gavel to gavel,
to
> include the questioning posed to him by the committee members. If you are
> really interested in reading it yourself, do a Google on "Kerry Vietnam
> testimony transcript" and you should be able to find it yourself.
>

There are several sources that attribute that quote to the committee. You
come along and say it didn't happen there, it happened somewhere else. If
you're a serious researcher you'll understand my questions and not take
offense at them.

>
> Go and dig up your own trnscript and read it, then go and read a
transcript
> of his 18 April 71 "Meet the Press" interview; you will find the quote of
> interest in the latter, and not the former. When you have found said
> transcript, see if YOU can find the quote in question--if you do, get back
> to me and I'll happily apologize (I'd be just tickled if he could be shown
> to have made that statement in his testimony as well as on national TV).
If
> you can't you owe me one, OK?
>

Owe you one what?

>
> Now toodle off and do your homework and get
> back to me. Stop acting as if this is the first time a newspaper has
screwed
> up in regards to the details. And that is all you are arguing--the
details,
> since I have already told you that yes, he did say it, but in a different
> forum from what you though it to be.
>

Oh, I know newspapers screw up. I see it all the time. But I don't
conclude that the newspaper has screwed up without good reason. Nor do I
conclude that a Usenet poster has screwed up without good reason. In this
case there was a conflict about a source, how can I find out which is
correct without a few probing questions? It's pretty clear you took these
questions as a personal attack. They were not.

Kevin Brooks

August 25th 04, 12:37 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You know what Steven? I am a pretty firm supporter of Bush, but your
> > continued catterwalling about this is beginning to make me rethink the
> > situation...(not really, but if this is how you handle the folks who are
> > anti-Kerry, then you might want to rethink your strategy or lack
thereof).
> >
>
> Whoa, there. Go to your happy place. Count to ten. Calm down. These
are
> simple questions, they have simple answers.

Here is your simple answer:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony
I did the hard part for you, finding a complete transcript of the
testimony--now all you have to do is wade through the 32-pages of it. Guess
what? You won't find the quote in question. But, if you go to:
http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/, you will find a copy of the transcript of
Kerry's April 2004 appearance on "Mett the Press" with Tim Russert, and in
there you will further find a snippet from the April 1971 show where Kerry
*did* make the statement in question. Simple enough for you?

>
>
> >
> > Yes, it was a complete transcript of his testimony, from gavel to gavel,
> to
> > include the questioning posed to him by the committee members. If you
are
> > really interested in reading it yourself, do a Google on "Kerry Vietnam
> > testimony transcript" and you should be able to find it yourself.
> >
>
> There are several sources that attribute that quote to the committee. You
> come along and say it didn't happen there, it happened somewhere else. If
> you're a serious researcher you'll understand my questions and not take
> offense at them.

You are about as bright as a brick today, Steven. I have given you links to
the transcripts required. All you have to do now is READ them--you can do
that, can't you?

>
>
> >
> > Go and dig up your own trnscript and read it, then go and read a
> transcript
> > of his 18 April 71 "Meet the Press" interview; you will find the quote
of
> > interest in the latter, and not the former. When you have found said
> > transcript, see if YOU can find the quote in question--if you do, get
back
> > to me and I'll happily apologize (I'd be just tickled if he could be
shown
> > to have made that statement in his testimony as well as on national TV).
> If
> > you can't you owe me one, OK?
> >
>
> Owe you one what?

An apology, for being dense as a rock if nothing else.

>
>
> >
> > Now toodle off and do your homework and get
> > back to me. Stop acting as if this is the first time a newspaper has
> screwed
> > up in regards to the details. And that is all you are arguing--the
> details,
> > since I have already told you that yes, he did say it, but in a
different
> > forum from what you though it to be.
> >
>
> Oh, I know newspapers screw up. I see it all the time. But I don't
> conclude that the newspaper has screwed up without good reason.

I gave you the good reasons--now go read those transcripts and stop whining.

Brooks

Nor do I
> conclude that a Usenet poster has screwed up without good reason. In this
> case there was a conflict about a source, how can I find out which is
> correct without a few probing questions? It's pretty clear you took these
> questions as a personal attack. They were not.
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

August 25th 04, 12:47 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > You know what Steven? I am a pretty firm supporter of Bush, but your
> > > continued catterwalling about this is beginning to make me rethink the
> > > situation...(not really, but if this is how you handle the folks who
are
> > > anti-Kerry, then you might want to rethink your strategy or lack
> thereof).
> > >
> >
> > Whoa, there. Go to your happy place. Count to ten. Calm down. These
> are
> > simple questions, they have simple answers.
>
> Here is your simple answer:
> http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony
> I did the hard part for you, finding a complete transcript of the
> testimony--now all you have to do is wade through the 32-pages of it.
Guess
> what? You won't find the quote in question. But, if you go to:
> http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/, you will find a copy of the transcript
of
> Kerry's April 2004 appearance on "Mett the Press" with Tim Russert, and in
> there you will further find a snippet from the April 1971 show where Kerry
> *did* make the statement in question. Simple enough for you?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, it was a complete transcript of his testimony, from gavel to
gavel,
> > to
> > > include the questioning posed to him by the committee members. If you
> are
> > > really interested in reading it yourself, do a Google on "Kerry
Vietnam
> > > testimony transcript" and you should be able to find it yourself.
> > >
> >
> > There are several sources that attribute that quote to the committee.
You
> > come along and say it didn't happen there, it happened somewhere else.
If
> > you're a serious researcher you'll understand my questions and not take
> > offense at them.
>
> You are about as bright as a brick today, Steven. I have given you links
to
> the transcripts required. All you have to do now is READ them--you can do
> that, can't you?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Go and dig up your own trnscript and read it, then go and read a
> > transcript
> > > of his 18 April 71 "Meet the Press" interview; you will find the quote
> of
> > > interest in the latter, and not the former. When you have found said
> > > transcript, see if YOU can find the quote in question--if you do, get
> back
> > > to me and I'll happily apologize (I'd be just tickled if he could be
> shown
> > > to have made that statement in his testimony as well as on national
TV).
> > If
> > > you can't you owe me one, OK?
> > >
> >
> > Owe you one what?
>
> An apology, for being dense as a rock if nothing else.
>

Well, even if I was as dense as a rock, why would I need to apologize to
anyone for that?

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Now toodle off and do your homework and get
> > > back to me. Stop acting as if this is the first time a newspaper has
> > screwed
> > > up in regards to the details. And that is all you are arguing--the
> > details,
> > > since I have already told you that yes, he did say it, but in a
> different
> > > forum from what you though it to be.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I know newspapers screw up. I see it all the time. But I don't
> > conclude that the newspaper has screwed up without good reason.
>
> I gave you the good reasons--now go read those transcripts and stop
whining.
>

Couldn't you have done that the first time I asked?

Why do you need to make an ass of yourself in a public forum?

B2431

August 25th 04, 12:57 AM

>For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?
>From: forge
>Date: 8/24/2004 12:22 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Osprey" > wrote:
>
>> Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
>> them.
>
>No he bloody has not. All he keeps saying is "we need to get control of
>all these hyear 527 groups" without ever specifically referring to Swift
>Butt Veterans. It's like he has some kind of bizarre mental block, or
>something, and can't know they exist.

Has kerry made any attempt to reign in the 527s and similar activities that
take his side?

Unless and until you call on both candidates to denounce such activities please
don't act as if one side is the agrieved party and the other side is a bully.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

August 25th 04, 01:06 AM

>From: Michael Wise
>Date: 8/24/2004 2:41 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>> >> > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>> >> portraying
>> >> > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>> >> > do with them:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
>> >> anything to do with those ads.
>> >
>> >No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.
>
>
>> And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see
>kerry
>> condemning them?
>
>
>
>What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
>ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
>negative or financed by partisan supporters.
>
>What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
>and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
>group is not relavant.
>
>Got it?
>
>
>--Mike

You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations against
Bush?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Michael Wise

August 25th 04, 01:32 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >> Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> >> them.
> >
> >No he bloody has not. All he keeps saying is "we need to get control of
> >all these hyear 527 groups" without ever specifically referring to Swift
> >Butt Veterans. It's like he has some kind of bizarre mental block, or
> >something, and can't know they exist.
>
> Has kerry made any attempt to reign in the 527s and similar activities that
> take his side?
>
> Unless and until you call on both candidates to denounce such activities
> please
> don't act as if one side is the agrieved party and the other side is a bully.

