Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Mr. T for President!
Posted: Tue Aug 24 00:07:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  title meant as a satire, but there's a picture out there somewhere. i'll find it when i get home from work or something.

but consider this: when did the presidency start being about who was the bigger war hero? I'll vote for the better politician, not the better swift-boat commander or better air national guard pilot.

please don't retort me with something along these lines:

"but Kerry did a bad job commanding his swift boat, so he'll do a bad job as commander in chief of the country. they go hand in hand." *

bullshit. that's like saying a kid who was great at hopscotch as a kid will be a tremendous long-jumper.


listen, I respected Clinton in the nineties because he made viable reasoning for his dodging the draft in vietnam; he didn't agree with it. Lincoln said it: "When a people stops questionning it's government, then the country truly is dead".

so do your best to put aside the contest for "best military badass"; this isn't about who's better in the line of fire, otherwise Mr. T would win hands down.

Stop showing me purple hearts. Stop showing me your record in the air national guard.

show me social change to a degree of decent equality. show me a tax agenda that benefits more than the richest 1.8%. show me the ability to coincide with more than a 2-party system; stop saying that "a vote for Nader is as good as a vote for (insert main rival's name here)". show me political prowess, knowledge of the foundation of a federal legal system, and a philosophy that works with a sense of global prosperity.

that'll buy my vote.



_____

*(not that i necessarily believe that he did poorly as as swiftboat commander, just that that's the latest buzz in the media)


 
antartica Posted: Tue Aug 24 00:20:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hell yeah! i'd vote for Mr.T


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 24 00:48:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm a lazy.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Aug 24 00:57:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey, something smart, funny, and right! Who'd have thunk it?


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue Aug 24 01:05:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mr. T will only get my vote if Murdock is his running mate...

Though it would be fun to see him at a press conference shouting "I pity the poor fool."

I saw the other day while watching Left behind the movie. That he is in some christian thrillers. I almost wet my pants thinking about him saying..."I pity the poor fool who don't believe in god."


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Aug 24 01:29:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  B.A. Barracas won't be a good candidate. He has a horrible fear of flying, therefore he must be severely drugged before boarding Air Force One.


 
antartica Posted: Tue Aug 24 01:37:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i just realised i really have this thing for girls wearing caps. with their pony tail sticking out the back...


 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 02:44:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oy.
i think i might have made a mistake in hoping for serious discussion or criticism with a title like that.


 
girl Posted: Tue Aug 24 03:56:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  if i was of voting age...and an american...then that speech would have blown my mind.
in fact it sort of did anyway.
i agree, hats off (if i was wearing a hat) to you crim.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 07:17:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>title meant as a satire, but there's a picture out there somewhere. i'll find it when i get home from work or something.
>
>but consider this: when did the presidency start being about who was the bigger war hero? I'll vote for the better politician, not the better swift-boat commander or better air national guard pilot.
>
>please don't retort me with something along these lines:
>
>"but Kerry did a bad job commanding his swift boat, so he'll do a bad job as commander in chief of the country. they go hand in hand." *
>
It's not about whether or not he was a good swiftboat commander, it's about his honesty. As recently as a few weeks ago he was still lying about Christmas in Cambodia, he knew he was never there. And Nixon wasn't president at that time either.
>
>show me social change to a degree of decent equality. show me a tax agenda that benefits more than the richest 1.8%. show me the ability to coincide with more than a 2-party system; stop saying that "a vote for Nader is as good as a vote for (insert main rival's name here)". show me political prowess, knowledge of the foundation of a federal legal system, and a philosophy that works with a sense of global prosperity.
>
Yeah, do something, Kerry has done none of this, only promised it and has yet to say how it will get done.

>
>
>
>_____
>
>*(not that i necessarily believe that he did poorly as as swiftboat commander, just that that's the latest buzz in the media)


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 10:37:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The only reason people aren't talking about the issues is because of groups of liars that refuse to stop talking about it. Republicans know that every day not spent talking about the miserable economy or hellhole in Iraq is a good day for Bush. If we get into, I don't know, a debate over the issues, Bush is screwed.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 10:42:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey has anyone seen the clip of George Elliot (from the Swiftboat guys) standing next to John Kerry in 1996, praising him for his actions in Vietnam? But I'm sure his fingers were crossed.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 10:47:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's not about whether or not he was a good swiftboat commander, it's about his honesty. As recently as a few weeks ago he was still lying about Christmas in Cambodia, he knew he was never there. And Nixon wasn't president at that time either.

You've been yelling about this for a while, so I took a good ten seconds and, well,
http://www.slate.com/id/2105529/


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 24 10:51:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Like the Phoenix that Rises from the ashes.

So must the radical minds from the masses.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 10:55:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The real problem is that so many people are starting threads about this that hif is able to only post in the ones he has a shot and debating and with so many different things related to the Swiftboat Veterans it's getting chaotic... hey, sounds like a metaphor for the only reason these guys are actually being paid attention to.


 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 13:35:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  for your own personal dose of awesome, here is the Mr T for PresidenT campaign photo (courtesy of n8 @ n8itude.com)

http://www.n8itude.com/get/injected/myegallery.php?&do=showpic&pid=310&orderby=titleA


 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 13:46:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  but the awesomeness of the A-Team aside;

I've tried to be as fair to both conservative and liberal ideologies as possible with my initial post.

