and this is of course about what you get with "Not Observed" for someone too previledged to be scourged: "Performed as Required" - - but "Not Observed" (?!)
"request for more information"
"Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report not available for administrative reasons."
I have followed this thread from it's inception and including the first post, this thread is way off of topic.
It has turned into a defend Kerry, and of course, a bash Bush thread.
So predictable.
And so easy to do, given the relative histories of the two men in question.
And how could you possibly imagine that some of us wouldn't defend Kerry when the accusations are so scurrilous, the logic so tortured, and comparisons so unflattering to the president? And how is that off topic?
Oh, right, we're filled with irrational Bush hate so any remarks critical of him are mere ravings.
Whereas the tricks Kerry used to get those purple hearts must be revealed, because America wants to know!
Oh come off it. This thread began with a couple of people looking for a transcript, and then got going with a_greer's post:
Quote:
I actualy watched the whole thing, when faced with an interview he gave to the harvard newspaper after recieving his masters degree in buseniss (the same MBA program Bush graduated from) he sayd "I was a stupid 27 year old kid" (that may not be exact but it is damn close)
wy problems with that:
1. he was 27, not a kid, a MAN
2. no one comes home from war a "kid", they may go as "kids" in the eyes of some, but they certinly are MEN (or women) when they come back.
3. Harvard doesnt give MBA's to KIDS!!!
It seems to me that MR Kerry has run out of excuses, this is pathetic.
why do grass roots Democrats stand for this guy, even if he beleives what you beleive, he cant win anything in the real america (outside of Kenedy country)?
I would realy like an answer
is he hillarys fall guy to clear up '08?
no one could honestly, after that interview think he has the cherisma to be president. On russert today, he looked like an oil painting with a voice track. Am I alone here? at least bush looks semi natureal speaking
This thread began with a bash Senator Kerry, bash democrats, drag Senator Clinton into it (for no reason other than that the conservatives just can't utter a sentence without the word "Clinton" appearing in it). Then it became a bunch of unbearably disgusting attempts by conservatives on this board to impugn Kerry's military record. When they were challenged, they quickly changed the subject to whether service is service is service.
And now you're complaining that the liberals have the upper hand in the arguments.
And so easy to do, given the relative histories of the two men in question.
And how could you possibly imagine that some of us wouldn't defend Kerry when the accusations are so scurrilous, the logic so tortured, and comparisons so unflattering to the president? And how is that off topic?
Oh, right, we're filled with irrational Bush hate so any remarks critical of him are mere ravings.
Whereas the tricks Kerry used to get those purple hearts must be revealed, because America wants to know!
Predictable? How about entirely without decency?
To be honest, I would think that people would be more worried about current issues and future solutions that these two people have in mind for this country, and not so much about what happened 30 some years ago when both of them were obviously not as wise.
The fact is, some of the attacks from both sides are way over the line.
To be honest, I would think that people would be more worried about current issues and future solutions that these two people have in mind for this country, and not so much about what happened 30 some years ago when both of them were obviously not as wise.
The fact is, some of the attacks from both sides are way over the line.
I can't believe this thread is still alive. It's a non-issue created by the Republicans. It was over 30 years ago... what was Bush doing then.......... wasn't he snorting coke or something? If you say it's about honesty, then I say bullshit. Bush got a D.U.I. in the 70's and continued to drink for another decade or more. He claims to have been sober since 1986, but there's video of him apparently drunk in 1992. Not that I'm against drinking (I've had a few tonight), but people are trying to discredit Kerry for this and it's just stupid. It smells of desperation on the part of the Republicans.... make a controversy over any small thing they can find.
What's worse: Bush lying about WMD to wrongly overthrow a Iraq? or Kerry saying he threw medals when he actually they were ribbons but still had the same meaning behind his gesture? It's just rediculous.
Did you know that the manner in which Bush "allowed himself to be grounded" (great phrasing, HAHA) is ordinarily followed by an in depth investigation which then result in some form of disciplinary action taken against said self-grounding pilot?
What about that? Where are those records? where is the investigation?
Why only partial and thouroughly vetted records?
These "attacks" are so far from what was thrown at Clinton it is amazing . . . the circumstances are driving these questions, whereas Clinton's "Whitewater Affair" was purely fiction!
It shouldn't be partisan to ask these question of the man leading our troops: he escaped duty through nefarious means not beffitting a soldier much less commander in chief . . . or did he? and that is the question. Now why would that seem to come from your mouth all of a sudden?
faced with the obvious discrepency between attacking someone who both fought valorously and then had the courage to put himself forward for what he believed on one hand, and, someone who silver-spooned his way through state paid flying lessons in the "Champagne Squadron" and then may or may not have missed years of service, but definitly failed to take a required exam to keep flying, on the other hand? . . . .
could that discrepency suddenly make it feel like thirty years ago?
Pure fiction. More mudslinging and mindless speculation by a liberal who has no facts. I already went into this with you. You certainly were outraged when I had questions about Kerry's medals in that the wounds described in the citation for his second Purple Heart did not match the wounds that were described in his Bronze Star citation he received during the same action. Those are facts that have not been reconciled but I don't care about that - what difference does it really make at this point? But the posting of what is no more than pure crap about Bush's Guard record is really beyond the pale as it is nothing more then the rantings of someone who is grasping for straws. The bottom line is Bush wanted to pursue non-flying interests at that time. The Guard (and the active-duty military) had a surplus of pilots at that time anyways and not enough airplanes. Many such requests were granted during that period. Bush made up his time that he missed as that was something that was allowed in the Guard - as long as it was made up during the required period (which he did). So stop making a bunch or crap up to try to pump up an argument that has already deflated because none of it has any basis in fact. Until you get some facts as it relates to these allegations than I would suggest that you resist such inclinations to post this ridiculous drivel any further.
Now I have said that I will refrain from questioning John Kerry's service record despite the fact that since he has not released complete records for us to view. Would you care to do the same as it relates to Bush's record? The fact of the matter is you have no facts to prove your contention that Bush did not deserve his honorable discharge any more than I have proof that Kerry did not deserve all his medals. Would you agree? If not then you must realize that what you are doing is taking at face value that the miltary properly awarded Kerry's medals (based on accounts that only he and his crew were witnesses to) but in Bush's case they fraudulently awaded him an honorable discharge. If Bush did not satisfactorily complete his service he never would have gotten it. If as you say Bush has not released all his records you must concede that the military does have them and if there was something in there that was so damning then why did he still get an honorable discharge?
