Kerry as traitor, aiding the communists

[Couture]

In summary, and not expecting an answer, I ask the veterans who are expressing their anger at Kerry, this about GWB - I'll even divide it into time periods so you eliminate ones that are irrelevant because they happened too long ago:

Past: He was AWOL during WARTIME!!!!!! and still offers no explanation.

Recent past: He lied at a press conference when he was governor of Texas and said he had been to war.

Present: He committed troops to a war with no clear exit strategy, and did so based on false assumptions.

Why don't you care? Veterans of all people - why aren't more of you outraged?



After that, a truce and happy Valentine's Day to our war vets.

We owe you. I'm not sure we owe you the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but for today I offer it.

You're expecting things to make sense. To apply the rules of logic to illogical things, ie people. Spock was logical and incredibly strong but Captain James T Kirk always beat his ass in a fight.

I gotta say, I feel the same sense of frustration. I've argued with friends and family till I'm blue in the face. "I'm not voting for a tax and spend democrat or yeah, what about Clinton?" is what they come up with. I'm writing it off as hopeless along with this thread.

There have been wars in the past and there will be wars in the future. We rounded up the japs and put them in internment camps during WWII. We used to have to deal with girls doing homemade abortions. We've had religious persecution in this country before. In the early 1900's there were plenty of monopolies and the gap between rich and poor was similar to now. Rivers and lakes were poisoned to such and extent they were unusable for decades. Young children worked in mines.

Things look pretty bleak for the progressive movement that spawned most of the things we take for granted today. Eventually, even the most stubborn people will wake up and take back what was once theirs.

 

[Pure]

Hi Weird H,

Those are interesting and informative postings. Don't you find it odd that Kerry and Veterans against War--lower level officers-- are held responsible for "Rules of Engagement" drafted and revised by far higher up persons? Odd to blame Lietenant(?) Kerry, instead of General Abrams!

Second, you did not address my argument that ROE or, specifically, in your example, making something a 'no fire' zone creates a tactical problem and a danger. But it is presumably justified because the army's objectives include its own morale (which falls when kids are killed) and the 'hearts and minds' of the enemy civilians.

To take (a variation of) your example, if I can NOT fire in the enemy's direction becuase there is a school 100 yards behind him, this is a case of the army looking at the big picture. Dead school kids won't help the war effort. (This is not to claim that every ROE is rational or perfect.)

Thirdly, and lastly, you say,
//No, John Kerry did NOT prolong the war "all by himself." He was, however an influential figure who actively worked for policies that prolonged the war and benefitted the enemy.//

This would be ironic, if true. Lots of people worked to end the war. That ending stopped the killing (of Americans) because soldiers were brought home. It's key that Johnson stepped aside, and Nixon had decided to wind down and disengage (under cover of monstrous aerial attacks w/o clear purpose).

You say, this sequence marked a *prolongation* of the war. Very odd. Hypothetically you're saying, without the Senate, the anti war groups, the war would have been brought to a speedy(or speedier) conclusion!

Maybe Johnson himself could have been re-elected and brought the boys home victorious ('cuz they won, 'cuz they could fight without their hands tied).

This sort of thinking, as you remind us in another regard, comes from the Korean war. MacArthur thought he could finish off the N Koreans, and maybe even take on China and smash it up a bit. (Bomb inside China.) He was fired for the same reasons I've outlined: the military and political 'big picture': Even US military leaders feared a widened conflict with China; China was drawn in quite far enough, as it was, thank you.

Ultimately, the goals are politically defiined; hence generals are subordinate to civilian leaders. The army needs to know that "any means possible" to win an engagement is not necessarily sound in military terms, and certainly not in political terms.

Notice what follows from your analysis, and apply it to Iraq. According to you, the way end the war, NOT to prolong it, is to be 100% behind everything done in it (or complain VERY QUIETLY, behind the scenes, to one's military superiors)

-- and be in favor of 'unleashing' the military as far as humanly possible. Loosen the ROE as far as one can. (Taking it further, military vet press filings, cover up bad news, etc. etc.)

If I want to end the Iraq war, I must --at least to all public appearances--unreservedly support Bush and the generals he's picked!

Ironic, dont'ya think?

 

[shereads]

Who is not holding him accountable? Nearly every person on this board is bashing him left right and up the middle. Just what are you looking for? A popular uprising? Party loyalists abandoning the Republican party? The religious right voting for a liberal?

