It isn't adversity, its vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy . . . desperate attempts to smear a personilty . . . .not like we aren't allready aware that teh Bush Machine (including its subsidiaries: Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, etc) don't know very well how to do that.
It doesn't matter how vile it is, or how in contradiction to their own prior assemsments of the person in question (O'Niell, Clarke) they will turn against the person in the dirtiest fashion imaginable and stoop as low as possible . . .
and yet, at the same time sing the praises of a man who truly deserves the mud
"Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said."
... so is Kerry a war hero or not? If he wants to talk about "his service in Vietnam" then he is bringing it up for review. Either he is a mom and apple pie "war hero" or he is a war protester who threw his citations right back in the face of the US Govt. Which is it? (Oh, I forgot it can be either the flip or the flop in his mind...)
Audie Murphy is a war hero. Michael Durant is a war hero. Neither of them ever thought about trashing our government or the very military which recognized their actions, especially with a public display such as Kerry's.
Either he is Mr. Patriotic War Hero, or he is a war protester. He cannot be both at one time. He turned his back on the Govt and the military in the early 70s. Now he wants to portray the GI Joe image. All I see is him trying to play both sides- looking for the votes of both veterans and the anti-war anti-US crowd.
Good luck, John. Veterans I talk to know the truth.
Either he is Mr. Patriotic War Hero, or he is a war protester. He cannot be both at one time.
And yet he is! Imagine that! He volunteered for service, went to Vietnam, served under combat, was wounded and decorated with 3 purple hearts, the bronze star, and the silver star. And then he came home and talked about the atrocities he'd seen while he was there and worked to end the war he'd fought in.
... so is Kerry a war hero or not? If he wants to talk about "his service in Vietnam" then he is bringing it up for review. Either he is a mom and apple pie "war hero" or he is a war protester who threw his citations right back in the face of the US Govt. Which is it? (Oh, I forgot it can be either the flip or the flop in his mind...)
Here is the root of the stupidity. Either you sign up for the black/white, good/evil, right//wrong world view of the dim-witted and reactionary or you are a "flip-flopper".
If the evidence of your senses changes your mind you are a flip-flopper. If a complex and difficult world forces you to reappraise a stance you are a flip-flopper. If your ideology evolves over time you are a flip-flopper. If your actions seem to correspond to more than one of someone's foolishly limited pigeon holes, well friend, you must be a flip-flopper.
How more glorious to be like Bush, a man who knows what he thinks and doesn't let the slippery slope of reality intrude on his righteous certainty. A man whose entire world view can be summed up in a few trite phrases: "Us is good." "Them is bad." "Good is good." "Bad is not good." "Stay the course."
This isn't some idiot school yard game where you get points for "cuts". Subscribing to the patently partisan attack label of "flip-flopper" doesn't speak to anything, doesn't shed any light, doesn't advance the debate, doesn't aspire to anything. It's just an empty phrase designed to denigrate, akin to a 12 year old calling his enemy a "spaz".
I wonder about people who can't even come up with their own slur, but have to rely on the output of cynical hacks and party operatives whose calculations are precisely calibrated to the gullibility of their target demographic. They rely on the stupidity of the mindlessly partisan to sell their wares.
"Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said."
The bottom line is the Kerry campaign made a mistake in posting an inaccurate report. It does not matter whose fault it was that the report was wrong. Kerry had the opportunity to check it for any factual errors before posting it on his campaign website. He did not and it appears that he is taking credit for somebody else's actions and that is wrong no matter how you slice it.
'box- I just want the know if Kerry's convictions are subject to change based on the need to look good to one group or another.
So he was pro-America, then was anti-America, now is showing pro-America to some people and anti-America to others. Convictions are what I want. Is he proud of, or embarrassed about, his service?
'box- I just want the know if Kerry's convictions are subject to change based on the need to look good to one group or another.
So he was pro-America, then was anti-America, now is showing pro-America to some people and anti-America to others. Convictions are what I want. Is he proud of, or embarrassed about, his service?
It isn't adversity, its vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy . . . desperate attempts to smear a personilty . . . .not like we aren't allready aware that teh Bush Machine (including its subsidiaries: Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, etc) don't know very well how to do that.
