or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 13

post #481 of 654
It wasn't.

The winter soliders were interviewed and vetted before they told their stories.

Are you calling all those veterans liars?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #482 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are right except that testimony was proven to be lies.

Listen I was a teen when this was going on and was very much against the war. You were born in what 1969? I remember reading many stories of injustice in Vietnam. So it's really not difficult at all to believe.

If ever there was an immoral war that was it.

So where's your proof that the testimony was a lie?

You really picked the wrong subject here!

You'll have to do ( much ) better than that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #483 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It wasn't.

The winter soliders were interviewed and vetted before they told their stories.

Are you calling all those veterans liars?

Why is kerry backing away from that testimony then?
post #484 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why is kerry backing away from that testimony then?

You'll really have to provide more backup on this subject to make it a viable argument.

So once again proof please.

All I can seem to find on the subject ( other than historical reference ) is wishful thinking by conservative rags desperately trying to find something wrong to say about Kerry.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #485 of 654
[Kerry's] seems like an erudite and well constructed argument with some legitimate issues
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #486 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You'll really have to provide more backup on this subject to make it a viable argument.

So once again proof please.

All I can seem to find on the subject ( other than historical reference ) is wishful thinking by conservative rags desperately trying to find something wrong to say about Kerry.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113632,00.html

there is a video link on the bottom of the article that has the original story I saw.

It is fox news, but no-one else covered the story. At least look at it before you blast me.
post #487 of 654
Good. Let's parse that story, shall we?

Quote:
Returning from his tour of duty,_the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee_testified before the_Senate Foreign Relations Committee (search)_in 1971, in which he claimed it was U.S. policy in Vietnam to carry out atrocities and war crimes.

OK. That's a fact (although the sentence is really, really awkward. However, he only uses the word "policy" once in his statement--and he uses it to describe a routine or accepted behavior. The story suggests that Kerry claimed it was "US policy"--that is, something official.

Score? Deliberate misrepresentation of Kerry's remarks = Lie.

Quote:
A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.

A number? How many is that? You can *always* find "a number" of people who claimed that no atrocities ever happened in Vietnam. Hell, I know a guy who claimed that no one ever smoked pot while he was in Vietnam. Does this mean that Kerry's claims are completely refuted? No. I can find "a number" of people who believe that the moon is made of cheese.

Score? Vague sourcing to slander Kerry's patriotism = Lie.

Quote:
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of_Vietnam veterans (search)_as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."

There's one. Carlton Sherwood. All we know is that he's a vet. We don't know anything else about him. Is he some lunatic? Was he only in Vietnam for a few days?

Score? Vague sourcing. No score. Advantage Kerry.

Quote:
After Kerry's testimony, military and independent investigations found that many of the soldiers who told Kerry and others they committed such atrocities were either never in the service, never in Vietnam or couldn't provide more evidence of those horrific actions.

"Military and independent investigations"? Which? Who? When? In addition, note the careful language: "many of the soldiers" lied to him. Many means more than 3. How many talked to him? We don't know. Is this 3 out of 4000? Is this 3 out of 4? We don't know. The intentionally vague sourcing here would suggest that the author of this piece cannot independently verify this claim beyond a scant few.

Score? Deliberately vague claims designed to undermine Kerry's credibility = Lie.

Quote:
Kerry told Fox News this weekend that he has no regrets about his service or his protest.

Fact. Advantage Kerry.

Quote:
"Now, if some veterans still can't accept that or they don't like the fact that I stood up and spoke my mind, I respect them, that is their choice," Kerry said.

Fact. Advantage Kerry.

Listen Naples, I know you don't like liberals and all, but you really ought to be more discriminating about what you consider refutation.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #488 of 654
Edit: I wonder if Carlton Sherwood is the same guy who is the Exec VP of the WVC3, "a security and antiterrorism consulting firm."

Want to take a guess whether or not he has a vested interest in consulting with certain, ahem, administrations, about how to combat terrorism? And so it might be in his best interests to attempt to discredit the presumptive democratic nominee?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #489 of 654
hehehe...

Carlton Sherwood!? You've got to be kidding.

