NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone have any thoughts(not incoherant flames) about the book?

Here is a drudgereport link.
http://www.drudgereport.com/ufd1.htm

I dont doubt he did some of those things.

Does anyone have any thoughts(not incoherant flames) about the book?

Here is a drudgereport link.
http://www.drudgereport.com/ufd1.htm
It looks like BS to me. The details look like something the guy saw on Apocalypse Now, and all the discussion of Kerry being undeserving of medals sounds like he's pissed that he didn't get one, and doesn't like Kerry very much. I don't see anything here other than a different side of events.... I just don't buy it.

Add this: The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas.
What possible motivation could they have to lie?

Rove is up to his usual tricks.

What a bunch of sneaky wankers who published this.

Maybe people should read the book before coming to a conclusion. That's what I plan to do. Most normal people can smell bullshit a mile a way. If its bullshit then it should be pointed out as such. But the only way to find out is to read it first and then make your own informed opinion.

I guess people don't know who the author is

John O'Neill was the naval officer who took over John Kerry's swift boat in the muddy waters of Vietnam. What he learned convinced him-and convinced the majority of veterans who served directly with Kerry-that John Kerry was and is unfit for command at the lowliest rank in the Navy, let alone as commander in chief of the United States.

From the Publisher
Find out why John Kerry is Unfit for Command as told by the men who served with him
Unfit for Command reveals a John Kerry you don't know-the true John Kerry that his political image-makers are trying to hide.

Since it looks like its coming from the people that served with him, this is rating moderately high on the truth Scale. What Kerry is doing will be what the politicians call "Damage Control"

I can't wait for this book to come out and I will read it.

Maybe people should read the book before coming to a conclusion. That's what I plan to do. Most normal people can smell bullshit a mile a way. If its bullshit then it should be pointed out as such. But the only way to find out is to read it first and then make your own informed opinion.

I agree with you Lex Terrae! People need to read before coming to conclusion. Right now, this is high on my truth scale until I start to read and see if it'll go up or down.

What Kerry is doing will be what the politicians call "Damage Control"
Kind of like Bush tried to do with Farenheit 9/11? It's all politics, more or less...

I agree with you Lex Terrae! People need to read before coming to conclusion. Right now, this is high on my truth scale until I start to read and see if it'll go up or down.
Erm, we have to read it before we can say it looks like BS, you don't have to read it before you can say you think its true?

I love hipocracy.

BTW, the bit you read out about the author, is that actually off the back jacket of the book? If so, do you think that maybe it'd be unlikely to cast doubt on the author?

Kind of like Bush tried to do with Farenheit 9/11? It's all politics, more or less...

Get back to the Book please! This isn't about Bush its about the Book "Unfit to Command"

Unfit for Command reveals a John Kerry you don't know-the true John Kerry that his political image-makers are trying to hide.
I think it'd be fair to say that the only people likely to know the "true" John Kerry are probably John Kerry and maybe his wife, no? I think this is true of everyone.

Erm, we have to read it before we can say it looks like BS, you don't have to read it before you can say you think its true?

I love hipocracy.

BTW, the bit you read out about the author, is that actually off the back jacket of the book? If so, do you think that maybe it'd be unlikely to cast doubt on the author?

Well the guy DID serve with him so does that limit his credibility? no it doesn't!

You can say its BS but are you going to read the book? If not then how do you know its BS? Frankly, i'm not going to judge this book but since it is written by people that served with him, I am giving it abit more weight than if it wasn't. If it wasn't written by someone that served with him, I would still get the book and read it and come to my own conclusions.

Get back to the Book please! This isn't about Bush its about the Book "Unfit to Command"


Since when did we care about going off topic? i think the majority of threads do that eventually.

I think it'd be fair to say that the only people likely to know the "true" John Kerry are probably John Kerry and maybe his wife, no? I think this is true of everyone.

Actually you'll be surprised just how little a wife would now about her husband. I could point to a current case in Utah but that has no bearing on this case. (no pun intended)

John Kerry knows what he did. That is why he's planning what he is planning to do to counter this book. Its going to be an interesting piece of work because if he comes out to vigorous against it, people will think that its truth and if he sugarcoats it, people will think that he can't defend himself.

Get back to the Book please! This isn't about Bush its about the Book "Unfit to Command"
Hey, now, don't lapse back into that "we're only going to say what I want us to say" mindset.

It's quite relevant, it's just a point you don't want to talk about. Unfit for Command is, in a lot of ways, just like F 9/11 - a political tool that is mostly BS but has some good points buried deep down.