I can't believe this thread is still alive. It's a non-issue created by the Republicans. It was over 30 years ago... what was Bush doing then.......... wasn't he snorting coke or something? If you say it's about honesty, then I say bullshit. Bush got a D.U.I. in the 70's and continued to drink for another decade or more. He claims to have been sober since 1986, but there's video of him apparently drunk in 1992. Not that I'm against drinking (I've had a few tonight), but people are trying to discredit Kerry for this and it's just stupid. It smells of desperation on the part of the Republicans.... make a controversy over any small thing they can find.
What's worse: Bush lying about WMD to wrongly overthrow a Iraq? or Kerry saying he threw medals when he actually they were ribbons but still had the same meaning behind his gesture? It's just rediculous.
Man, you guys never give up on this "Bush lied about the WMD" thing. When is ONE of you guys going to present evidence that he actually lied about it? I am sure President Bush had to have confidence that he had good intelligence on the issue - as did his predecessors before him. I think he was perhaps let down by the CIA on this but that certainly does not make him a liar. You can repeat this "Bush lied about WMD to start a war with Iraq" idea all you want but repeating it time and again does not make it any truer than the first time it past the lips of the first liberal who uttered it. Eventually it needs to be proven that Bush knew there were not WMD in Iraq (again I don't think the jury about the WMD is out yet) and even so he decided to go ahead and invade anyways. Without proof of that you cannot make that leap - sorry.
Kerry's medal/ribbon throwing incident does not have the same meaning when back then he supposedly did not care about the medals and now he cherishes them. I mean, why throw the ribbons and keep the medals? This idea that "maybe his medals were at home" rings a tad hollow. All of it was nothing more than simple grandstanding and that interview he gave to that local TV station is proof of that. Bottom line is he kept the medals and you cannot deny that now he is proud of them when back then he was happy to leave everyone with the impression that he got rid of them permanently because in his mind they were devalued because the war was unjust and immoral. I personally think he lied about the whole thing but at the least he was being very misleading to the public about what took place that day.
As for your stupid rant about Bush's sobriety - what is it that you are trying to say? The man admitted he had a substance abuse problem. He has not hidden that fact from the American people and to his credit he turned his life around. He made a mistake - one that was destructive to him personally. Kerry's post-war actions where he lied about the actions of his fellow soldiers and brought dishonor to our military causing great pain to many Vietnam veterans is a fair bit more troubling. So comparing Bush's drinking problem to Kerry lying about war atrocities is not a comparison that is flattering to John Kerry. Bush moved on from his problems and is now 100% sober - and he is now President of the United States. Meanwhile Kerry squirmed in his seat and still looked quite uncomfortable talking about his lies and deceitful post-war conduct in his interview with Tim Russert only a few weeks ago. Who looks more presidential now?
You believe anything that the govenment tells you....
Not necessarily the wisest choice, but whatever.
Lies, lies, lies.... my point about Bush drinking was that he lied. People lie..... it's human nature. At some point in YOUR life you'll lie, whether you'll be caught in that lie... that's a different story. Politicians in the spotlight of the media are under scrutiny for words and actions they've said/made as far back as, well... in this case 30+ years. What's my point? Oh yeah... Kerry made a statement 30 years ago. He stands by that statement..... what does it really matter if they were ribbons or medals? He was against the shit that went down in Vietnam! Small mistruths or white lies or whatever you want to call them is, at the very least what's going on here...if even that. What I tried to say is that Bush himself was caught in a lie by saying he quit drinking in '86 when he was clearly drunk and filmed drinking in '92. Isn't this whole debate about lying?
Edit: and the evidence that he mislead the us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny..... the fact that he said that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found. Where's the argument? Where's the fvckin' WMD genius?!
You believe anything that the govenment tells you....
Not necessarily the wisest choice, but whatever.
Lies, lies, lies.... my point about Bush drinking was that he lied. People lie..... it's human nature. At some point in YOUR life you'll lie, whether you'll be caught in that lie... that's a different story. Politicians in the spotlight of the media are under scrutiny for words and actions they've said/made as far back as, well... in this case 30+ years. What's my point? Oh yeah... Kerry made a statement 30 years ago. He stands by that statement..... what does it really matter if they were ribbons or medals? He was against the shit that went down in Vietnam! Small mistruths or white lies or whatever you want to call them is, at the very least what's going on here...if even that. What I tried to say is that Bush himself was caught in a lie by saying he quit drinking in '86 when he was clearly drunk and filmed drinking in '92. Isn't this whole debate about lying?
Edit: and the evidence that he mislead the us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny..... the fact that he said that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found. Where's the argument? Where's the fvckin' WMD genius?!
Excusing bad behavior with other bad behavior is a sad and losing argument.
The problem Kerry has is that he has so many stories that have come from his own mouth that it is fairly easy to conclude he is not an honest person.
The problem with Bush is that he does not say much, so his opponents assume he is being dishonest. However, the advantage to how Bush handles it is, he lets those people commit to a position, and then makes them look foolish for being so knee jerkish.
The medal/ribbon issue is only an issue because noone knows what really happened and it seems that Kerry won't or can't tell the truth, either now or in the past. Honesty is important, and this issue seems to hi-light this this virtue or lack thereof. This is an issue cause by John Kerry himself. Only he can explain himself.
The bush drinking thing was an example of a candidate being faced with his past questioning his future, and he passed with flying colors, thus end of story, as far as that issue goes.
Kerry and Kerry alone can make this issue go away.
You believe anything that the govenment tells you....
Not necessarily the wisest choice, but whatever.
