OT: The Swiftees

[Teal]

"Not to much criticism on his handling of the war I see or anything most other critics attack him on."


You're not going to get any kind of criticism out of me over the war. I'm not a bandwagoner. His handling of the war...Saddam was in power, he's not anymore. The Taliban were in power, they're not anymore. The majority of Iraqis want us there now, but it's not sensational, so it isn't reported. I have a friend in Bagdhad right now, and he tells his family things that never get so much as a blurb in the press. Things like schools reopening, power getting restored, children clinging to US Soldiers and playing with them. So Al-Sadr is making trouble? What do you expect from a troublemaker??? Candy and an apology?! He'll get squashed in due time. Look no one said this would be easy. No one said it would be short. No one said it wouldn't be a little messy. So, no, I have nothing to criticize about the war. Sorry I'm not playing by the rules apparently...

"I'm certainly hard left, and don't hide it, but let's not pretend your being even-handed and neither will I."



I never hid it-haven't seen the avatar? I'm conservative, and I have never pretended to be anything but. I'm definitely voting for Bush, and not necessarily AGAINST Kerry. Some of you in here don't really give a rat's a$$ about Kerry, it's just a campaign against Bush, a moratorium. That's silly. Either you've got a viable candidate, or you don't. Dole wasn't a viable candidate in 96. He's a good guy, just not the material. Kerry fits that bill in 04. But what the hell- he could be roadkill, and you wouldn't care. Vote for him anyway, so long is Bush is out. Senseless...

[reeche]

But what the hell- he could be roadkill, and you wouldn't care. Vote for him anyway, so long is Bush is out. Senseless...

Amazing how any vote against Bush is somehow irrational. As if people don't have legitimate and well founded reasons to not vote for him. They might not be your reasons but then their is no way they could be. You act like Bush bashing is some new thing that is new to politics and as is republican commentators and partisans aren't equally annoying when they rail on with their petty bs whether it be about clinton or kerry or any other liberal politican. It will be fun to revisit this dicussion in four more years if Kerry is elected and how by that time he will be transformed into a monster and this same rabid president bashing will now be well-informed discourse from a conservative perspective. Just my prediction of course.

[dougb]

Teal,

What source(s) indicate that the majority of Iraqi's want the U.S. in there now?

Best wishes,

Doug

[Teal]

"What source(s) indicate that the majority of Iraqi's want the U.S. in there now?"



The soldiers on the ground. Like I said earlier, I know at least one guy very well who is one of them. Outside of Najaf and Fallujah, he sees mostly welcoming and affirming faces. They want a democracy, and can't wait til January when they get to vote for the first time without a gun in their ear...

[Teal]

"Amazing how any vote against Bush is somehow irrational. As if people don't have legitimate and well founded reasons to not vote for him."



I'm not talking about people who prefer Kerry over Bush. I'm talking about people who WOULD vote for roadkill over Bush. Gerafalo, Moore, whoever...these guys don't even care if their candidate is alive. It's not an enviable position to be in. I was in it in 96. I knew that Dole didn't have a prayer, and it frustrated me. I didn't like where Clinton was going, and I wanted to get him out. But I didn't vote for Dole, because I didn't think he'd be a good candidate. The Anybody But Bush mantra...is annoying. How do you debate that?

[Jared]

"Teal, pitcher, why don't you guys do a point-by-point refute of what Jared wrote on the first page of this thread when he debunked all this petty bulls*** to begin with? You don't, because you can't. And THAT'S an open-and-shut case."


...trolling again, I see, eh, Mo? Playing sniper doesn't get old for you, does it? Jared moderates this thing. I'm sure he has more time for book writing than I do. Why don't you try adding something intelligent once in a while, instead of lobbing bombs from the sidelines?

Actually, I don't have much time at all for moderating or "book writing". But it really bothers me when attacks that are without any basis in fact (see the primary documents, people flip-flopping on their stories, etc.) are championed as fact. It pissed me off when people were questioning McCain's service like this too (and he's a Republican, so this isn't a partisan thing...unsubstantiated smear by any side are disgusting and is a reason why so many people can't stand politics).