Hey, now, don't lapse back into that "we're only going to say what I want us to say" mindset.

It's quite relevant, it's just a point you don't want to talk about. Unfit for Command is, in a lot of ways, just like F 9/11 - a political tool that is mostly BS but has some good points buried deep down.

Well here is a problem with your logic. 1) This is written by a person that served with him and knows what happened. 2) If I remember right, Moore's movie has been hammered and Debunked on more than 1 occassion thus there was no need for damage control. 3) Kerry is planning a rigourous campaign to deny this. He has got to be careful as he does this. See my previos post for why!

Frankly, i'm not going to judge this book Thats fine, but unfortunately, its in direct conflict with this:...I am giving it abit more weight...
...because that is a judgement.

Well here is a problem with your logic. 1) This is written by a person that served with him and knows what happened. So the positive testimonials from the other men who served with him are invalid... how??

2) If I remember right, Moore's movie has been hammered and Debunked on more than 1 occassion thus there was no need for damage control. Of course it was, but your illogic lies in thinking this is somehow separate from the concept of 'damage control' - Moore calls Bush an idiot, Bush calls Moore a liar, everyone goes away sick of politics. Looks like 'Unfit to Command' is no less a political tool.

3) Kerry is planning a rigourous campaign to deny this. He has got to be careful as he does this. See my previos post for why!Which is somehow different from the cons’ rigorous campaign to dismantle Moore's message...how??

Well here is a problem with your logic. 1) This is written by a person that served with him and knows what happened. 2) If I remember right, Moore's movie has been hammered and Debunked on more than 1 occassion thus there was no need for damage control. 3) Kerry is planning a rigourous campaign to deny this. He has got to be careful as he does this. See my previos post for why!
If its been debunked, could you please give a link to some website that explains how its been debunked? Do it on another thread so as not to disturb this one if you like.

Thats fine, but unfortunately, its in direct conflict with this:
...because that is a judgement.

The only reason why I said that Spoffin, if you bothered to read what I've been writing, is that it was written by someone that SERVED WITH HIM! That is why I'm giving it more weight. I haven't judged the book at all except to say that since its written by someone that knows what happened, I'm giving it a tad more weight than I would if it was written by someone that didn't serve with him.

If its been debunked, could you please give a link to some website that explains how its been debunked? Do it on another thread so as not to disturb this one if you like.

Your right that is another thread and there are several links that debunk the lies of Moore as has the 9/11 Commission report! So no, I will not make another thread of it and I won't talk about it here.

John Kerry knows what he did. That is why he's planning what he is planning to do to counter this book.Right, now you say he needs to denounce this to cover up the truth, right? But wouldn't he have to denounce it if it wasn't true as well? So, can we therefore say that the fact that he is choosing to respond has absolutely no bearing on whether or not any of it is true, yes?

Its going to be an interesting piece of work because if he comes out to vigorous against it, people will think that its truth and if he sugarcoats it, people will think that he can't defend himself
Ie: whatever happens, he loses? So whether its true or not, it'll be damaging to Kerry, and thats a good thing in your mind?

The only reason why I said that Spoffin, if you bothered to read what I've been writing, is that it was written by someone that SERVED WITH HIM! That is why I'm giving it more weight. I haven't judged the book at all except to say that since its written by someone that knows what happened, I'm giving it a tad more weight than I would if it was written by someone that didn't serve with him.
So this guy (http://text.fednews.com/transcript.htm?id=20040729t1124&query=&SLID=ccd483990ebdfecc420a631d1aedcfe0) who served with him must have more weight to his arguments as well, right?

So the positive testimonials from the other men who served with him are invalid... how??

I never said it was invalid did I? If I remember right, no one is talking about how he got that Bronze Star, not even kerry but yet Kerry is talking about his Silver Star as has his supporters. Not saying its invalid but I do want to know how he got that bronze star that no one is talking about.

Of course it was, but your illogic lies in thinking this is somehow separate from the concept of 'damage control' - Moore calls Bush an idiot, Bush calls Moore a liar, everyone goes away sick of politics. Looks like 'Unfit to Command' is no less a political tool.

It is about damage Control. This book will damage John Kerry. John Kerry started all of this by talking about his Vietnam Record. Bush never criticized his Vietnam Record that I know of! This Book will hurt Kerry that is why he's got a campaign to denounce it.

Which is somehow different from the cons’ rigorous campaign to dismantle Moore's message...how??

UP, you missed another part I said but I'm NOT going to get into Michael Moore Here.