It doesn't matter how vile it is, or how in contradiction to their own prior assemsments of the person in question (O'Niell, Clarke) they will turn against the person in the dirtiest fashion imaginable and stoop as low as possible . . .
and yet, at the same time sing the praises of a man who truly deserves the mud
It is not vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy. Kerry is making an issue of his Vietnam service (and by the way going back on his promise not to personally attack Bush's National Guard record) and in making it an issue he has an obligation to provide the American people the truth about what he did over there. I get so tired of the allegations that it is the GOP attack machine that is behind all of this when it was ABC News that rehashed the whole medal (or was it ribbons? I get so confused...) throwing controversy. And this new report about inaccuracies about Kerry's service record that was posted on his campaign website is nothing more than the guy who actually was the person who skippered the boat coming forward and saying that those reports were incorrect as he was commander of the particular boat in question at that point in time.
Accept the fact that Kerry has a credibility problem and when you have a problem as big as his about telling the truth Kerry is, quite honestly, his own worst enemy. Occasionally the truth comes out and it does not always have to be pried out of the woodwork by political operatives.
It is not vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy. Kerry is making an issue of his Vietnam service (and by the way going back on his promise not to personally attack Bush's National Guard record) and in making it an issue he has an obligation to provide the American people the truth about what he did over there. I get so tired of the allegations that it is the GOP attack machine that is behind all of this when it was ABC News that rehashed the whole medal (or was it ribbons? I get so confused...) throwing controversy. And this new report about inaccuracies about Kerry's service record that was posted on his campaign website is nothing more than the guy who actually was the person who skippered the boat coming forward and saying that those reports were incorrect as he was commander of the particular boat in question at that point in time.
Accept the fact that Kerry has a credibility problem and when you have a problem as big as his about telling the truth Kerry is, quite honestly, his own worst enemy. Occasionally the truth comes out and it does not always have to be pried out of the woodwork by political operatives.
Please! In light of what has happened in the Bush administration and Iraq I wouldn't speak too loudly about credibility.
'box- I just want the know if Kerry's convictions are subject to change based on the need to look good to one group or another.
So he was pro-America, then was anti-America, now is showing pro-America to some people and anti-America to others. Convictions are what I want. Is he proud of, or embarrassed about, his service?
Well, see, that's pretty much my point. I think I (or any citizen) should be able to say "In this my country has gone astray" and "In this my country has achieved greatness" and "some parts of this are shameful, and some parts of this are futile, but some parts of this arise from noble intentions " without being accused of hopping back and froth over a line labeled "pro-american".
Real patriots care enough about America to criticize her mistakes and work to correct them. People who think patriotism means believing America is incapable of error are dangerous.
Real patriots care enough about America to criticize her mistakes and work to correct them. People who think patriotism means believing America is incapable of error are dangerous.
...Red Flag....I get so tired of the allegations that it is the GOP attack machine that is behind all of this when it was ABC News that rehashed the whole medal (or was it ribbons? I get so confused...) throwing controversy...Red Flag....
According to Josh Marshall, ABC News rarely (if ever) uses the "L" word to describe President Bush-- primarily using words like "exaggeration." Arguable point, honestly-- but you can now see they changed the headline from "lie" to "change story." But what raises the red flag for me is the name of Chris Vlasto, ABC News producer of dubious history. He masterminded the Nightline segment from a few years ago, which unethically edited videotape to create an "inaccurate impression." Namely-- that Hillary Clinton perjured herself. Atrios has the story. Similarly, we have this story from a writer investigating the abuse of power by the independent counsel in the Clinton years. Who is it? Chris Vlasto.
Quote:
Among the most hostile responses was a telephone call from ABC producer Chris Vlasto, who has worked the Clinton scandal beat at the network for several years. After swiftly dismissing our story, Vlasto proceeded to berate me for criticizing Starr, and condescended to inform me that the corrupt liars were in the White House, not the independent counsel's office.
Ribbons. They stand for medals. Kerry threw his ribbons, not the actual medals they're used to stand in for. He threw someone else's actual medals (not ribbons).
Please note that these ribbons are referred to as "medals" by the Navy.
