I am voting for Bush

[catalina_francisco]

Bush retired Ann Richards and Al Gore. And is ahead in most states over Kerry. Pretty good record for a stupid man.

People will vote for someone they like. And half of the Kerry supportors can't stand him. I don't know how Kerry would do as president, but most people will admit that he hasn't run a good campaign so far.

Will anyone admit that they like John Kerry?

Not sure that is any indication he is not stupid, or worse yet, dangerous....to name another, didn't Hitler initially have a lot of supporters, many who later claimed they never realised he was so evil? Bullies and braggarts often manage to elliminate good people in their quests. Unfortunately, many people do not take the time to take notice, real notice that is, of politics and what is happening, many more are just apathetic until it jumps up and hits them in the face, home, or hip pocket, then there are those who vote for somone because their friends or family do, or because they want to be on the winning side so go with the popular poll vote....and the ones who are fooled by someone who holds a powerful position. I knew someone a few years ago who would never even question the motives or politics of the one in power as he felt it was disrespectful, and that obviously that person must be brilliant just because they were in power....dangerous and naive assumptions in today's world.

Catalina

 

[shy slave]

Living in the UK but have always watched the USA elections with interest, they have an impact world-wide.
Would not want to vote for Bush, as he is portryaed over here as 'not too bright' but being 1000's miles away its difficult to get a true picture. Although his geographic knowledge outside the USA seems to be missing some vital parts.

If Bush does not get back in the White House our prime minister (Tony Blair) will have a difficult time remaining in power in the UK.

Have to say we think a lot alike in such things. I think western politics are skating on scary ice, but many either are not wanting to see the reality, or need the ultimate to happen before they sit up and take notice. Freedom is a well touted myth of politicians which many believe they still have but which disappears in greater magnitude each year. (didn't the US government order airlines in the US this week to hand over all details of everyone flying on their flights within the US in June, not to mention the necessity to give DNA now if you visit, and theier atempts to get the right to check electronic mail without reason?....something which no doubt already takes place).

Australia will be facing the same voting problem shortly, and added to their dilemma will be the wonderful Pauline Hanson who has decided to stand for parliament again....doubt she has changed her views which follow along the lines that indigenous people were cannibals and are neurologically deficient because they have smaller brains (false BTW)..and they just get too much help; women should be grateful to men for all they have done for women; abused women and rape victims usually either ask for it or make it all up; homosexuality is an illness which needs to be stamped out; migrants should be stopped from entering and staying in the country; welfare should be cut to almost non-existent levels..and the list of stupidity and myths continue everytime she opens her mouth. I am ashamed to admit my mother once voted for her because ' she wears such lovely designer clothes'. Needless to say, my mother and I have different political values in many ways.

Catalina

Perhaps you could suggest Ms Hanson visit UK, we seem to like people in designer clothes no matter what their views.

Dogs ripping foxes apart for sport is condoned by nice ladies who wear designer clothes, so I am sure she will be in good company for many of her views.

PS Of course women should be grateful to men, why wouldn't they be lol

 

[Jimi]

I won't be voting, because...

I am a citizen of another Sovreign Nation.

However, I believe fundamentally that one SHOULD vote. To bitch, when one hasn't exercised one's Democratic responsibility, is to invite ridicule in the extreme.

The only way to effect change is to PARTICIPATE, IMHO.

Opinion: Dubbya is AGAIN, the lesser of two evils

 

[AngelicAssassin]

The Military Angle

Neither candidate impresses me as a leader of the US military. That said let's address this ...

... at least he went to Vietnam and has been in a fire fight. He knows he'll have to clean up the mess the Bushies started, and he at least has a small appreciation of what our soldiers, sailors, marines and flyers are going through. Bush hid out in the Guard, and can't/won't provide the records that he showed up for the minimal commitment he made back then. If you think they got destroyed accidentally, you think that the U.S. goverment and every elected official ever to serve in it has never done anything illegal, underhanded, or immoral in its history.

John Kerry's interest in serving as a member of the United States Military began after he sought a deferment to study in Paris, and the draft board turned him down. He then joined the Navy Reserves. The following covers a chronology of his service provided by United States Navy records.