Lies, lies, lies.... my point about Bush drinking was that he lied. People lie..... it's human nature. At some point in YOUR life you'll lie, whether you'll be caught in that lie... that's a different story. Politicians in the spotlight of the media are under scrutiny for words and actions they've said/made as far back as, well... in this case 30+ years. What's my point? Oh yeah... Kerry made a statement 30 years ago. He stands by that statement..... what does it really matter if they were ribbons or medals? He was against the shit that went down in Vietnam! Small mistruths or white lies or whatever you want to call them is, at the very least what's going on here...if even that. What I tried to say is that Bush himself was caught in a lie by saying he quit drinking in '86 when he was clearly drunk and filmed drinking in '92. Isn't this whole debate about lying?
Edit: and the evidence that he mislead the us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny..... the fact that he said that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found. Where's the argument? Where's the fvckin' WMD genius?!
Arguing with idiots is proving to be more difficult than I ever expected. Here is what you said: "and the evidence that he misled us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny.... the fact that he said we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found."
The problem with you are argument is that is not proof that he lied - plain and simple. To prove that he lied you have to show that Bush knew in advance that there were no WMD and despite that he invaded anyways. You have no PROOF of that. See how that works? The "it is so obvious it isn't funny" argument is laughable and it makes you look like one of the bigger fools I have had the pleasure to argue with in a long time. The CIA and a lot of other people provided Bush with intelligence that indicated strongly that Iraq had WMD and the President looked at that information and made a decision based on the best intelligence he had. Sometimes the intelligence turns out to be wrong although nobody has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that these weapons were not shipped of to Syria or elsewhere before the war started. That leaves you a LONG way from your assertion that Bush knowingly went ahead with a war despite knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. Where is your evidence that he knew in advance that we would not find the weapons? You guys are unbelievable on the left. You haven't the faintest idea how to make an argument.
And this video "evidence" that you claim shows Bush was drunk in 1992 is laughable. Maybe I missed something but I did not see anything showing when this video was shot and I can't really take your word for it that it was when you said it was. I am not even sure you can make the claim that he was drunk and not just acting silly for the camera - I mean who knows? And the bottom line is Kerry did lie about atrocities he said he saw in Vietnam because the allegations were later proven to be false and he has since backed away from those statements which clearly illustrates quite clearly that he knowingly lied back in 1971. That is something even more important then the whole medal/ribbon issue which still shows how opportunistic Kerry was even some 30 years ago. It is okay to be upset and frustrated with the war - a lot of people were - but it does not give you the right to lie about it all no matter how many medals and ribbons are pinned to your chest. A person's war hero status only goes so far. If he was so proud of what he said and did back then then why don't we see references to such statements on his campaign website? This cannot be dismissed as youthful exuberance because accusing fellow soldiers of war crimes is serious business. This is not a small white lie and what he did was slander the reputation of scores of fine young men who were over there serving their country.
Man, you guys never give up on this "Bush lied about the WMD" thing. When is ONE of you guys going to present evidence that he actually lied about it? I am sure President Bush had to have confidence that he had good intelligence on the issue - as did his predecessors before him. I think he was perhaps let down by the CIA on this but that certainly does not make him a liar. You can repeat this "Bush lied about WMD to start a war with Iraq" idea all you want but repeating it time and again does not make it any truer than the first time it past the lips of the first liberal who uttered it. Eventually it needs to be proven that Bush knew there were not WMD in Iraq (again I don't think the jury about the WMD is out yet) and even so he decided to go ahead and invade anyways. Without proof of that you cannot make that leap - sorry.
Kerry's medal/ribbon throwing incident does not have the same meaning when back then he supposedly did not care about the medals and now he cherishes them. I mean, why throw the ribbons and keep the medals? This idea that "maybe his medals were at home" rings a tad hollow. All of it was nothing more than simple grandstanding and that interview he gave to that local TV station is proof of that. Bottom line is he kept the medals and you cannot deny that now he is proud of them when back then he was happy to leave everyone with the impression that he got rid of them permanently because in his mind they were devalued because the war was unjust and immoral. I personally think he lied about the whole thing but at the least he was being very misleading to the public about what took place that day.
As for your stupid rant about Bush's sobriety - what is it that you are trying to say? The man admitted he had a substance abuse problem. He has not hidden that fact from the American people and to his credit he turned his life around. He made a mistake - one that was destructive to him personally. Kerry's post-war actions where he lied about the actions of his fellow soldiers and brought dishonor to our military causing great pain to many Vietnam veterans is a fair bit more troubling. So comparing Bush's drinking problem to Kerry lying about war atrocities is not a comparison that is flattering to John Kerry. Bush moved on from his problems and is now 100% sober - and he is now President of the United States. Meanwhile Kerry squirmed in his seat and still looked quite uncomfortable talking about his lies and deceitful post-war conduct in his interview with Tim Russert only a few weeks ago. Who looks more presidential now?
And why don't we give up about the WOMD thing? Because it's important! A lot more important than what Kerry said 30 years ago. A lot more important because it's current. A lot more important because it resulted in the loss of many lives. A lot more important because it resulted in many dollars of our money spent. A lot more important ( and most importantly ) because it was based on a falsehood!
And you're right! We won't let it go until Bush is out of office one way or another. And even then I'll wager that they'll still be digging up dirt about this!
Arguing with idiots is proving to be more difficult than I ever expected. Here is what you said: "and the evidence that he misled us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny.... the fact that he said we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found."
The problem with you are argument is that is not proof that he lied - plain and simple. To prove that he lied you have to show that Bush knew in advance that there were no WMD and despite that he invaded anyways. You have no PROOF of that. See how that works? The "it is so obvious it isn't funny" argument is laughable and it makes you look like one of the bigger fools I have had the pleasure to argue with in a long time. The CIA and a lot of other people provided Bush with intelligence that indicated strongly that Iraq had WMD and the President looked at that information and made a decision based on the best intelligence he had. Sometimes the intelligence turns out to be wrong although nobody has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that these weapons were not shipped of to Syria or elsewhere before the war started. That leaves you a LONG way from your assertion that Bush knowingly went ahead with a war despite knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. Where is your evidence that he knew in advance that we would not find the weapons? You guys are unbelievable on the left. You haven't the faintest idea how to make an argument.