Again, although the Bush campaign and its sycophants keep trying to turn
this as a 527 issue, it is not. The issue is the president refusing to
denounce an ad in which the overwhelming evidence shows as lies.

When they starting fabricating things to a political end, Bush should do
the honorable thing and denounce it...just like John McCain asked him to.

Was John McCain wrong to say Bush was wrong and should denounce the ad?

--Mike

Michael Wise

August 25th 04, 01:35 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >> >Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
> >> >them.
> >>
> >> He asked Kerry to do the same. What are the chances Kerry asks Moveon.org
> >to
> >> stop their slander campaign? How about Michael Moore?
> >
> >
> >Can anybody objectively demonstrate those ads are slander as has been
> >the case with the SWBVT ads?
> >
> >
> >
> >--Mike
>
> No one on either side has been proven to have committed slander.

Depends what your burden of proof is. The accounts of the vast majority
of the people who were there with him as well as incident reports are
good enough for me.

--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll

August 25th 04, 01:35 AM

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Again, although the Bush campaign and its sycophants keep trying to turn
> this as a 527 issue, it is not. The issue is the president refusing to
> denounce an ad in which the overwhelming evidence shows as lies.
>

What evidence shows it to be lies?

Michael Wise

August 25th 04, 01:37 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >> >> > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
> >> >> portraying
> >> >> > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
> >> >> > do with them:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
> >> >> anything to do with those ads.
> >> >
> >> >No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.
> >
> >
> >> And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see
> >kerry
> >> condemning them?

> >What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
> >ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
> >negative or financed by partisan supporters.
> >
> >What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
> >and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
> >group is not relavant.
> >
> >Got it?
> >
> >
> >--Mike
>
> You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations against
> Bush?

If such ads existed and were shown by the vast majority of the evidence
to be false, then yes. However, we haven't seen such ads yet.

--Mike

B2431

August 25th 04, 03:09 AM

>From: Michael Wise
>Date: 8/24/2004 7:37 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>> >> >> > >> These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
>> >> >> portraying
>> >> >> > >> Bush as an immoral slanderer.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
>> >> >> > do with them:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_
>had
>> >> >> anything to do with those ads.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.
>> >
>> >
>> >> And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see
>> >kerry
>> >> condemning them?
>
>> >What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
>> >ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
>> >negative or financed by partisan supporters.
>> >
>> >What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
>> >and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
>> >group is not relavant.
>> >
>> >Got it?
>> >
>> >
>> >--Mike
>>
>> You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations
>against
>> Bush?
>
>
>If such ads existed and were shown by the vast majority of the evidence
>to be false, then yes. However, we haven't seen such ads yet.
>
>
>--Mike

You haven't been looking. I saw one last night where they accused Bush of
spending money on Iraq and Afghanistan instead of on schools here. He isn't the
one who disburses those funds, Congress is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Chris Manteuffel

August 25th 04, 04:19 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...

> How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?

Because I went back to the primary sources and read them and the quote
was not there. This was a transcript of the testimony provided by an
Anti-Kerry group that had an entire article bashing Kerry for what he
had said, and said article did not mention any such quote either, and
the format and font match GPO documents from that time period
precisely. I posted links to both, should you care to examine them.

And then I did find the quote on a Meet The Press from a few days
before his Senate testimony. And Kerry agreeing that he had said the
quote on Meet the Press back in 1971. Again, I have presented my
evidence, posted links to both the original and a transcript of the
recent Meet the Press, which you have not addressed.

Would you prefer if I said "The Boston Globe's attribution is wrong"?
Because, from everything that I can tell, it is. Like Mr. Brooks, I
have read the transcript as provided by the GPO. The quote you
reference isn't there. He did say it on Meet the Press. This an
incorrect cite, and nothing more. Let's stop talking about this.

Chris Manteuffel

Steven P. McNicoll

August 25th 04, 04:30 AM

"Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et>...
>
> > How do you know Mr. McNicoll's attribution is wrong?
>
> Because I went back to the primary sources and read them and the quote
> was not there. This was a transcript of the testimony provided by an
> Anti-Kerry group that had an entire article bashing Kerry for what he
> had said, and said article did not mention any such quote either, and
> the format and font match GPO documents from that time period
> precisely. I posted links to both, should you care to examine them.
>
> And then I did find the quote on a Meet The Press from a few days
> before his Senate testimony. And Kerry agreeing that he had said the
> quote on Meet the Press back in 1971. Again, I have presented my
> evidence, posted links to both the original and a transcript of the
> recent Meet the Press, which you have not addressed.
>
> Would you prefer if I said "The Boston Globe's attribution is wrong"?
> Because, from everything that I can tell, it is. Like Mr. Brooks, I
> have read the transcript as provided by the GPO. The quote you
> reference isn't there. He did say it on Meet the Press. This an
> incorrect cite, and nothing more. Let's stop talking about this.
>

Fine with me. But I do find it odd that anyone that strives for accuracy,
as your and Brooks' research indicates you both do, would take offense at
someone else's desire for accuracy.

Kevin Brooks

August 25th 04, 07:28 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > You know what Steven? I am a pretty firm supporter of Bush, but your
> > > > continued catterwalling about this is beginning to make me rethink the
> > > > situation...(not really, but if this is how you handle the folks who
> are
> > > > anti-Kerry, then you might want to rethink your strategy or lack
> thereof).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Whoa, there. Go to your happy place. Count to ten. Calm down. These
> are
> > > simple questions, they have simple answers.
> >
> > Here is your simple answer:
> > http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony
> > I did the hard part for you, finding a complete transcript of the
> > testimony--now all you have to do is wade through the 32-pages of it.
> Guess
> > what? You won't find the quote in question. But, if you go to:
> > http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/, you will find a copy of the transcript
> of
> > Kerry's April 2004 appearance on "Mett the Press" with Tim Russert, and in
> > there you will further find a snippet from the April 1971 show where Kerry
> > *did* make the statement in question. Simple enough for you?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it was a complete transcript of his testimony, from gavel to
> gavel,
> to
> > > > include the questioning posed to him by the committee members. If you
> are
> > > > really interested in reading it yourself, do a Google on "Kerry
> Vietnam
> > > > testimony transcript" and you should be able to find it yourself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are several sources that attribute that quote to the committee.
> You
> > > come along and say it didn't happen there, it happened somewhere else.
> If
> > > you're a serious researcher you'll understand my questions and not take
> > > offense at them.
> >
> > You are about as bright as a brick today, Steven. I have given you links
> to
> > the transcripts required. All you have to do now is READ them--you can do
> > that, can't you?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Go and dig up your own trnscript and read it, then go and read a
> transcript
> > > > of his 18 April 71 "Meet the Press" interview; you will find the quote
> of
> > > > interest in the latter, and not the former. When you have found said
> > > > transcript, see if YOU can find the quote in question--if you do, get
> back
> > > > to me and I'll happily apologize (I'd be just tickled if he could be
> shown
> > > > to have made that statement in his testimony as well as on national
> TV).
> If
> > > > you can't you owe me one, OK?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Owe you one what?
> >
> > An apology, for being dense as a rock if nothing else.
> >
>
> Well, even if I was as dense as a rock, why would I need to apologize to
> anyone for that?

I believe you were the guy who kept doubting my word on this, and was
too lazy to do your own Google--now put up or shut up time is here.
Read the transcripts provided, then come back and say, "I was wrong,
Kerry did not say that in his testimony, he said it in the TV
interview." Or do you have the huevos to dare admit you were in error?

> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now toodle off and do your homework and get
> > > > back to me. Stop acting as if this is the first time a newspaper has
> screwed
> > > > up in regards to the details. And that is all you are arguing--the
> details,
> > > > since I have already told you that yes, he did say it, but in a
> different
> > > > forum from what you though it to be.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, I know newspapers screw up. I see it all the time. But I don't
> > > conclude that the newspaper has screwed up without good reason.
> >
> > I gave you the good reasons--now go read those transcripts and stop
> whining.
> >
>
> Couldn't you have done that the first time I asked?