• 18 Feb 1966 Enlisted as an OSCA (E-2) United States Naval Reserve (Inactive) Enlisted sailor in the reserves
• 19 Aug: Commenced Active Duty as an OCIU2 (E-5) Enlisted sailor in the reserves to attend Officer Candidate School.
• 15 Dec 1966: Honorably discharged as an OCIU2 to accept a commission in the United States Naval Reserve. (Completion of Officer Candidate School)
• 16 Dec 1966:Accepted Commission, Ensign, (O-1)United States Naval Reserve, continued active duty
• 16 Jun 1967 Assigned to USS Gridley DLG ___ During December 1967, USS Gridley did plane guard duty far off of the coast of Vietnam. Although considered a combat zone, it is difficult to claim this duty as a tour in Vietnam. This approximately five week period is the time Kerry claims as his first tour of duty in Vietnam. While on Gridley, Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty.
• 16 Jun 1968 Detached from USS Gridley to attend Swift Boat Training
• 17 Nov 1968 Kerry arrived in Vietnam for duty in Coastal Squadron One,
  Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay.
• Dec 1968 Kerry ordered to An Thoi to serve as a Swift O-In-C aboard a Swift Boat against his will. Kerry bitterly protested this assignment with all his shipmates for the three brief months he was stationed at An Thoi.
• Christmas 1968 Kerry claims he spent Christmas Eve in and Christmas day on patrol in Cambodia, ordered there by senior officers. Members of the Kerry staff now say this event that was "seared" into his memory may not have occurred.
• 16 Jun 1968: Date of rank as Lieutenant (Junior Grade) (O-2) United States Naval Reserve
• Late 1969 Kerry requested to leave the Navy
• 1 Jan 1970: Date of rank as Lieutenant (O-3) United States Naval Reserve
• 3 Jan 1970: Released from active duty. Transferred to the Naval Reserve (Inactive)
• May 1970 After his wedding, while serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), John Kerry travelled to Paris, France on his honeymoon. While there, Kerry met with Madame Binh and other leading North Vietnamese Communist representatives. His presidential committee confirms this occurred and Kerry himself admitted it in a question-and-answer segment before the Fulbright Committee in April 22, 1971. Kerry said at this time,

  "I have been to Paris. I talked with delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.

• April 17, 1971 John Kerry, while serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), appeared with Al Hubbard on Meet The Press and stated he had committed war crimes and atrocities.
• April 22, 1971 John Kerry, while serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), led a protest sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) where members threw their medals over the fence. In widely varying accounts, Kerry has stated he threw his medals, someone else's medals, his ribbons, etc., over the fence. Subsequently, he got those medals back and they became the centerpiece of his campaigns since.
• 29 Jun 1971 John Kerry gave a speech at the Philadelphia, PA YMCA praising Ho Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam, still a declared enemy of the United States, while serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive).
• 22 July 1971 While serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), John Kerry called a press conference in Washington, DC and speaking on behalf of VVAW, Kerry openly urged President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's seven point plan, actually a surrender document.
• 12 Nov 1971 - 14 Nov 1971 While serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), John Kerry served as a leader and one of five steering committee members at a VVAW strategic planning meeting in Kansas City, Missouri.
• 1 July 1972: Transferred to the Standby Reserves (Inactive duty)
• 16 Feb 1978: Honorably Discharged from the United States Naval RESERVE as a Lieutenant (O-3)

Several important points exist in this record.

Problem: Kerry violated two important legal provisions by this action: 1.)18 U.S.C. section 953 the provision against negotiating with foreign powers, and 2.) Article III, Section 3, the provision against giving support to the nation's enemies during wartime. i won't go into his violations of the UCMJ. i'd expect such action from Jessie Jackson and excuse his actions as "blessed be the peacemakers."

Problem: John Kerry has said about the meeting in November 1971:

• Denied attending, stating he had previously sent a resignation letter to the VVAW.
• When asked about the FBI records placing him there and no resignation letter ever found. Kerry stated that if he was there, he has no recollection of the event.
• Finally, David Wade, a Kerry campaign spokesman issued another statement, John Kerry had no personal recollection of this meeting thirty-three years ago.

At that meeting, according to FBI surveillance reports, Al Hubbard, another leader, discussed his just concluded meeting in Paris, France with Xuan Tui, one of North Vietnam's delegates to the Paris peace talks, as well as other prominent members of this committee. The VVAW wanted to make arrangements for more members of this group to travel to North Vietnam. The attendant FBI report makes it clear that the discussions of the VVAW with the Vietnamese Communists had a primary aim of helping the Vietnamese promote the antiwar movement in America. At this VVAW meeting, Scott Camil, A Florida representative to the VVAW, brought up an assassination plan he had previously promoted. The plan was to assassinate several United States Senators. Camil also proposed establishing assassination squads to murder politicians and prominent citizens who supported the war. Public records indicate John Kerry continued to represent the VVAW in speeches and other activities through April 1972 while serving as a member of the Naval Reserve. One must wonder how a man can attend a meeting where the assassination of United States senators, treasonous acts are actively discussed, not remember it, but has a non-existent deployment into Cambodia "seared" into his brain.