And this video "evidence" that you claim shows Bush was drunk in 1992 is laughable. Maybe I missed something but I did not see anything showing when this video was shot and I can't really take your word for it that it was when you said it was. I am not even sure you can make the claim that he was drunk and not just acting silly for the camera - I mean who knows? And the bottom line is Kerry did lie about atrocities he said he saw in Vietnam because the allegations were later proven to be false and he has since backed away from those statements which clearly illustrates quite clearly that he knowingly lied back in 1971. That is something even more important then the whole medal/ribbon issue which still shows how opportunistic Kerry was even some 30 years ago. It is okay to be upset and frustrated with the war - a lot of people were - but it does not give you the right to lie about it all no matter how many medals and ribbons are pinned to your chest. A person's war hero status only goes so far. If he was so proud of what he said and did back then then why don't we see references to such statements on his campaign website? This cannot be dismissed as youthful exuberance because accusing fellow soldiers of war crimes is serious business. This is not a small white lie and what he did was slander the reputation of scores of fine young men who were over there serving their country.
If Bush didn't know about the lack of WOMD in Iraq.......well from what we know now about what people were telling him at the time ( and what any thinking person knew about his ability to deploy them ) that makes Bush an idiot!
Excusing bad behavior with other bad behavior is a sad and losing argument.
The problem Kerry has is that he has so many stories that have come from his own mouth that it is fairly easy to conclude he is not an honest person.
The problem with Bush is that he does not say much, so his opponents assume he is being dishonest. However, the advantage to how Bush handles it is, he lets those people commit to a position, and then makes them look foolish for being so knee jerkish.
The medal/ribbon issue is only an issue because noone knows what really happened and it seems that Kerry won't or can't tell the truth, either now or in the past. Honesty is important, and this issue seems to hi-light this this virtue or lack thereof. This is an issue cause by John Kerry himself. Only he can explain himself.
The bush drinking thing was an example of a candidate being faced with his past questioning his future, and he passed with flying colors, thus end of story, as far as that issue goes.
Kerry and Kerry alone can make this issue go away.
So I can assume from this statement that you'll stop making excuses for Bush's actions in Iraq?
Oh, I forgot......you're one of those people who thinks we'll still find WOMD there.........
No excuses have I made, however I have said it would be prudent to give the process time to succeed before declaring failure.
I feel that is the responsible way to approach these kinds of things.
Most of you lefties will admit that SH had to be dealt with sooner or later, so I am not sure what the argument is, beside from the political backlash you hope to create. If in fact he lied he should be held to account for the lie, the war in Iraq however is an entirely different issue, despite being commenced upon based on said lie.
The fact (if you care about facts) is that you nor I know if Bush lied yet, although we both have our opinions. However, we both can, if we are honest determine that Kerry was dishonest about his experiences in Nam, and about his medal/ribbon throwing incident in 71, and many other issues. He seems to be willing to say whatever it take to win, and to some (you?) that is admirable. To others that is considered dishonest.
I guess we each need to examine our vantage on the situation.
And why don't we give up about the WOMD thing? Because it's important! A lot more important than what Kerry said 30 years ago. A lot more important because it's current. A lot more important because it resulted in the loss of many lives. A lot more important because it resulted in many dollars of our money spent. A lot more important ( and most importantly ) because it was based on a falsehood!
And you're right! We won't let it go until Bush is out of office one way or another. And even then I'll wager that they'll still be digging up dirt about this!
Then why doesn't Kerry start talking how he plans to run the country instead of pulling his Vietnam war hero status out of his ass everytime he appears on camera? He is much more interested in talking about how "I was there" and the others were not and all of the Bush Administration's plans are wrong. We are still waiting for a plan Mr. Kerry...
Well, he has no plans. He wants to delegate our foreign policy to the UN so we can resume good buddy status with France and Germany. He is going to raise our taxes and kill what is a robust economic recovery. And why is he not talking about how many jobs Heinz has outsourced - the source of wealth that allows him and his wife to live in the lap of luxury of private jets, mansions across the nation and a fleet of fuel guzzling SUVs? He does not want to talk about that. I can only imagine why...
I've always found this claim hysterical. That's right. He's running for president on no plans whatsoever.
Quote:
He wants to delegate our foreign policy to the UN so we can resume good buddy status with France and Germany.
Wait, I thought you just said he didn't have any plans? Oh well.
I see that not working with the UN and playing by the rules is working really well these days. Is the UN problematic and toothless and slow to act? Certainly. But I'd rather see it fixed than abandoned.
As for "good buddy status"...why is that a bad thing again?
Quote:
He is going to raise our taxes
He's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do me any good. Were the Bush tax cuts even tax cuts to begin with?
Quote:
and kill what is a robust economic recovery.
Hehehehehehehe.
Quote:
And why is he not talking about how many jobs Heinz has outsourced
Because the more pressing issue is that factory and IT jobs have been outsourced?
Quote:
the source of wealth that allows him and his wife to live in the lap of luxury of private jets, mansions across the nation and a fleet of fuel guzzling SUVs?
He was wealthy all on his own before he married into the Heinz family. And considering who the current president is, I hardly think this line of argument will be profitable for you. No pun intended.
Quote:
He does not want to talk about that. I can only imagine why...
I've always found this claim hysterical. That's right. He's running for president on no plans whatsoever.
Wait, I thought you just said he didn't have any plans? Oh well.
I see that not working with the UN and playing by the rules is working really well these days. Is the UN problematic and toothless and slow to act? Certainly. But I'd rather see it fixed than abandoned.
As for "good buddy status"...why is that a bad thing again?
He's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do me any good. Were the Bush tax cuts even tax cuts to begin with?
Hehehehehehehe.
Because the more pressing issue is that factory and IT jobs have been outsourced?
He was wealthy all on his own before he married into the Heinz family. And considering who the current president is, I hardly think this line of argument will be profitable for you. No pun intended.
oooooh. Ominous.
All sarcasm all of the time here at WSRC AM radio....
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
One more thing.
Back to work for me.
Can I just say a few things:
(How would these words hold up on a resume?)
"Not Observed"
"Not Observed at This Unit"
and this is of course about what you get with "Not Observed" for someone too previledged to be scourged: "Performed as Required" - - but "Not Observed" (?!)