The guy that wrote this:

Inquisition : The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon

hahahaha.

He's to the right of Limbaugh!
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #490 of 654
Hey! Leave him alone! He's "a number"!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #491 of 654
He's a freakin neocon with government contracts I'm sure.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #492 of 654
hehe...

http://www.bavf.org/carlton_sherwood_award.htm

look how many times reporters from the Moonie Washington Times have won his award.

I can't stop laughing!
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #493 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113632,00.html

there is a video link on the bottom of the article that has the original story I saw.

It is fox news, but no-one else covered the story. At least look at it before you blast me.


I found this very vague and opinionated. Hardly damning at all.

And of course there's the fact that it came from FOX......

If you had been alive or grownup enough to care you'd know that during those times the news was full of reports of bad things coming out of Vietnam.

One of the worst and most inexcusable pages in American history.

Once again I might add not the fault of the good men sent there but the politicians who sent them.

Also the excuse for the war was pretty thread bare ( the domino effect ) a little like Iraq. South Vietnam fell to the North and communism didn't over run the world ( or even southeast asia ). So much for thread bare excuses.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #494 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hmm \

First, that's REALLY something you need to cite, SDW. It's not clear if just you think he's "most liberal," whether liberal groups rate his record the highest among current senators, or what. But even if he's the "most liberal" senator by any criteria, that's really not saying much for the state of progressives in the senate. In other words, if John Kerry is the "most liberal" senator we have, then the Senate is certainly conservative by my standards!

Second, I think we can come up with a lot more genuine Bush flip-flops.

Oh come on, Shawn. It's common knowledge. Stop with the blatant intellectual dishonesty and get real.

Quote:
Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5.

Source: Here

Source of most liberal claim: Here

From the first link, a description of the National Journal and how it rates Congressmen:



Quote:
National Journal's vote ratings rank members of Congress on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in each chamber. The scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The scores are determined by a computer-assisted calculation that ranks members from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other, based on key votes -- 62 in the Senate in 2003 -- selected by National Journal reporters and editors.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #495 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Wow. ok. If you're gonna set the bar that low there's no way Bush could fail you.

Well actually... anybody in office could pull that off,

Setting the bar is different issue. We're talking about factually incorrect statement here. Of course I don't think 1,000 jobs would be good...not at all. That's besides the point...because the statment we keep hearing is "2,000,000" lost jobs. It's totally false.

But I'll humor you by saying that in my opinion, 2,000,000 MORE jobs (which is the irrefutable truth) is a decent number. Is that bar too low? \
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #496 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I found this very vague and opinionated. Hardly damning at all.

And of course there's the fact that it came from FOX......

If you had been alive or grownup enough to care you'd know that during those times the news was full of reports of bad things coming out of Vietnam.

One of the worst and most inexcusable pages in American history.

Once again I might add not the fault of the good men sent there but the politicians who sent them.

Also the excuse for the war was pretty thread bare ( the domino effect ) a little like Iraq. South Vietnam fell to the North and communism didn't over run the world ( or even southeast asia ). So much for thread bare excuses.

Well as usual jimmac, you're playing the age card. "I've been around long enough to....." is getting a bit tired coming from you. It's rhetorical crap.

Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there? He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were. He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.

John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #497 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. If that's what he is then he's got my vote!
post #498 of 654
Apparently if you're not a republican you're a radical anitwar liberal!

Even if you've fought in one!
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #499 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there?

He does something terrible for whatever reasons (and truthfully speaking, when you're at war, you don't really have a choice -- do you?) and then he feels terrible about it and speaks up against it.

Whereas certain people do things of questionable integrity and then ignore it until it comes up in the media and then when it does either refuse to talk about it (cocaine) or deny it outright (failure to report).

Hmm... I know which one I respect more.

Quote:
He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were.

So now you're saying that if they're killing children and mothers by tying them up and shoving grenades in their mouths then he should shut up until the war is over before speaking out?

Quote:
He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.

How... TERRIBLE! Oh MY GOD! He is such a worse patriot than Bush. The OUTRAGE!

Quote:
John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.