From 3 Jan 1970 when John Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve until 1 July 1972 when he transferred to the Standby Reserves (Inactive duty), he had drilling and training obligations with the reserves. No record exists that Kerry ever made any of these drills, the required two weeks active duty for training requirements, or any of the other requirements for Naval Reserve duty. Guess anit-war politics take precedence over commitments sworn by oath.

The media, the Democratic Committee, John Kerry and his campaign, and all the John Kerry apologists condemn President Bush for requesting an early out to attend Harvard and complete an MBA program, and failure to attend drill. They forget Kerry's lack of required attendance, his anti-war activities, and his treasonous trips to meet with a declared national enemy in Paris, France while a member of the Naval Reserve.

Like President Bush, Kerry requested to opt out of the active reserves to pursue other career paths- President Bush an MBA at Harvard; John Kerry to run for congress, failing that, a war protestor. If the president received preferential treatment in the reserves, John Kerry did also.

One last footnote ... unlike President Bush who signed a form 180 and made all of his military records public, John Kerry has steadfastly refused to sign.

Don't preach to those that have been there and kept the faith.

 

[WriterDom]

I wish the forum could be a political free zone.

Bill Clinton won twice. That should tell you Vietnam is a non-issue.

So how long after Kerry is elected will we see French boots in Iraq?

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I wish the forum could be a political free zone.

i do too, but Netzi has a point. i don't believe Georgie, Ashcroft, or anyone else has any business telling me what i can do in my bedroom, whom i can marry, whether an S/O and i have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and a myriad of other issues.

You have to make a stand, and choose, but unfortunately, this year, we get sugar wafers ... again.

 

[Raeth]

AngelicAssasin

My wife is a mental healthcare specialist in the Army, just deployed to Abu Ghraib prison with the 115th field hospital. She is supposed to be there for about 12-16 months.

I can't say how I feel about it any better than Millie did. I just worry what is going to happen when Bush has 4 more years and no chance at being reelected... sometimes I think that is his only moderating factor.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

My wife is a mental healthcare specialist in the Army, just deployed to Abu Ghraib prison with the 115th field hospital. She is supposed to be there for about 12-16 months.

i wish her the best of luck and a safe return.

 

[Raeth]

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to mention that if you are really bored... or just curious. C-span has been playing the Gore/Bush debates the past few nights, I couldn't watch it after a while because all Bush was saying is that Gore was frightening people into voting for him... of course George Bush would never do that....

 

[Lord Crimson]

I love Kerry's ads

Same as some of the posts above me. Voting for anyone that has a chance at pushing Bush out of office. With my wife being in Iraq right now, the thought of him getting another term scares the shit out of me.

I was watching one of the old Bush/Gore debates on c-span last night. (I have no life) It was fun to hear Bush lying out of his ass, and all he ever said in response to anything was that Gore was "using scare tactics to frighten people into voting for him" Hmmm... who does that remind me of in this election?

Besides the major problems I have with Bush, there are just so many little things he does that upset me. Like this whole thing with him pushing a marriage amendment. Just what we need, another reason for people to treat others like they are less in this country. We don't need religion taking over our government.

I can't think of one truly positive event under Bush... 9/11 wasn't his fault, but it seemed to give him a really good excuse to play with all of his presidential toys. Of course when Osama didn't just fall into his lap he found a perfect distraction for the american people... Iraq. It's amazing how when you turn on the news you hear about anything but Osama.

I just don't think he has proven himself. The economy hasn't been amazing, the job situation isn't exactly great, we invaded a country with "inteligence" that might as well have been written by a tabloid, in the war on terror we have lost most of our allies, about 1,000 troops have died, and everytime I call my cell phone company I end up talking with someone in India.

Everytime I am on the phone with my wife and sirens go off telling her to put on her kevlar, or watch the news and see a car bomb attacked her compound, I just want to find that damn "Mission Accomplished" banner, and shove it up the president's ass!

That's why I will take my chances with Kerry.

I just love Kerry's ads about the number of jobs that have gone offshore because of Bush. I wonder how many his wife will bring back of the 73% of the work force of the Heinz company?

 

[Raeth]

i wish her the best of luck and a safe return.

Thank you. Her unit is eventually supposed to be moving from the combat zone to a safer part of Iraq. Hopefully sometime in the next few months.

 

[millieteases]

Re: The Military Angle

[
Like President Bush, Kerry requested to opt out of the active reserves to pursue other career paths- President Bush an MBA at Harvard; John Kerry to run for congress, failing that, a war protestor. If the president received preferential treatment in the reserves, John Kerry did also.