"request for more information"
"Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report not available for administrative reasons."
days creditted "(undated, unsigned)"
Bush's own bio w/out mention of AL (?)
RECORD CARD MAY 72-73
Still, I guess its something . . . but what's all that stuff on the left-hand side of the page? . . . um?!
It has turned into a defend Kerry, and of course, a bash Bush thread.
So predictable.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have followed this thread from it's inception and including the first post, this thread is way off of topic.
It has turned into a defend Kerry, and of course, a bash Bush thread.
So predictable.
And so easy to do, given the relative histories of the two men in question.
And how could you possibly imagine that some of us wouldn't defend Kerry when the accusations are so scurrilous, the logic so tortured, and comparisons so unflattering to the president? And how is that off topic?
Oh, right, we're filled with irrational Bush hate so any remarks critical of him are mere ravings.
Whereas the tricks Kerry used to get those purple hearts must be revealed, because America wants to know!
Predictable? How about entirely without decency?
I actualy watched the whole thing, when faced with an interview he gave to the harvard newspaper after recieving his masters degree in buseniss (the same MBA program Bush graduated from) he sayd "I was a stupid 27 year old kid" (that may not be exact but it is damn close)
wy problems with that:
1. he was 27, not a kid, a MAN
2. no one comes home from war a "kid", they may go as "kids" in the eyes of some, but they certinly are MEN (or women) when they come back.
3. Harvard doesnt give MBA's to KIDS!!!
It seems to me that MR Kerry has run out of excuses, this is pathetic.
why do grass roots Democrats stand for this guy, even if he beleives what you beleive, he cant win anything in the real america (outside of Kenedy country)?
I would realy like an answer
is he hillarys fall guy to clear up '08?
no one could honestly, after that interview think he has the cherisma to be president. On russert today, he looked like an oil painting with a voice track. Am I alone here? at least bush looks semi natureal speaking
This thread began with a bash Senator Kerry, bash democrats, drag Senator Clinton into it (for no reason other than that the conservatives just can't utter a sentence without the word "Clinton" appearing in it). Then it became a bunch of unbearably disgusting attempts by conservatives on this board to impugn Kerry's military record. When they were challenged, they quickly changed the subject to whether service is service is service.
And now you're complaining that the liberals have the upper hand in the arguments.
Originally posted by addabox
And so easy to do, given the relative histories of the two men in question.
And how could you possibly imagine that some of us wouldn't defend Kerry when the accusations are so scurrilous, the logic so tortured, and comparisons so unflattering to the president? And how is that off topic?
Oh, right, we're filled with irrational Bush hate so any remarks critical of him are mere ravings.
Whereas the tricks Kerry used to get those purple hearts must be revealed, because America wants to know!
Predictable? How about entirely without decency?
To be honest, I would think that people would be more worried about current issues and future solutions that these two people have in mind for this country, and not so much about what happened 30 some years ago when both of them were obviously not as wise.
The fact is, some of the attacks from both sides are way over the line.
Hey how 'bout them Yankees?
Originally posted by NaplesX
To be honest, I would think that people would be more worried about current issues and future solutions that these two people have in mind for this country, and not so much about what happened 30 some years ago when both of them were obviously not as wise.
The fact is, some of the attacks from both sides are way over the line.
Hey how 'bout them Yankees?
I agree . . . except the both sides part
What's worse: Bush lying about WMD to wrongly overthrow a Iraq? or Kerry saying he threw medals when he actually they were ribbons but still had the same meaning behind his gesture? It's just rediculous.
Originally posted by pfflam
Did you know that the manner in which Bush "allowed himself to be grounded" (great phrasing, HAHA) is ordinarily followed by an in depth investigation which then result in some form of disciplinary action taken against said self-grounding pilot?
What about that? Where are those records? where is the investigation?
Why only partial and thouroughly vetted records?
These "attacks" are so far from what was thrown at Clinton it is amazing . . . the circumstances are driving these questions, whereas Clinton's "Whitewater Affair" was purely fiction!
It shouldn't be partisan to ask these question of the man leading our troops: he escaped duty through nefarious means not beffitting a soldier much less commander in chief . . . or did he? and that is the question. Now why would that seem to come from your mouth all of a sudden?
faced with the obvious discrepency between attacking someone who both fought valorously and then had the courage to put himself forward for what he believed on one hand, and, someone who silver-spooned his way through state paid flying lessons in the "Champagne Squadron" and then may or may not have missed years of service, but definitly failed to take a required exam to keep flying, on the other hand? . . . .
could that discrepency suddenly make it feel like thirty years ago?
Pure fiction. More mudslinging and mindless speculation by a liberal who has no facts. I already went into this with you. You certainly were outraged when I had questions about Kerry's medals in that the wounds described in the citation for his second Purple Heart did not match the wounds that were described in his Bronze Star citation he received during the same action. Those are facts that have not been reconciled but I don't care about that - what difference does it really make at this point? But the posting of what is no more than pure crap about Bush's Guard record is really beyond the pale as it is nothing more then the rantings of someone who is grasping for straws. The bottom line is Bush wanted to pursue non-flying interests at that time. The Guard (and the active-duty military) had a surplus of pilots at that time anyways and not enough airplanes. Many such requests were granted during that period. Bush made up his time that he missed as that was something that was allowed in the Guard - as long as it was made up during the required period (which he did). So stop making a bunch or crap up to try to pump up an argument that has already deflated because none of it has any basis in fact. Until you get some facts as it relates to these allegations than I would suggest that you resist such inclinations to post this ridiculous drivel any further.
Now I have said that I will refrain from questioning John Kerry's service record despite the fact that since he has not released complete records for us to view. Would you care to do the same as it relates to Bush's record? The fact of the matter is you have no facts to prove your contention that Bush did not deserve his honorable discharge any more than I have proof that Kerry did not deserve all his medals. Would you agree? If not then you must realize that what you are doing is taking at face value that the miltary properly awarded Kerry's medals (based on accounts that only he and his crew were witnesses to) but in Bush's case they fraudulently awaded him an honorable discharge. If Bush did not satisfactorily complete his service he never would have gotten it. If as you say Bush has not released all his records you must concede that the military does have them and if there was something in there that was so damning then why did he still get an honorable discharge?