Ribbons. They stand for medals. Kerry threw his ribbons, not the actual medals they're used to stand in for. He threw someone else's actual medals (not ribbons).
Please note that these ribbons are referred to as "medals" by the Navy.
My question to you is this: if John Kerry was that principled about throwing his medals (or ribbons - whatever...) to protest what he saw was an unjust war our government was prosecuting than why did he just throw the ribbons and not the medals? Do you know why? Probably because ribbons are easily replaced. You can buy them at the PX or almost any military surplus store. What you cannot obtain easily is the MEDALS. That is probably why he kept them. Knowing Kerry's penchant for changing his positions depending on the way the wind is blowing he undoubtedly wanted to keep the medals in case being a war hero was back in vogue again. And I am sure he was probably proud of his medals so really throwing just the ribbons was being a bit dishonest with his anti-war colleagues. And in the 1971 TV interview he did say he threw away his MEDALS so clearly he was at least being very misleading in the impression he wanted to leave the American public at that time.
According to Josh Marshall, ABC News rarely (if ever) uses the "L" word to describe President Bush-- primarily using words like "exaggeration." Arguable point, honestly-- but you can now see they changed the headline from "lie" to "change story." But what raises the red flag for me is the name of Chris Vlasto, ABC News producer of dubious history. He masterminded the Nightline segment from a few years ago, which unethically edited videotape to create an "inaccurate impression." Namely-- that Hillary Clinton perjured herself. Atrios has the story. Similarly, we have this story from a writer investigating the abuse of power by the independent counsel in the Clinton years. Who is it? Chris Vlasto.
Man you are really reaching on this one. You are the first person I have ever heard of that claims that ABC News is simply a shill for the White House.
My question to you is this: if John Kerry was that principled about throwing his medals (or ribbons - whatever...) to protest what he saw was an unjust war our government was prosecuting than why did he just throw the ribbons and not the medals?
Because he didn't. Maybe he should be asked that. I for one would like to hear his answer.
Quote:
Do you know why?
No. And neither do you, so don't pretend that you do.
Quote:
Probably because ribbons are easily replaced. You can buy them at the PX or almost any military surplus store. What you cannot obtain easily is the MEDALS. That is probably why he kept them.
"Probably." I love it. In other words, you're suggesting that "probably" Kerry chunked his ribbons over the fence and then high-tailed it to the army surplus to pick up a few replacements? Care to back that up?
Maybe he didn't throw the medals themselves away because he left them at home that day? Maybe he kept them because his parents and family wanted him to keep them, despite his political feelings?
Quote:
Knowing Kerry's penchant for changing his positions depending on the way the wind is blowing he undoubtedly wanted to keep the medals in case being a war hero was back in vogue again.
This "penchant" is up for debate, and thus you use one entirely made up position and a debatable "penchant" to support a conclusion that is as wrong-headed as it is disgusting.
Quote:
And I am sure he was probably proud of his medals so really throwing just the ribbons was being a bit dishonest with his anti-war colleagues.
You really ought to give up this game, since you're just digging deeper hole. You're "sure he was probably"? Make up your mind. You're either positive about something you can't possibly know or you're just making things up to support an indefensible position.
But let's play the game: there were lots of vets who only tossed their ribbons. Were they also being dishonest? Each and every one of them? Every vet who opposed the war and didn't throw his actual medals onto the steps of Congress is dishonest? Is a liar?
I love it. Let me ask you this:
If he were being so openly dishonest with his "anti-war colleagues" (you make it sound like a group of 5-6 guys), do you really think they would have allowed him to keep the position of leadership that he did? You don't think someone would've said something before now?
This is a weak and vulgar argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. There are a great many issues on which Kerry might rightfully be attacked; this isn't one of them.
Quote:
And in the 1971 TV interview he did say he threw away his MEDALS so clearly he was at least being very misleading in the impression he wanted to leave the American public at that time.
Please note again that the ribbons are actually called medals.
Man you are really reaching on this one. You are the first person I have ever heard of that claims that ABC News is simply a shill for the White House.