One last footnote ... unlike President Bush who signed a form 180 and made all of his military records public, John Kerry has steadfastly refused to sign.

Don't preach to those that have been there and kept the faith. [/B][/QUOTE]


Assuming all the above is true - and everything I edited out - the point still remains. Kerry knows what battle is like - and had the guts to show up. Bush did not. If you believe that Bush signing a piece of paper saying it's ok to release his records makes a difference, you're fooling yourself. Bush's records will never show up - they were most likely destroyed by someone protecting him.

And the keeping the faith crap - and it is pure, unadultrated crap - those of us who protested the war did as much to defend the U.S. Constitution as those who served in the military. Remember Kent State? Perhaps not as many dead, perhaps not a totally pure example, but people defending what we supposedly were defending in Vietnam but weren't. (We were supporting a corrupt government that was the legacy of French Colonial Rule - but they weren't communists!) I wasn't old enough to go or the right gender to be drafted, but I know plenty of folks who served in Vietnam - and in wars before and after that. Their opinions are all over the place on Bush and Kerry and lots of other things, but there is one thing they all understand - war is evil. It is rarely started by those who actually have to go off and do the fighting. Bush never went. Kerry went, experienced the evil firsthand, and had the guts to come back and tell us it was wrong.

Politics may not be what we prefer to see in places like Literotica, but this election will make an enormous difference. If you value the Constitution - and the protections it affords the individual to freely assemble, to speak his or her mind, and generally to be an asshole if she or he so chooses (like I'm pretty much doing now) - then you will vote for Kerry. It's far from a perfect vote - he's got plenty of flaws, but it's a vote for freedom.

My last pet theory before I get off this pile of crap I'm standing on and shouting from - Republicans tend to be real interested in regulating your personal life - who you sleep with, control of your body, supporting select religious organizations. Democrats tend to be real interested in regulating yor public life - how you do business, how your actions affect the environment, etc. I choose the guys who stay out of my bedroom, and out of my church.

Whatever you do, VOTE IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE. It does matter - remember Florida? And Missouri?

Millie who is really, really, really not a Bush fan.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

And the keeping the faith crap - and it is pure, unadultrated crap - I wasn't old enough to go or the right gender to be drafted ...

Thank you for providing my retort. You didn't go and you haven't served. In other words, you don't know. i won't bother with the opinion of someone talking out of their ass.

before I get off this pile of crap I'm standing on and shouting from

thank you for so eloquently describing your opinion.

 

[Pure]

For Angelic:

There is a somewhat more solid account of Kerry's antiwar activities at

http://www.latimes.com/features/pri...23,1,1273166.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine

It's an article by Nicosia, in the LA Times, with much material on the FBI surveillance of the veterans' activities.

It begins:

Sen. John Kerry's struggle for leadership of a Vietnam veterans antiwar group in 1971 ended with his resignation at a stormy meeting in Kansas City, where militants advocated violence against the U.S.

As to the borrowed material you posted without citing a source,

For example:

{Angelic's material from ??, excerpts:}

29 Jun 1971 John Kerry gave a speech at the Philadelphia, PA YMCA praising Ho Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam, still a declared enemy of the United States, while serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive).

22 July 1971 While serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), John Kerry called a press conference in Washington, DC and speaking on behalf of VVAW, Kerry openly urged President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's seven point plan, actually a surrender document.

12 Nov 1971 - 14 Nov 1971 While serving as a member of the Naval Reserve (Inactive), John Kerry served as a leader and one of five steering committee members at a VVAW strategic planning meeting in Kansas City, Missouri.

This stuff--several thousand word barrage--is pretty much vintage right wing material from the sixties and early seventies: You could have saved your readers some time: You believe the antiwar leaders, esp. returned soldiers, were a bunch of traitors and scoundrels, if not actual communists, who should have been thrown in prison for long terms.

Of course no attorney general, even under Nixon proposed doing that, but that just shows the commie influences at the highest levels, both in the military, and in the Administration.

Had you been AG, some of these folks would have been shot as traitors. (Somehow you were never nominated.)

We're fortunate to have your continuing vigilance, since some of these same pinko scum cowards are now after our brave and resolute Commander in Chief.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

There is a somewhat more solid account of Kerry's antiwar activities at

http://www.latimes.com/features/pri...23,1,1273166.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine

Solid in whose eyes? Yours? Good link ... if i wanted to sign up for premium access to the LA Times.

As to the borrowed material you posted without citing a source ...