Sorry, SDW, but this was one of the weakest posts you've ever made. You didn't say anything that makes anyone look at Kerry any worse that didn't already have something against him. In fact the points that you made actually made him appear more genuine and admirable to those of us with any real integrity and empathy for the suffering of non-Americans.
post #500 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
You say that as if it's a bad thing. If that's what he is then he's got my vote!

I can respect that, actually. We just disagree. That's fine.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #501 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Apparently if you're not a republican you're a radical anitwar liberal!

Even if you've fought in one!

There are plenty of Democrats who are not radical and not anti-war. Unfortunately, they've lost all control of the party.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #502 of 654
tonton:

Quote:
He does something terrible for whatever reasons (and truthfully speaking, when you're at war, you don't really have a choice -- do you?) and then he feels terrible about it and speaks up against it.

Whereas certain people do things of questionable integrity and then ignore it until it comes up in the media and then when it does either refuse to talk about it (cocaine) or deny it outright (failure to report).

Hmm... I know which one I respect more.

WOW. I don't think you understand, with all due respect. We are talking about being guilty of WAR CRIMES here. We're talking about bashing soldiers in testimony...while the boots are on the ground. It's unacceptable.

Quote:
So now you're saying that if they're killing children and mothers by tying them up and shoving grenades in their mouths then he should shut up until the war is over before speaking out?


Who is "they"? The magntude of such incidents is in dispute, and it is very possible it was horribly exaggerated. Kerry made it sound as if it was every member of the armed forces or official policy. I don't buy it.



Quote:
How... TERRIBLE! Oh MY GOD! He is such a worse patriot than Bush. The OUTRAGE!

Funny...you don't see the problem here? He pretends to throw away his medals, and now he has them so he can put them on his resume? Gee. That must be nice.


Quote:
Sorry, SDW, but this was one of the weakest posts you've ever made. You didn't say anything that makes anyone look at Kerry any worse that didn't already have something against him. In fact the points that you made actually made him appear more genuine and admirable to those of us with any real integrity and empathy for the suffering of non-Americans.

John Kerry IS radical. I take particular notice of how you can't refute that. I could perhaps respect him if he was at least consistent at the same time...but he wasn't. He TRULY has flopped on almost every major issue. I don't say that lightly...I wouldn't say it about a Mondale or a Carter or even a Dukakis. But Kerry? Are you kidding? The man is totally without principle. He's now running middle class tax cuts! Riiiiiight. I seem to remember hearing that back in 1992.

I don't fault you for not liking Bush. I do fault you for supporting Kerry.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #503 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
There are plenty of Democrats who are not radical and not anti-war. Unfortunately, they've lost all control of the party.

I'm a little unsure of your stance on 'war', with all of the 'anti' prefixes that you add.

Are you more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate or for a pragmatic candidate who advocates war in time of need? I'll assume (read: hope) the latter.

I have a hard time reconciling your opinion that if someone is anti-war then they aren't a suitable candidate, though. Anti-war isn't a bad thing. Impractical, but not wrong.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #504 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
John Kerry IS radical. I take particular notice of how you can't refute that. I could perhaps respect him if he was at least consistent at the same time...but he wasn't. He TRULY has flopped on almost every major issue. I don't say that lightly...I wouldn't say it about a Mondale or a Carter or even a Dukakis. But Kerry? Are you kidding? The man is totally without principle. He's now running middle class tax cuts! Riiiiiight. I seem to remember hearing that back in 1992.

If Kerry were truly radical, he might have a good solid radical set of values and ideals. He doesn't. As you note, he has flip-flopped on the issues, which doesn't seem very radical to me.

I'd call him a poor devil's advocate, but not radical.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #505 of 654
The radicals have taken over!!!!

I didn't know Kucinich was in power. He's a vegan he must be the radical you're talking about.

AND he's NOT a flip flopper. He's pragmatic and intelligent.

You can support NCLB and then be appalled when Bush doesn't fully fund it.

You can support NAFTA and then scold the government for not holding our partners to it... or not consider ways to improve it.

You can support the threat of force as a last resort on Iraq and then be pissed when the reasons given for force do not hold to be true.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #506 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well as usual jimmac, you're playing the age card. "I've been around long enough to....." is getting a bit tired coming from you. It's rhetorical crap.