If the Swift Boat Vets want to highlight how Kerry acted either when he was in Vietnam or afterwards, that's fine. BUT when they do this, they've gotta back it up. And there's so much evidence of their stories not fitting with the primary evidence from the situation. So when people claim that their claims are worth a look or an open and shut case, I feel like I have to say something because when you examine this factually, their stories are (at best) very very weak, and at worse blatant lies.

As for what Mo said, I kind of agree with him. If people are going to promote and/or support the Swift Vet claims, then they should step up to the plate when people present evidence that contradicts these claims. Though I don't agree with the tone (Mo, give people time to respond before you say that they can't respond to these charges ).

[mobiggins]

I gave them three pages. I think that's pretty good. And calling it trolling is the same overblown language that right-leaning 'thinkers' and pundits like to 'lob' daily in the media, a la Ann Coulter.

I'm not trolling. Sorry I didn't get in on the ground floor on this one, but I don't like to debate these things anymore for the same reason I mentioned in my 'trolling' post: You people don't debate point for point when presented with logic. You simply pick ANYTHING you can grab onto from the post you're responding to and ignore the vast majority of the rest. Usually you ignore the whole post altogether and respond in general rhetoric. This goes for both sides, I'm sure, but it seems like the pro-Bush crowd is the less logical in most of these political debates these days.

I guess you have to resort to something outside of logic to support a guy who repeatedly makes gaffes like the 'they won't stop looking for ways to destroy our people, and neither will we' one from a few weeks ago. I know that's an old debate around here, but that's my fundamental beef.

Questioning Kerry's war record over something as petty as 'was there gunfire?' is like debating whether or not someone held as a pow ate one or two meals a day in captivity. It's ridiculous. Just the fact that he was there is SO much more than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rove ever did. They never even saw so much as a bullet, and now they're slaughtering young men and women in uniform and innocent Iraquis by the thousands in the name of 'freedom.'
And did it ever occur to people that Kerry's outspoken stance against the war upon his return wasn't a betrayal but rather a SERVICE to the thousands of soldiers who were still dying daily and weekly in an unjust war?? He was speaking out because he could, because they couldn't as long as they were there.

This is all incredibly petty.

[Teal]

"This is all incredibly petty"


And yet you add to it..."add" used loosely...


"You people don't debate point for point when presented with logic."



And you do?! By all means, inject some wisdom. It'd be a welcome change from you...


"I guess you have to resort to something outside of logic to support a guy who repeatedly makes gaffes like the 'they won't stop looking for ways to destroy our people, and neither will we' one from a few weeks ago. I know that's an old debate around here, but that's my fundamental beef."



Fundamental beef? I'm sorry, but, where's the beef?! Oh, yeah, that's a killer...



"They never even saw so much as a bullet, and now they're slaughtering young men and women in uniform and innocent Iraquis by the thousands in the name of 'freedom.'"


That's just ridiculous. Where do you get your information? Al Jazeera? Good GRIEF. THIS is petty! It's also untrue and unfair. But I expect no less...

[Inuyasha]

"This is all incredibly petty"


And yet you add to it..."add" used loosely...


"You people don't debate point for point when presented with logic."



And you do?! By all means, inject some wisdom. It'd be a welcome change from you...


"I guess you have to resort to something outside of logic to support a guy who repeatedly makes gaffes like the 'they won't stop looking for ways to destroy our people, and neither will we' one from a few weeks ago. I know that's an old debate around here, but that's my fundamental beef."



Fundamental beef? I'm sorry, but, where's the beef?! Oh, yeah, that's a killer...



"They never even saw so much as a bullet, and now they're slaughtering young men and women in uniform and innocent Iraquis by the thousands in the name of 'freedom.'"


That's just ridiculous. Where do you get your information? Al Jazeera? Good GRIEF. THIS is petty! It's also untrue and unfair. But I expect no less...