When you become a member of the courts here in the US and demand my source, i'll politely tell you at that time. When you become a moderator at Lit and Lit changes policy, i'll give you the same answer. Until then, you get the short version. Not everyone goes to Goggle, or wherever you think you found

vintage right wing material from the sixties and early seventies

As for

You could have saved your readers some time

if you wasted yours, i'm heartbroken.

You believe the antiwar leaders, esp. returned soldiers, were a bunch of traitors and scoundrels, if not actual communists, who should have been thrown in prison for long terms.

Of course no attorney general, even under Nixon proposed doing that, but that just shows the commie influences at the highest levels, both in the military, and in the Administration.

Had you been AG, some of these folks would have been shot as traitors. (Somehow you were never nominated.)

We're fortunate to have your continuing vigilance, since some of these same pinko scum cowards are now after our brave and resolute Commander in Chief.

No, i believe nothing of the sort, and as usual, your attempt to put your logic test on the words of someone else came up short.

For each stage of military duty, other than full retirement, or separation from service, an individual swears an oath specific to his/her branch. From 3 Jan 1970 through 16 Feb 1978, Kerry had certain obligations by statute that precluded him from membership and activities in other groups.

It boils down to this, and let's hope you can stay with the simple version.

• He joined the Navy and served in war time. That makes him a sailor and a war veteran.
• He protested the same war while still in the military and with full knowledge of his responsibilities as a sailor. That makes him a liar and a hypocrite.
• He expects either group, veteran or activist, to accept his "Reporting for duty," based on his service record. That makes him a short order cook at the Waffle House.

 

[Pure]

Angelic,

The LA Times is free for access.

Let's keep it simple indeed.

You said, Kerry was a traitor, and subject to prosecution, both civil and military:

Angelic's cribbed note:
Problem: Kerry violated two important legal provisions by this action: 1.)18 U.S.C. section 953 the provision against negotiating with foreign powers, and 2.) Article III, Section 3, the provision against giving support to the nation's enemies during wartime. i won't go into his violations of the UCMJ.

That leaves the slight problem why, in the Nixon administration, no one prosecuted him, including the military prosecutors. No doubt they had deals with the commies too, right?

I guess the US and military justice system missed out on your expertise.

Of course there would have had to be hundreds of prosecutions, and no doubt 'aid and comfort' to the enemy carries a life sentence or death penalty.

You must be greatly disappointed that no one was shot for these crimes.

Your new condensed point:

He protested the same war while still in the military and with full knowledge of his responsibilities as a sailor. That makes him a liar and a hypocrite.

Where's the traitor and criminal talk? Dropped? That's wise.

Now it's 'hypocrisy.' Many ex military folks joined the antiwar effort. You never quite figured that war out, I guess. Even McNamara has gotten a clue these days, but you're stuck in the 70s; you can only sling mud at protesters of an ill conceived, criminally conducted, and unsuccessful war.

And for some reason it's supposed to redound to the credit of the non-serving bozo seeking re-election.

 

[Netzach]

war is a complicated picture with a lot of players.

I don't think it suffices to say "this person was there, they understand, this person wasn't they are talking out their ass."

I trust the geopolitical observations of a lot of people who never went to war over those of my late stepfather, a vietnam vet.

Additionally, the experience of someone digging foxholes versus someone doing laundry versus a nurse...these experiences and conclusions are all going to be so drastically different that they can't really be taken as "the truth" ....war is a very large elephant with a lot of blind caretakers.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Let's keep it simple indeed.

Cut and paste the article. Can't get much simpler than that.

You said, Kerry was a traitor ...

You believe the antiwar leaders, esp. returned soldiers, were a bunch of traitors ... these folks would have been shot as traitors.

Where's the traitor ... talk?

At no point in any of my posts did i call him a traitor. Another instance of you attempting to put your words in someone's mouth.

That leaves the slight problem why, in the Nixon administration, no one prosecuted him, including the military prosecutors. No doubt they had deals with the commies too, right? ... I guess the US and military justice system missed out on your expertise.

Of course there would have had to be hundreds of prosecutions, and no doubt 'aid and comfort' to the enemy carries a life sentence or death penalty.

You must be greatly disappointed that no one was shot for these crimes.

Nice try, but no score. You'd have to ask those responsible for prosecution at that time the political reasons for not prosecuting. You know them as well as i do, i would imagine. Why the hang-up with commie? At no point in any of my postings did i use the word commie other than to quote you. As for the rest of your post ... not at all. i would have settled for a BCD special and suspended felony conviction, but then i'm a lenient individual.

Your new condensed point: ... Where's the ... criminal talk?

Try again. i made the same point. Under the UCMJ, lying carries a felony weight conviction as does Article 133.