You know perfectly well what I'm looking for. I'm asking the people who are defending him why he isn't held to the same standard as others. I asked the same thing about Reagan and Iran-Contra and his lies to Congress, and you admitted that because you liked him, you didn't want to know what he had done wrong.

I'm asking for answers to the questions I just outlined, from the people who are not criticizing him but have the most reason to. Veterans.


You can pretend not to get my point, but you've already told me that your early life colored your perspective to the extent of denial.

You talked about how being a child who knew Reagan as a great president colored your politics now. Unlike you, I was old enough to see Iran-Contra and the betrayal of those hostages you wanted to rescue when you were a child, as an evil of such enormity that not until now has it been equalled, by a new set of lies with fatal consequences.

That's why I "think Clinton is the messiah," in your words. I saw Reagan get away with lying to Congress; I saw Bush as his V.P. get away with saying he was not in meetings about the arms for hostages trade scheme when the record proves he was. Then I saw Republicans calling for another man's impeachment over a lie about his personal life.

It mystifies me.

And it hardly matters that most people who post on this board see the truth if enough veterans don't. They're the ones who can sway public opinion in favor of keeping this new dangerous liar in office.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You know perfectly well what I'm looking for. I'm asking the people who are defending him why he isn't held to the same standard as others. I asked the same thing about Reagan and Iran-Contra and his lies to Congress, and you admitted that because you liked him, you didn't want to know what he had done wrong.

I'm asking for answers to the questions I just outlined, from the people who are not criticizing him but have the most reason to. Veterans.


You can pretend not to get my point, but you've already told me that your early life colored your perspective to the extent of denial.

You talked about how being a child who knew Reagan as a great president colored your politics now. Unlike you, I was old enough to see Iran-Contra and the betrayal of those hostages you wanted to rescue when you were a child, as an evil of such enormity that not until now has it been equalled, by a new set of lies with fatal consequences.

That's why I "think Clinton is the messiah," in your words. I saw Reagan get away with lying to Congress; I saw Bush as his V.P. get away with saying he was not in meetings about the arms for hostages trade scheme when the record proves he was. Then I saw Republicans calling for another man's impeachment over a lie about his personal life.

It mystifies me.

And it hardly matters that most people who post on this board see the truth if enough veterans don't. They're the ones who can sway public opinion in favor of keeping this new dangerous liar in office.

I did not see what you wanted, I did not realize your words were addressed solely to veterans.

I freely admit my short comings in vision. I did not expect to have them thrown back in my face in such a manner.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Maybe the veterans do see the truth but simply refuse to talk about the issue publicly. I know this situation has been a topic of serious discussion among my dad and his military vet buddies.

Just because they won't carry picket signs over it doesn't alter the fact they will be voting their conscience come November.

(And as I recently teased my dad, glad to see you'll be leaving the dark side and joining the Good Side of the Force!)

 

[Weird Harold]

He wasn't eligible for retirement, he was about to disappear from the radar for five months before his 8-months-early discharge.

No, he was three months shy of being elgible for an early discharge. Early discharges were not uncommon at that time, and "short-timers" often had little to do except count the days and be ignored by their superiors.

What would he have to have done in his past and his present to make you view him as critically as you view John Kerry? Sleep with Jane Fonda?

Bluntly, as long as he doesn't fuck-up my pay and benefits -- like Clinton did and Kerry proposes -- I'm not likely to judge him as harshly as I would most of the Democratic candidates.

I'll worry about who to vote for when I know who is on the ballot. I'm registered as an Independent, so I don't have any say in who gets on the final ballot -- the one candidate I might have considered supporting based on his military record has dropped out, and I wasn't fond of some of Clark's positions either.

My answer to the standard question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago," is an unqualified YES.

As a military member and military retiree, my life has always been better off under Presidents who strongly supported the military and got worse under Presidents who supported cuts in the military budgets. That means, usually, that a Republican President improves my life and a Democrat makes me check on the requirements for food-stamps.

He was AWOL during WARTIME!!!!!! He lied at a press conference when he was governor of Texas and said he had been to war?

Why don't you care?

We were NOT at War. Vietnam was an "armed conflict" and the special rules that require a formal Declaration of War weren't relevant.

And if it was okay for him to not show up, what is this about:

"There is no excuse for that," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file.