Kerry testified about atrocities he saw and COMMITTED. Where's the outrage there? He was also giving testimony about the supposedly widespread atrocities while soldiers were dying in battle That's the problem. We had brave men fighting and dying for the country, while Kerry was talking about what subhuman killers they were. He then joined a radical anti-war group....at one point pretending to throw his medals away in a demonstration. Funny, he seems to have found them just in for the election.

John Kerry is a radical anti-war liberal. Period.

GOOD FOR HIM!

How terrible.


So I guess that makes you a prowar, radical, right winger period.

The sad thing is those good men in Vietnam weren't so much dying for our country as much as they were dying for military contracts and furthering Nixon's political goals.


Hey! The age card's a good one to play as you'll find out some day.

You've got to get something back for all those wrinkles, aches and pains, and fat that just doesn't go away no matter how much you diet.

PS. Not to mention the first time a pretty young girl says : " You remind me of my dad ".

There's something to be said about actually being alive at the time and seeing events as they happen instead of reading Ann Coulter's rewritten version of history.

Just like I give more credence to people who were actually alive during WWII ( something before my time ) than what I read about it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #507 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
tonton:



WOW. I don't think you understand, with all due respect. We are talking about being guilty of WAR CRIMES here. We're talking about bashing soldiers in testimony...while the boots are on the ground. It's unacceptable.


unless of course they actually were guilty.

If they were doing the things that he stated they were then it would be unacceptable to NOT testify.

We are a country that values the Law . . . the Law of the Land overrides all concerns: it is that to which we are all patriotic, and that to which we swear our allegiance, and it binds us to our great nation.

If he felt that he saw soldiers breaking the implied law of our nation and doing things in contrast to what our nation should do then it would be his duty to testify
But . . I am discussing it in hypothetical . . . what he saw and what he said, I don't know . . why he is stepping somewhat away from that time? I don't know
Is George Stepping away from taking Cocaine? and what is his excuse?
I'm sure that Kerry was a very mature but still young man who was wounded in bdy and somewhat in spirit when he witnessed the things that he saw . . .
and when he got back and scrutinized the 'reasons' for the war he found them all lacking . . .so he testified about what he saw.
(if what he saw is remotly like the video of that hellicopter pilot killing the wounded man then he was a claim to legitimacy)
and I know many vets who have outrageous stories: for instance, the famous open door hellicopter interogations . . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #508 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm a little unsure of your stance on 'war', with all of the 'anti' prefixes that you add.

Are you more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate or for a pragmatic candidate who advocates war in time of need? I'll assume (read: hope) the latter.

I have a hard time reconciling your opinion that if someone is anti-war then they aren't a suitable candidate, though. Anti-war isn't a bad thing. Impractical, but not wrong.

It's not wrong, but it's not an attitude I want in the POTUS. I'd agree it's impractical. I'm not really sure what "pro-war" means, but I do tend to think force is needed at times and I want someone who is willing to use it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #509 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The radicals have taken over!!!!

I didn't know Kucinich was in power. He's a vegan he must be the radical you're talking about.

AND he's NOT a flip flopper. He's pragmatic and intelligent.

You can support NCLB and then be appalled when Bush doesn't fully fund it.

You can support NAFTA and then scold the government for not holding our partners to it... or not consider ways to improve it.

You can support the threat of force as a last resort on Iraq and then be pissed when the reasons given for force do not hold to be true.

I assume you're talking about Kerry....it wasn't clear. OK.

1. A lie. Lie, lie, lie. The Federal Edu. Budget is up almost 50% since Bush took office. Title 1 Reading program funding has exploded under Bush. You don't have the facts here.

2. Please elaborate on your NAFTA point.

3. Kerry voted for war. Give me a break. He fully believed Saddam had WMD and said so publicly as late as March 2003. He voted to authorize the President to use force. He did not vote for the "Disarm Iraq by Force Only If It's The Last Option You Have Left" act. Whatever.

Kerry is a flopper. You don't have to support Bush, or even like him, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #510 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
GOOD FOR HIM!

How terrible.


So I guess that makes you a prowar, radical, right winger period.