Many ex military folks joined the antiwar effort.

Exactly and thank you for making my point. At the time in question, Lieutenant Kerry still served in the military. As such, he still held the rank, privilege and responsibilities of a commissioned officer in the US Navy Reserves.

You never quite figured that war out, I guess. Even McNamara has gotten a clue these days, but you're stuck in the 70s; you can only sling mud at protesters of an ill conceived, criminally conducted, and unsuccessful war.

Sorry, most folks that remained, and those that joined after that war figured it out rather well. The executive branch, with the input of SECDEF, the JCoS, and myriad other agencies conceives strategic goals before, during, and after combat. Military commanders in theater plan and execute the tactical objectives to achieve the strategic goals. Always have an exit strategy and realize nation building is a bitch. i could excuse slick Willie for firing Tomahawks at an empty command and control building. All of us exercised great discipline to find empty rooms to laugh our asses off rather than doing it publically. If you'd like any further instruction in military operations of the 21st century, sign up for a military history or ROTC class at a local college. Tangent complete, BOT.

As for slinging of mud at protestors? No, i believe they had every right to protest, to include ex-military personnel. My only problem with a war protestor concerns an individual still in the military at that time. He conducted himself in a manner not commensurate with military duty. Now he wants everyone to believe he's better CinC material for his actions while in the military.

And for some reason it's supposed to redound to the credit of the non-serving bozo seeking re-election.

Again, your words, not mine. i have no desire to see another four years of Bush, but definitely don't want Kerry as a replacement.

 

[Pure]

Let's stay on your accusation, Angelic,

Angelic's cribbed note:

Problem: Kerry violated two important legal provisions by this action: 1.)18 U.S.C. section 953 the provision against negotiating with foreign powers, and 2.) Article III, Section 3, the provision against giving support to the nation's enemies during wartime. i won't go into his violations of the UCMJ.

While you didn't use the word 'traitor', you stated the above, bolded phrase, which is, iirc, virtually the definition of treason, if more than just words are involved.

Another phrase relevant and more specific regarding 'support', is 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' (which I infer you'd be happy to apply). Again a definition of treason, and in the UCMJ, probably an offense meriting death, if commited by a soldier involved in military action.

You also accused of treason when you asserted that Kerry endorsed what amounts to an 'surrender' (of the US) proposal from the communists at war with the US:

Angelic quoting unnamed source, endorsing it:
speaking on behalf of VVAW, Kerry openly urged President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's seven point plan, actually a surrender document.

I did link a person's doing treason, to his being a traitor. The last word is not yours--you merely insinute it-- but that seems a fair and reasonable move, since 'traitor' means "one who acts disloyally, to his country."

You have the same problem: No military prosecutor, or any attorney general saw it your way, ie., was willing to act. Maybe they're scared and you're so very bold, or they're ignorant and you're smart, but it didn't happen.

If you know of an act of treason, report it. Get back to us.


Your soulmate Cheney is doing the same thing these days, saying war criticism is endangering troups or giving comfort to terrorists. This is good, effective right wing drivel. Fine for mud slinging, but everyone knows it can't go to court. This is the same as with Kerry and your accusations. Your overheated rhetoric is not--and never has been-- sustainable in its proper forum, and probably even you know it.

 

[uptoplay2]

9/11 Report aside

Tell me how it is that our government officials can go to meetings prior to 9/11 where the threat of a 9/11 attacks is part of the security.

They know that plans are being made involving airlines.... however vague.... even if only for hijackings.

According to Condi, they have no clue what security the airlines have but didn't warn them. Said nothing. Left it up to a business... deregulated ..... to protect itself and us.

After 9/11 it took one month to secure the cockpit doors. Less time to change operating procedures involving giving other pilots a lift. Find a pilot friend and ask!

Tom Clancy had a book out.... a little best seller that describes the effect of an airliner crashing into the capital.... and yet they all sit and say they had no idea that this could be done? Sure, no one in the administration reads Clancy...

Nothing could have been done? Or just not politically correct to warn anyone of dangers.

SO.... how long do we have to wait for another of Clancy's far fetched novels to be used against us?
Are we searching all the shipping containers that come into this country?? NOOOOO that's up to the companies doing the business. We're going to build a missile shield.... for 12 billion dollars so far... that won't work worth shit. Proof?? Bush isn't talking about it like it was the greatest accomplishment of his whole term. But, he is apparently happy with searching one out of twenty containers. They sure as hell don't have to be nuclear to shut down the entire world's trade.

Look up the costs on port security. Do your own research. Compare that number to our Star Wars approach. Ask yourself, how would YOU attack this country?

Then really look at Iraq. Why are we there?