Propaganda smells like propaganda. Whether it is right wing or left wing. I believe that there is a small percentage of the population that will swollow anything hook, line and sinker. They are on both sides - left and right. The majority of people have more of a critical eye. If it is blatant propaganda, such as mischaracterizations and sweeping allegations, it will come off as such. When I read it, if that is the case, I will put the book in my "crap that I read that was a complete waste of time" pile. But I will have read it before it goes in that pile and not before.

The only reason why I said that Spoffin, if you bothered to read what I've been writing, is that it was written by someone that SERVED WITH HIM! That is why I'm giving it more weight. I haven't judged the book at all except to say that since its written by someone that knows what happened, I'm giving it a tad more weight than I would if it was written by someone that didn't serve with him.
I'm sorry, you haven't read the book though. What if it says that Kerry's closet friend aboard the swift boat was a pink elephant called Marmaduke cos he was off his eyeballs on LSD the whole time? What if the author claims he slew 150 vietcong armed with AK47s with his bare hands while Kerry cowered under a chair? Would you still give it credence cos he served with Kerry, or would you think that it a character assassination? You have judged the book.

Well, if you're unwilling to debate Moore with me, or who does support Kerry, I'll just leave the thread alone now. Not that it's even your thread...

Right, now you say he needs to denounce this to cover up the truth, right? But wouldn't he have to denounce it if it wasn't true as well? So, can we therefore say that the fact that he is choosing to respond has absolutely no bearing on whether or not any of it is true, yes?

The people will make up their own minds Spoffin. Right now, it is ranked #1 on the Amazon Sales List and it was #3 last night. Spoffin, politicians will do whatever it takes to make sure that what anyone says against him is false. Kerry has to respond to this. He has no choice because if he doesn't respond, the people will think "What is he covering up? This must be true if he isn't responding." That is why he needs to respond.

Ie: whatever happens, he loses? So whether its true or not, it'll be damaging to Kerry, and thats a good thing in your mind?

I never said it was a good thing. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about his Vietnam record. However, when people that serve with him are coming out against him, doesn't that get you to think? On that stage at the Convention, ONLY ONE said I served with John Kerry. Where are the others that Served with him?

Propaganda smells like propaganda. Whether it is right wing or left wing. I believe that there is a small percentage of the population that will swollow anything hook, line and sinker. They are on both sides - left and right. The majority of people have more of a critical eye. If it is blatant propaganda, such as mischaracterizations and sweeping allegations, it will come off as such. When I read it, if that is the case, I will put the book in my "crap that I read that was a complete waste of time" pile. But I will have read it before it goes in that pile and not before.

Good for you Lex. That is what people should do. Read the book and make their own decisions. That is what I'm going to be doing.

Well, if you're unwilling to debate Moore with me, or who does support Kerry, I'll just leave the thread alone now. Not that it's even your thread...

I do know who is supporting John Kerry but look at the stage, ONLY ONE said he served with Kerry. Where are the others?

I never said it was invalid did I? If I remember right, no one is talking about how he got that Bronze Star, not even kerry but yet Kerry is talking about his Silver Star as has his supporters. Not saying its invalid but I do want to know how he got that bronze star that no one is talking about.
Well, that'd be like me talking about the gold medal I won for whatever rather than the silver one I won the year before. The gold is better, thats the one I talk about.



It is about damage Control. This book will damage John Kerry. John Kerry started all of this by talking about his Vietnam Record. Bush never criticized his Vietnam Record that I know of! This Book will hurt Kerry that is why he's got a campaign to denounce it.Yes, the book will hurt Kerry, thats why he has to denounce it. But that statement is correct whether the book itself is fact or fiction.

Bush can't criticise his Vietnam record, he'd look like an idiot, (not that he doesn't already) because Bush speaks from a position of moral inadaquacy, having ducked out Vietnam to "fly" fighter planes over Texas.

The people will make up their own minds Spoffin. Right now, it is ranked #1 on the Amazon Sales List and it was #3 last night. Spoffin, politicians will do whatever it takes to make sure that what anyone says against him is false. Kerry has to respond to this. He has no choice because if he doesn't respond, the people will think "What is he covering up? This must be true if he isn't responding." That is why he needs to respond.
I KNOW THIS!!! I didn't arrive here on the back of a turnip truck, I know that he has to denounce it. He has to denounce it though whether its true or false, so the fact that he's denouncing whats in the book can't be evidence for the prosecution, is what I'm saying.