I think your one-liners proved Mo's original post valid. No offense, but responses like that demonstrate one's lack of intellect.

[Teal]

"BUT when they do this, they've gotta back it up"


Jared:
From what I understand, the book is meticulously detailed and "backed up".

[Brando70]

"Well, I'm not giving my hard earned money to a right-wing propaganda outfit like Regenery, the publisher of the book. I don't need to read Michelle Malkin's book about how Japanese internment in WWII can be used to justify putting American Muslims into camps to know she's a right-wing nutjob."


Well, then, based on the same general knowledge, I deem you a left wing nutjob. I don't need to know anything about you to make that assertion-is that where you're going? Everything that threatens to monkey wrench your leanings gets thrown into this pile, doesn't it?? Who the hell cares if it has any basis in truth? Truth is relative-relative to whether or not you like it. There are things Bush has done that irritate me to no end- pandering to the Kennedy's of the world with that stupid education bill, the big farm welfare program, and the like that don't do any good, because the left isn't going to give him any credit anyway. I'd say, why bother? Bush HAS spent way too much money in an effort to get that "kinder" Washington political climate that won't exist as long as Ted (hic!) Kennedy, Billary, and little Chuckie Shumer are there.
I'm willing to criticize my guy for what he's fumbled on. You don't seem to be willing to do it to yours...

WTF? I wasn't criticizing Bush. I'm criticizing an obviously politically motivated attack on John Kerry's military service. I said earlier that I didn't really care about Bush's military record, and accepted that his honorable discharge meant just that. I certainly have issues with Kerry, just more with Bush.

I'm not even a registered Democrat. I voted for Bush in 1988, Clinton in 1992 and 96, and had he run in 2000, would have picked McCain over Gore. I voted for a Republican representative in 2002 and will do so again this year. In 2000, I didn't think Bush was very qualified to be President, as I don't think the Texas governorship, which is very decentralized, prepares you for life in Washington. Also, frankly, after seeing Clinton fumble in international affairs, I was worried about electing someone who had no experience in foreign affairs. Gore and McCain did, and now Kerry does. So I'm hardly Michael Moore. I have been pushed to the Democrats more in recent years because I don't like the creeping influence of the religious right and the way the Republican party seems to equate questioning the President with being un-American.

I also read a fair amount of conservative stuff. I'm no stranger to sites like Townhall.com, the Media Research Center, or Ann Coulter. I've read Michelle Malkin's stuff, and she is a shrill, racist nutjob.

However, I shouldn't have carried that comparison over to the Swift Boat vets, who I don't consider nutjobs except for John Corsi (and that's based on his rabid Free Republic posts). My point is I do not want to give my money to a group who I think is not being honest. By buying their book, I would be doing that. At this juncture, all they are offering are testimony from people 30 years after the fact and speculation about how Kerry earned his medals. What hard proof do they have the contradicts the official record? That's really the bottom line. Kerry has official Navy records and testimonials from his immediate crew that he says is true (more or less). Swift Boats have guys who were not immediately present at any of these events, who have no real proof to show Kerry injured himself or wrote his reports. I'm waiting for someone to show that to me.

[Teal]

'I think your one-liners proved Mo's original post valid. No offense, but responses like that demonstrate one's lack of intellect'"


Just fighting fire with fire...I'll respond to intellectual arguments in greater length. Jared, I'll catch up to you later. I'm having to pop in and out in the middle of a training seminar, so I'll respond to you in greater detail when I can. As for Mo, I don't waste time with that...I've never seen anything positive in a thread from him, not here, not at SR. Anywhere.

[Teal]

Brando:
Apologies. I misread.

[FatPitcher]

I just wanted to comment on one thing very quickly (can't do my big posts yet). The book's authors have stated that 100% of royalties are going to the Navy & Marine Corps Relief Society, which from my personal experience is a very worthwhile cause.

[Leebo33]

This goes for both sides, I'm sure, but it seems like the pro-Bush crowd is the less logical in most of these political debates these days.