He didn't say ABC was. He said that the one reporter obviously has an axe to grind.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
It isn't adversity, its vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy . . . desperate attempts to smear a personilty . . . .not like we aren't allready aware that teh Bush Machine (including its subsidiaries: Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, etc) don't know very well how to do that.
It doesn't matter how vile it is, or how in contradiction to their own prior assemsments of the person in question (O'Niell, Clarke) they will turn against the person in the dirtiest fashion imaginable and stoop as low as possible . . .
and yet, at the same time sing the praises of a man who truly deserves the mud
Well it seems that Kerry is smearing Kerry now.
"Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said."
Audie Murphy is a war hero. Michael Durant is a war hero. Neither of them ever thought about trashing our government or the very military which recognized their actions, especially with a public display such as Kerry's.
Either he is Mr. Patriotic War Hero, or he is a war protester. He cannot be both at one time. He turned his back on the Govt and the military in the early 70s. Now he wants to portray the GI Joe image. All I see is him trying to play both sides- looking for the votes of both veterans and the anti-war anti-US crowd.
Good luck, John. Veterans I talk to know the truth.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Either he is Mr. Patriotic War Hero, or he is a war protester. He cannot be both at one time.
And yet he is! Imagine that! He volunteered for service, went to Vietnam, served under combat, was wounded and decorated with 3 purple hearts, the bronze star, and the silver star. And then he came home and talked about the atrocities he'd seen while he was there and worked to end the war he'd fought in.
Originally posted by Jubelum
... so is Kerry a war hero or not? If he wants to talk about "his service in Vietnam" then he is bringing it up for review. Either he is a mom and apple pie "war hero" or he is a war protester who threw his citations right back in the face of the US Govt. Which is it? (Oh, I forgot it can be either the flip or the flop in his mind...)
Here is the root of the stupidity. Either you sign up for the black/white, good/evil, right//wrong world view of the dim-witted and reactionary or you are a "flip-flopper".
If the evidence of your senses changes your mind you are a flip-flopper. If a complex and difficult world forces you to reappraise a stance you are a flip-flopper. If your ideology evolves over time you are a flip-flopper. If your actions seem to correspond to more than one of someone's foolishly limited pigeon holes, well friend, you must be a flip-flopper.
How more glorious to be like Bush, a man who knows what he thinks and doesn't let the slippery slope of reality intrude on his righteous certainty. A man whose entire world view can be summed up in a few trite phrases: "Us is good." "Them is bad." "Good is good." "Bad is not good." "Stay the course."
This isn't some idiot school yard game where you get points for "cuts". Subscribing to the patently partisan attack label of "flip-flopper" doesn't speak to anything, doesn't shed any light, doesn't advance the debate, doesn't aspire to anything. It's just an empty phrase designed to denigrate, akin to a 12 year old calling his enemy a "spaz".
I wonder about people who can't even come up with their own slur, but have to rely on the output of cynical hacks and party operatives whose calculations are precisely calibrated to the gullibility of their target demographic. They rely on the stupidity of the mindlessly partisan to sell their wares.
Originally posted by midwinter
From the article in question:
"Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said."
The bottom line is the Kerry campaign made a mistake in posting an inaccurate report. It does not matter whose fault it was that the report was wrong. Kerry had the opportunity to check it for any factual errors before posting it on his campaign website. He did not and it appears that he is taking credit for somebody else's actions and that is wrong no matter how you slice it.
So he was pro-America, then was anti-America, now is showing pro-America to some people and anti-America to others. Convictions are what I want. Is he proud of, or embarrassed about, his service?
Originally posted by Jubelum
'box- I just want the know if Kerry's convictions are subject to change based on the need to look good to one group or another.
So he was pro-America, then was anti-America, now is showing pro-America to some people and anti-America to others. Convictions are what I want. Is he proud of, or embarrassed about, his service?
When has he been "anti-America"?
Originally posted by pfflam
It isn't adversity, its vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy . . . desperate attempts to smear a personilty . . . .not like we aren't allready aware that teh Bush Machine (including its subsidiaries: Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, etc) don't know very well how to do that.