The sad thing is those good men in Vietnam weren't so much dying for our country as much as they were dying for military contracts and furthering Nixon's political goals.


Hey! The age card's a good one to play as you'll find out some day.

You've got to get something back for all those wrinkles, aches and pains, and fat that just doesn't go away no matter how much you diet.

PS. Not to mention the first time a pretty young girl says : " You remind me of my dad ".

There's something to be said about actually being alive at the time and seeing events as they happen instead of reading Ann Coulter's rewritten version of history.

Just like I give more credence to people who were actually alive during WWII ( something before my time ) than what I read about it.

So wait...you want a radical and at the same time flip-fliopping anti-war President? Oh, OK.

And what's this? Coulter rewritng history? Examples. Please..I'm listening.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #511 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
unless of course they actually were guilty.

If they were doing the things that he stated they were then it would be unacceptable to NOT testify.

We are a country that values the Law . . . the Law of the Land overrides all concerns: it is that to which we are all patriotic, and that to which we swear our allegiance, and it binds us to our great nation.

If he felt that he saw soldiers breaking the implied law of our nation and doing things in contrast to what our nation should do then it would be his duty to testify
But . . I am discussing it in hypothetical . . . what he saw and what he said, I don't know . . why he is stepping somewhat away from that time? I don't know
Is George Stepping away from taking Cocaine? and what is his excuse?
I'm sure that Kerry was a very mature but still young man who was wounded in bdy and somewhat in spirit when he witnessed the things that he saw . . .
and when he got back and scrutinized the 'reasons' for the war he found them all lacking . . .so he testified about what he saw.
(if what he saw is remotly like the video of that hellicopter pilot killing the wounded man then he was a claim to legitimacy)
and I know many vets who have outrageous stories: for instance, the famous open door hellicopter interogations . . .

Excellent job avoiding the point. First, it's not clear Kerry's statements WERE entirely accurate. Second, what if he participated? Maybe he was just following orders?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #512 of 654
Quote:
NYTimes Krugman (current op-ed) It's true that there are two employment surveys, which have been diverging lately. The establishment survey, which asks businesses how many workers they employ, says that 2.4 million jobs have vanished in the last three years. The household survey, which asks individuals whether they have jobs, says that employment has actually risen by 450,000. The administration's supporters, understandably, prefer the second number.

So, businesses are claiming that they have cut 2.4 million jobs. People at home are claiming that 450000 more people are employed. Krugman goes on to clearly state that even Alan Greenspan believes the payroll numbers (that 2.4 million jobs were lost). Not that it is relevant to the current discussion, but here is where those numbers contradict....
post #513 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I assume you're talking about Kerry....it wasn't clear. OK.

1. A lie. Lie, lie, lie. The Federal Edu. Budget is up almost 50% since Bush took office. Title 1 Reading program funding has exploded under Bush. You don't have the facts here.

2. Please elaborate on your NAFTA point.

3. Kerry voted for war. Give me a break. He fully believed Saddam had WMD and said so publicly as late as March 2003. He voted to authorize the President to use force. He did not vote for the "Disarm Iraq by Force Only If It's The Last Option You Have Left" act. Whatever.

Kerry is a flopper. You don't have to support Bush, or even like him, but at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that.


I'll get you links... but here's my response...

The NCLB Act was supposed to have an even bigger budget (50% larger?)... that's why it got the support and votes it did... then the Administration underfunded it... FUNDED it less than they said they would. Why do you think Kennedy was so pissed?

Nafta... everyone thinks it needs work... you don't negotiate a trade agreement and then just let it ride despite the results.

Bush is the one that wanted Steel Tariffs... and then after the EU freaked repealed them.

Almost EVERYONE thought Saddam had huge stockpiles (even me) because the Bushies were saying it over and over... they were so sure they were willing to go to war... kinda hard to argue with... I mean I didn't think they would start one unless they had on the ground confirmation by spies or whatever... and they didn't. They had dissidents willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear in order to get us to go into Iraq.