I told you the first time, and the second time, etc. You were just too
lazy to look up and compare the two transcripts for yourself, so
instead you just had to keep questioning my word on the matter even
after I pointed you in the right direction--have you been taking
lessons from Art?

>
> Why do you need to make an ass of yourself in a public forum?

I generally try to leave that up to you and your
one-word-smart-ass-answers for which you are so well known.

Adios, and if you try really hard, you might be able to work your way
through those transcripts with a minimum of lip movement.

Brooks

forge

August 25th 04, 12:58 PM

In article >,
Fijian watermelon > wrote:

> >> For what? I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've
> >> provided
> >> none.
> >
> > Because... because... oh waaaaaahhh! Quit picking on us!
>
> No.

Nice quote editing. What're you in, 8th grade?

forge

August 25th 04, 01:01 PM

In article >,
Fijian watermelon > wrote:

> >> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >
> > --
> > Huh?
>
> At least your truthful about yourself with your sig.

Eighth grade, right?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 26th 04, 06:05 PM

"BOB" <SD> wrote in message ...
> Gactimus > wrote in :
>
> > Elmo > wrote in :
> >
> >> If Kerry was awarded five or six medals
> >> that Republicans now claim he didn't deserve
> >
> > What Republicans?
>
> All of them.
>

Why bother with this if you don't want to be taken seriously?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 26th 04, 07:08 PM

"BOB" <SD> wrote in message ...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> >
> > "forge" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article t>,
> >> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > > we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to
> >> > > > > fight
> > a
> >> > > > > vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >> > >
> >> > > Uh.
> >> > >
> >> > > Huh?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > What part did you not understand?
> >>
> >> Illuminate us please, how we aren't "less safe" now that we've proven
> >> to most of the entire Muslim world what warmongering fools we are.
> >>
> >
> > We haven't done that.
> >
> You are right.
>

I know.

>
> "We" haven't but the Bush regime has.
>

No, Bush hasn't done it either.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 26th 04, 07:08 PM

"BOB" <SD> wrote in message ...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> >
> > "Nehmo Sergheyev" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> - Steven P. McNicoll -
> >> > Explain.
> >>
> >> - Nehmo -
> >> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040825_74.html
> >> "Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign,
> disclosed
> >> that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group
> challenging
> >> Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service."
> >>
> >
> > So his clients include the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans.
> So
> > what?
> >
> >
> If you don't see anything wrong with that then you must just be another
> Bush boootlicking lapdog and neocon wingnut. Figures.
>

What do you see wrong with it?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 27th 04, 12:38 AM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > They've already pointed out that there's no connection between the Bush
> > campaign and the SBVT ads.
> >
> What? Where have you been? Check out the news.
>

There's no connection between the Bush campaign and the SBVT ads. That's
been on the news.

> >
> > Doesn't "we need to stop them all" include the SBVT ads? You want him
to
> > condemn just the ads that are anti-Kerry, not the ads that are
anti-Bush,
> > even though 7/8 of the 527 group ads are anti-Bush?
> >
> I say stop all that are lies.
>

Who gets to decide which are lies and which are not?

Osprey

August 27th 04, 12:43 AM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>>
>> "forge" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article t>,
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Not that y'know, he's actually going to ****ing DO anything. He just
>>> > > keeps saying "we need to stop these 527 groups."
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > What would you have him do?
>>>
>>> What everyone's bloody ASKING him to - say he doesn't support
>>> what SBVT is doing. That's all.
>>>
>>
>> They've already pointed out that there's no connection between the Bush
>> campaign and the SBVT ads.
>>
> What? Where have you been? Check out the news.

Then you should have no problem providing a source.

>
>>
>>>
>>> He still hasn't actually said that, he just keeps
>>> saying "we need to stop them all" without any specifics.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't "we need to stop them all" include the SBVT ads? You want him to
>> condemn just the ads that are anti-Kerry, not the ads that are anti-Bush,
>> even though 7/8 of the 527 group ads are anti-Bush?
>>
> I say stop all that are lies.
>
>> Why are the anti-Kerry groups less entitled to free speech than the
>> anti-Bush groups?
>>
> Because the anti-Kerry groups are lying for Bush?

Provide proof that Bush is behind any lies.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 27th 04, 12:56 AM

"Osprey" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Why are the anti-Kerry groups less entitled to free speech than the
> >> anti-Bush groups?
> >>
> >
> > Because the anti-Kerry groups are lying for Bush?
> >
>
> Provide proof that Bush is behind any lies.
>

Better than that, provide proof that the anti-Kerry groups are lying.

David Fritzinger

August 27th 04, 03:01 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "BOB" <SD> wrote in message ...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> > ink.net:
> >
> > >
> > > "Nehmo Sergheyev" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> - Steven P. McNicoll -
> > >> > Explain.
> > >>
> > >> - Nehmo -
> > >> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040825_74.html
> > >> "Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign,
> disclosed
> > >> that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group
> challenging
> > >> Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service."
> > >>
> > >
> > > So his clients include the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans.
> So
> > > what?
> > >
> > >
> > If you don't see anything wrong with that then you must just be another
> > Bush boootlicking lapdog and neocon wingnut. Figures.
> >
>
> What do you see wrong with it?

Are you really this stupid, or is this an act? There is supposed to be
no connection between the 527 organization (SBVT) and the Bush
campaign. The fact that at least 2 people officially involved in the
Bush campaign have had to resign because they did indeed have ties to
SBVT certainly gives the appearance that there are real ties between
the two organizations. The fact that the largest contributor (IIRC) to
SBVT is also Bush's largest contributor, and one of the largest
Republican contributors in Texas also solidifies the appearance that
there are indeed connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign.

Do you get it yet? I didn't think so.

--
Dave Fritzinger

Steven P. McNicoll

August 27th 04, 03:02 AM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> Those '527 groups' that Bush objects to are grass root organizations
> >> that are pooling their and their donor's resources to have a voice in
> >> the political process. Without those groups, then only companies and
> >> rich individuals will have enough money to participate. The Bush
> >> campaign would *love* that.
> >>
> >
> > That describes the Swift Boat Vets.
> >
>
> Except that they sold out to the repugnant party and lost all credibility
by
> lying about Kerry.
>

The Swift Boat Vets are not affiliated with any political party. This is
not a political issue for them at all.

> >
> > But the Swift Boat Vets have NOT been proven to be lying. Why would
> > they lie?
> >
>
> Because they are republicans and lying comes with that territory.
>

Some of them are Republicans, some of them Democrats.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 27th 04, 03:18 AM

"David Fritzinger" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > What do you see wrong with it?
> >
>
> Are you really this stupid, or is this an act?
>

I'm not at all stupid.

>
> There is supposed to be
> no connection between the 527 organization (SBVT) and the Bush
> campaign.
>

There is no connection between the SBVT and the Bush campaign.

>
> The fact that at least 2 people officially involved in the
> Bush campaign have had to resign because they did indeed have ties to
> SBVT certainly gives the appearance that there are real ties between
> the two organizations. The fact that the largest contributor (IIRC) to
> SBVT is also Bush's largest contributor, and one of the largest
> Republican contributors in Texas also solidifies the appearance that
> there are indeed connections between SBVT and the Bush campaign.
>

Nobody HAD to resign.

>
> Do you get it yet? I didn't think so.
>

I get it. You don't know what you're talking about.

Osprey

August 28th 04, 02:21 PM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
> Gactimus > wrote in :
>
>> (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Osprey > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Elmo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean it shows George W. Bush cowardly wearing daddy's pampers
>>>>>>> stateside while John Kerry fought for his country?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glad to see you admit that you think National Guard service is
>>>>>> cowardly.
>>>>>
>>>>> George Bush was cowardly.
>>>>
>>>> Flying a plane is cowardly?
>>>
>>> There is nothing brave about flying an airplane, Asshole.
>>
>> Spoken like a true coward.
>>
> You mean like Bush?