I'm not sure if you are talking about in this community or the public at large. I didn't even know we had a "pro-Bush" crowd here...LOL. I could probably count them on one hand. I'm not "pro-Bush, although I am a registered Republican (I vote Republican in almost all local elections and I'm probably 50/50 in the national elections). I used to try to contribute to these debates with what I thought were logical replies, but I have been cutting back lately for a couple of reasons:

- It feels like it's always 5 or 10 against 1. So every time I stated a point I would have 5 or 10 people arguing and quoting. I'm not saying it's not fun, but it does get time consuming.
- I've seen more than one person write that they hate Republicans (I'm not implying that some haven't written that they hate liberals) and I mainly come here to talk about gaming...no reason to have people I don't even know hate me.

There are probably very logical arguments from conservatives on most issues debated here. You may not agree with the stance, but there is logic and thought behind the positions. Some of the most intelligent people I've met are Republicans (I'm not sure how Bush got in). In fact, that is one of the biggest reasons I am a Republican. Not all are Nazis who want to get into your bedroom

[XXXIV]

It seems to ME the more logical depends on which side your on........
Just as Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder ..........so is who is right............

Thats why Im the only one right............I think your all nuts for doing this to yourselves.........

EDIT: I mean nuts in a good way.............

[mobiggins]

When I said "This is incredibly petty," I was referring to the swift boat ad people's tactics, not your opinion. You seemed to take that rather personally. If questioning somebody's purple hearts and war service over minute details that overshadow the greater whole of his war experience isn't petty, I don't know what is.

I already told you why I don't debate point by point, or rather, why I don't really debate much anymore. And you proved my point, as weaver called you on it as well, by reacting like a toddler instead of actually responding to what I said. I think I made at least one or two valid points in my post which you completely overlooked, in your zeal.

The 'where's the beef' line was classic, BTW. Good one!

Haven't over 1000 coalition troops died in Iraq? Haven't THOUSANDS of innocent Iraquis died in Iraq? What about that is untrue and unfair? What about that is taken from Al Jazeera? The untrue part is the WMD pretext they were sent there under. The unfair part is that all these people were sent to their death by an administration led by men who have never seen combat first hand. Maybe if they had, they'd be more judicious in their use of force.

obviously any wisdom dissenting to your opinion that I or others might have to interject into this or any other debate, tealboy, will be lost on you. I've never seen you waver from your far-right stance.

Just fighting fire with fire...I'll respond to intellectual arguments in greater length.

what fire? all I said was to take Jared's argument point by point and you blew up all over the place. You're the king of one-liners around here, in response to arguments that you consider intellectual or not.

As for Mo, I don't waste time with that...I've never seen anything positive in a thread from him, not here, not at SR. Anywhere.

yeah, it looks like you don't waste time with that at all...my post seemed to have gotten you pretty riled up.

Ciao!

[GTHobbes]

"This is all incredibly petty"


And yet you add to it..."add" used loosely...


"You people don't debate point for point when presented with logic."



And you do?! By all means, inject some wisdom. It'd be a welcome change from you...


"I guess you have to resort to something outside of logic to support a guy who repeatedly makes gaffes like the 'they won't stop looking for ways to destroy our people, and neither will we' one from a few weeks ago. I know that's an old debate around here, but that's my fundamental beef."



Fundamental beef? I'm sorry, but, where's the beef?! Oh, yeah, that's a killer...



"They never even saw so much as a bullet, and now they're slaughtering young men and women in uniform and innocent Iraquis by the thousands in the name of 'freedom.'"


That's just ridiculous. Where do you get your information? Al Jazeera? Good GRIEF. THIS is petty! It's also untrue and unfair. But I expect no less...

I think your one-liners proved Mo's original post valid. No offense, but responses like that demonstrate one's lack of intellect.

Well said.