Any disciplinary review, and the documentation thereof would have been the decision of GWB's superiors. I have no idea why there is no documentation, but "failure to show" for a physical isn't an offense that usually incurred more than an undocumented "verbal reprimand" in that era. In a strictly legalistic sense, "failure to show" warrants an article 15 punishment of forfeiture of pay and allowances, but in practice, many offenses were deliberately undocumented to avoid "black marks" that would cause promotion problems later.

I don't think there are very many Vietnam Vets who weren't technically AWOL at some point during the Vietnam Conflict -- I know I certainly was AWOL a couple of times, but that doesn't show in my military records either because the penalty imposed was informal and undocumented. Additionally, the rules for exactly what constitutes AWOL in the ANG are slightly different -- "missing a drill" isn't usually considered AWOL.


The severity of the punishment and whether it was documented usually depended more on the personality interactions between offender and immediate supervisor than they did on the legal definitions. If you didn't get along with your boss, ten minutes late for duty could cost you a month's pay; if your boss was a nice guy who disliked being a "hardass" then a week partying at a whorehouse could get you no more than "don't do that again."

Military service is only a small part of the differences in my opinion and/or tolerance for John Kerry, Bill Clinton and GWB. It is mostly what they did after leaving the military (or avoiding it completely in Clinton's case) that makes me dislike Clinton and Kerry more than I dislike GWB.

And, YES, I do dislike GWB. I just don't dislike him as much as I dislike the alternatives -- especially the remaining Democratic alternatives. I wish the American Political Process would turn up a viable candidate that I could support, but that doesn't look a very likely prospect.

 

[Weird Harold]

Those are interesting and informative postings. Don't you find it odd that Kerry and Veterans against War--lower level officers-- are held responsible for "Rules of Engagement" drafted and revised by far higher up persons? Odd to blame Lietenant(?) Kerry, instead of General Abrams!

There is plenty of blame to go around. I do blame Gen. Abrams, Gen. Westmoreland, Adm. Zumwalt, and all of the other senior commanders for the dog's dinner that was the Vietnam War as much or more than I blame anti-war protesters -- including Jane Fonda and John Kerry.

Second, you did not address my argument that ROE or, specifically, in your example, making something a 'no fire' zone creates a tactical problem and a danger. But it is presumably justified because the army's objectives include its own morale (which falls when kids are killed) and the 'hearts and minds' of the enemy civilians.

The ROE that were based on political considerations instead of tactical considerations are the ones that crated tactical problems and dangers. They are also just one small aspect of the problems with a "political war" -- especially one that was micro-managed from Washington the way Vietnam was.

To take (a variation of) your example, if I can NOT fire in the enemy's direction becuase there is a school 100 yards behind him, this is a case of the army looking at the big picture. Dead school kids won't help the war effort. (This is not to claim that every ROE is rational or perfect.)

Knowing where friendlies and non-combatants are located is a necessary part of combat. If you tell a soldier that there is a school full of kids 100 yards away, that should -- and usually is -- sufficient to prevent him from firing in that direction without an extremely good reason. If you can also tell him the class schedule, he has the information needed to know when firing in that direction is most likely to cause friendly casualties.

The key is that the person on the scene should be allowed to evaluate the need to fire or not fire in a certain direction. Making that kind of decision from 3,000 miles away based on a map or photo is just plain stupid; like most of the political restriction on combat in Vietnam were.

You say, this sequence marked a *prolongation* of the war. Very odd. Hypothetically you're saying, without the Senate, the anti war groups, the war would have been brought to a speedy(or speedier) conclusion!

Maybe Johnson himself could have been re-elected and brought the boys home victorious ('cuz they won, 'cuz they could fight without their hands tied).

Vietnam could have been resolved, even "won," much quicker than it was without the micro-managment from Washington. There are thousands of key points where "if we had just done this," would have changed history and the number of lives lost on all sides.

The Senate hearings Kerry testified before generated some of those key decisions.

In essence, YES, the war would have been shorter and less bloddy in the long run than it was if the Military had been allowed to conduct a "military" campaign.

This sort of thinking, as you remind us in another regard, comes from the Korean war. MacArthur thought he could finish off the N Koreans, and maybe even take on China and smash it up a bit. (Bomb inside China.) ...

Ultimately, the goals are politically defiined; hence generals are subordinate to civilian leaders. The army needs to know that "any means possible" to win an engagement is not necessarily sound in military terms, and certainly not in political terms.

MacArthur was NOT fired because he wanted to bomb across the Yalu and use Nukes against China. He was fired for going public after being ordered to find a way to win without bombing China. He was fired for pushing HIS political goals instead of being guided by Truman's.