I never said it was a good thing.
I can't wait for this book to come out and I will read it.
Sure you didn't

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about his Vietnam record. However, when people that serve with him are coming out against him, doesn't that get you to think?Not really. A candidate says "I did good in the Senate" and another senator comes out against him, that doesn't make me think "OMG, he was lying!!"

I KNOW THIS!!! I didn't arrive here on the back of a turnip truck, I know that he has to denounce it. He has to denounce it though whether its true or false, so the fact that he's denouncing whats in the book can't be evidence for the prosecution, is what I'm saying.

I never said that it was evidence for the prosecution. I know this too Spoffin. I didn't arrive here by the stork you know.

Sure you didn't

Never did say it was a good thing.

Not really. A candidate says "I did good in the Senate" and another senator comes out against him, that doesn't make me think "OMG, he was lying!!"

In the Case of Kerry, you could make a case he didn't do well in the Senate. Come to think of it, why isn't he running on his Senate Record?

Bush can't criticise his Vietnam record, he'd look like an idiot, (not that he doesn't already) because Bush speaks from a position of moral inadaquacy, having ducked out Vietnam to "fly" fighter planes over Texas.[/QUOTE]

Here's what I don't get. Democrats cried 'foul' when both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole criticised Bill Clinton's lack of military service. Now Democrats have a candidate that did serve in the military and they are doing exactly what the Republicans were severely attacked for doing ten to fourteen years ago. "Moral inadaquacy." Are you kidding? Bill Clinton was smoking weed and protesting the war in England when Kerry was in Vietnam. And at least W made some half assed attempt to serve. Yet when it came to Clinton, that fact was off limits. Now W is morally inadaquate?

Politicians squabble with each other, when any senator says anything it should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Men who served with Kerry and have no track record of political pandering deserve alot more credibility.

It's like the theories about George Bush going AWOL. The only source for that story are far left protestors whose closest experience with the military was carrying a sign calling soldiers baby killers or maybe spitting on a soldier or two a while back.

If the men who served with him came out and said he was a unreliable drunk, or rarely showed up for work, the idea would go from ad hom conspiracy theory to probably true.

John Kerry is a POS, and the more Americans find out about him the less they are going to like him. Why do you think his campaign is about Bush and not about himself?

In the Case of Kerry, you could make a case he didn't do well in the Senate. Come to think of it, why isn't he running on his Senate Record?
Go on punk... make that case.

[/dirtyharry]

Go on punk... make that case.

[/dirtyharry]

Technically, I'm a punkette! and if your going to resort to name calling, as you usually do, I will not answer you.

Here's what I don't get. Democrats cried 'foul' when both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole criticised Bill Clinton's lack of military service. Now Democrats have a candidate that did serve in the military and they are doing exactly what the Republicans were severely attacked for doing ten to fourteen years ago. "Moral inadaquacy." Are you kidding? Bill Clinton was smoking weed and protesting the war in England when Kerry was in Vietnam. And at least W made some half assed attempt to serve. Yet when it came to Clinton, that fact was off limits. Now W is morally inadaquate?
Thats a perfectly fair point. But (and you knew there was going to be a but), hasn't the world changed a lot since 12 years ago? Do you think that, with the threat of global terror around the world, and two wars in the last four years, do you think that theres a difference between the kind of president we need? Do you think that a president who has actually been to war himself will be a better judge of when a war is necessary, and maybe be slightly less hasty to rush into a decision to send in troops, if he actually knows what he's sending these guys into? That he has a better idea, maybe will give it just a little more thought before deploying a bunch of people, some barely six months older than me, into combat? If you don't think that a president who has the greatest possible experience of warfare is an essential in these times that we live in, then you should feel free to vote for somebody else.

Technically, I'm a punkette! and if your going to resort to name calling, as you usually do, I will not answer you.
Well, I was just messing around. But unless you can substantiate that namecalling accusation (and I know that you can't), then you'd better keep quiet.

Go on, make the case.

Politicians squabble with each other, when any senator says anything it should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Men who served with Kerry and have no track record of political pandering deserve alot more credibility.

It's like the theories about George Bush going AWOL. The only source for that story are far left protestors whose closest experience with the military was carrying a sign calling soldiers baby killers or maybe spitting on a soldier or two a while back.

If the men who served with him came out and said he was a unreliable drunk, or rarely showed up for work, the idea would go from ad hom conspiracy theory to probably true.

John Kerry is a POS, and the more Americans find out about him the less they are going to like him. Why do you think his campaign is about Bush and not about himself?
Bush is devoting 79% of his ads to attacking Kerry. Kerry has 24% of his attacking Bush.