Anybody, who can lead a nation and handle the most stressful job there
is...is not a coward.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 28th 04, 03:27 PM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
> Gactimus > wrote in
> :
>
> > (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > om:
> >
> >> Gactimus > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >>
> >>> forge > wrote in
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> In article t>,
> >>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to
> >>>>>>>> fight a vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Uh.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huh?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What part did you not understand?
> >>>>
> >>>> Illuminate us please, how we aren't "less safe" now that we've
> >>>> proven to most of the entire Muslim world what warmongering fools we
> >>>> are.
> >>>
> >>> This coming from someone who thinks that going after terrorists is
> >>> somehow warmongering.
> >>
> >> Snubie, considering that the terrorists were *not* in Iraq, the
> >> invasion of Iraq was indeed warmongering.
> >
> > Maybe you libbies should learn what your silly little buzzwords mean
> > before you use them. By saying there were no terrorists in Iraq, you
> > have exposed your ignorance again.
> >
> Have you noticed that all of the world media, including Americans, refer
to
> the Iraqis that are fighting the occupying American invasion force as
> insurgents and not "terrorists". Even a goose-stepping, bootlicking Bush
> lapdog such as yourself should be able to comprehend why that is.
>

The same reason the media refers to vagrants as "the homeless", swamps as
"wetlands", etc., etc., etc. Bias.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 28th 04, 03:28 PM

"BOB" > wrote in message ...
> Gactimus > wrote in :
>
> > BOB > wrote in :
> >
> >> Gactimus > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> >>> om:
> >>>
> >>>> Gactimus > wrote in message
> >>>> >...
> >>>>
> >>>>> forge > wrote in
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article t>,
> >>>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we understand that turning his back on terrorism in order to
> >>>>>>>>>> fight a vanity war in Iraq has made us less safe --
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But what you don't understand is that did not happen.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Uh.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Huh?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What part did you not understand?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Illuminate us please, how we aren't "less safe" now that we've
> >>>>>> proven to most of the entire Muslim world what warmongering fools
we
> >>>>>> are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This coming from someone who thinks that going after terrorists is
> >>>>> somehow warmongering.
> >>>>
> >>>> Snubie, considering that the terrorists were *not* in Iraq, the
> >>>> invasion of Iraq was indeed warmongering.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you libbies should learn what your silly little buzzwords mean
> >>> before you use them. By saying there were no terrorists in Iraq, you
> >>> have exposed your ignorance again.
> >>
> >> Have you noticed that all of the world media, including Americans,
> >> refer to the Iraqis that are fighting the occupying American invasion
> >> force as insurgents and not "terrorists".
> >
> > They're both. I know that's hard for simpletons like you to grasp.
> >
> If foreign invaders were occupying the U.S. by force of arms, would you be
> considered a terrorist for defending your family and country against those
> invaders?
>

No, but that's not happening in Iraq.

B2431

August 28th 04, 07:07 PM

>From: GreyCloud
>Date: 8/28/2004 11:25 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>forge wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> GreyCloud > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Yup, you're right about that. But I think it's likely that Kerry knows
>>>>the real meaning of the word "diplomacy" and knows it doesn't involve
>>>>bombs, guns, missiles or penis envy. I'm hoping this is the case.
>>>
>>>I think the only solution is to come home and stay home. Adhere to some
>>>of our forefathers ideas of not meddling with foreign states. You can't
>>>be a friend of one country and be an enemy of one of their friends.
>>>Which is what we have today in too many countries.
>>
>>
>> Then the rest of the world will call us isolationists and hate us for
>> that. We cannot win.
>
>If they leave us alone and we stay out of their affairs it may be
>possible. When the world sees that the bruhaha has died down to zilch
>then it would be impossible to go back to empire politics without
>repercussions.
>

Isolationism didn't do a thing to prevent the Japanese and Germans from
declaring war on the U.S. in 1941.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Steven P. McNicoll

August 28th 04, 07:34 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> Isolationism didn't do a thing to prevent the Japanese and Germans from
> declaring war on the U.S. in 1941.
>

Because we were not being isolationist.

B2431

August 29th 04, 01:04 AM

>Sink John Kerry?
>From: Warchild
>Date: 8/28/2004 4:47 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Warchild" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > They've already pointed out that there's no connection between the Bush
>> > > campaign and the SBVT ads.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Except for the lawyers working for both groups. Oops.
>> >
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with the ads.
>>
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > Doesn't "we need to stop them all" include the SBVT ads? You want him
>> to
>> > > condemn just the ads that are anti-Kerry, not the ads that are
>> anti-Bush,
>> > > even though 7/8 of the 527 group ads are anti-Bush?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Those '527 groups' that Bush objects to are grass root organizations
>> > that are pooling their and their donor's resources to have a voice in
>> > the political process. Without those groups, then only companies and
>> > rich individuals will have enough money to participate. The Bush
>> > campaign would *love* that.
>> >
>>
>> That describes the Swift Boat Vets.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The Swift Boat Liars have been proven to be lying about Kerry and about
>> > themselves. Have the other groups been proven to be lying?
>> >
>>
>> But the Swift Boat Vets have NOT been proven to be lying. Why would they
>> lie?
>
>Because their personal animus towards John Kerry trumps the truth.

It happens both ways. Look at the people who still bash Bush's military record
isntead of discussing the issues.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jim Yanik

August 29th 04, 02:25 AM

Warchild > wrote in
:

> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Warchild" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > They've already pointed out that there's no connection between
>> > > the Bush campaign and the SBVT ads.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Except for the lawyers working for both groups. Oops.
>> >
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with the ads.
>>
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > Doesn't "we need to stop them all" include the SBVT ads? You
>> > > want him
>> to
>> > > condemn just the ads that are anti-Kerry, not the ads that are
>> anti-Bush,
>> > > even though 7/8 of the 527 group ads are anti-Bush?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Those '527 groups' that Bush objects to are grass root
>> > organizations that are pooling their and their donor's resources to
>> > have a voice in the political process. Without those groups, then
>> > only companies and rich individuals will have enough money to
>> > participate. The Bush campaign would *love* that.
>> >
>>
>> That describes the Swift Boat Vets.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The Swift Boat Liars have been proven to be lying about Kerry and
>> > about themselves. Have the other groups been proven to be lying?
>> >
>>
>> But the Swift Boat Vets have NOT been proven to be lying. Why would
>> they lie?
>
> Because their personal animus towards John Kerry trumps the truth.
>

Hilarious.
200 plus Swift Boat Vets (many who ARE DemocRATs)against maybe six of
Kerry's "band of brothers".

I suspect Kerry himself authored all the after-action reports on these
incidents that got him the PHs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 12:58 PM

>ubject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?
>From: John Griffin
>Date: 8/29/2004 2:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) > wrote:
>>> Warchild > wrote in
>>
>>>>> Why would they
>>>>> lie?
>>>>
>>>>Because their personal animus towards John Kerry trumps the truth.
>>>
>>>I don't suppose that it ever occurred to you that their personal
>>>animus might be because of the things Kerry did?
>>
>> He spoke the truth.
>>
>> Some people don't like that.
>
>"Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so."
>
>You know Kerry spoke the truth, because The Democratic Party said so.
>Besides, everybody knows that no politician would stretch the truth
>about himself.
>
>I'm not saying you shouldn't be a gull. You want to, and it's your
>right.
>

Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared

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

Steven P. McNicoll

August 29th 04, 01:59 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>

Who did you support for president in 1992? 1996?

Bob Coe

August 29th 04, 02:06 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared

Yep, hid out as a jet pilot. For more than 4 months too.

Jim Yanik

August 29th 04, 04:23 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>>
>
> Who did you support for president in 1992? 1996?
>
>

According to what I've read,Kerry applied for a student deferment so he
could study in France,was turned down,then joined the Naval Reserves
(figuring he would not be activated) and ended up activated and on a ship
off Vietnam.Then he moved to Swift Boats,thinking that they saw little
action,but would give him "combat experience" for his future political
ambitions.

He was anti-war *before* he went to Vietnam.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 06:46 PM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"

>Happy to. Republicans tend to vote in favor of a strong military while

Yeah. They just won't fight.

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

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 06:48 PM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: Jim Yanik
>Date: 8/29/2004 8:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:
>
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>>>
>>
>> Who did you support for president in 1992? 1996?
>>
>>
>
>According to what I've read,Kerry applied for a student deferment so he
>could study in France,was turned down,then joined the Naval Reserves
>(figuring he would not be activated) and ended up activated and on a ship
>off Vietnam.Then he moved to Swift Boats,thinking that they saw little
>action,but would give him "combat experience" for his future political
>ambitions.
>
>He was anti-war *before* he went to Vietnam.
>
>
>--
>Jim Yanik
>jyanik-at-kua.net
>

And your combat experience is....?