If I want to end the Iraq war, I must --at least to all public appearances--unreservedly support Bush and the generals he's picked!

I don't care if you support GWB, but let the general's use their knowledge and experience to figure out how to implement their orders.

I don't particularly agree with the orders the military have been given in Iraq. The orders for the post-war occupation and reconstruction were poorly planned and vague. However, while I think those orders need some revision, I refuse to second guess those on the "pointy end of the spear."

I do NOT know what conditions are like and what the general populace feels in Iraq and I will extend the courtesy of believing that the people who are there and facing the risks are doing the best they can withthe orders they have.

News reports concentrating on the "resistance" don't give anything like the true picture, but the good things that are happening don't sell commercial time.

I believe that the best people to plan and execute military operations are those who are most knowledgable about the military -- i.e. the military itself. Politicians should be restricted to setting mission requirements and insuring that sufficient forces are available.

The problem with the current situation in Iraq, is that the politicians did not specify the post-war mission and the wrong troops are in place for the job at hand because it wasn't properly included in the planning rquirements.

I personally don't know what IS required in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure that the situation would be better if the country were under martial law with sufficient forces in place to enforce it.

I know that sounds like I'm in favor of a "military solution" but most of the problems arise from the lack of authority our troops have when dealing with the civilian population -- but that's a whole 'nother debate.

 

[shereads]

Wierd Harold, I'm amazed. Simply amazed.

You pretend that this man is good for the military because he hasn't personally screwed you out of your benefits? What about his refusal to allow a DEMOCRAT to substitute a small portion of the tax cut for the rich with one for military families? Or to increase the death benefit to military families?

Are Republican conservatives really so caught up in themselves that you can be blind to what he's done to your less fortunate military brothers?

You quibble about the use of the word "war" to describe Vietnam to excuse the fact that he went missing?

And you have nothing at all to say about the evidence of his enormous lie while in office. A lie that has now cost the lives of more Americans than died in the first three years of the Vietnam war. Oops. Armed conflict. We weren't at war so it was okay for a rich kid to pretend to serve.

Thousands of young men like you were then, are dead now because of a liar. Not just one who lied then. One who lied two years ago. One who is lying now. One who has broken all the rules by which integrity is determined, from his lies about the SEC and Harkin Energy, to his allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the country after 9/ll, and you don't see anything particularly wrong with him as long as your benefits aren't affectged.

How sad.

You say Bill Clinton didn't serve his country. Neither, according to the record, did George W. Bush. But he was wealthy enough to be able to get the flight training and the resume.

He pretended to serve, and Clinton didn't pretend. That's the only difference in their military past.

In the present, one of them was open about cutting military spending; one of them is keeping it quiet, targeting the people who aren't likely to have much to say about it.

Of the three men, Clinton, Kerry, Bush, only one is known to be guilty of causing the deaths of thousands of Americans because he LIED.

And you don't care. Is the entire Republican party in denial? Or do you admire hypocrisy?

 

[Dirt Man]

And let's none of us forget that our war vets include John Kerry.

"...but Kerry went back to the rivers." He hated it but he went back.

Don't exclude him from your brotherhood when he was there with you, shared what you endured, and carries scars of his own. Give him the benefit of the doubt. He is your brother in arms, WierdHarold. Don't deny him that honor.

No veteran, Vietnam era, or otherwise is denied the honor of this brotherhood sher. Our reflection amongst the brotherhood isn't so much what we did during that time, but what we've done with it since then. This being politics, and both men being candidates from opposing parties the major debate between them will become that of character. Both candidates are men of character so it comes down to nit picking, and comparisons of track records thus far to give us clues to what they are really like right now. GWB has the advantages, and disadvantages of four years in office behind him. Just as his father did when he lost to Bill Clinton after only four years in office. And remember this, only one republican has held the office for two terms since Nixon resigned, and he has alzhimer's. Both parties have their own separate goals for America, and have established them as far as the voters are concerned. Both parties are ruthless in their pursute for power, and no one has really forgotten the chad incident in the state of Florida where GWB's brother is still the govenor. Nor has anyone forgotten that Bill Clinton lied about cheating on his wife while in the oval office. Now I'm not taking sides here, but, Bill Clinton is not the one running this time, and if all the republicans have against Kerry is that he is a warrior who hates a war that nobody could sell, then they are going to loose. As I said before, there are more poor people voting than there are rich ones. You see it all comes down to "Are we better off today, than we were four years ago."