I'm still waiting for an answer to that one...
Originally posted by Akumulator
I can't believe this thread is still alive. It's a non-issue created by the Republicans. It was over 30 years ago... what was Bush doing then.......... wasn't he snorting coke or something? If you say it's about honesty, then I say bullshit. Bush got a D.U.I. in the 70's and continued to drink for another decade or more. He claims to have been sober since 1986, but there's video of him apparently drunk in 1992. Not that I'm against drinking (I've had a few tonight), but people are trying to discredit Kerry for this and it's just stupid. It smells of desperation on the part of the Republicans.... make a controversy over any small thing they can find.
What's worse: Bush lying about WMD to wrongly overthrow a Iraq? or Kerry saying he threw medals when he actually they were ribbons but still had the same meaning behind his gesture? It's just rediculous.
Man, you guys never give up on this "Bush lied about the WMD" thing. When is ONE of you guys going to present evidence that he actually lied about it? I am sure President Bush had to have confidence that he had good intelligence on the issue - as did his predecessors before him. I think he was perhaps let down by the CIA on this but that certainly does not make him a liar. You can repeat this "Bush lied about WMD to start a war with Iraq" idea all you want but repeating it time and again does not make it any truer than the first time it past the lips of the first liberal who uttered it. Eventually it needs to be proven that Bush knew there were not WMD in Iraq (again I don't think the jury about the WMD is out yet) and even so he decided to go ahead and invade anyways. Without proof of that you cannot make that leap - sorry.
Kerry's medal/ribbon throwing incident does not have the same meaning when back then he supposedly did not care about the medals and now he cherishes them. I mean, why throw the ribbons and keep the medals? This idea that "maybe his medals were at home" rings a tad hollow. All of it was nothing more than simple grandstanding and that interview he gave to that local TV station is proof of that. Bottom line is he kept the medals and you cannot deny that now he is proud of them when back then he was happy to leave everyone with the impression that he got rid of them permanently because in his mind they were devalued because the war was unjust and immoral. I personally think he lied about the whole thing but at the least he was being very misleading to the public about what took place that day.
As for your stupid rant about Bush's sobriety - what is it that you are trying to say? The man admitted he had a substance abuse problem. He has not hidden that fact from the American people and to his credit he turned his life around. He made a mistake - one that was destructive to him personally. Kerry's post-war actions where he lied about the actions of his fellow soldiers and brought dishonor to our military causing great pain to many Vietnam veterans is a fair bit more troubling. So comparing Bush's drinking problem to Kerry lying about war atrocities is not a comparison that is flattering to John Kerry. Bush moved on from his problems and is now 100% sober - and he is now President of the United States. Meanwhile Kerry squirmed in his seat and still looked quite uncomfortable talking about his lies and deceitful post-war conduct in his interview with Tim Russert only a few weeks ago. Who looks more presidential now?
Not necessarily the wisest choice, but whatever.
Lies, lies, lies.... my point about Bush drinking was that he lied. People lie..... it's human nature. At some point in YOUR life you'll lie, whether you'll be caught in that lie... that's a different story. Politicians in the spotlight of the media are under scrutiny for words and actions they've said/made as far back as, well... in this case 30+ years. What's my point? Oh yeah... Kerry made a statement 30 years ago. He stands by that statement..... what does it really matter if they were ribbons or medals? He was against the shit that went down in Vietnam! Small mistruths or white lies or whatever you want to call them is, at the very least what's going on here...if even that. What I tried to say is that Bush himself was caught in a lie by saying he quit drinking in '86 when he was clearly drunk and filmed drinking in '92. Isn't this whole debate about lying?
Edit: and the evidence that he mislead the us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny..... the fact that he said that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found. Where's the argument? Where's the fvckin' WMD genius?!
Originally posted by Akumulator
You believe anything that the govenment tells you....
Not necessarily the wisest choice, but whatever.
Lies, lies, lies.... my point about Bush drinking was that he lied. People lie..... it's human nature. At some point in YOUR life you'll lie, whether you'll be caught in that lie... that's a different story. Politicians in the spotlight of the media are under scrutiny for words and actions they've said/made as far back as, well... in this case 30+ years. What's my point? Oh yeah... Kerry made a statement 30 years ago. He stands by that statement..... what does it really matter if they were ribbons or medals? He was against the shit that went down in Vietnam! Small mistruths or white lies or whatever you want to call them is, at the very least what's going on here...if even that. What I tried to say is that Bush himself was caught in a lie by saying he quit drinking in '86 when he was clearly drunk and filmed drinking in '92. Isn't this whole debate about lying?
Edit: and the evidence that he mislead the us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny..... the fact that he said that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found. Where's the argument? Where's the fvckin' WMD genius?!
Excusing bad behavior with other bad behavior is a sad and losing argument.
The problem Kerry has is that he has so many stories that have come from his own mouth that it is fairly easy to conclude he is not an honest person.
The problem with Bush is that he does not say much, so his opponents assume he is being dishonest. However, the advantage to how Bush handles it is, he lets those people commit to a position, and then makes them look foolish for being so knee jerkish.
The medal/ribbon issue is only an issue because noone knows what really happened and it seems that Kerry won't or can't tell the truth, either now or in the past. Honesty is important, and this issue seems to hi-light this this virtue or lack thereof. This is an issue cause by John Kerry himself. Only he can explain himself.
The bush drinking thing was an example of a candidate being faced with his past questioning his future, and he passed with flying colors, thus end of story, as far as that issue goes.
Kerry and Kerry alone can make this issue go away.
Originally posted by Akumulator
You believe anything that the govenment tells you....
Not necessarily the wisest choice, but whatever.
Lies, lies, lies.... my point about Bush drinking was that he lied. People lie..... it's human nature. At some point in YOUR life you'll lie, whether you'll be caught in that lie... that's a different story. Politicians in the spotlight of the media are under scrutiny for words and actions they've said/made as far back as, well... in this case 30+ years. What's my point? Oh yeah... Kerry made a statement 30 years ago. He stands by that statement..... what does it really matter if they were ribbons or medals? He was against the shit that went down in Vietnam! Small mistruths or white lies or whatever you want to call them is, at the very least what's going on here...if even that. What I tried to say is that Bush himself was caught in a lie by saying he quit drinking in '86 when he was clearly drunk and filmed drinking in '92. Isn't this whole debate about lying?