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

ArtKramr

August 29th 04, 06:52 PM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: "Bob Coe"
>Date: 8/29/2004 6:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <OxkYc.15586$ni.2436@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>
>Yep, hid out as a jet pilot. For more than 4 months too.

Not much of a jet. A second rate one at that and not fit for combat. Kerry
went to war. I went to war. where the hell was Bush? Behind his daddy's apron
strings?

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

Peter Stickney

August 29th 04, 07:30 PM

In article >,
(ArtKramr) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>>Kerry?
>>From: "Bob Coe"
>>Date: 8/29/2004 6:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <OxkYc.15586$ni.2436@okepread01>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>>
>>> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>>
>>Yep, hid out as a jet pilot. For more than 4 months too.
>
>
> Not much of a jet. A second rate one at that and not fit for combat. Kerry
> went to war. I went to war. where the hell was Bush? Behind his daddy's apron
> strings?

Not fit for combat? Not according to the USAF, or, for that matter,
the Greeks and the Turks. The Deuce saw combat with all 3 Air
Forces. In fact, F-102s were on-station in Viet Nam and Thailand long
before anyone else was there. I know that I've posted the chronology
at ;east a half-dozen times in the past few years.

Your opinions are yours. But if you're going to make an argument,
please use facts. They work much better.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

B2431

August 29th 04, 08:25 PM

>From: GreyCloud
>Date: 8/29/2004 1:42 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> John Griffin > wrote:
>>
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Warchild > wrote in
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Why would they
>>>>>>>lie?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because their personal animus towards John Kerry trumps the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't suppose that it ever occurred to you that their personal
>>>>>animus might be because of the things Kerry did?
>>>>
>>>>He spoke the truth.
>>>>
>>>>Some people don't like that.
>>>
>>>"Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so."
>>>
>>>You know Kerry spoke the truth, because The Democratic Party said so.
>>
>>
>> No, because US war crimes in S.E. Asia have been well documented from a
>> variety of sources.
>>
>
>Care to cite these sources, Ray?

The most notable was My Lai, but that was the exception rather than the rule.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Bob Coe

August 29th 04, 09:03 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
> >
> >Yep, hid out as a jet pilot. For more than 4 months too.
>
> Not much of a jet. A second rate one at that and not fit for combat.

We built 900 of them for some reason. Maybe we should have checked
with you first?

BUFDRVR

August 29th 04, 11:45 PM

Pete Stickney wrote:

>Your opinions are yours. But if you're going to make an argument,
>please use facts.

The problem is; Art doesn't know *any* facts outside of his single B-26 in the
ETO between 1943 and 1945. Everything before and after is a void.

Because of how embarrassed I've been of Art, I've left instructions with my
children to kill me in the event I wind up a babbling hypocrit with nothing but
insults for anyone not serving during my time ;)

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Kerry The Liar Loves Waffles

August 30th 04, 03:44 AM

On 29 Aug 2004 20:35:39 -0400, BOB <SD> wrote:

>Gactimus > wrote in :
>
>> BOB > wrote in :
>>
>>> Gactimus > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> BOB <SD> wrote in :
>>>>
>>>>> Gactimus > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Elmo > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Kerry was awarded five or six medals that Republicans now claim
>>>>>>> he didn't deserve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What Republicans?
>>>>>
>>>>> All of them.
>>>>
>>>> Names and cites please.
>>>
>>> Can't your read?
>>
>> Obviously you can't. Your lack of specific names and cites is noted.
>>
>Your ignorance and failure to comprehend a simple statement is also noted.

your failure to post anything relevant is noted.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 30th 04, 09:32 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not much of a jet. A second rate one at that and not fit for combat.
>

The F-102A was in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush joined the TANG.

Jim Yanik

August 30th 04, 10:34 PM

Nate Frisch > wrote in
:

>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> "Elmo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > The Swift Boat Veterans are eye witnesses who were there.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hundreds of yards from the action.
>> >
>>

Who says they were hundreds of yards away?

>> Which is within visual range thus making them eye witnesses who were
>> there.
>
> Hundreds of yards away is not close enough to say where the bullets
> are hitting. At night you could get a good idea where they are coming
> from. Heck just try sighting on a target two hundred yards away
> without a scope.
>

If bullets were hitting,then SOMEONE ought to have gotten wounded.
Muzzle flashes would be seen.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Those who were there say otherwise.
>> >
>>
>> The Swift Boat Veterans ARE those that were there.
>>
>
> While it is true they were in Vietnam. The evidence is pretty strong
> they weren't very close to Kerry.

Swift Boats did not go out singly,they went in groups.
When docked,they all lived together,ate together.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Bob

August 30th 04, 11:16 PM

On 29 Aug 2004 11:58:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared

And where was Edwards?

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

ArtKramr

August 30th 04, 11:32 PM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: Bob
>Date: 8/30/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 29 Aug 2004 11:58:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>
>And where was Edwards?
>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

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

Kevin Brooks

August 31st 04, 12:00 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
> >Kerry?
> >From: Bob
> >Date: 8/30/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 29 Aug 2004 11:58:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
> >
> >And where was Edwards?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >>344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
>
> In high school.

Gee, Art, you have never let that stop you from taking swipes at other
folks' service! Why the kid gloves for Edwards, Clinton, etc.? Oh, yeah,
that's right...they're *democrats*, and therefore deserving of "special
consideration", right?

Brooks

> Arthur Kramer

Kevin Brooks

August 31st 04, 12:04 AM

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> Nate Frisch > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> >> "Elmo" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > >
> >> > > The Swift Boat Veterans are eye witnesses who were there.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Hundreds of yards from the action.
> >> >
> >>
>
> Who says they were hundreds of yards away?
>
> >> Which is within visual range thus making them eye witnesses who were
> >> there.
> >
> > Hundreds of yards away is not close enough to say where the bullets
> > are hitting. At night you could get a good idea where they are coming
> > from. Heck just try sighting on a target two hundred yards away
> > without a scope.
> >
>
> If bullets were hitting,then SOMEONE ought to have gotten wounded.
> Muzzle flashes would be seen.

Ah, heck...just ask the guy why Kerry's own personal journal indicates that
as of nine days *after* this alleged "enemy action" on December 2nd, he
recorded (on Dec 11th) that he had yet to be fired at by the enemy?

Amazingly, the Kerry apologists don't like to answer that question, even
though the journal entry is cited in his own adoring pice of literature,
Brinlkley's "Tour of Duty".

Brooks

<snip>

Steven P. McNicoll

August 31st 04, 12:53 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> In high school.
>

And in college, the point is he's old enough to have served in Vietnam. Why
didn't he? Why did Kerry select a running mate that is nor fit to be
president?

Bob

August 31st 04, 01:42 AM

On 30 Aug 2004 22:32:59 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>>Kerry?
>>From: Bob
>>Date: 8/30/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 29 Aug 2004 11:58:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>Kerry went to war. Bush hid in Texas then disapeared
>>
>>And where was Edwards?

>In high school.