Truth be told, yes, I'm decidedly left-wing; but don't let that detract you from the point I'm trying to make here:

This isn't some gun-fight between candidates. What happened or did not happen in Vietnam, or what happened or did not happen in the texas air natn'l guard should not matter to nearly the extent that many other issues should.

The media's been having a 9-month field day with war records and military details. It occurs to me that not nearly enough people are paying attention to the severity of the decision at hand (voter apathy aside); their social and economic and political and legal stances.

and a Bush supporter casting the first stone about Kerry's honesty?

Perhaps we should reflect on Bush's Taliban Commentaries leading up to the State of the Union address in 2002. then we can talk about political honesty.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 14:01:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The reason for the Swiftboat Veterans thing is really because otherwise, the media would be talking about what matters and the Republicans don't want that. Has anyone heard about what's going on in Florida? Most haven't. One example - people were told that the electronic voting machines were error-proof, then Republicans were sent the message that they should use absentee ballots or write in ballots or whatever to make sure their votes were counted.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 15:22:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>The reason for the Swiftboat Veterans thing is really because otherwise, the media would be talking about what matters and the Republicans don't want that. Has anyone heard about what's going on in Florida? Most haven't. One example - people were told that the electronic voting machines were error-proof, then Republicans were sent the message that they should use absentee ballots or write in ballots or whatever to make sure their votes were counted.
>
blah blah blah, the reason for the discussion about Kerry's military record is because he made it his central theme for his campaign. He invited this scrutiny.
"reporting for duty" my ass !



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 15:25:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>>I've tried to be as fair to both conservative and liberal ideologies as possible with my initial post.
>
>Truth be told, yes, I'm decidedly left-wing; but don't let that detract you from the point I'm trying to make here:
>
>This isn't some gun-fight between candidates. What happened or did not happen in Vietnam, or what happened or did not happen in the texas air natn'l guard should not matter to nearly the extent that many other issues should.
>
>The media's been having a 9-month field day with war records and military details. It occurs to me that not nearly enough people are paying attention to the severity of the decision at hand (voter apathy aside); their social and economic and political and legal stances.
>
>and a Bush supporter casting the first stone about Kerry's honesty?
>
First stone ?
Where the hell were you when George Soros bequeathed a gazillion dollars to moveon.org ? Or when Fahrenehit 911 debuted ?
The swiftboat guys just got started in earnest a few weeks ago. Even then the media ignored them until the pressure for the truth became too great to ignore any longer.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 17:59:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey hif, wanna take a shot at the link about your so-called Cambodia lie?


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:03:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>blah blah blah, the reason for the discussion about Kerry's military record is because he made it his central theme for his campaign. He invited this scrutiny.

I meant the constant media discussion over a group that has repeatedly been debunked, and whose members have actually made claims have all been proven to be liars.


 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:22:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  can we... can we maybe turn this back into a discussion about why the presidential candidates are presenting themselves as war-heroes?

I can't really see the fact that it's just because republicans don't want the issue anywhere else; Kerry is willingly making himself out to look like a super-veteran.

what i DON'T want is for this to turn into one of the dozens of "my side of politicial spectrum is better than your side of the political spectrum" threads.


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:24:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kerry actually has been trying to get back to the issues, but it's kind of difficult when the media will only talk about the debunked Veterans for Rove.


 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:34:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>CriminalSaint said:
>>and a Bush supporter casting the first stone about Kerry's honesty?
>First stone ?
>Where the hell were you when George Soros bequeathed a gazillion dollars to moveon.org ? Or when Fahrenehit 911 debuted ?

was totally just talking about within this thread; i think you missed the context.

otherwise, Raegan was a dirty dishonest republican shmuck who only got to his place of power from his terrible acting career.

see? arguments off topic can go any which way. try to stick to the issues at hand.


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:37:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  well, I think a main stab against the democratic party is that they are not warhawks. They say stuff like Clinton did not go after Al Queda when he could have. In attempt to counter this, Kerry is showing that he too can be ruthless, violent and revert to the basic primal instincts of revenge and kill them before they kill you. I just hope he's not serious.


 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 18:56:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>well, I think a main stab against the democratic party is that they are not warhawks.

i hate that; i hate that it's a stab that the party is not one of warhawks.

i wish i could figure out why everybody seems bent on electing the war-skilled and agressive.

I live in Windsor, Canada (across from Detroit) but like i've said in other posts, I am an american citizen.

One thing that frightens me is that simply crossing over the border, the very nature of the word "liberal" changes.

In Windsor, it typically is used in a complimentary context.

In Detroit, always in a negative way.