You want the French on the ground? Give them back some of the oil contracts they lost. No? So our blood.... our money?? Think about it.

..... more crap........ MEN ON MARS??? Look up what would really be cool...****** Elevator. No shit.

 

[Netzach]

What he said, pretty much.

Undefended borders, undefended waterways, underdefended airliners, I get the feeling that as a civilian, I count for approximately 1 billionth of jack shit. I'm so glad we got Hussein. God can I sleep better now. Let's play "where's Osama" shall we?

 

[uptoplay2]

Osama.....

Let's talk about where most of the uncontroled nuclear substance would be found. How much have we spent getting rid of it vs charging around where there happens to be oil?

If it is about the oil. And if you go look at world oil reserves and forcasts.... you might decide that OPEC controling over 50% this decade was worthy of a war...... fine. .... just say it.

We've done nothing serious as a nation to get off our oil addiction. To the contrary, you will soon be able to buy your own monster truck for 93,000 dollars.

Great to have an Oil man in the office again!

So.... we're at war with the terrorists? This country still has no clue what war is really is. That's part of the reason the rest of the world fears us. Bush has not made us safer, but he sure as hell has gotten more people angry with us. Hell, he can even use that as a threat as to why we have to elect him again!

Let's happily forget who helped make OSAMA what he is. For that matter who made Saddam? Heck who watched the Kurds getting herded by gunships? Who didn't forcefully diplomatically tell Sadam to keep his ass out of Kuwait? And oh yeah, these new power guys in Iraq.... who was their buddy early on in their careers? Who's been paying them since they got on Sadam's bad side? SAME OLD SHIT. If anyone messed with our country as much as we do theirs.... then we'd have problems. I pray we can really hand them a democracy, but we are only creating more chaos.

 

[Hajar]

Re: 9/11 Report aside

Tom Clancy had a book out.... a little best seller that describes the effect of an airliner crashing into the capital.... and yet they all sit and say they had no idea that this could be done? Sure, no one in the administration reads Clancy...


Are we searching all the shipping containers that come into this country?? NOOOOO

I read the book, after 9/11 I thought the books might have been the catalyst for the actions.

As for the port thing the US has done nothing at home yet has forced many of the small islands where cruise ships go to up their security, many of them have spent millions that should have been used on social programs, when simple steps could have been taken, they of course went over board.

As for the voting thing, my household is voting Kerry, personal reasons like not being about to get the porn channel because of moral laws and the treatment of gay marriage, are factors.
But as a mixed household, made up of immigrants from 2 countries along with americans, we keep up with the actions of the US out side of the war, her dealings with our home countries and fellow nations, the handling of immigrants in the country.
And under Bush it's been sad.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the US ambassador to the Eastern Caribbean let it be known that if the leaders thought what happen with Ship Rider would happen with the war they were wrong.
Any Caribbean nation even sending a ambassador or leader to speak at the UN would have all funding for HIV pulled.
They expected nothing less than full support and there would be no speaking your mind on this topic.
This heavy handed treatment must stop, many of you might not know but there are less than 300 Montserrat nationals in this country that came after the Soufriere Hills Volcano made over 3/4's of the country uninhabitable, they were given temporary status to live, this was recently pulled and they have been told that they will have to leave the country by Feb 2005.
They have started lives only to be told that they must return to a waste land, many of them have had children here, it's just plain wrong.
It's actions like this, that gives my family reasons to vote Kerry, as other countries England and Canada inc allowed them to become citizens and make new lives, as it was obvious that their home land would be unable to sustain any type of economic growth.

Couple this with the eyes that seem to want to watch every action we do inc what goes on in our bedrooms, and I will be much more comfy with leaders with a hands off view of my sex life and more hands on as it comes to the future of the country.
My 2 cents

 

[Pure]

If you read the 9-11 commission report, you can see multiple warnings, and not merely scenes from Clancy novels.

Both Clinton and Bush failed to take the Islamic militants seriously enough, though some Clinton folks had a bead on Osama, and thought of assassinating him.

More extensive reading of mine has shown me errors dating back to the Carter administration, which never quite understood the problems involved in the fall of the Shah of Iran. Reagan in particular, besides selling arms to Iranians, supported the Iraqi attack on Iran, and lavishly funded it. Reagan was indirectly funding the mujihadeen in Afghanistan, in a proxy war with the Soviets, which was won, in a sense: Osama and Taliban forces took power. Bush Sr. was no bright light either, in switching from supporting Saddam, to attacking him.