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[shereads]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Dirt. I still wonder why you see him as a man of character after recent revelations.

 

[KenJames]

There is plenty of blame to go around. I do blame Gen. Abrams, Gen. Westmoreland, Adm. Zumwalt, and all of the other senior commanders for the dog's dinner that was the Vietnam War as much or more than I blame anti-war protesters -- including Jane Fonda and John Kerry.

. . .

The ROE that were based on political considerations instead of tactical considerations are the ones that crated tactical problems and dangers. They are also just one small aspect of the problems with a "political war" -- especially one that was micro-managed from Washington the way Vietnam was.

. . .

Knowing where friendlies and non-combatants are located is a necessary part of combat. If you tell a soldier that there is a school full of kids 100 yards away, that should -- and usually is -- sufficient to prevent him from firing in that direction without an extremely good reason. If you can also tell him the class schedule, he has the information needed to know when firing in that direction is most likely to cause friendly casualties.

The key is that the person on the scene should be allowed to evaluate the need to fire or not fire in a certain direction. Making that kind of decision from 3,000 miles away based on a map or photo is just plain stupid; like most of the political restriction on combat in Vietnam were.

. . .

Vietnam could have been resolved, even "won," much quicker than it was without the micro-management from Washington. There are thousands of key points where "if we had just done this," would have changed history and the number of lives lost on all sides.

The Senate hearings Kerry testified before generated some of those key decisions.

In essence, YES, the war would have been shorter and less bloody in the long run than it was if the Military had been allowed to conduct a "military" campaign.

. . .

MacArthur was NOT fired because he wanted to bomb across the Yalu and use Nukes against China. He was fired for going public after being ordered to find a way to win without bombing China. He was fired for pushing HIS political goals instead of being guided by Truman's.

. . .

Harold, I agree with all your points that I've quoted above. I don't agree that the anti-war movement, including Kerry and even Fonda, lengthened the war. By the time the anti-war movement became significant (and way before Kerry became involved), Vietnam had already been lost to political micro-management. I feel the anti-war movement actually shortened the war, thereby saving American soldiers' lives.

 

[Dirt Man]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Dirt. I still wonder why you see him as a man of character after recent revelations.

Yes, but I never said what kind of character I think he is, now did I?

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Washington Post
He Ought to Know

Saturday, February 14, 2004; Page A28


IT'S HARD TO RECALL a more brazen display of political chutzpah than the Bush campaign's assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) as a captive of special interests. A video e-mailed Thursday night to 6 million supporters attacks the Democratic front-runner as an "unprincipled" collector of special-interest cash. The video cites a report in this newspaper that Mr. Kerry led the senatorial pack in collecting money from the very Washington lobbyists that he is busy decrying on the campaign trail.

As the dollar amount -- $640,000 -- shows on the screen, a female announcer emits a sound of pained surprise. "Oooh," she says, "For what? Nominations and donations coincided." The video concludes: "Fact. Kerry -- Brought to you by the special interests. Millions from executives at HMOs, telecoms, drug companies. Ka-ching

 

[Weird Harold]

Wierd Harold, I'm amazed. Simply amazed.

You pretend that this man is good for the military because he hasn't personally screwed you out of your benefits? What about his refusal to allow a DEMOCRAT to substitute a small portion of the tax cut for the rich with one for military families? Or to increase the death benefit to military families?

Are Republican conservatives really so caught up in themselves that you can be blind to what he's done to your less fortunate military brothers?

You quibble about the use of the word "war" to describe Vietnam to excuse the fact that he went missing?

And you have nothing at all to say about the evidence of his enormous lie while in office. A lie that has now cost the lives of more Americans than died in the first three years of the Vietnam war. Oops. Armed conflict. We weren't at war so it was okay for a rich kid to pretend to serve.

Thousands of young men like you were then, are dead now because of a liar. Not just one who lied then. One who lied two years ago. One who is lying now. One who has broken all the rules by which integrity is determined, from his lies about the SEC and Harkin Energy, to his allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the country after 9/ll, and you don't see anything particularly wrong with him as long as your benefits aren't affectged.

...

And you don't care. Is the entire Republican party in denial? Or do you admire hypocrisy?

I do widsh you'd actually READ my posts. I distinctly stated that I do NOT like GWB, and I'm regitered as an Indepndent -- i.e. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!