I blame the Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis election for that one, though.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 19:49:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Hey hif, wanna take a shot at the link about your so-called Cambodia lie?
>
I'm pretty sure I already did, your rebuttal did nothing to say otherwise.
If this memory was "seared, seared into his head, why didn't he even know who the president was ?
Also, the author of your rebuttal doesn't know much about military documentation. If he was in Cambodia, somewhere there is a document that will say so. I worked for the national security agency when I was active duty and I know how they operate.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:02:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Kerry actually has been trying to get back to the issues, but it's kind of difficult when the media will only talk about the debunked Veterans for Rove.
>
Are you fucking crazy ? Kerry is the one who started this shit just so he wouldn't have to tackle any issues.
He cast the first stone when he questioned Dubya's service, then he made his whole fucking convention into a goddam war hero convention.
>
I meant the constant media discussion over a group that has repeatedly been debunked, and whose members have actually made claims have all been proven to be liars.
>
As for the above statement you've just proven yourself ignorant beyond all hope and demeaned several congressional medal of honor winners, not to mention hundreds of honorable men who served this country.
Not a single one has been proven to be a liar, although there have been one or two inconsistencies as you will find in Brinkley's book as well.
We're talking about 254 sailors and you're talking about one or two of them and saying all are liars.
You love Kerry so much you are willing to drink the sand for him.
>
In answer to you CriminalSaint, no one is hell bent on electing the war skilled. You have never, never heard Dubya brag about his service or his skill at waging war. Kerry is the one that invited this scrutiny. He is the one that made it a major issue.
As for the word "liberal'. Yes I agree with you. Liberal used to be a good thing in this country. But no longer.
If you go back to the days of Kennedy and Johnson, Liberalism ruled in this country. But things have changed, the democrats have changed to radical socialist leaning left wingers.
If Kennedy was alive today, he would be a republican. This is not just a casual observation. Kennedy stood for the things republicans stand for now, a strong military, lower taxes, and strong against communism.
Jimmy Carter was the turning point. He was perhaps the worst president this country ever had. Oddly enough, he may be one of the best ex-presidents we've ever had as well.



 
simonvii Posted: Tue Aug 24 20:28:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Kerry actually has been trying to get back to the issues, but it's kind of difficult when the media will only talk about the debunked Veterans for Rove.

the only thing ive heard kerry talk about is how we all need health care- but he didnt say how...then he said he'd give more jobs and higher pay- but he didnt say how...kerry spent only 26 seconds at the democratic convention talking about his senate record, yet spent much more time than that discussing the current administrations faults and his military history...military history is a big issue because kerry based his whole campaign on it from the beginning...

side note: bush has (multiple times) praised kerry for his military service publically, kerry however said (at least twice that ive heard from sound bites concerning bush):"he cant even prove he showed up for service ha ha ha"...the only issues kerry says are opposite opinions of bush...im not pro-bush, but i definitely believe he's got more class than kerry


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:07:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Educate yourself:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:15:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Hey hif, wanna take a shot at the link about your so-called Cambodia lie?
>
An excerpt from "Unfit for Command" by John Oneill:

Christmas in “Cambodia”
Vietnam, December 1968

JOHN KERRY’S STORY

If there is one story told over and over again by John Kerry since his return from Vietnam, it is the heart-wrenching tale of how he spent Christmas Eve and Christmas Day illegally in Cambodia. From the early 1970s, when he used the tale as part of his proof for war crimes in Cambodia, through the mid-1980s and the 1990s, Kerry has spoken and written again and again of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia.

On the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986, Kerry launched one of his many attacks against President Reagan—this time charging that President Reagan’s actions in Central America were leading the United States into yet another Vietnam, claiming that he could recognize the error of the administration’s ways because he had experienced firsthand the duplicity of the Nixon administration in lying about American incursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Kerry charged that he had been illegally ordered into Cambodia during Christmas 1968:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared—seared—in me. Kerry also described, for example, for the Boston Herald his vivid memories of his Christmas Eve spent in Cambodia:

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. As recently as July 7, 2004, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe repeated Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia story on FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes, indicating that it was a critical turning point in Kerry’s life. Kranish had no knowledge, even after his extensive study of Kerry, that he was simply repeating a total fabrication by Kerry. And Kranish was right: Study of the Christmas in Cambodia story is central to understanding John Kerry.

The story is also in the pages of the 2004 biography written by Krahish and other Boston Globe reporters. As we have come to expect, the story is twisted at the end to provide justification for yet another of Kerry’s political ruses, this time used to justify what Kerry portrays as his noble and continuing distrust of government pronouncements:

To top it off, Kerry said later that he had gone into Cambodia, despite President Nixon’s assurances to the American public that there was no combat action in this neutral territory. The young sailor began to develop a deep mistrust of the U.S. government pronouncements, he later recalled. Even without minimal investigation, a critical press should have been able to spot the story as a total fabrication: Richard Nixon did not become president of the United States until twenty-six days after John Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED: CHRISTMAS IN VIETNAM

Despite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry’s statements are complete lies. Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. In reality, during Christmas 1968, he was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia. Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there.

During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border. A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared.

All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command—Joe Streuhli (Commander of CosDiv 13), George Elliott (Commander of CosDiv 11), Adrian Lonsdale (Captain, USCG and Commander, Coastal Surveillance Center at An Thoi), Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (Commander, Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam, CTF 115), and Rear Admiral Art Price (Commander of River Patrol Force, CTF 116)—deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s PCF 44 boat—Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner—deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. The remaining two crewmen declined to be interviewed for this book. Gardner, in particular, will never forget those days in late December when he was wounded on PCF 44, not in Cambodia, but many miles away in Vietnam. The Cambodia incursion story is not included in Tour of Duty. Instead, Kerry replaces the story with a report about a mortar attack that occurred on Christmas Eve 1968 “near the Cambodia border” in a town called Sa Dec, some fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border.

Somehow, Kerry’s secret illegal mission to Cambodia, which here counted on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1986, is now a firefight at Sa Dec and a Christmas day spent back at the base writing entries in his journal.