Edit: and the evidence that he mislead the us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny..... the fact that he said that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found. Where's the argument? Where's the fvckin' WMD genius?!
Arguing with idiots is proving to be more difficult than I ever expected. Here is what you said: "and the evidence that he misled us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny.... the fact that he said we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found."
The problem with you are argument is that is not proof that he lied - plain and simple. To prove that he lied you have to show that Bush knew in advance that there were no WMD and despite that he invaded anyways. You have no PROOF of that. See how that works? The "it is so obvious it isn't funny" argument is laughable and it makes you look like one of the bigger fools I have had the pleasure to argue with in a long time. The CIA and a lot of other people provided Bush with intelligence that indicated strongly that Iraq had WMD and the President looked at that information and made a decision based on the best intelligence he had. Sometimes the intelligence turns out to be wrong although nobody has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that these weapons were not shipped of to Syria or elsewhere before the war started. That leaves you a LONG way from your assertion that Bush knowingly went ahead with a war despite knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. Where is your evidence that he knew in advance that we would not find the weapons? You guys are unbelievable on the left. You haven't the faintest idea how to make an argument.
And this video "evidence" that you claim shows Bush was drunk in 1992 is laughable. Maybe I missed something but I did not see anything showing when this video was shot and I can't really take your word for it that it was when you said it was. I am not even sure you can make the claim that he was drunk and not just acting silly for the camera - I mean who knows? And the bottom line is Kerry did lie about atrocities he said he saw in Vietnam because the allegations were later proven to be false and he has since backed away from those statements which clearly illustrates quite clearly that he knowingly lied back in 1971. That is something even more important then the whole medal/ribbon issue which still shows how opportunistic Kerry was even some 30 years ago. It is okay to be upset and frustrated with the war - a lot of people were - but it does not give you the right to lie about it all no matter how many medals and ribbons are pinned to your chest. A person's war hero status only goes so far. If he was so proud of what he said and did back then then why don't we see references to such statements on his campaign website? This cannot be dismissed as youthful exuberance because accusing fellow soldiers of war crimes is serious business. This is not a small white lie and what he did was slander the reputation of scores of fine young men who were over there serving their country.
Originally posted by 7E7
Man, you guys never give up on this "Bush lied about the WMD" thing. When is ONE of you guys going to present evidence that he actually lied about it? I am sure President Bush had to have confidence that he had good intelligence on the issue - as did his predecessors before him. I think he was perhaps let down by the CIA on this but that certainly does not make him a liar. You can repeat this "Bush lied about WMD to start a war with Iraq" idea all you want but repeating it time and again does not make it any truer than the first time it past the lips of the first liberal who uttered it. Eventually it needs to be proven that Bush knew there were not WMD in Iraq (again I don't think the jury about the WMD is out yet) and even so he decided to go ahead and invade anyways. Without proof of that you cannot make that leap - sorry.
Kerry's medal/ribbon throwing incident does not have the same meaning when back then he supposedly did not care about the medals and now he cherishes them. I mean, why throw the ribbons and keep the medals? This idea that "maybe his medals were at home" rings a tad hollow. All of it was nothing more than simple grandstanding and that interview he gave to that local TV station is proof of that. Bottom line is he kept the medals and you cannot deny that now he is proud of them when back then he was happy to leave everyone with the impression that he got rid of them permanently because in his mind they were devalued because the war was unjust and immoral. I personally think he lied about the whole thing but at the least he was being very misleading to the public about what took place that day.
As for your stupid rant about Bush's sobriety - what is it that you are trying to say? The man admitted he had a substance abuse problem. He has not hidden that fact from the American people and to his credit he turned his life around. He made a mistake - one that was destructive to him personally. Kerry's post-war actions where he lied about the actions of his fellow soldiers and brought dishonor to our military causing great pain to many Vietnam veterans is a fair bit more troubling. So comparing Bush's drinking problem to Kerry lying about war atrocities is not a comparison that is flattering to John Kerry. Bush moved on from his problems and is now 100% sober - and he is now President of the United States. Meanwhile Kerry squirmed in his seat and still looked quite uncomfortable talking about his lies and deceitful post-war conduct in his interview with Tim Russert only a few weeks ago. Who looks more presidential now?
And why don't we give up about the WOMD thing? Because it's important! A lot more important than what Kerry said 30 years ago. A lot more important because it's current. A lot more important because it resulted in the loss of many lives. A lot more important because it resulted in many dollars of our money spent. A lot more important ( and most importantly ) because it was based on a falsehood!
And you're right! We won't let it go until Bush is out of office one way or another. And even then I'll wager that they'll still be digging up dirt about this!
Originally posted by 7E7
Arguing with idiots is proving to be more difficult than I ever expected. Here is what you said: "and the evidence that he misled us about WMD is so fvcking obvious it isn't funny.... the fact that he said we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD and then after we invaded there are none to be found."
The problem with you are argument is that is not proof that he lied - plain and simple. To prove that he lied you have to show that Bush knew in advance that there were no WMD and despite that he invaded anyways. You have no PROOF of that. See how that works? The "it is so obvious it isn't funny" argument is laughable and it makes you look like one of the bigger fools I have had the pleasure to argue with in a long time. The CIA and a lot of other people provided Bush with intelligence that indicated strongly that Iraq had WMD and the President looked at that information and made a decision based on the best intelligence he had. Sometimes the intelligence turns out to be wrong although nobody has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that these weapons were not shipped of to Syria or elsewhere before the war started. That leaves you a LONG way from your assertion that Bush knowingly went ahead with a war despite knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. Where is your evidence that he knew in advance that we would not find the weapons? You guys are unbelievable on the left. You haven't the faintest idea how to make an argument.