John Edwards born in Seneca, South Carolina in 1953
Graduated North Carolina State University 1974

I guess it is confusing since Kerry didn't know how old John Edwards
was either...

http://www.kerryquotes.com/
Jan 19, 2004: In the Senate four years - and that is the full extent
of public life - no international experience, no military experience,
you can imagine what the advertising is going to be next year. When I
came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don’t know if John Edwards was out of
diapers then. Well, I’m sure he was out of diapers. (Adam Nagourney
and Jim Rutenberg, “With Hopes Up And Elbows Out, Democrats Give Iowa
Their All,” The New York Times)

ArtKramr

August 31st 04, 02:06 PM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: Nate Frisch
>Date: 8/30/2004 1:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> "Elmo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >
>> > > The Swift Boat Veterans are eye witnesses who were there.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hundreds of yards from the action.
>> >
>>
>> Which is within visual range thus making them eye witnesses who were there.
>
>Hundreds of yards away is not close enough to say where the bullets are
>hitting. At night you could get a good idea where they are coming from. Heck
>just try sighting on a target two hundred yards away without a scope.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Those who were there say otherwise.
>> >
>>
>> The Swift Boat Veterans ARE those that were there.
>>
>
>While it is true they were in Vietnam. The evidence is pretty strong they
>weren't very close to Kerry.
>
>>
>> >
>> > How many other veterans do you think received these phoney medals the
>> > Republicans now say exist?
>> >
>>
>> Please peovide a verbatim quote of the statements you are now
>> misinterpreting.
>>
>> > >
>> > > What an incredibly absurd statement.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Great support you have there. If Kerry was awarded five or six medals
>> > that Republicans now claim he didn't deserve, why would we believe all
>> > the other vets deserved theirs?
>> >
>>
>> What Republicans have said Kerry was awarded five or six medals that he
>> didn't deserve?
>
>Good question. Who are these people who are making up these stories?
>

Neocons afraid that they will be defeated in November., the actions of
desperate men grasping at straws.

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

Jim Yanik

August 31st 04, 02:12 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Nate Frisch > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Elmo" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The Swift Boat Veterans are eye witnesses who were there.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Hundreds of yards from the action.
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>> Who says they were hundreds of yards away?
>>
>> >> Which is within visual range thus making them eye witnesses who
>> >> were there.
>> >
>> > Hundreds of yards away is not close enough to say where the bullets
>> > are hitting. At night you could get a good idea where they are
>> > coming from. Heck just try sighting on a target two hundred yards
>> > away without a scope.
>> >
>>
>> If bullets were hitting,then SOMEONE ought to have gotten wounded.
>> Muzzle flashes would be seen.
>
> Ah, heck...just ask the guy why Kerry's own personal journal indicates
> that as of nine days *after* this alleged "enemy action" on December
> 2nd, he recorded (on Dec 11th) that he had yet to be fired at by the
> enemy?
>
> Amazingly, the Kerry apologists don't like to answer that question,
> even though the journal entry is cited in his own adoring pice of
> literature, Brinlkley's "Tour of Duty".
>
> Brooks
>
><snip>
>
>
>

There was a list of questions that the media should get Kerry to answer on
National Review.com a few days ago.This was one of them.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kevin Brooks

August 31st 04, 08:22 PM

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> Nate Frisch > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Elmo" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The Swift Boat Veterans are eye witnesses who were there.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hundreds of yards from the action.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Who says they were hundreds of yards away?
> >>
> >> >> Which is within visual range thus making them eye witnesses who
> >> >> were there.
> >> >
> >> > Hundreds of yards away is not close enough to say where the bullets
> >> > are hitting. At night you could get a good idea where they are
> >> > coming from. Heck just try sighting on a target two hundred yards
> >> > away without a scope.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If bullets were hitting,then SOMEONE ought to have gotten wounded.
> >> Muzzle flashes would be seen.
> >
> > Ah, heck...just ask the guy why Kerry's own personal journal indicates
> > that as of nine days *after* this alleged "enemy action" on December
> > 2nd, he recorded (on Dec 11th) that he had yet to be fired at by the
> > enemy?
> >
> > Amazingly, the Kerry apologists don't like to answer that question,
> > even though the journal entry is cited in his own adoring pice of
> > literature, Brinlkley's "Tour of Duty".
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >
>
> There was a list of questions that the media should get Kerry to answer on
> National Review.com a few days ago.This was one of them.

Am I the only one who finds it amazing that the same media that repeatedly
tried to dissect Bush's military record, down to the point of asking for
witnesses to his attendance of ET drills with the ALANG , refuses to ask
Kerry such questions about his own conflicting accounts of acts that he has
so prominantly featured in his campaign? This is one of the more blatant
examples of media bias I have ever seen. Many decrie th existance and
tactics of the SBVT, but maybe they are just serving to fill the void left
by a predominantly Kerry-supporting media that exhibits little interest in
obtaining the truth about Kerry's curious Vietnam service record.

Brooks

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

Bob Coe

August 31st 04, 10:34 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Neocons afraid that they will be defeated in November., the actions of
> desperate men grasping at straws.

I don't know what a neocon is, but you use it in all of your messages.

Is this a new mantra word?

Is President Bush a neocon? What makes him a neocon?

ArtKramr

September 2nd 04, 12:58 AM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: Adam H.
>Date: 9/1/2004 2:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:04:24 -0400, "Osprey" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"GreyCloud" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>> Osprey wrote:
>>>
>>>> "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>David W. Barnes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >, Osprey
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Gactimus" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"David W. Barnes" > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>My wife and I have no unwanted children, every child we have is
>>>>>>>>>>loved
>>>>>>>>>>and wanted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You said it was "unplanned."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Unplanned does not euqal unwanted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He knows that, he just feels better trying to put families down.
>>>>>>>He hasn't succeeded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>UNPLANNED:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. (adj) occurring by chance
>>>>>>â‚¬ (synonym) Accidental, Chance, Fortuitous, Haphazard, Incidental,
>>>>>>Chancy
>>>>>>â‚¬ (antonym) Planned
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I take it that you don't know what causes pregnancies then.
>>>>>
>>>>>Get a clue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He thinks that just because the pregnancy came during a time when we
>>>> hadn't planned, that the baby is not wanted. The truth is, we planned on
>
>>>> having one more child but we were going to wait about another year after
>>>> we got our new house. Well, life doesn't always go as planned and we are
>
>>>> having our child a year earlier.
>>>>
>>>> The truth of the matter is, Barnes and a few others in here are so full
>>>> of hate they have to try and make others feel as low as they are. It is
>>>> sad, but reminds me of the hateful kind of people we do have in this
>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>> My wife and I are blessed, and we are welcoming the addition of our
>>>> second child together and we know that we are having a son. My oldest
>>>> son is excited to be having a brother.
>>>>
>>>> This will be my fourth child and definetely the last.
>>>>
>>>> What is making these sick people so mad is that my wife and I didn't rush
>
>>>> out to get an abortion, and that is just tearing up people like Barnes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like they don't want to take responsibility for hormone rushes.
>>
>>
>>They are a pitiful bunch, watch Adam..he is trying to play his silly games
>>now.
>>
>
>And yet it's got you all frothing because you can't back up your
>claims....
>
>You're so peeved, in fact, that you have to bring that up in another
>thread.
>
>---
>"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
>and so are we. They never stop thinking about
>new ways to harm our country and our people,
>and neither do we."
>
>President George W. Bush.
>

Never allow anyone to put you on the definsive on a subject that is no ones
business but yours.

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

Bob

September 2nd 04, 05:24 AM

On 01 Sep 2004 23:58:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Never allow anyone to put you on the definsive on a subject that is no ones
>business but yours.

Didn't you write earlier that you had gone back to school?

Would you like us to help you on the above sentence before you turn it
in to the teacher?

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

GreyCloud

September 6th 04, 02:06 AM

BOB wrote:

> GreyCloud > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Griffin" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
>>>>>yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of
>>>>>other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in
>>>>>free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used
>>>>>50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use,
>>>>>which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and
>>>>>destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary
>>>>>to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva
>>>>>Conventions" --John Kerry, April 18, 1971
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't prove that he did any of those things. It was expedient
>>>>for him to repeat those stories at the time, and we know that
>>>>expediency far outweighs truth in his world.
>>>>
>>>>By the way, has anyone here seen those Band Aids with purple hearts on
>>>>them? yuk yuk yuk.
>>>
>>>
>>>"I committed..."
>>>"I conducted..."
>>>"I took part in..."
>>>
>>>*I*
>>>
>>
>>Sounds like Kerry has an *I* problem.
>>
>
> Sounds like "you" have a problem with Kerry. In that case, you should vote
> for Bush like the rest of the bootlicking lapdog neocon wingnuts. You
> deserve him and his adminstration's policies that have put Americans in the
> unfortuanate position they are in today.
>
>

And what unfortunate situation is that, Bob??
Are you going to vote for someone that has a big ego problem?

--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.