The truth is that Kerry made up his secret mission into Cambodia. Much like Kerry’s many other lies relating to supposed “war crimes” committed by the U.S. military in Vietnam, the lie about the illegal Cambodian incursion painted his superiors up the chain of command—men such as Commander Streuhli, Commander Elliott, Admiral Hoffmann, and Admiral Zumwalt, all distinguished Naval heroes and men of integrity—as villains faced down by John Kerry, a solitary hero in grave and exotic danger and forced illegally and against his will into harm’s way.

The same sorts of lies were repeated over and over in Kerry’s antiwar book, The New Soldier, a book filled with preposterous, false confessions of bogus war crimes committed by the participants (who were often not even real veterans) against their will and under orders from dishonest superiors. Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia typifies the sort of lie upon which Kerry has built a false persona and a political career. The story of Christmas 1968 has one final chapter. When refueling his PCF near Dong Tam, Kerry and his crew were told that the Bob Hope USO show was at the Dong Tam base. So Kerry decided to leave his station on the river and go searching for the Bob Hope Christmas show. Unable to find the show, he risked boat and crew by unknowingly blundering into one of the most dangerous canals in Vietnam, a canal that to those who knew the area was notorious for Viet Cong ambushes. Given the easy navigation by radar and map of the rivers involved—not much more difficult than driving a car—Kerry had just performed a feat of reverse navigation worthy of Wrong Way Corrigan.

There is, of course, no record that Kerry ever informed anyone of what he did, where he was, or where he was going—all required by regulations for the safety of the boat and crew. He did, however, record the Bob Hope adventure in his journal so he could be sure to share it in Tour of Duty.




 
Posted: Tue Aug 24 22:53:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christ.

Hif, it's people like you that make the presidential election a war-record race.

If you could negate the entire idea of this thread any further, I'd be surprised.




 
Mesh Posted: Tue Aug 24 23:02:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Whatever.

Bob Saget '04!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 07:02:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>Christ.
>
>Hif, it's people like you that make the presidential election a war-record race.
>
>If you could negate the entire idea of this thread any further, I'd be surprised.
>
Really ? Seems to me that Kerry is the one that started all this. What was with that film he showed at his convention ? What was all that crap about his medals ? What was that salute and "reporting for duty" quote ?
He's the one that is running on his war record, and now he's paying the price.
Are you not interested in whether or not the man has been lying all these years and is still lying about it ?


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 25 09:28:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:

>Truth be told, yes, I'm decidedly left-wing;


You,ve been hit by
You’ve been struck by
A smooth CriminalSaint
(Alien Ant Farm)

Are you okay, Hiffy?


 
libra Posted: Wed Aug 25 10:15:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:

>
>You,ve been hit by
>You’ve been struck by
>A smooth CriminalSaint
>(Alien Ant Farm)
>
>Are you okay, Hiffy?

Hi Addi! It's good to see you.


 
addi Posted: Wed Aug 25 10:31:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hi, Libra. It's always good to see you : )

Nice photo. It has a naughty nasty feel to it..or maybe that's just my male mind.
Mars is high on goof balls I think. You are divine.


 
libra Posted: Wed Aug 25 10:34:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Hi, Libra. It's always good to see you : )
>
>Nice photo. It has a naughty nasty feel to it..or maybe that's just my male mind.
>Mars is high on goof balls I think. You are divine.

hahaha. Thanks addi. Actually, I agree with marsteller...but i'm not going to argue with anyone telling me something nice about my picture.
I hope everything's going well with you!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 11:22:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Vets vs. Kerry on Vietnam: Part II
Thomas Sowell


August 25, 2004

In addition to two key books about John Kerry -- Douglas Brinkley's pro-Kerry book "Tour of Duty" and John O'Neill's anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command" -- there is another book that would be well worth reading -- if you can find a copy.

It is John Kerry's own book, written in 1971, titled "The New Soldier." It is out of print and Senator Kerry will not let it be reprinted.

The book's front cover shows protesters carrying the American flag upside down, and inside are photos of members of Kerry's group -- Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- with clenched fist salutes and some of the guys done up to look like Che Guevara.

Also included are photographs of Ramsey Clark, who was a lawyer for Kerry's group. Clark went to North Vietnam and returned to report that American prisoners of war were being well treated there. Those POWs who were finally released after the war told a very different and very bitter story.

No wonder Kerry doesn't want his 1971 book reprinted during an election year. It would not fit in with the image he is trying to create today.

Those in the media who are looking for some kind of political conspiracy to explain why so many Vietnam veterans have organized into a group that has come out publicly against Kerry are overlooking the very obvious fact of what Kerry himself said and did when he returned to the United States after his abbreviated tour of combat duty in Vietnam.

Kerry was not simply part of the "anti-war" movement of the 1960s. Many of us opposed the Vietnam war then for a variety of reasons. What Kerry did was accuse Americans still fighting in Vietnam of widespread atrocities on a daily basis, atrocities authorized all the way up the chain of command, atrocities committed for racial reasons, doing things to the Vietnamese that we would never do to Europeans.

This will no doubt come as some surprise to those Germans whose cities were fire-bombed to rubble in World War II. In John Kerry's speeches and public appearances, however, he said that Americans deliberately killed innocent Vietnamese civilians, raped Vietnamese women wholesale and had "free-fire zones" where troops were under orders to shoot anything that moved.