Bottom line: I'm single, don't have any dependents elgible to family to collect death benefits, and I have more money at the end of each month now than I did four years ago. It's selfish and narrow minded, but it's the bottom line criteria almost every voter uses.

I do NOT expect to have a candidate I can support, only one that will have less of an effect on my own personal reclusive space.

I do NOT think John Kerry or any of the Democratic contenders have any chance of improving my life, but from past experience I do believe that they will make it worse.

Whoever wins the election will be a Politician and that is the absolute worst possible choice for the leader of the last super-power.

Every politician LIES, it's part of the job description. More importantly, advisors and information sources lie to politicians so what is believed true one day may appear to be a lie the next.

I don't know tht GWB lied or if he was lied to and now has to back and fill to cover the faulty information he was given. The bottom line is that whether he lied or was lied to, we are in Iraq, and have to deal with the consequences.

Whatever the truth of the matter, I do not have access to the truth and don't particularly care whether we get it. Hindsight is 20/20 and enables those who opposed a decision to say I told you so, but it doesn't change a damned thing.

I'm firmly convinced that whoever gains the Whitehouse this fall will be the scum of the earth and a hypocrite. GWB is scum that I know and his term has made my life better; Failing a viable third party candidate, I'll probably vote for "None Of The Above" again.

 

[Dirt Man]

Harold, we have more in common than I was aware of before now. I have always been an Independant, and just as I did the last time I will once again be voting for "None of the Above," too. Unless some Independant mover and shaker appears out of no where. Then I might have to rethink it all out again.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Pure]

Hi Weird H,

I'm not a Democrat by the way, but finding a Republican who isn't a prig is hard these days. I appreciate Chomsky's 'take' on things the majority of the time.

About that extra money in your pocket. Fine, but you'd better spend part of it on flashlight, candles, UPS, etc.

More big blackouts likely, experts agree

February 13, 2004, Detroit Free Press


BY BRAD FOSS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Six months after the nation's worst blackout, experts say the electric grid is still vulnerable to widespread outages because many of the problems that contributed to the massive failure have not been resolved.

"Without significant investment in the transmission system, we're all going to face another blackout. It's inevitable," according to Jonathan Smidt, an associate in the energy group of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., a private equity firm.

Among the few tangible steps taken to strengthen the grid, according to several experts, are the intense scrutiny of the root causes and better intra-regional communication between power providers and grid operators.

-----
[end]

Infant mortality is up, but I guess that doesn't affect your grandkids.

 

[Pure]

Kerry as Seen in some Parts

{Google with --Kerry traitor-- is always interesting;
13.8 K hits; --Bush liar-- 209K hits}

In the second posting Deri pictures storming out of the trenches with GWB there shooting at every Iraqi to protect him, while Kerry, scared of gunshots, just sits and cries. Fantastic image!

www.evangelicaloutpost.com

[start]
In Vietnam, Kerry claims as "body count" a Vietnamese woman, a child, a couple of ARVN soldiers, and a wounded Viet Cong. He admits to this. So where are the investigative reporters, digging up the dirt so we can charge him with war crimes, as he probably deserves? Where are the anti-war protestors, clamoring now for "justice" like they once allege?

In America, Kerry claims to stand up for the "little guy," yet he has received more campaign contributions from political lobbyists than all the other candidates combined.

In the Senate, Kerry has voted against the very weapons systems we so vitally needed, voted against necessary funds for intelligence operations, and voted against counter-terrorism funding. And some would want this elitist snot as commander in chief?

And if any want to play the "medals game," I have twice and many as Kerry does.


Posted by: Talon6 at February 9, 2004 11:32 AM

=====
All Kerry wants to do is destroy the US and make god fearing Americans run away from the enemy like he did during vietnam and he probably wants the satanic Muslums to beat us in Iraq like he wanted the vietnames to beat us over there.

I'd like to see him and Bush over in Iraq on the front lines and see Kerry running away like the coward he is and saying "help me Bush, protect me!", which is what Bush is doing for all of us.

Kerry is such a coward and would cry if he even heard a gun go off unless it was shooting an AMERICAN in the head.Bush would be over there shooting every last Iraqi he saw and protecting us like he does while in the white house. Now thats the kind of man who should be in office and COMMANDER IN CHIEF for FOUR MORE YEARS.

Not that coward who couldnt even fly a plane Kerry. Kerry probably wants to elect saddam to office as his Vice president!!! I also heard that Kerry had an affair to hanoi jane while married to his liberal rich girl girlfriend. Listen to RUSH and you'll get the TRUTH!