John Griffin

September 6th 04, 02:27 AM

BOB (Can't spell "BOOB"?) > wrote:

> GreyCloud > wrote in
> :

>> Pete wrote:
>>
>>> "John Griffin" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
>>>>>yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of
>>>>>other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in
>>>>>free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I
>>>>>used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to
>>>>>use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in
>>>>>search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of
>>>>>this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to
>>>>>the Geneva Conventions" --John Kerry, April 18, 1971
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't prove that he did any of those things. It was expedient
>>>>for him to repeat those stories at the time, and we know that
>>>>expediency far outweighs truth in his world.
>>>>
>>>>By the way, has anyone here seen those Band Aids with purple hearts
>>>>on them? yuk yuk yuk.
>>>
>>>
>>> "I committed..."
>>> "I conducted..."
>>> "I took part in..."
>>>
>>> *I*
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like Kerry has an *I* problem.
>>
> Sounds like "you" have a problem with Kerry. In that case, you should
> vote for Bush like the rest of the bootlicking lapdog neocon wingnuts.
> You deserve him and his adminstration's policies that have put
> Americans in the unfortuanate position they are in today.

That was hilarious! You say "You and I disagree, therefore there's
something wrong with you." For your information, retardate, there's
definitely something wrong with you, and I would mention that and laugh
at your childishness whether or not you disagree with whatever I
believe.

Post some more impercipient nonsense, Boob Bob. Parrot some more of
those weak insults. They're always good for a laugh.

By the way, simpleton, the "unfortuanate" position is that we have to
choose between George Bush and John Kerry--a billionaire's spouse and
little more, who was disliked by two-thirds of Democrats just a few
months ago. Suddenly, retarded fools like you think he has some
"presidential qualities," because they told you to think that.

DunxC

September 7th 04, 07:48 AM

What's this got to do with aviation?

Duncan

George Z. Bush

September 7th 04, 02:49 PM

"DunxC" > wrote in message
...
> What's this got to do with aviation?
>
> Duncan

Not a thing. I can read this kind of crap in other venues....I just skip over
it when I find it here and keep on looking for the good stuff. (^-^)))

George Z.

ArtKramr

September 7th 04, 07:15 PM

>Subject: Re: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John
>Kerry?
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 9/7/2004 11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"David Fritzinger" > wrote in message
...
>> > >>
>> > >> Okay, but what did young Bush himself do to get put ahead
>> > >> of hundreds of others on the waiting list for the Texas Air
>> > >> National Guard?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Asked his dad to put in the fix.
>> > >
>> >
>> > And your evidence for this would be...?
>> >
>>
>> http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/
>> 0001/20040828/1349707631.htm
>>
>
>There's nothing on that site that proves young Bush asked his dad to put in
>the fix to get him put ahead of hundreds of others on the waiting list for
>the Texas Air National Guard. Nothing on that site even suggests that was
>done. It says a now-deceased friend of the elder Bush asked Barnes to
>recommend young Bush for a pilot position with the Air National Guard.
>

Watch 60 Minutes this Sunday night

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

B2431

September 7th 04, 09:17 PM

>Sink John Kerry?
>From: GreyCloud
>

>I still can't find the word meaning of Felcher.

You really don't want to know. Felching is a really gross "sex" act.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

September 7th 04, 09:20 PM

>For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?
>From: GreyCloud
>Date: 9/7/2004 2:52 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
>
>>>>directed towards Ray Felcher
>>>
>>>I still can't find the word meaning of Felcher.
>>
>>
>> Consider yourself lucky, and leave it at that.
>
>I'd like to know. It may help to describe Rays behaviour.

It involves orally removing semen from one's partner's anus.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

September 7th 04, 09:21 PM

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 9/7/2004 8:49 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"DunxC" > wrote in message
...
>> What's this got to do with aviation?
>>
>> Duncan
>
>Not a thing. I can read this kind of crap in other venues....I just skip
>over
>it when I find it here and keep on looking for the good stuff. (^-^)))
>
>George Z.

Like your own political rants?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Fred the Red Shirt

September 8th 04, 08:37 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "david raoul derbes" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I've read Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it is powerful stuff.
> > It does not read to me as if he is blaming any soldier, but YMMV.
>
> His "testimony", which you say was so "powerful", was based upon "voodoo",
> which is about the best way to characterize the "Winter Soldier
> Investigation" nonsense. That Jane Fonda sponsored circus has been pretty
> thoroughly discredited as a "factual source" (the DoD investigators who
> looked into the claims made in that "trial" threw their hands up after
> finding that the "witnesses" were either not even who they claimed they
> were, but often had never even been in Vietnam, or those who had were not
> assigned to frontline combat units, etc.--see the excellent book by Burkett
> and Whitley, "Stolen Valor", for a more complete indictment of WSI).

Here is a list of WSI witnesses. Please tell us which ones are
discussed
in Burkett's book:

Alex Primm, 26, SP/4 (E-4), Public Information Office, 1st Logistics
Command, Headquarters (September 1968 to June 1969)

Allen Akers, 25, Pfc. (E-2), "E" Co., 2nd Bn., 4th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Division (May 1965 to March 1966)

Allan Crouse, 22 (E-4), 3rd Engineers Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
(January 1969 to December 1969)

Barry Hopkins, 23, 3/39th, 9th Infantry Division (January 1969 to
January 1970)

Bill Perry, 23, Pfc. (E-3), "A" Co., 1/506, 101st Airborne Division
(November 1966 to August 1968)

Carl Rippberger, 23, (E-4), "K" Troop, 3rd Squad, 11th Armored Cav.
Reg., attached to 9th Infantry Division (May 1967 to May 1968)

Charles Leffler, 25, Pfc. (E-3), "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 26 Marine Reg., 9th
Marine Amphibious Brigade, LRRP, attached to 1st and 3rd Marine
Division (September 1968 to September 1969)

Charles Stephens, 24, Pfc. (E-3), 1/327, 101st Airborne Division
(December 1965 to February 1967)

Christopher Simpson, 21, Cpl. (E-4), "E" Co., 2nd Bn., 5th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Div. (1967-1968)

Christopher Soares, 20, L/Cpl. (E-3), "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (February 1969 to April 1969)

Curtis Wingrodski, 22, SP/4, 59th Scout Dog, 11th Brigade, Americal
Division (March 1969 to October 1969)

David Bishop, 21, L/Cpl., "H" Co., 2nd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division

David Chiles, 24, SP/4 (E-4), 3/4, 25th Infantry Division (January
1968 to December 1968)

David Cohen, Naval Coastal, Division 11 (November 1966 to November
1967)

David Stark, 25, SP/5 (E-5), 524 Military Intelligence Detachment
(October 1967 to October 1968)

Dennis Butts, 24, SP/4 (E-4), HHQ Co., 2/12, 25th Infantry Division
and "E" Co., 4/39, 9th Infantry Division (September 1966 to September
1967)

Dennis Caldwell, 24, CWO-2, "A" Trp., 3/17, Air Cav., 1st Aviation
Brigade (October 1968 to October 1969)

Don Pugsley, 23, SP/4, 5th Special Forces (October 1969 to December
1969)

Donald Donner, 24, SP/4 (E-4), 20th Brigade, 86th Combat Engineers
(August 1967 to July 1968)

Don Dzagulones, 23, SP/5, 635th Military Intelligence Detachment,
attached to 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division (January 1969 to
December 1969)

Douglas Craig, 22, SP/4, "D" Co., 2nd Bn., 8th Brigade, 1st Air Cav.
Division (December 1968 to August 1969)

Doug Wright, SP/4, 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division

Ed Murphy, 23, Sgt. (E-5), 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (October
1967 to September 1968)

Ernie Sachs, 27, Captain, Medium Helicopter Squadron 362, Marine Air
Group 36, 1st Marine Division (August 1966 to September 1967)

Eugene Keys, 25, SP/4 (E-4), 3/4 25th Infantry Division (February 1966
to February 1967)

Franklin Shepard, 23, S. Sgt. (E-6), 5/60, 9th Infantry Division
(March 1968 to August 1969)

Fred Bernath, 26, 1st Lt., 101st MP Co., 101st Airborne Division
(December 1968 to October 1969)

Fred Nienke, 21, Sgt. (E-5), "D" Co., 1st Bn., 5th Mor. Reg., 1st
Marine Division (July 1967 to February 1968); 1st Prov. Rifle Co., Mag
36, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st Marine Div. (January 1969 to August 1969)