Decades later, Kerry is now trying to back away from some of those statements, saying that they were the words of "an angry young man." Anger is one thing. Lies are another. If what Kerry said was true then, it is still true now. And if it was a lie then, it is still a lie. His anger cannot change that.

Back then, many in the media repeated such sweeping charges without proof being asked for or given. They disregarded other Vietnam vets who flatly contradicted what Kerry and other activists were saying. The Senate committee that gave Kerry's testimony national publicity refused to allow John O'Neill, who served in the same unit, to testify with a contrary view.

John O'Neill defines free-fire zones as "discretion to fire first if threatened or when confronting enemy forces," rather than waiting to be fired on first. Surely there is some official definition of free-fire zones and some military experts and military historians around to say what it has meant in practice. But the media show no interest in seeking such facts.

What John Kerry and many similar 1960s activists said, amplified by the media, created an atmosphere in which men who had risked their lives for this country in Vietnam returned to find themselves pariahs in their native land, denounced as "baby killers" and spat upon.

A veteran named William Franke said: "I will tell you in all candor that the only baby killer I knew in Vietnam was John F. Kerry."

Do you wonder that these veterans are bitter at what Kerry said about them and horrified at the thought that he might become President of the United States? Is it necessary to dream up some conspiracy theory to explain what they are doing?

America's reputation suffered lasting damage, making it harder to gain international cooperation in life and death struggles, then and now. But Senator Kerry seems to care no more about the repercussions of his words today than he did then.





 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 12:00:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm a little confused and need something set straight - hif, did you say somewhere (I can't remember) that Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia on a swiftboat because that's not what patrolled it or something like that?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:08:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Okay, I think I've got it - John O'Neill said Kerry couldn't have been to Cambodia because that would have gotten him courtmartialed and that it was impossible and etc...

One problem - someone found an instance where O'Neill was talking to Richard Nixon while being recorded. Here's what was said:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:09:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And while I'm at it, I found this:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth['s]... Web site shows a photo of Kerry with 19 officers from his division. The group said only one man in the picture, Skip Barker, supports Kerry. Rich McCann and Rich Baker are among four listed as “neutral.”

But McCann, 60, a consultant from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, said he told the group he was neutral about whether it used his picture. “I was never neutral about (Kerry) as president,” he said. “If the question is whether John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief, my answer is absolutely.”

Baker, 61, now a baker by trade, says he was never contacted by the group, perhaps because he recently moved to Pittsburgh. Kerry is “very well fit for command,” he said. “He was one of the most courageous and aggressive swift boat captains in the division.”


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:16:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Okay, I think I've got it - John O'Neill said Kerry couldn't have been to Cambodia because that would have gotten him courtmartialed and that it was impossible and etc...
>
>One problem - someone found an instance where O'Neill was talking to Richard Nixon while being recorded. Here's what was said:
>
>O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
>
>NIXON: In a swift boat?
>
>O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
>
So What ? None of that means that Kerry was in Cambodia in Dec 1968.
And Nixon was not president in Dec 1968, so he could not have ordered Kerry to be there.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:19:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>And while I'm at it, I found this:
>
>Swift Boat Veterans for Truth['s]... Web site shows a photo of Kerry with 19 officers from his division. The group said only one man in the picture, Skip Barker, supports Kerry. Rich McCann and Rich Baker are among four listed as “neutral.”
>
>But McCann, 60, a consultant from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, said he told the group he was neutral about whether it used his picture. “I was never neutral about (Kerry) as president,” he said. “If the question is whether John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief, my answer is absolutely.”
>
>Baker, 61, now a baker by trade, says he was never contacted by the group, perhaps because he recently moved to Pittsburgh. Kerry is “very well fit for command,” he said. “He was one of the most courageous and aggressive swift boat captains in the division.”
>
Where did you get this info ?
Not that it matters - it only means that he might have 9 or 10 guys in support instead of 8 or 9.
What about the fact that every single Commmanding officer he served under says he is unfit ?
What is your response to my cut and paste job above ?



 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:22:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So What ? None of that means that Kerry was in Cambodia in Dec 1968.
>And Nixon was not president in Dec 1968, so he could not have ordered Kerry to be there.

So John O'Neill completely lies and that doesn't indicate anything about the Swiftboat Veterans. So far every one that has actually given some sort of evidence against Kerry has been debunked, or what they say is unlikely and only substantiated by them saying it. Have any of them not lied about this? Why should we be believing them?

All you seem to have against Kerry that is true is that he mispoke about Nixon, and I don't think you want to go there.