[FatPitcher]

Alright, I'm going to be lazy because I have other stuff I need to do tonight. I'm just going to throw a link out there, which is a practice I destest because it usually means you don't have a full grasp of what's being said and can't put into your own words.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug23.html

Kerry and his cohorts put out several different stories about his secret mission(s)--which you figure the crew would remember--ferrying CIA agents and the like

1. In Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 - 1979 in letter to Herald
2. In Cambodia on Christmas 1968 - 1986 in speech to Senate
3. In Cambodia several times in Jan-Feb 1969 - 2004 Kerry's biographer
4. In Cambodia once in January 1969 - 2004 Kerry campaign
5. Don't remember ever going into Cambodia - Kerry's band of brothers

And from the SBVT, Gardner, who served on Kerry's boat (yes, one of them was on Kerry's first boat) during that period
1. Never went into Cambodia

And the documentary evidence
1. Naval records show Kerry's craft destroying a junk at 7am on the 24th, 50 miles from the Cambodian border
2. Kerry's journal shows him at his home base in An Thoi on the 25th
3. Kerry's journal on the last day in Vietnam shows him wondering what was it was like across the Cambodian border

I'll get to other incidents later on (not tonight).

[Jared]

I guess you have to resort to something outside of logic to support a guy who repeatedly makes gaffes like the 'they won't stop looking for ways to destroy our people, and neither will we' one from a few weeks ago. I know that's an old debate around here, but that's my fundamental beef.

First off, in defense of Bush, just because he screws up things in his speech has little to do with his intellect. There are lots of geniuses that aren't skilled public speakers and/or flub things when they say them. His frequent verbal gaffes shouldn't be held against him, as it has litttle/nothing to do with his ability to lead a nation.

"BUT when they do this, they've gotta back it up"

Jared:
From what I understand, the book is meticulously detailed and "backed up".

Except that the meticulous details and support in the book doesn't face up with the fact (see my long post on the first page). Just because they throw out lots of details doesn't mean that they're right. And as numerous reports have shown, their stories don't fit with the original historic documents and contradict their previous statements and are just now being put to the public after 35 years of silence. It doesn't how meticulous they are...if they don't fit with the evidence, then it's likely that they're bull.

Replying to FatPitcher re: Cambodia

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/

This is a good article on the issue.

As for his "changing story"

Stories 1 and 2 are splitting hairs. Misremembering a date from 15-20 years ago is hardly a problem.

Story 3 is not inconsistent with 1 and 2 (just because he went on XMas or XMas Eve doesn't preclude him from going later). Point 4 is something I have not heard....where does the Kerry campaign say that he was only in Cambodia once in January?

And as for point 5, 3 of the 5 crewmembers on PCF-44 said that they never went to Cambodia. Kerry also served on PCF-94 and (to my knowledge) no one has asked them if they went to Cambodia or not. Though if you have evidence to the contrary, let me know.

As for the documentary evidence, this will be tough to find for either side because the missions in Cambodia were covert. From the Slate article linked above:

So let's review the situation. On Christmas Eve 1968, Kerry's Swift boat and at least two river-patrol boats were doing something unusual (Kerry wrote that he'd never been so far in-country) at least in the vicinity of the border—"near the Cambodian line," as he put it in his diary. And Kerry had with him a book that described a Pentagon study on psychological operations against Cambodia.

It is certain that by this time, the United States had long been making secret incursions across the border. This is from Page 24 of William Shawcross' 1979 book, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia:

Since May 1967, when the U.S. Military Command in Saigon became concerned at the way the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were evading American "search and destroy" and air attacks in Vietnam by making more use of bases in Laos and Cambodia, the U.S. Special Forces had been running special, highly classified missions into the two countries. Their code name was Daniel Boone.

The Daniel Boone teams entered Cambodia all along its 500-mile frontier with South Vietnam from the lonely, craggy, impenetrable mountain forests in the north, down to the well-populated and thickly reeded waterways along the Mekong River. [Italics added.]

We know that Kerry's boat and two others were in those reeds on Christmas Eve '68.