Who did you say was going negative?

Well the guy DID serve with him so does that limit his credibility? no it doesn't!

You can say its BS but are you going to read the book? If not then how do you know its BS? Frankly, i'm not going to judge this book but since it is written by people that served with him, I am giving it abit more weight than if it wasn't. If it wasn't written by someone that served with him, I would still get the book and read it and come to my own conclusions.

Ummm - the guy who takes over your command serves AFTER you. Not WITH you. And given that Kerry's actual crew who DID serve with him offer a very different story - at this point my tendancy is to lean towards the crew.

But I WILL read the book and see for myself.

Ummm - the guy who takes over your command serves AFTER you. Not WITH you. And given that Kerry's actual crew who DID serve with him offer a very different story - at this point my tendancy is to lean towards the crew.

But I WILL read the book and see for myself.

Well at least your going to read the book! Thats a start! ;)

Ummm - the guy who takes over your command serves AFTER you. Not WITH you.
I thought of that actually, but then I figured I must have misread the article.

Let us also recognize one other fact. A LOT of vets were very, very angry with Kerry's stand after the war. We've heard some people who claim to be vets here state that unequivocably.

And some of those people may just want a little payback.


Kerry's fitness reports were always exemplary by the people he served under at the time, his crew stands behind him, and I understand that nobody in the book disputes Kerry's heroism when he turned his boat around and crawled up on the bow under direct fire to rescue Rasmussen (or whatever that guy's name was).

That act alone was enough to make him a war hero.

-Z-

Well at least your going to read the book! Thats a start! ;)

Of course I will. I keep an open mind and expose myself to the widest range of opinions possible.

So, when are you going to go see Farenheit 911?

Well, if this book is anything like the new add sponsored by a Bush cronie in Texas, then it has no credibility. Has anyone seen the add with people claiming to have served with Kerry? Do some checking on this and you'll find that NONE of the people in this ad actually served WITH Kerry. They were all in the service but none actually served with Kerry. When they say it, what they mean (but don't say because they are trying to create the false illusion) is that they were in the service at the same time with Kerry.

This odious ad is just another example of the callous disregard of honesty in the political ads we've seen so far in this campaign. The worst is when the doctor comes on in the commercial and says he treated Kerry. Look it up....he didn't actually treat Kerry but was in the vacinity so he's saying that because of his proximity he can say that he did treat Kerry.

Garbage, nothing more, nothing less.

Let us also recognize one other fact. A LOT of vets were very, very angry with Kerry's stand after the war. We've heard some people who claim to be vets here state that unequivocably.

And some of those people may just want a little payback.


Kerry's fitness reports were always exemplary by the people he served under at the time, his crew stands behind him, and I understand that nobody in the book disputes Kerry's heroism when he turned his boat around and crawled up on the bow under direct fire to rescue Rasmussen (or whatever that guy's name was).

That act alone was enough to make him a war hero.

-Z-

Zepp, you need to get your head out of the sand. I've heard different, and not because of this book either but when this all started, that MANY of those that served with Kerry, consider him Unfit to lead the USA. Those behind him except for one, said that they served with him. These people that are speaking out probably did serve with him and that is why they are speaking out. They are tired of what Kerry is saying. I'm not saying they're right, not saying they're wrong. I will read the book and make up my own mind.

Oh, and for Formal Dances....several major newspapers put their best researchers and fact checkers to work looking at Moore's claims in F 9/11. What they came back with was that while Moore was biased in his presentation, none of his facts were incorrect.

Well, McCain has come out at Kerry's side to denounce this as a smear campaign, and even the Bush team has stated today in response that they will never attempt to cast aspersions on Kerry's wartime service.


That might just tell you a bit about the fringe nature of this group.

Well, if this book is anything like the new add sponsored by a Bush cronie in Texas...

I've stopped reading after this. No republican sponsered this ad. If they did, they would have to say that they did under law. Unless you have conclusive proof that it is done by one, your arguement is invalid.

That was done by those that DID SERVE with him.

Zepp, you need to get your head out of the sand. I've heard different, and not because of this book either but when this all started, that MANY of those that served with Kerry, consider him Unfit to lead the USA.
Well, quite frankly, I'd like to see you produce some proof, other than this book, of these "many" people, if you don't mind.