Posted by: Derijabel at February 13, 2004 01:54 PM
[end]

 

[Pure]

"Hanoi John"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/14/171818.shtml

Saturday, Feb. 14, 2004 04:56 p.m. EST
McCain Fights for Kerry

Ted Sampley, a businessman from Kinston, N.C., operates a Web site that features attacks on Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, for his anti-war activities after his military service in Vietnam.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., may be more upset than the targeted Democratic presidential front-runner, according to the New York Times. McCain, also a Vietnam veteran and former POW, came to the defense of Kerry on Friday, calling Sampley "one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter."

Among other things, the Web site

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

{{see esp.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

U.S. VETERANS & VIETNAMESE UNITE TO OPPOSE JOHN KERRY

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/vvajk_pr_05_04.htm

}}

features the now infamous photo of Kerry at a rally, sitting a couple of rows behind Jane Fonda, tauntingly called "Hanoi Jane" by her detractors, who were rankled by her visit to the enemy during the war.

Sampley, also a Vietnam vet, has an unpleasant history with McCain: In 1993, he was convicted of misdemeanor assault for attacking a legislative aide to McCain. Sampley's major beef with both men is his contention that neither has done enough to investigate his claim that American servicemen were left behind in Vietnam after the war.

In a recent criticism of Kerry posted on his Web site, Sampley wrote: "I have personally dealt with John Kerry on the issue of U.S. P.O.W.s left behind in Vietnam. Kerry is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. Many Vietnam vets have been duped into thinking Kerry is their friend. He is not. To us, he is 'Hanoi John.'

"McCain, who has been called "The Manchurian Candidate" by Sampley, said: "I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans."

 

[Weird Harold]

About that extra money in your pocket. Fine, but you'd better spend part of it on flashlight, candles, UPS, etc.

I've been prepared for blackouts for many years. Comes from growing up in an area where they were common even without problems with the "Grid."

However, since I moved to within 30 miles of Hoover Dam, I haven't needed blackout preparations very often and never for more than about 6 hours, and that was a local transformer problem that affected less than a city block.

The problems withthe Eastern Seaboard power grid have existed for decades and have caused numerous blackouts since the great blackout of the early 1970's.

I fail to see how GWB can be blamed for faults in a system run and maintained by private industry, though. specially since evry president since LBJ has had an opportunity to do something about a known weakness in the infrastructure and failed to force a correction.

 

[Pure]

//I fail to see how GWB can be blamed for faults in a system run and maintained by private industry, though.//

Well, a government, like that of Calif can be blamed, in your words, if they sell off to industry, and, without regulations, industry mismanages things.

I'm not trying to blame Bush for the blackout, per se. The point of the article is that, six months later, we're in no better position.
I count this as a failure of national leadership, both in gov and industry--- and since the gov has responsibility for ensuring (one way or the other) basic services, it will be a clear national government failure-- of congress and the executive branch-- if industry doesn't shape up and the gov. lets things drift.

What do you think?

//specially since evry president since LBJ has had an opportunity to do something about a known weakness in the infrastructure and failed to force a correction.//

Ever heard of the saying on Truman's desk "The Buck Stops Here". The phrase is unknown to this president and his handlers.

 

[Weird Harold]

I count this as a failure of national leadership, both in gov and industry--- and since the gov has responsibility for ensuring (one way or the other) basic services, it will be a clear national government failure-- of congress and the executive branch-- if industry doesn't shape up and the gov. lets things drift.

I see. Since the Power Industry in the NE hasn't corrected a problem that has existed for over thirty years and isn't clearly understood a mere six months after the last "fix" was proven inadequate, government should step in and pass a law to punish them if they don't rebuild the entire power grid so it can't possibly fail by the end of next week?

The California Power Debacle you mentioned is a powerful argument against the government interfering in the power market -- although there was either deliberate profiteering, rampant corruption, or criminal stupidity involved in California's problems that resulted in a recall and replacement of the Governor to complicate the involvement of Government in the power industry.

As for "The Buck Stops Here," that hasn't been understood by anyone since JFK, and I'm not sure it was true for him. Truman and Eisenhower understood it, but no president since LBJ has had any clue about that concept.

In many ways, it does NOT matter who is president, because circumstances, events, and people outside of their control will dictate what they can or cannot do.