I was rereading something you said about Kerry inviting this criticism, which has been well-established as false. People have been acting like using one's military service is bad. Well, Bob Dole did it in '96. George Bush (the first one) did it versus Dukakis - speaking of which, when people spoke out against Bush' record, Dukakis condemned them.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:24:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif, honestly, as anyone with specifics and all the high up people in the Swiftboat Veterans group has been shown to be a habitual liar, I don't feel the need to address any more of this krap.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 13:33:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Its' okay, hif. Let it all out. Nobody here is trying to hurt you.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 14:15:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>So What ? None of that means that Kerry was in Cambodia in Dec 1968.
>>And Nixon was not president in Dec 1968, so he could not have ordered Kerry to be there.
>
>So John O'Neill completely lies and that doesn't indicate anything about the Swiftboat Veterans. So far every one that has actually given some sort of evidence against Kerry has been debunked, or what they say is unlikely and only substantiated by them saying it. Have any of them not lied about this? Why should we be believing them?
>
Your are full of shit as usual, exactly where did John O'Neill lie ?
>
>All you seem to have against Kerry that is true is that he mispoke about Nixon, and I don't think you want to go there.
>
Kerry was not, could not have been in Camodia on Christmas Eve 1968.
>
>I was rereading something you said about Kerry inviting this criticism, which has been well-established as false. People have been acting like using one's military service is bad. Well, Bob Dole did it in '96. George Bush (the first one) did it versus Dukakis - speaking of which, when people spoke out against Bush' record, Dukakis condemned them.
>
Totally wrong again. Show me where Dole touted his record or Bush for that matter.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 14:16:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>>I was rereading something you said about Kerry inviting this criticism, which has been well-established as false.
>
Well established as false ?
Where do you get this fucking shit ?


 
Posted: Wed Aug 25 14:37:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  as bad as anybody's been for coming off as a war president, it's Bush Jr. himself.

Shows up in full uniform and salutes cameras on the SS (can't remember at the moment, stuck at work) with the overly large "Mission Accomplished" sign overhead?

Bush has been pushing the iraq war, and to a lesser extent, the anti-Afghanistan movements as success on his part, I would say blowing his own horn on these subjects harder than Kerry has been showing off his veteran status.

So they're guilty. they're both guilty of warmongering and the the showing off thereof, at least to some extent. I really hope that we can stop with the who's a bigger liar argument now.

My question now, is; Can you put the war records aside and vote for one of the two based on their political stances? on their ability to run a nation?

I urge you to educate yourselves on more than who would do better as a war president.

Learn to build your own economy, then worry about the middle east. or N. Korea. et cetera.

nation building when the nation is not yours has no place at the top of the president's "things to do" list.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:02:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Zacq said:
>>>I was rereading something you said about Kerry inviting this criticism, which has been well-established as false.
>>
>Well established as false ?
>Where do you get this fucking shit ?

That's it hif, just take it easy. Get it all out. The rage is trying to control you hif.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:03:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>as bad as anybody's been for coming off as a war president, it's Bush Jr. himself.
>
>Shows up in full uniform and salutes cameras on the SS (can't remember at the moment, stuck at work) with the overly large "Mission Accomplished" sign overhead?
>
Well, Dubya is a war president, how bout that ? The carrier landing was a great thrill for the troops and sailors, and it was mission accomplished for them. Their mission was the overthrow of Saddams regime.
The performed exceedingly well.

>Bush has been pushing the iraq war, and to a lesser extent, the anti-Afghanistan movements as success on his part, I would say blowing his own horn on these subjects harder than Kerry has been showing off his veteran status.
>
Yes, the major theme of Bush's re-election campaign has been the success of the war on terror, and in the minds of most Americans this is the most important issue, though not the only issue in the campaign.
He has turned the economy around nicely and has a pretty good start on homeland security.
>
>So they're guilty. they're both guilty of warmongering and the the showing off thereof, at least to some extent. I really hope that we can stop with the who's a bigger liar argument now.
>
I don't understand, what did Bush lie about ?
>
>My question now, is; Can you put the war records aside and vote for one of the two based on their political stances? on their ability to run a nation?
>
>I urge you to educate yourselves on more than who would do better as a war president.
>
>Learn to build your own economy, then worry about the middle east. or N. Korea. et cetera.
>
Actually you need to protect yourself first before you can do anything else, unless someone else is providing protection for you.
>
>nation building when the nation is not yours has no place at the top of the president's "things to do" list.
>
Well since it was necessary to knock off the Saddam regime, and the Taliban, would you suggest that we just pack up and leave ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:05:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Zacq said:
>>>>I was rereading something you said about Kerry inviting this criticism, which has been well-established as false.
>>>
>>Well established as false ?
>>Where do you get this fucking shit ?
>
>That's it hif, just take it easy. Get it all out. The rage is trying to control you hif.
>
yeah, that's really good, so you can't answer the question, where do you get this "well established as false" bullshit ?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:09:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I don't understand, what did Bush lie about ?

"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Source: Bush Environmental Plan]

"I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide." - President Bush, 3/13/03


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:10:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [Source: White House Web site]

“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:11:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico." - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
More than three years into his tenure, Bush had spent a total of five days in Mexico and so neglected its affairs that even "Mexican President Vicente Fox...has been alienated." WP reported president's meeting with his onetime friend at a summit in Bangkok would be "their first in a year." - Washington Post, 10/17/03


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:13:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  “The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership.” - George Bush [White House Web site]

According to Amnesty International’s 2003 annual report, “The world has become more dangerous, and governments more repressive, since the effort to fight terrorism began after the 9/11, attacks on the United States.” For the U.S. specifically, “Since March, 353 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, including 229 in hostile fire.” - NY Times, 5/29/03; CNN, 10/28/03


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:15:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  “I’ve asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstruction…Others are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid Conference…The Iraqi oil revenues – excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference.” - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]


The World Bank and the UN estimate that $56 billion over four years is necessary to rebuild Iraq – leaving the total pledged by the U.S. and others (counting loans) $23 billion dollars short of what is required. The top civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, told Congress in September that “for the next two years, whatever revenue was reaped from oil production would not exceed the cost of Iraq's day-to-day operating expenses.” In 2005 he estimated “a surplus of only $4 million to $5 million.” - LA Times, 10/26/03; NY Times, 10/5/03