Zepp, you need to get your head out of the sand. I've heard different, and not because of this book either but when this all started, that MANY of those that served with Kerry, consider him Unfit to lead the USA. Those behind him except for one, said that they served with him. These people that are speaking out probably did serve with him and that is why they are speaking out. They are tired of what Kerry is saying. I'm not saying they're right, not saying they're wrong. I will read the book and make up my own mind.

Formal, when you hear people say they served with Kerry, did they actually serve WITH Kerry or were they in the service at the same time? This is a trick and a ruse and until you hear someone who was actually serving with Kerry on the same boat at the same time, keep a watchful eye.

Well, McCain has come out at Kerry's side to denounce this as a smear campaign, and even the Bush team has stated today in response that they will never attempt to cast aspersions on Kerry's wartime service.


That might just tell you a bit about the fringe nature of this group.

Zepp, I think you got your facts mixed up. McCain said that his Vietnam war recorded shouldn't be used in this campaign and he is right. He didn't denounce the book nor did he denounce the commercial. All he said was that his Vietnam War Record should be left out in this campaign.

Besides, Kerry started this by TALKING about his war record. Don't want it criticized, don't open your mouth about it.

Formal, when you hear people say they served with Kerry, did they actually serve WITH Kerry or were they in the service at the same time? This is a trick and a ruse and until you hear someone who was actually serving with Kerry on the same boat at the same time, keep a watchful eye.

Served WITH HIM! Thunderland.

I've stopped reading after this. No republican sponsered this ad. If they did, they would have to say that they did under law. Unless you have conclusive proof that it is done by one, your arguement is invalid.

That was done by those that DID SERVE with him.
You don't have to be a Republican politician to be described as a "Bush Cronie", so I don't think his areguement is invalid.

Zepp, you need to get your head out of the sand. I've heard different, and not because of this book either but when this all started, that MANY of those that served with Kerry, consider him Unfit to lead the USA. Those behind him except for one, said that they served with him. These people that are speaking out probably did serve with him and that is why they are speaking out. They are tired of what Kerry is saying. I'm not saying they're right, not saying they're wrong. I will read the book and make up my own mind.


Jumping to conclusions again at anything that seems to support your politics without providing any substative foundation.

you'd think you would learn by now.....


Once again - so when are you going to Farenheit 911? C'mon formal - if you are going to throw "that's a start" cracks around at people who DO take news and opinions from all sides of the political spectrum - you better walk the talk yourself!

Don't want it criticized, don't open your mouth about it.
Thats gotta be the dumbest ten word slogan I've ever heard.

Oh, and btw FD:
Technically, I'm a punkette! and if your going to resort to name calling, as you usually do, I will not answer you.
Well, I was just messing around. But unless you can substantiate that namecalling accusation (and I know that you can't), then you'd better keep quiet.

Go on, make the case.

Served WITH HIM! Thunderland.

Prove it.

Or is it: Well - it's on a dust jacket and an ad... so it MUST be true?

I guess you will also have to acknowlege Michael Moore as a credible resource too under your rules..

Oh wait - your rules don't apply equally. I forgot.

There is a word for that.

Starts with 'H'.

Ends with "crite"

Fill in your own blanks....

Of course I will. I keep an open mind and expose myself to the widest range of opinions possible.

So, when are you going to go see Farenheit 911?

I can't see it because of FEC regulations! LOL

and I wouldn't go see it because its been debunked by more than one source, including the 9/11 Commission report so......

Just keep that open mind Zep. It'll come in handy.

The notion that we could afford a gutless pussy of a leader during times of peace is largely responsible for the times of war now.

Thats a perfectly fair point. But (and you knew there was going to be a but), hasn't the world changed a lot since 12 years ago? Do you think that, with the threat of global terror around the world, and two wars in the last four years, do you think that theres a difference between the kind of president we need?

I've stopped reading after this. No republican sponsered this ad. If they did, they would have to say that they did under law. Unless you have conclusive proof that it is done by one, your arguement is invalid.

That was done by those that DID SERVE with him.

LALALALA....ok....swiftvets, the organization that ran the ad, is a Texas based organization that is getting its financial backing from a Bush family friend. You can see for yourself by going to their website. That's pretty conclusive proof. They didn't serve with Kerry so your end rant there is invalid. Sorry to disappoint you.

Thats gotta be the dumbest ten word slogan I've ever heard.

WHy? He opened himself up to this. So inesence, it isn't a dumb slogan but a true one.

The notion that we could afford a gutless pussy of a leader during times of peace is largely responsible for the times of war now.
That's not a bad point either.