It doesn't matter how vile it is, or how in contradiction to their own prior assemsments of the person in question (O'Niell, Clarke) they will turn against the person in the dirtiest fashion imaginable and stoop as low as possible . . .
and yet, at the same time sing the praises of a man who truly deserves the mud
It is not vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy. Kerry is making an issue of his Vietnam service (and by the way going back on his promise not to personally attack Bush's National Guard record) and in making it an issue he has an obligation to provide the American people the truth about what he did over there. I get so tired of the allegations that it is the GOP attack machine that is behind all of this when it was ABC News that rehashed the whole medal (or was it ribbons? I get so confused...) throwing controversy. And this new report about inaccuracies about Kerry's service record that was posted on his campaign website is nothing more than the guy who actually was the person who skippered the boat coming forward and saying that those reports were incorrect as he was commander of the particular boat in question at that point in time.
Accept the fact that Kerry has a credibility problem and when you have a problem as big as his about telling the truth Kerry is, quite honestly, his own worst enemy. Occasionally the truth comes out and it does not always have to be pried out of the woodwork by political operatives.
Originally posted by 7E7
It is not vulgar and crass mudslinging and idiocy. Kerry is making an issue of his Vietnam service (and by the way going back on his promise not to personally attack Bush's National Guard record) and in making it an issue he has an obligation to provide the American people the truth about what he did over there. I get so tired of the allegations that it is the GOP attack machine that is behind all of this when it was ABC News that rehashed the whole medal (or was it ribbons? I get so confused...) throwing controversy. And this new report about inaccuracies about Kerry's service record that was posted on his campaign website is nothing more than the guy who actually was the person who skippered the boat coming forward and saying that those reports were incorrect as he was commander of the particular boat in question at that point in time.
Accept the fact that Kerry has a credibility problem and when you have a problem as big as his about telling the truth Kerry is, quite honestly, his own worst enemy. Occasionally the truth comes out and it does not always have to be pried out of the woodwork by political operatives.
Please! In light of what has happened in the Bush administration and Iraq I wouldn't speak too loudly about credibility.
Originally posted by Jubelum
'box- I just want the know if Kerry's convictions are subject to change based on the need to look good to one group or another.
So he was pro-America, then was anti-America, now is showing pro-America to some people and anti-America to others. Convictions are what I want. Is he proud of, or embarrassed about, his service?
Well, see, that's pretty much my point. I think I (or any citizen) should be able to say "In this my country has gone astray" and "In this my country has achieved greatness" and "some parts of this are shameful, and some parts of this are futile, but some parts of this arise from noble intentions " without being accused of hopping back and froth over a line labeled "pro-american".
Real patriots care enough about America to criticize her mistakes and work to correct them. People who think patriotism means believing America is incapable of error are dangerous.
Originally posted by addabox
Real patriots care enough about America to criticize her mistakes and work to correct them. People who think patriotism means believing America is incapable of error are dangerous.
ding, ding, ding...we have a winner
g
Originally posted by 7E7
...Red Flag....I get so tired of the allegations that it is the GOP attack machine that is behind all of this when it was ABC News that rehashed the whole medal (or was it ribbons? I get so confused...) throwing controversy...Red Flag....
According to Josh Marshall, ABC News rarely (if ever) uses the "L" word to describe President Bush-- primarily using words like "exaggeration." Arguable point, honestly-- but you can now see they changed the headline from "lie" to "change story." But what raises the red flag for me is the name of Chris Vlasto, ABC News producer of dubious history. He masterminded the Nightline segment from a few years ago, which unethically edited videotape to create an "inaccurate impression." Namely-- that Hillary Clinton perjured herself. Atrios has the story. Similarly, we have this story from a writer investigating the abuse of power by the independent counsel in the Clinton years. Who is it? Chris Vlasto.
Among the most hostile responses was a telephone call from ABC producer Chris Vlasto, who has worked the Clinton scandal beat at the network for several years. After swiftly dismissing our story, Vlasto proceeded to berate me for criticizing Starr, and condescended to inform me that the corrupt liars were in the White House, not the independent counsel's office.
Please note that these ribbons are referred to as "medals" by the Navy.
Originally posted by midwinter
Ribbons. They stand for medals. Kerry threw his ribbons, not the actual medals they're used to stand in for. He threw someone else's actual medals (not ribbons).