And the authorization that passed wasn't for war... it was for force AFTER of the UN did it's inspections or if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors... we were supposed to be the UN's enforcer on this... but instead we pushed them aside and took over.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #514 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Excellent job avoiding the point. First, it's not clear Kerry's statements WERE entirely accurate. Second, what if he participated? Maybe he was just following orders?

I wasn't intentionally avoiding those points, I just wasn't directly addressing them in that post.

good question: were his statements what he believed were the case?
I don't know . . . I haven't read the testimony, nor have I followed it too closely.
Did he participate, and was he following orders if he did?
I don't know, if he did participate then the guilt feelings may account for why he came to feel the war was wrong . . . if he did participate and did not claim his due responsibility then he should be held accountable . . . . as should all of those involved
However, that seems to introduce an unneeded question into the mix, a question whose origin is simply concern for smearing Kerry whenever possible.

as for the post that I posted: I was in fact addressing the issue that I said I was addressing: which was that you said that his testimony, 'while soldiers were still in the field' was, for that reason, a terrible thing.

another point on that: if they were 'still on the field' and actually were committing atrocities there then someone should stand up and speak . . . it would be their patriotic duty to do so
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #515 of 654
ok . . . I read teh testimony

What is all the fuss about?

His testimony about the atrocities is simply stating what was agreed upon to be said by a large group of decorated soldiers . . . he was delivering a collective statement that they agreed on . . . It leaves the question of who among them did what . . . but that is silly: either you accept his statement and you acknowledge that it points out atrocities (allthough in only one and half paragraphs are those touched on) or two: you simply disagree with the goal of the statement: putting an end to the war which it felt was wrong and unpatriotic.
Otherwise, if you raise the question of who in the Winter Soldiers did what? then you are accepting that Kerry's speech was in fact legitimate . . . can't have it both ways
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #516 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
So wait...you want a radical and at the same time flip-fliopping anti-war President? Oh, OK.

And what's this? Coulter rewritng history? Examples. Please..I'm listening.


Her version of Joesph McCarthy and I'm sure she has other examples in mind..

We've been through that one before. Sometimes I think you're getting altzheimers but I know you're just playing dumb.

Also he's only flip flopping to you. Maybe what we need is a radical to get some change in the tired way of doing things. And antiwar well that speaks for itself.


All and all he sounds like a pretty good fellow to me.

You've really got to be scrambling like mad to find something bad to say about him if these are your examples.

The problem with you is when you can't find anything to argue about you then try to pick at something small about what I've said ( notice I didn't comment on your typo ). At least that's been your pattern.

That's desparate.

I find that good also.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #517 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
So, businesses are claiming that they have cut 2.4 million jobs. People at home are claiming that 450000 more people are employed. Krugman goes on to clearly state that even Alan Greenspan believes the payroll numbers (that 2.4 million jobs were lost). Not that it is relevant to the current discussion, but here is where those numbers contradict....

Say it with me: There are more people employed in the US today than there were in 2001. Two million more. End of story.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #518 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I'll get you links... but here's my response...

The NCLB Act was supposed to have an even bigger budget (50% larger?)... that's why it got the support and votes it did... then the Administration underfunded it... FUNDED it less than they said they would. Why do you think Kennedy was so pissed?

Nafta... everyone thinks it needs work... you don't negotiate a trade agreement and then just let it ride despite the results.

Bush is the one that wanted Steel Tariffs... and then after the EU freaked repealed them.

Almost EVERYONE thought Saddam had huge stockpiles (even me) because the Bushies were saying it over and over... they were so sure they were willing to go to war... kinda hard to argue with... I mean I didn't think they would start one unless they had on the ground confirmation by spies or whatever... and they didn't. They had dissidents willing to tell them anything they wanted to hear in order to get us to go into Iraq.

And the authorization that passed wasn't for war... it was for force AFTER of the UN did it's inspections or if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors... we were supposed to be the UN's enforcer on this... but instead we pushed them aside and took over.