LALALALA....ok....swiftvets, the organization that ran the ad, is a Texas based organization that is getting its financial backing from a Bush family friend. You can see for yourself by going to their website. That's pretty conclusive proof. They didn't serve with Kerry so your end rant there is invalid. Sorry to disappoint you.

HAHAHA

Thunderland, prove that they didn't serve with him.

I can't see it because of FEC regulations! LOL

and I wouldn't go see it because its been debunked by more than one source, including the 9/11 Commission report so......

Just keep that open mind Zep. It'll come in handy.yeah, but I'm betting you would still buy the book even if it had been denounced.

I can't see it because of FEC regulations! LOL

and I wouldn't go see it because its been debunked by more than one source, including the 9/11 Commission report so......

Just keep that open mind Zep. It'll come in handy.


you just love that word "debunked" don't you?

But once again, you only take a one-sided view, express things as fact without foundation (and you know damns well I've busted you for doing that before), but you think that others don't have an open mind.....


You make it hard to take you seriously Formal.

HAHAHA

Thunderland, prove that they didn't serve with him.
No, thats not how it works. The burden of proof is upon them to prove that they did, or for you to do so if you cite them. Otherwise I could claim that I had anal sex with Dick Cheney in a Chicago motel room in 1997, and not have to prove it because if you ask me to, I can just say "prove I didn't"

(btw, I didn't)

you just love that word "debunked" don't you?

But once again, you only take a one-sided view, express things as fact without foundation (and you know damns well I've busted you for doing that before), but you think that others don't have an open mind.....


You make it hard to take you seriously Formal.

Hey when its the right word, I will use it! LOL

I take bothsides Zepp! I've only heard of one thing from Kerry on his Vietnam record. Its fine if he got a Silver for it but what about the rest of his record? He wants to run on his record, shouldn't we have all of his record?

HAHAHA

Thunderland, prove that they didn't serve with him.


How about you start with the author.

How does the guy who takes over his command "serve with him"?

I mean, besides maybe a day or two of orientation?

Boats do not generally sail with two captains. Indeed, under law they NEVER do. One person has the command.

So, explain please how this man served WITH Kerry using his own description of his time on Kerry's boat.

And don't just pull some lame assumption out of your ass on what might have happened. State a fact in evidence.

Please.

Hey when its the right word, I will use it! LOL

I take bothsides Zepp! I've only heard of one thing from Kerry on his Vietnam record. Its fine if he got a Silver for it but what about the rest of his record? He wants to run on his record, shouldn't we have all of his record?
Absolutely you should. But similarly, if you're going to attack him on his record, you'll have to substantiate the things you say and provide us with decent and complete info about the sources you're using.

I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME!

I'm going to read the book when it comes out then I'll make up my own mind. That is how we should do this. The book isn't even out yet so we have no idea what is really in it. We have a preface and what it will contain but we have no info on what the words are.

I will wait and then, when it comes out, read it throughly and carefully and then decide on wether or not its true.

That is all i'm going to say on this. I suggest you do the same.

Absolutely you should. But similarly, if you're going to attack him on his record, you'll have to substantiate the things you say and provide us with decent and complete info about the sources you're using.

Spoffin, you just made my arguement. I have yet to attack John Kerry's record and I won't till I have more information. All I have is his side. I want the otherside then make my own mind up.

I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME!

I'm going to read the book when it comes out then I'll make up my own mind. That is how we should do this. The book isn't even out yet so we have no idea what is really in it. We have a preface and what it will contain but we have no info on what the words are.

I will wait and then, when it comes out, read it throughly and carefully and then decide on wether or not its true.

That is all i'm going to say on this. I suggest you do the same.
You've been saying this since the beginning, then defending the rep of a person who, logicly, was unlikely to have served with Kerry, then attacking Kerry for quite justifiably making his service a batting point in this campaign, then debating the nature of proof (??), and claiming you're unbiast and neutral despite the fact that you've clearly made up your mind already.

Spoffin, you just made my arguement. I have yet to attack John Kerry's record and I won't till I have more information. All I have is his side. I want the otherside then make my own mind up.
You're right, you haven't attacked it directly, you've just defended the positions of numerous other people of varying degrees of credibility who've attacked him. Rather like peddaling weapons to a warring nation and then claiming neutrality.

HAHAHA

Thunderland, prove that they didn't serve with him.

Oh my lord, are you really that blind to anything? Look at the swift boat roster. Now that just burns me. Are you really that hard up that you can't do that? NONE OF THE MEN IN THE AD EVER SERVED ON THE SAME BOAT WITH JOHN KERRY. How hard is that for your mind to contemplate?