The Cambodian special forces' incursions—which were conducted without the knowledge, much less approval, of Congress—were escalating around that time. Just over a month later, on Feb. 9, 1969, Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, requested a B-52 bombing attack on a Communist camp inside Cambodia. (Richard Nixon, the new president, approved the plan on March 17; the first strikes of Operation Breakfast—the secret bombing of Cambodia—started the next day.) Shawcross writes that special forces were always sent across the border to survey the area for targets just before an air operation.

Did Kerry cross the border or just go up to it? We may never know for sure. Not much paperwork exists for covert operations (officially, U.S. forces weren't in Cambodia). Nor is it likely that a canny Swift-boat skipper (and Kerry was nothing if not canny) would jot down thoughts about such covert operations in a diary on a boat that might be captured by the enemy.

The circumstances at least suggest that Kerry was indeed involved in a "black" mission, even if he had never explicitly made that claim. And why would he make such claims if he hadn't been? It was neither a glamorous nor a particularly admirable mission—certainly nothing to boast of.

Basically, he got a date wrong and this is the one everyone hammers because the Kerry campaign admitted it was a mistake. I don't hold the fact that Bush was mistaken that he played varsity rugby against him (there was no varsity rugby at Yale at the time, see http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/ ... 4529c.html ). I could cry "liar, liar", but this is a pretty insignificant detail from a long time ago, just like Kerry's getting the date wrong re: a trip to Cambodia. Anyways, I look forward to see the refutation of the points I made in a post on the 1st page.



And now putting on my moderator hat:

Tealboy, Mo; please cool it with the rhetoric against each other. We can have a debate here and even challenge each other on points...but try not to make it personal.

[FatPitcher]

Jared,

I don't buy your argument at all. I think common sense works against it, big time. If you were running black ops into a country that you weren't supposed to be in, you would know. You would remember. And no one but Kerry remembers. Every officer in his chain of command denies it. His crew denies it. You're clinging to this theoretical shred of possibility that just doesn't wash. Use your common sense, and remember that all these guys coming out against are from all across the political spectrum (O'Neill voted Perot 2X and Gore in 2000, says he would vote Edwards for Prez, backs the Dem. mayor of Houston) and are also highly decorated, well-respected men. (I hear a rumor that another Admiral, who is the former acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and who was present during the action that got Kerry's 1st purple heart, will be coming out against Kerry in October).

I agree that 1 and 2 are not significantly different. I only put them there to illlustrate that he was convinced ('86 testimony "seared--SEARED--into my memory") that he was in Cambodia around Christmas. Then the accusations and evidence come out, and only then does the story change. Then his biographer (who has his journals, and won't let anyone see them beyond what's already been quoted in Tour of Duty) comes out and says he went several times. Then the Kerry campaign says it was only once. Even if you forget the dates, even if your crew, CO, and everyone above him, the rest of the captains in your squadrons that you bunked with and operated with and went on missions with, even all of those guys don't remember it ever happening, surely you would remember whether you went one secret, high-risk operation that you got a "magic hat" souveneir from, or whether you went on more than one.

Kerry's claims have never been that he went to Cambodia on his second ship, (94) only his first (44, the one that Graner was a gunner for). It would be silly to try to disprove something he's never claimed.

[Teal]

"And you proved my point, as weaver called you on it as well, by reacting like a toddler instead of actually responding to what I said."