Gary Keyes, 22, SP/4, "E" Troop, 1st Cav. Reg., 11th Brigade, Americal
Division (April 1969 to March 1970)

Gordon Stewart, 20, Sgt. (E-5), "H" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Div. (September 1968 to September 1969)

Jack Bronaugh, 21, Pvt. (E-1), "E" Btry. 213, 2nd Bn., 27 Marine Reg.;
H & S Bn., 7th Marine POW Compound; 1st Bn., 5th Marine Regiment;
MAC-11, H & MS-11, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st Marine Division (February
1968 to October 1969)

Jack Smith, 27, S/Sgt. (E-6), HQ Battery, 12th Marine Reg., 3rd Marine
Division (January 1969 to December 1969)

James Duffy, 23, SP/5 (E-5), 228 Avn. Bn., 1st Air Cav. Div. (February
1967 to April 1968)

Jamie Henry, 23, Sgt., 1/35 Inf., 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division
(August 1967 to August 1968)

James Mackay, 20, Sgt. (E-5), HHQ 3rd Brigade, 9th Inf. Div. (October
1968 to August 1970)

James Umenhofer, SP/4 (E-4), 2/501, 101st Airborne Division (November
1969 to October 1970)

Jim Weber, 24, Sgt. (E-5), "A" Co., 1/6 and 1/46, 198 LIB, Americal
Division (November 1967 to November 1968)

Joe Bangert, 22, Sgt. (E-5), VMO-6, PMAG-39, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st
Marine Division (October 1968 to October 1969)

Joe Galbally, 23, SP/4 (E-4), 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (October
1967 to April 1968)

John Beitzel, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21, 11th Brigade, Americal Division
(January 1969 to January 1970)

John Birch, 24, Cpl. (E-4), "B" Co., 3rd Shore Party Bn., 4th Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (May 1965 to August 1966)

John Hartner, 26, Sgt. (E-5), H & HD 3rd Brigade, H & HD 2nd Brigade,
4th Infantry Division (November 1969 to August 1970)

John Henry, 26, SP/4, 2/60, 1/11 Artillery, 9th Infantry Division
(March 1968 to February 1969)

John Lytle, 24, SP/4 (E-4), "E" Co., 6/15 Arty., 1st Infantry Division
(August 1967 to March 1969)

John Mallory, 24, Captain, 1st Sq., 11th Arm. Cav. Reg., 1st Air Cav.
Division (May 1969 to May 1970)

Kenneth Campbell, 21, Cpl. (E-4), "A" Btry., 1st Bn., 11th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Div., scouted for "B" Co., 1st Bn., 1st Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Division (February 1968 to March 1969)

Kenneth Ruth, 26, (E-4), HHQ Co., 2/12 Air Cav. Reg., 1st Air Cav.
Div. (February 1966 to February 1967)

Kevin Byrne, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 42nd Scout Dog, 1st Brigade, 101st
Airborne Division (November 1968 to November 1969)

Kevin Delay, 20, Cpl., H & S Co., 3rd Bn., 1st Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (October 1969 to March 1970)

Larry Brooks, 21, Pfc., 2nd Bn., 7th Marine Reg., 1st Marine Division
(July 1969 to January 1970)

Larry Craig, 29, SP/4, Public Information Office, 25th Infantry
Division (1966 to 1967)

Mark Lenix, 24, 1st Lt., 1/11th Arty. and 2/39 Infantry, 9th Infantry
Division (1968 to 1969)

Mike Nakayamo, 1st Bn., 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division

Michael Damron, 24, Pvt. (E-1), "B" Co., 3rd Tank Bn., 3rd Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (September 1966 to October 1967)

Michael Erard, 29, SP/5 (E-5), 3/503, 173rd Airborne Brigade (April
1969 to March 1970)

Michael Farrell, 24, SP/4 (E-4), "A" Co., 2/60, 9th Infantry Division
(January 1967 to January 1968)

Michael Kenny, 20, 2nd Bn., 26th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division

Michael Miziaszek, 22, SP/4 (E-4), 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne
Division, FSSE (December 1968 to January 1970)

Michael McCusker, 29, (2) Sgt. (E-5), Public Information Office, 1st
Marine Division (1966 to 1967)

Murphy Lloyd, 27, (2) Sgt. (E-5), "D" Co., 4th Bn., 173rd Airborne
Brigade (February 1967 to February 1968)

Nathan Hale, 23, SP/5, M.I. Detachment, 198 L.I.B., Americal Division
(December 1967 to December 1968)

Orville Carey, 1st Logistics Command

Patrick Ostrenga, "D" Co., 25th Infantry Division (February to
December)

Paul Olimpieri, 23, Cpl. (E-4), "D" Co., 1st Bn., 5th Marine Regiment,
1st Marine Division (1967-1968)

Paul Williams, 24, L/Cpl. (E-3), "A" Btry., 1st Bn., 12th Marine
Regiment, 3rd Marine Division (May 1966 to May 1967)

Robert Clark, 22, L/Cpl. (E-3), "H&S" Co. & "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th
Marine Reg., 3rd Marine Division (May 1969 to May 1970)

Robert S. Craig, 23, Pfc. (E-2), 2nd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (August 1966 to December 1967)

Robert Kruch, 25, Pfc. (E-3), 3/21, 196 LIB, Americal Division

Robert McConnachie, 22, Sgt. (E-5), 2/28th, 1st Infantry (October 1967
to October 1968)

Robert Wiktorski, 22, SP/4 (E-4), "C" Co., 2/12 Air Cav. Reg., 1st Air
Cav. Div. (May 1968 to May 1969)

Ronald Palosaari, 23, SP/4, 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (1967 to
1968)

Ron Podlaski, 24, Sgt. (E-5), 5th Special Forces Group (April 1968 to
April 1969)

Ron Newton, 24, Pfc. (E-3), 3rd Brigade, HHQ Co., 704 Maintenance Bn.,
4th Infantry Division (July 1966 to June 1967)

Russell Kogut, 22, WO-1, 155 Assault Helicopter Co. (May 1968 to March
1969)

Sam Bunge, 1st Lt., "B" Co., 3/187, 101st Airborne Division (July 1968
to June 1969)

Sam Schorr, SP/4 (E-4), 86th Combat Engineers (September 1966 to
September 1967)

Scott Camile, 24, Sgt. (E-5), 1st Bn., 11th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division

Scott Moore, 26, 1st Lt., 2/39th, 9th Infantry Division (1968 to 1969)

Sean Newton, 24, L/Cpl. (E-3), 3rd Bn., 7th Marine Reg., 1st Marine
Division (February 1966 to December 1966); "D" Co., 1/26, 3rd Combined
Action Group, 3rd Marine Div. (August 1967 to August 1968)

Steve Pitkin, 20, SP/4, "C" Co., 2/239, 9th Infantry Division (May
1969 to July 1969)

Steve Noetzel, 31, SP/4, 5th Special Forces Group Augmentation (May
1963 to May 1964)

Steve Rose, 26, U.S.N. Corpsmen (E-5), HQ Bn., 4th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Division (December 1966 to December 1967)

Ted Eckert, 21, Sgt. (E-5), MAG-16; Support Group-17, 1st Marine Air
Wing, 1st Marine Division (July 1969 to August 1970)

Thomas Heidtman, 26, Pfc. (E-3), 3rd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (October 1966 to November 1967)

Timon Hagelin, 21, SP/4 (E-4), Graves Registration Platoon, 243 Field
Serv. Co., 1st Logistics Command (August 1968 to August 1969)

Vernon Shibla, 27, SP/4, Public Information Office, 25th Infantry
Division (1966 to 1967)

Walter Hendrickson, 22, Pfc (E-2), "F" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine
Regiment, 3rd Marine Division (November 1968 to April 1969)

William Bezanson, 24, Pfc., 4/3, 11th Brigade, Americal Division and
123rd Aviation Bn. (1967 to 1968)

William Hatton, 23, Cpl. (E-4), Engineer Mn. Plt., FLSG Bravo, 3rd
Marine Div. (October 1968 to September 1969)

William Rice, 21, SP/4, 3/47th and HQ, 3rd Brigade, 9th Infantry
Division (January 1969 to January 1970)

--

FF