Please note that these ribbons are referred to as "medals" by the Navy.
My question to you is this: if John Kerry was that principled about throwing his medals (or ribbons - whatever...) to protest what he saw was an unjust war our government was prosecuting than why did he just throw the ribbons and not the medals? Do you know why? Probably because ribbons are easily replaced. You can buy them at the PX or almost any military surplus store. What you cannot obtain easily is the MEDALS. That is probably why he kept them. Knowing Kerry's penchant for changing his positions depending on the way the wind is blowing he undoubtedly wanted to keep the medals in case being a war hero was back in vogue again. And I am sure he was probably proud of his medals so really throwing just the ribbons was being a bit dishonest with his anti-war colleagues. And in the 1971 TV interview he did say he threw away his MEDALS so clearly he was at least being very misleading in the impression he wanted to leave the American public at that time.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
According to Josh Marshall, ABC News rarely (if ever) uses the "L" word to describe President Bush-- primarily using words like "exaggeration." Arguable point, honestly-- but you can now see they changed the headline from "lie" to "change story." But what raises the red flag for me is the name of Chris Vlasto, ABC News producer of dubious history. He masterminded the Nightline segment from a few years ago, which unethically edited videotape to create an "inaccurate impression." Namely-- that Hillary Clinton perjured herself. Atrios has the story. Similarly, we have this story from a writer investigating the abuse of power by the independent counsel in the Clinton years. Who is it? Chris Vlasto.
Man you are really reaching on this one. You are the first person I have ever heard of that claims that ABC News is simply a shill for the White House.
Originally posted by 7E7
My question to you is this: if John Kerry was that principled about throwing his medals (or ribbons - whatever...) to protest what he saw was an unjust war our government was prosecuting than why did he just throw the ribbons and not the medals?
Because he didn't. Maybe he should be asked that. I for one would like to hear his answer.
Do you know why?
No. And neither do you, so don't pretend that you do.
Probably because ribbons are easily replaced. You can buy them at the PX or almost any military surplus store. What you cannot obtain easily is the MEDALS. That is probably why he kept them.
"Probably." I love it. In other words, you're suggesting that "probably" Kerry chunked his ribbons over the fence and then high-tailed it to the army surplus to pick up a few replacements? Care to back that up?
Maybe he didn't throw the medals themselves away because he left them at home that day? Maybe he kept them because his parents and family wanted him to keep them, despite his political feelings?
Knowing Kerry's penchant for changing his positions depending on the way the wind is blowing he undoubtedly wanted to keep the medals in case being a war hero was back in vogue again.
This "penchant" is up for debate, and thus you use one entirely made up position and a debatable "penchant" to support a conclusion that is as wrong-headed as it is disgusting.
And I am sure he was probably proud of his medals so really throwing just the ribbons was being a bit dishonest with his anti-war colleagues.
You really ought to give up this game, since you're just digging deeper hole. You're "sure he was probably"? Make up your mind. You're either positive about something you can't possibly know or you're just making things up to support an indefensible position.
But let's play the game: there were lots of vets who only tossed their ribbons. Were they also being dishonest? Each and every one of them? Every vet who opposed the war and didn't throw his actual medals onto the steps of Congress is dishonest? Is a liar?
I love it. Let me ask you this:
If he were being so openly dishonest with his "anti-war colleagues" (you make it sound like a group of 5-6 guys), do you really think they would have allowed him to keep the position of leadership that he did? You don't think someone would've said something before now?
This is a weak and vulgar argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. There are a great many issues on which Kerry might rightfully be attacked; this isn't one of them.
And in the 1971 TV interview he did say he threw away his MEDALS so clearly he was at least being very misleading in the impression he wanted to leave the American public at that time.
Please note again that the ribbons are actually called medals.
I say again that this thread is shameful.
Originally posted by 7E7
Man you are really reaching on this one. You are the first person I have ever heard of that claims that ABC News is simply a shill for the White House.
He didn't say ABC was. He said that the one reporter obviously has an axe to grind.
The whole thing is so creepy and manifestly ugly I can barely read the thread, much less work up the particulars to rebut much of anything.
And on that note, I'm off to bed.
Cheers
Scott