The deal with that is that I hardly ever see you in here, and when I do, it just seems like you jump on, see whether or not I've posted something in a political or religious thread, and then jump in, blast away, and jump out again. It also appears that nothing is right with the world when you're in the mood to post, as I really haven't ever seen a positive spin on anything you've ever had to say. Listen, I'm trying to be respectful here, and I know I came across as a smartass, but toddler doesn't fit the bill, and is no more above the fray than anything else in here, so don't play the higher ground guy. It's obvious that we touch on each other's nerves, because we seem to have a history of it, going all the way back to SR. I caution you to make clear note of the words "seems" and "appears" as I am not accusing you of this stuff, just pointing out what I see. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but do so in some sort of detail.
You wanted detailed responses? Here we go. I'm tired of people going off of any information other than the source to base their opinions on. Unfit For Command is out there, like it or not, and it will have to be dealt with, like it or not. Somebody is lying- there's no disputing that. The Swift Boat Vets have laid out their case, and everyone that wants to can read it. Kerry has yet to lay out all of his cards, and that's not a good idea. So far all he's done is launch missles at Bush, which is not the same as addressing the issue. If he has nothing to hide, then he should release his military record for the world to see and all of this fades away. If there's nothing there, then the whole issue is gone, the Swift Boaters are lying, it's proven beyond a doubt, and we can hopefully get on with more important matters. Remember, it was Kerry who wanted his service record to be front and center. He made it a campaign issue. I'm thinking he probably regrets that decision. I regret that decision, as there are far more important matters at hand than anything he did in Vietnam, but he won't hush about it. He needs to also realize that his beef is with the Swiftees, not Bush on this one. Go with what you know, Kerry, don't flail at what you don't. They keep after him to "stop these ads". Well, he has already said that all of the 527 ads need to stop, but, oh, no, that's not good enough. Kerry doesn't want all of them pulled, just the swiftees ads. That is not fair for one thing. I believe they are also trying to paint Bush into a corner. If he specifically tells the swiftees to stop, and they do stop, then Kerry's bunch will go after him with "see, they were in cahoots after all! He's breaking the (stupid, unconstitutional) Law!" He knows better than that, and so does the only evenhanded thing and asks that Kerry join him in asking that ALL the 527 ads be pulled. (They are, after all, just a Campaign Finance Law loophole). That it isn't flying with the Kerry camp is suspect in itself. They are just zoned in on the ads questioning his honesty about his record in Vietnam, and he won't answer the well documented charges with well documented ones of his own. That's stupid. FatPitcher has read the book, and has come to a conclusion, a conclusion that, in his words, is different than what he suspected it would be going in. I'm going to read it...it can't hurt for you to do so as well, seeing as how you want to pass judgement on them beforehand.


"Haven't over 1000 coalition troops died in Iraq? Haven't THOUSANDS of innocent Iraquis died in Iraq?"




17,000. That's how many soldiers died at Normandy in WWII. One day. We've lost 1000 or so in over a year. I'm not sure how many of the Iraqis you mention were innocent, nor where the data comes from, so I won't comment about that. But, y'know? War is what it is. People die. War sucks, but when it's necessary, it's necessary. And I know you'll come back with something about it not being necessary in this case, to which I'll say tell that to Vladmir Putin, who gave us intel that, even though the Russians have refused to join in, he stands by to this day. Intel that stated that Iraq was planning a major strike on th US. Should we just wait for them to do it? I'd all but guarantee that were we to grow some hair on our balls and go into Syria, we'd find Saddam's WMD there. He had it. Kerry said it. Clinton said it. Even that nut Gore said it back in 98. He didn't destroy it. Hell, he hid fighter jets in the sand. Don't you think he could hide tiny vials of VX or Sarin? Have you seen the arials of fallujah alone? Imagine going house to house in just that city looking for that stuff.


"my post seemed to have gotten you pretty riled up."



If that makes you feel good, go ahead and believe it. You'd like for me to go into a spitting frenzy, but I'm not going to. Certainly not over the stuff you put out there. It's talking points. I've seen it before. Hope your satisfied-this sure ain't short, and there's not a one liner to be found. course if you're not satisfied, I'll still sleep well, so it makes little difference to me. And speaking of sleep...

[FatPitcher]

This guy explains the Silver Star incident far better than I could, and he uses the Rood article, Unfit for Command, and Tour of Duty. Notice that the Rood article is much closer to UfC's version than ToD/Kerry's. Also notice that it's an extremely fair analysis.

http://qando.net/archives/003865.htm

[Blublub]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ush_ads_dc

Boooya, busted....

[XXXIV]

I am being entertained..............