The US is powerful and resourceful, but it's mideast policies are bungling, and, as they say 'reaping the whirlwind.' Oddly, Clinton, whipping boy of the conservatives didn't do so badly on mideast, but did fail to put enough effort into investigating groups like al qaeda.

The points above, about lack of homeland defense are pretty accurate: Bush has been diverted into deposing Saddam, and is apparently too much in bed with big business to try to control airline and port security, etc. My recent experience at airports suggest much of it is window dressing, like checking the nail scissors of my 80 year old mother.

 

[Pure]

This is for Angelic, out there in la-la-land where military folks who are critical of a military campaign are disloyal and treasonous** and ought to be prosecuted. A couple notes:

The present case involves a soldier on active Iraq duty Sergeant Lorentz, who wrote that Iraq was a fuckup and unwinnable.

The author suggests that there were few or maybe just one case in the Vietnam era (and none since); that case was partially reversed on appeal.

One expert doubts the present case of Lorentz will proceed.

In both cases, it's a little matter of the first amendment, 'free speech' rights, even for those in uniform, on active duty, which Kerry wasn't. Somehow this little 'right' is never mentioned by the Angelic legal expert. Perhaps he's not quite ready to become Attorney General.

-----

**in Angelic's exact words:
giving support to the nation's enemies during wartime


www.salon.com.

Operation American Repression?

An Army officer in Iraq who wrote a highly critical article on the administration's conduct of the war is being investigated for disloyalty -- if charged and convicted, he could get 20 years.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

[start]
Sept. 29, 2004 | An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.

The essay that sparked the military investigation is titled "Why We Cannot Win" and was posted Sept. 20 on the conservative antiwar Web site LewRockwell.com. Written by Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer from Texas with nearly 20 years in the Army who is serving in Iraq, the essay offers a bleak assessment of America's chances for success in Iraq.

"I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality," wrote Lorentz, who gives four key reasons for the likely failure: a refusal to deal with reality, not understanding what motivates the enemy, an overabundance of guerrilla fighters, and the enemy's shorter line of supplies and communication.

Lorentz's essay contains no classified information but does include a starkly critical evaluation of how the Bush administration has conducted the war. "Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality," Lorentz wrote. "It is tragic, indeed criminal, that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional."

The essay prompted a swift response from Lorentz's commanders. In an e-mail this week to Salon, Lorentz, declining to comment further on his piece, noted, "Because of my article, I am under investigation at this time for very serious charges which carry up to a 20-year prison sentence." According to Lorentz, the investigation is looking into whether his writing constituted a disloyalty crime under both federal statute (Title 18, Section 2388, of the U.S. Code) and Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

According to the UCMJ, examples of punishable statements by military personnel "include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."

Under UCMJ guidelines, the maximum punishment in the event of a conviction would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years.

Prosecutions are rare, however, says Grant Lattin, a military lawyer and retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, because members of the military "have the constitutional right to express their opinions pertaining to the issues before the public. Short of there being classified material and security issues, people can write letters about military subjects. If you look at the Army Times, you'll see letters from people on active duty complaining about this and that."

For instance, in September 2003, Tim Predmore, an active-duty soldier with the 101st Airborne Division, based in northern Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his hometown newspaper, the Peoria Journal Star in Illinois. "For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom," Predmore's letter began. "From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned," he continued, labeling the war "the ultimate atrocity" before concluding, "I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies."

Going beyond the UCMJ and prosecuting disloyalty as a federal crime is "extraordinarily rare," Lattin says, noting that the last published case was in 1970, in U.S. vs. William Harvey. Under Title 18, Section 2388, it's a crime, punishable up to 20 years in prison, "when the United States is at war, [and a person] willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States."

In the Harvey case, a Vietnam-era soldier was accused of making disloyal statements by urging a fellow soldier not to fight in Vietnam. "Why should the black man go to Vietnam and fight the white man's war and then come back and have to fight the white man," Harvey told the soldier, adding that he "was not going to fight in Vietnam and neither should [you]." The case was brought before the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which noted "the language of the comments were on the line between rhetoric and disloyalty," as well as the fact that "disagreement with, or objection to, a policy of the Government is not necessarily indicative of disloyalty to the United States." The court alternately upheld and reversed portions of Harvey's conviction for disloyalty.

As for Lorentz's case, Lattin, who served as a Marine judge advocate, says it's not uncommon for commanders to threaten soldiers with legal action in order to make a point: "If they know there's an offense for a disloyal statement, I wouldn't be surprised if he said, 'Knock it off.'" Lattin doubts that in the end Lorentz will face prosecution for his writings. "After this gets to lawyers and prosecutors who think about the consequences and the First Amendment, I don't think this will go anywhere."
[end verbatim]
- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.