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:17:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "I made it clear that a [diplomatic] process had gone on way before I made the decision to use military force.” - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]


According to Bush’s State Department Director of Policy and Planning Richard Haas, the decision to go to war had been made by July of 2002 – 8 months before the invasion. When asked whether there was a particular moment when he realized war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi…She said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.” - New Yorker, 3/31/03

Time reported in May (2002) that in late March of 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney told Senators “The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq...The only question was when." - Time, 5/6/02

By the way, these are courtesy of the Center for American Progress


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:19:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
"The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished." - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]


According to testimony from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 10/16/03 the Bush Administration had deployed 1 soldier for every 189 people in Iraq, and 1 soldier for every 1,913 people in Afghanistan. Both were dramatically worse ratios than Kosovo (1 per 48), Bosnia (1 per 58) and East Timor (1 per 86)--the deployments of the Clinton years which Bush maligned during his campaign.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:23:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Almost forgot:

JOHN O'NEILL: The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made up story. He's told it over 50 times, George, that was on the floor of the Senate. He wrote articles about it, it was a malicious story because it painted all the guys above him, all of the commanding officers, in effect, as war criminals, that had ordered him into a neutral country, it was a lie.




O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:31:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>I don't understand, what did Bush lie about ?
>
>"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Source: Bush Environmental Plan]
>
>"I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide." - President Bush, 3/13/03


he then goes on to say how he thinks they should instead develop better technologies to keep it under control. it's not like he was just saying screw it it doesn't matter. if you have EVER been in a leadership position you'd know that you may go into a mission with a plan but chances are you'll have to change that plan over a period of time. maybe he actually has better intelligence into this matter than we do *gasp!* and he feels this would be the better alternative. but maybe you are right...perhaps people should just stick to their origional plans regardless of how things turn out...riiiight


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:33:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [Source: White House Web site]
>
>“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

this would have been a non-issue if saddam didn't keep kicking the inspectors out...if he would have just followed the UN sanctioned regulation on inspections we wouldn't have suspected him of having WMD. you notice Kay said that AFTER we'd already invaded and took over right? so of course we had better intelligence about his programs AFTER we took over the whole damn country


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:34:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>perhaps people should just stick to their origional plans regardless of how things turn out...riiiight

Many supposed instances of Kerry 'flip-flopping' can be viewed as not stubbornly sticking to one side.


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:35:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>"The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico." - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]
>
>Fact:
>More than three years into his tenure, Bush had spent a total of five days in Mexico and so neglected its affairs that even "Mexican President Vicente Fox...has been alienated." WP reported president's meeting with his onetime friend at a summit in Bangkok would be "their first in a year." - Washington Post, 10/17/03

yeah i'm sure the washington post knows exactly who the president is talking to at all times...


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:38:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I can see you need a little work on the meaning of verbs, so I'll do one you can't argue.

"Electricity is now more widely available than before the war." - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]


"In fact, according to the Coalition Provisional Authority Web site, daily nationwide electricity production for April averaged 3,822 megawatts -- a level markedly below the prewar average of about 4,500 megawatts." - San Francisco Chronicle, 4/2/04


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:40:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>“The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership.” - George Bush [White House Web site]
>
>According to Amnesty International’s 2003 annual report, “The world has become more dangerous, and governments more repressive, since the effort to fight terrorism began after the 9/11, attacks on the United States.” For the U.S. specifically, “Since March, 353 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, including 229 in hostile fire.” - NY Times, 5/29/03; CNN, 10/28/03

ok i searched the white house web site and the closest to this quote i could find was where he was thanking the families of national guard members for helping to make the world more peaceful and free...so if you could show me exactly where you were talking about this quote i'd appreciate it


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:44:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I can see you need a little work on the meaning of verbs, so I'll do one you can't argue.
>

excuse me? what the hell is that supposed to mean?


>"Electricity is now more widely available than before the war." - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]
>
>
>"In fact, according to the Coalition Provisional Authority Web site, daily nationwide electricity production for April averaged 3,822 megawatts -- a level markedly below the prewar average of about 4,500 megawatts." - San Francisco Chronicle, 4/2/04

ok...i'll except this if you can prove that it was lower in ALL the months and not just april. i'm sure it fluctuates there just like it does everywhere else. does your electricity use stay the same month after month? i don't think so


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:48:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>“I’ve asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstruction…Others are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid Conference…The Iraqi oil revenues – excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference.” - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]
>
>
>The World Bank and the UN estimate that $56 billion over four years is necessary to rebuild Iraq – leaving the total pledged by the U.S. and others (counting loans) $23 billion dollars short of what is required. The top civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, told Congress in September that “for the next two years, whatever revenue was reaped from oil production would not exceed the cost of Iraq's day-to-day operating expenses.” In 2005 he estimated “a surplus of only $4 million to $5 million.” - LA Times, 10/26/03; NY Times, 10/5/03

i find it hard to believe that we did 56 billion dollars in damage kicking saddam out. now if they are talking about bringing this 3rd world nation to higher than prewar standards then thats their own damn problem