And this video "evidence" that you claim shows Bush was drunk in 1992 is laughable. Maybe I missed something but I did not see anything showing when this video was shot and I can't really take your word for it that it was when you said it was. I am not even sure you can make the claim that he was drunk and not just acting silly for the camera - I mean who knows? And the bottom line is Kerry did lie about atrocities he said he saw in Vietnam because the allegations were later proven to be false and he has since backed away from those statements which clearly illustrates quite clearly that he knowingly lied back in 1971. That is something even more important then the whole medal/ribbon issue which still shows how opportunistic Kerry was even some 30 years ago. It is okay to be upset and frustrated with the war - a lot of people were - but it does not give you the right to lie about it all no matter how many medals and ribbons are pinned to your chest. A person's war hero status only goes so far. If he was so proud of what he said and did back then then why don't we see references to such statements on his campaign website? This cannot be dismissed as youthful exuberance because accusing fellow soldiers of war crimes is serious business. This is not a small white lie and what he did was slander the reputation of scores of fine young men who were over there serving their country.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Arguing with idiots "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gosh I know what you mean!
If Bush didn't know about the lack of WOMD in Iraq.......well from what we know now about what people were telling him at the time ( and what any thinking person knew about his ability to deploy them ) that makes Bush an idiot!
Take your pick.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Excusing bad behavior with other bad behavior is a sad and losing argument.
The problem Kerry has is that he has so many stories that have come from his own mouth that it is fairly easy to conclude he is not an honest person.
The problem with Bush is that he does not say much, so his opponents assume he is being dishonest. However, the advantage to how Bush handles it is, he lets those people commit to a position, and then makes them look foolish for being so knee jerkish.
The medal/ribbon issue is only an issue because noone knows what really happened and it seems that Kerry won't or can't tell the truth, either now or in the past. Honesty is important, and this issue seems to hi-light this this virtue or lack thereof. This is an issue cause by John Kerry himself. Only he can explain himself.
The bush drinking thing was an example of a candidate being faced with his past questioning his future, and he passed with flying colors, thus end of story, as far as that issue goes.
Kerry and Kerry alone can make this issue go away.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Excusing bad behavior with other bad behavior is a sad and losing argument. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
So I can assume from this statement that you'll stop making excuses for Bush's actions in Iraq?
Oh, I forgot......you're one of those people who thinks we'll still find WOMD there.........
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Excusing bad behavior with other bad behavior is a sad and losing argument. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
So I can assume from this statement that you'll stop making excuses for Bush's actions in Iraq?
Oh, I forgot......you're one of those people who thinks we'll still find WOMD there.........
No excuses have I made, however I have said it would be prudent to give the process time to succeed before declaring failure.
I feel that is the responsible way to approach these kinds of things.
Most of you lefties will admit that SH had to be dealt with sooner or later, so I am not sure what the argument is, beside from the political backlash you hope to create. If in fact he lied he should be held to account for the lie, the war in Iraq however is an entirely different issue, despite being commenced upon based on said lie.
The fact (if you care about facts) is that you nor I know if Bush lied yet, although we both have our opinions. However, we both can, if we are honest determine that Kerry was dishonest about his experiences in Nam, and about his medal/ribbon throwing incident in 71, and many other issues. He seems to be willing to say whatever it take to win, and to some (you?) that is admirable. To others that is considered dishonest.
I guess we each need to examine our vantage on the situation.
Originally posted by jimmac
And why don't we give up about the WOMD thing? Because it's important! A lot more important than what Kerry said 30 years ago. A lot more important because it's current. A lot more important because it resulted in the loss of many lives. A lot more important because it resulted in many dollars of our money spent. A lot more important ( and most importantly ) because it was based on a falsehood!
And you're right! We won't let it go until Bush is out of office one way or another. And even then I'll wager that they'll still be digging up dirt about this!
Then why doesn't Kerry start talking how he plans to run the country instead of pulling his Vietnam war hero status out of his ass everytime he appears on camera? He is much more interested in talking about how "I was there" and the others were not and all of the Bush Administration's plans are wrong. We are still waiting for a plan Mr. Kerry...
Well, he has no plans. He wants to delegate our foreign policy to the UN so we can resume good buddy status with France and Germany. He is going to raise our taxes and kill what is a robust economic recovery. And why is he not talking about how many jobs Heinz has outsourced - the source of wealth that allows him and his wife to live in the lap of luxury of private jets, mansions across the nation and a fleet of fuel guzzling SUVs? He does not want to talk about that. I can only imagine why...
Originally posted by 7E7
Well, he has no plans.
I've always found this claim hysterical. That's right. He's running for president on no plans whatsoever.
He wants to delegate our foreign policy to the UN so we can resume good buddy status with France and Germany.
Wait, I thought you just said he didn't have any plans? Oh well.
I see that not working with the UN and playing by the rules is working really well these days. Is the UN problematic and toothless and slow to act? Certainly. But I'd rather see it fixed than abandoned.
As for "good buddy status"...why is that a bad thing again?
He is going to raise our taxes
He's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do me any good. Were the Bush tax cuts even tax cuts to begin with?
and kill what is a robust economic recovery.
Hehehehehehehe.
And why is he not talking about how many jobs Heinz has outsourced
Because the more pressing issue is that factory and IT jobs have been outsourced?
the source of wealth that allows him and his wife to live in the lap of luxury of private jets, mansions across the nation and a fleet of fuel guzzling SUVs?
He was wealthy all on his own before he married into the Heinz family. And considering who the current president is, I hardly think this line of argument will be profitable for you. No pun intended.
He does not want to talk about that. I can only imagine why...
oooooh. Ominous.
Originally posted by midwinter
I've always found this claim hysterical. That's right. He's running for president on no plans whatsoever.
Wait, I thought you just said he didn't have any plans? Oh well.
I see that not working with the UN and playing by the rules is working really well these days. Is the UN problematic and toothless and slow to act? Certainly. But I'd rather see it fixed than abandoned.
As for "good buddy status"...why is that a bad thing again?
He's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do me any good. Were the Bush tax cuts even tax cuts to begin with?
Hehehehehehehe.
Because the more pressing issue is that factory and IT jobs have been outsourced?
He was wealthy all on his own before he married into the Heinz family. And considering who the current president is, I hardly think this line of argument will be profitable for you. No pun intended.
oooooh. Ominous.
All sarcasm all of the time here at WSRC AM radio....