1. Let's get the numbers.

2. NAFTA needs work. OK...that doesn't mean one comes out and blasts it.

3. Steel tarriffs: OK, well I'll give you that one. Bush probably shouldn't have ordered them in the first place.

4. You can't be telling me that Kerry had no intel of his own. He's on the damn commitee! And secondly, let me ask: If bush wasn't sure, why would he risk the future embarassment of not finding them? Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force after seeing some of the very same intel. Now he's flopping. That's all there is to it. Saddam DID NOT comply with inspectors. He didn't comply fully for 11 years and 17 resolutions. What else should Bush have done? Given Saddam tey more time It was clae he wasn;t cooperating and the UN wasn't going to do anything about it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #519 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
ok . . . I read teh testimony

What is all the fuss about?

His testimony about the atrocities is simply stating what was agreed upon to be said by a large group of decorated soldiers . . . he was delivering a collective statement that they agreed on . . . It leaves the question of who among them did what . . . but that is silly: either you accept his statement and you acknowledge that it points out atrocities (allthough in only one and half paragraphs are those touched on) or two: you simply disagree with the goal of the statement: putting an end to the war which it felt was wrong and unpatriotic.
Otherwise, if you raise the question of who in the Winter Soldiers did what? then you are accepting that Kerry's speech was in fact legitimate . . . can't have it both ways

I'm not trying to have it both ways. It's possible this man comitted war crimes. It's also possible the statement was exaggerated. The two can coexist. As far as Kerry wanting to end the war (and that being the motivation for his public testimony), I'd say that it was inappropriate for a serving member of the armed forces to be speaking out like that with such a gola in mind. One could even say his motives were ulterior.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #520 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can't be telling me that Kerry had no intel of his own. He's on the damn commitee! And secondly, let me ask: If bush wasn't sure, why would he risk the future embarassment of not finding them? Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force after seeing some of the very same intel. Now he's flopping. That's all there is to it. Saddam DID NOT comply with inspectors. He didn't comply fully for 11 years and 17 resolutions. What else should Bush have done? Given Saddam tey more time It was clae he wasn;t cooperating and the UN wasn't going to do anything about it.

You see, I think that is the problem, now isn't it? GWB comes to washington makes claims that he is going to do xyz and then goes about doing them. The US gets attacked and he says he is going to take this conflict to the troublemakers, and he actually does it.

"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." - GWB 9/11 speech

"This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.

None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world." - GWB 9/11 speech

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Â_Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. Â_But we know their true nature. Â_North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. Â_The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. Â_This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. Â_This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. Â_By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. Â_They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. Â_They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. Â_In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Â_We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. Â_(Applause.) And all nations should know: Â_America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security." - GWB SOU speech 2002

All of this is not new. GWB has been very steadfast in the fight against terror an rogue nations since 9/11 Democrats for the most part, could not stop cheering for him. Now as an election approaches, I guess the short term memory loss has kicked in.

Here is what democratic leaders have said:

Rep. Dick Gephardt, (D-Mo.) made the following statements on Meet the Press on Sept. 28th, 2003:

REP. GEPHARDT: (Showing a videotape from October 2, 2002) In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security.Â_ (End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "A unique and dangerous threat." We have not found any such weapons. Were you wrong or misled?

REP. GEPHARDT: Tim, I didn't just take the president's word for this. I went out to the CIA three times. I talked to George Tenet personally. I talked to his top people. I talked to people that had been in the Clinton administration in their security effort. And I became convinced, from that, all of that, that he either had weapons of mass destruction or he had components of weapons or he had the ability to quickly make a lot of them and pass them to terrorists. Look, after 9/11, we're in a world, in my view, that we have to protect the American people from further acts of terrorism. That's my highest responsibility, that's the Congress' highest responsibility, and the president's. And I did what I thought was the right thing to do to protect our people from further acts of terrorism. We cannot have that happen in the United States, and I will always do that. --Rep. Dick Gephardt, 9/28/03

Or how about this:

Ted Kennedy - "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. ...Â_ There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger... We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ...Â_ In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein 'is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.' That is unacceptable...

"If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered. He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. ..Â_ Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. ... Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction." -- October 4, 2002

Kennedy also wrote at the time, "Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. --9/227/03

Another:

Sen. John Kerry from a speech he gave at Georgetown University in January, 2003:

... we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. ... In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing." - 01/03

Go Back even further:

October 9, 1998

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. ...

[From the letter attached]
"We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

"In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.