When Nixon began bombing North Vietnam, many people said, "It's a good thing we didn't elect Goldwater or we'd be bombing North Vietnam." The point being that some actions are driven by circumstances and almost any president would be forced to make the same choices by circumstances and events -- the most any president can do is delay delay actions for the next president to take. (like dealing with Bin Laden, for example.)

I'm more concerned about who my congressional representatives are going to be than I am about who will be president -- A good Congressman or Senator can do more to block legislative decisions I disagree with than the president can.

 

[Pure]

But tell me, friend, Weird H. If keeping your buck in your pocket is the main thing, why are you --I get the impression-- supporting an overseas adventure costing a billion a week, and a defense budget in the trillions, the largest in the history of the world????

(I know Bush has arranged for it to come from your kids, but lets leave that aside.)

 

[Weird Harold]

But tell me, friend, Weird H. If keeping your buck in your pocket is the main thing, why are you ... a defense budget in the trillions, the largest in the history of the world????

Well, Duh! As a military retiree, my paycheck comes out of that trillion dollar defense budget! Ther's never a guarnatee that a bigr defense budget means an increase in retiree pay, but the chances are a LOT better than with an administration that sees retiree pay as a good place to trim the military budget.


However, I am NOT a "supporter" of being in Iraq, I'm just not a "detractor" -- The person that our Constitution gave the responsibility and authority to make the decision made a decision.

My vote against both GWB and Al Gore three years ago was not sufficient to keep GWB from having the authority and responsibility to make that decision, so I choose to support the person sworn in as the President of the USA.

Once he took that Oath, he was my "boss" and I'm old-fashioned enough to Support my boss without more reason than biased allegations in the Media to call for his removal.

As retiree, I'm still technically a part of the military and still subject to rules and regulations that govern what military members can and cannot say or do. That doesn't mean I have no freedom of speech or freedom of action, but it does mean that I tend to require more proof than politically motivated allegations to overcome the conditioned reticence against speaking out against orders.

I can -- and have -- questioned orders and refused to obey some that were clearly illegal, but in general, I accept that I do NOT have access to "the big picture" and seldom have the information required to question policy decisions.

One thing that this discussion has done for me, is accentuate the fact that "civilians" don't understand the "military" -- Especially the military as it was in the Vietnam Era.

The Draft in the Vietnam Era and all of the various forms of "Draft Dodging" are especially misunderstood by those who weren't affected by it.

Shereads constant harping on GWB joining the ANG as a way to"dodge the draft" makes it seem a bad thing, but I consider myself a "Draft Dodger" because I volunteered for the USAF instead of waiting for a Draft Notice (which I got anyway because paperwork wasn't filed properly.)

Some people "dodged the draft" even though they didn't need to -- Clinton, for example, had a high draft number and would never have been drafted no matter what he did.

Others, like GWB and me, "dodged the draft by volunteering for a service that offered less chance of winding up in combat than accepting the Draft.

Others, like Elvis Presley, waited for the Draft Board to call and served their two years service in a safe assignment in Europe, half a world away from the fighting and the protests.

Every person of Draft age in the fifties, sixties and seventies made life choices based on the Draft. The choices and results were as varied as the people affected -- each person made a unique choice. I don't fault anyone for the choice they made and admire many of those who made harder choices -- running to Canada, Prosecution for refusing the Draft, or volunteering for "safe duty" or volunteering for combat.

I'm beginning to doubt that I can adequately explain what it was like to live in that period because there are so many inter-related effects. The effect that the Draft had on the military's makeup is very complex and is part of the explanation for both GWB and John Kerry's service records and actions after leaving the service.

I understand that effect in the same way I understand how I can reliably find my mouth with a spoonful of ice cream, but I can't explain either of those things.

 

[Pure]

Phillippe Bossuet, of Agence Presse France reports the following incident he witnessed:

'Hanoi Jane'--as US soldiers call her-- Fonda, on tour of American POWs, demanded each kiss her shaved pussy. When Pvt. Andres Bobadilla refused and brought his rosary beads at his lips, she had him dragged off for torture, and he was never seen again.

Shortly after, she returned to the US and, with John Kerry began planning the next American flag desecration rally--picture on the(now suppressed) cover of his first book.

 

[Pure]

CNN tonight--I heard this in passing-- has said the Fonda Kerry photo is bogus.

The lady he supposedly fuckd --Polier--says it didn't happen, in a news release. Not sure there's going to be 'implosion' here as W. Clark(!) suggests. Her statement.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../02/16/politics1300EST0543.DTL&type=printable