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:53:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>
>"The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished." - George Bush [Source: White House Web site]
>
>
>According to testimony from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 10/16/03 the Bush Administration had deployed 1 soldier for every 189 people in Iraq, and 1 soldier for every 1,913 people in Afghanistan. Both were dramatically worse ratios than Kosovo (1 per 48), Bosnia (1 per 58) and East Timor (1 per 86)--the deployments of the Clinton years which Bush maligned during his campaign.

this was because his military advisors told him how many men they'd need and underestimated it. the only person who said they'd need more was shinseki...so they shitcanned him :) they were half right of course...they didn't need that many people to beat saddam. it's the amount needed to act as peacekeepers that they underestimated. this was a screw up...but i can only partially blame him for trying to go the cheaper route after all a good chunk of our forces were already engaged elsewhere. it was a mistake though...


 
casper Posted: Wed Aug 25 15:58:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ok i can make a retorte to each of these "quotes" and "facts" but then again you could come up with oposition to each of my retortes so whats the point eh? the fact that you got all of your "facts" from a strictly liberal website kinna skews things don't you think? why don't you try doing your own research eh? I have trouble trusting what standard news organizations say let alone sites like these


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 16:05:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Almost forgot:
>
>JOHN O'NEILL: The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek. So it was a made up story. He's told it over 50 times, George, that was on the floor of the Senate. He wrote articles about it, it was a malicious story because it painted all the guys above him, all of the commanding officers, in effect, as war criminals, that had ordered him into a neutral country, it was a lie.
>
>
>
>
>O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
>
>NIXON: In a swift boat?
>
>O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
>
Ok Zacq, I believe Casper just showed you that you shouldn't take statements out of context to prove your point, it will bite you in the ass.
As for Mr. Oneill's statment it just bit you in the ass.
You have not proved a lie but in your eagerness to drink the sand, you have posted it twice now.
So Oneill, was in Cambodia in a Swiftboat. So what ? Does it say when he was in Cambodia, and even so, it has no bearing whatsoever on Placing Kerry anywhere near Cambodia, because they were not in country at the same times.


 
Posted: Wed Aug 25 16:12:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Actually you need to protect yourself first before you can do anything else, unless someone else is providing protection for you.

____

>Well since it was necessary to knock off the Saddam regime, and the Taliban, would you suggest that we just pack up and leave ?


protecting a nation is fine. calling an invasion of other nations a means of protecting yourself, while going against the united nations and non-invasive treaties, that is wrong. that is not protection. if anything, that will provoke further attacks.

also, it was NOT a necessity to knock off the Saddam regime. was it a necessity to knock off Kim Jong Il in North Korea? is it a necessity now?

Because, you know, he actually does have WMD.

Iraq did not. does not.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 16:27:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Actually you need to protect yourself first before you can do anything else, unless someone else is providing protection for you.
>
>____
>
>>Well since it was necessary to knock off the Saddam regime, and the Taliban, would you suggest that we just pack up and leave ?
>
>
>protecting a nation is fine. calling an invasion of other nations a means of protecting yourself, while going against the united nations and non-invasive treaties, that is wrong. that is not protection. if anything, that will provoke further attacks.
>
Going against the United Nations ?
It was resolution 1441 that gave us the authorization to invade.
Also I would ask you what was the point of the previous 15 UN resolutions against Saddam ?
Going against the UN is a non-issue anyway. They are not relevant as they exist today.
>
>also, it was NOT a necessity to knock off the Saddam regime. was it a necessity to knock off Kim Jong Il in North Korea? is it a necessity now?
>
>Because, you know, he actually does have WMD.
>
>Iraq did not. does not.
Ok, the whole world, THE WHOLD WORLD, not just Bush thought Saddam had WMD's.
Any thinking person still believes that.
What happened to all the Bio/Chem that Hans Blix documented before he was booted out in the late nineties ?
Also it's not a great stretch to connect Saddam with some terrorist and a suitcase full of anthrax, a fake passport, and some tickets to the west.
That is why it was necessary to take him out.
Just a couple of months ago, Jordan police caught some guys with 30,000 gallons of Sarin gas and they were trying to disseminate it over the city of Amman. Where do you think it came from ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 16:30:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  As for North Korea, they are being dealt with through diplomacy. If necessary, force will be used.
North Korea does not have a history of agression and has never used chem/bio weapons. Saddam had done both.


 
Posted: Wed Aug 25 19:10:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  can we at least agree on the beginning premise without choosing sides?

I started this thread trying damned hard to be bipartisan, but this remains:


There is something very wrong with a presidential candidacy race which relies heavily on the war records and military abilities of those involved; moreso than the issues themselves.

If you cannot agree with that, at least explain why.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 25 19:51:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>can we at least agree on the beginning premise without choosing sides?
>
>I started this thread trying damned hard to be bipartisan, but this remains:
>
>
>There is something very wrong with a presidential candidacy race which relies heavily on the war records and military abilities of those involved; moreso than the issues themselves.
>
>If you cannot agree with that, at least explain why.
>
I think we can agree on that much, to the extent that at least one of the candidates made his war record the major theme of his campaign.
The incumbent never made his record an issue, but since he is a wartime president, it must be addressed.


 
Puck Posted: Fri Aug 27 22:38:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>I almost wet my pants thinking about him saying..."I pity the poor fool who don't believe in god."

R. Lee Ermy should have said that in Full Metal Jacket.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat Aug 28 18:02:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.big-boys.com/articles/danq.html


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]