John McCain denounced the ad this morning as "dishonest and dishonorable" and called on the Bush campaign to denounce the ad.

The ad is being funded by John O'Neill and Merrie Spaeth. Their site was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman. The first two are Texas friends of Bush. All 3 work for Gannon International, a company that has seen its executive officers donate to the Bush campaign. This is the same company that does most of its overseas busines in Vietnam, supporting a socialist regime.

Now, if you can't do the most simple of fact checking, then I feel really sad for you.

And for the record, the 9/11 commission does not dispute Moore's movie and until you find anything that says otherwise from a legitimate source then your ranting is worth as much as a wooden nickel.

For pete's sake, check the swift boat rosters before you so smugly condemn a veteran of the very military you claim to support. Your callous disrespect for a veteran of our military goes against the grain of what you claim to believe. I take this as a personal insult. I've met people like that who have said such things to me, that I'm not a real veteran because I don't support Bush. Then they claim to love the military. Bull. That burns me to no ends.

You're right, you haven't attacked it directly, you've just defended the positions of numerous other people of varying degrees of credibility who've attacked him. Rather like peddaling weapons to a warring nation and then claiming neutrality.

Sounds like the US during WWII! Supplied Weapons to the Germans and the Brits then Cash and Carry came into being then the Lend-Lease Act! Yea we were neutral. LOL

Sounds like the US during WWII! Supplied Weapons to the Germans and the Brits then Cash and Carry came into being then the Lend-Lease Act! Yea we were neutral. LOLYou're not disputing my accusation then?

Ok, this argument is rather moot.. since there are two people running for office, 1) Dubya and 2) Kerry, why don't we just judge this on it's true merit, lets stack Kerry's war record against Bush's.. oooohhh, I bet no Bush supporter wants to do that eh.. they'd get slammed, McCain came out today saying this was bullshit.. and I'd really like to see the law suits filed for how Moore lied in his movie. Just because you say some thing often enough doesn't make it true. Moore is the first one to admit he wasn't fair and didn't try to be , but make no mistake, what he did use in his movie was 100% fact with spin of his opinions.. but there has been no, I repeat no debunk of F9/11. So for christ sakes, get over it.

On the other hand, none of the people in this book actually served with Kerry, they took over after. If you are wondering where the other crew members were when the man was talking about how Kerry saved his life, all you had to do was look behind him, every member of his crew were standing there, except for one, because he's DEAD!

I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME!

I'm going to read the book when it comes out then I'll make up my own mind. That is how we should do this. The book isn't even out yet so we have no idea what is really in it. We have a preface and what it will contain but we have no info on what the words are.

I will wait and then, when it comes out, read it throughly and carefully and then decide on wether or not its true.

That is all i'm going to say on this. I suggest you do the same.


Errr.. you are going to establish the "truth" of the book only by what it contains?


But you won't check the facts via other means or ascertain the truth of whether the people actually DID serve with Kerry? OR anything else?

And YOU call yourself open minded?

lmfao!

Ok, this argument is rather moot.. since there are two people running for office, 1) Dubya and 2) Kerry, why don't we just judge this on it's true merit, lets stack Kerry's war record against Bush's.. oooohhh, I bet no Bush supporter wants to do that eh.. they'd get slammed, McCain came out today saying this was bullshit.. and I'd really like to see the law suits filed for how Moore lied in his movie. Just because you say some thing often enough doesn't make it true. Moore is the first one to admit he wasn't fair and didn't try to be , but make no mistake, what he did use in his movie was 100% fact with spin of his opinions.. but there has been no, I repeat no debunk of F9/11. So for christ sakes, get over it.

On the other hand, none of the people in this book actually served with Kerry, they took over after. If you are wondering where the other crew members were when the man was talking about how Kerry saved his life, all you had to do was look behind him, every member of his crew were standing there, except for one, because he's DEAD!Formal Dances has I think been well and truly whupped by the leftists in this thread.

OT: Steph, btw
<<< 6 pages: Debate, Spoffin

Oh my lord, are you really that blind to anything? Look at the swift boat roster. Now that just burns me. Are you really that hard up that you can't do that? NONE OF THE MEN IN THE AD EVER SERVED ON THE SAME BOAT WITH JOHN KERRY. How hard is that for your mind to contemplate?

John McCain denounced the ad this morning as "dishonest and dishonorable" and called on the Bush campaign to denounce the ad.

The ad is being funded by John O'Neill and Merrie Spaeth. Their site was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman. The first two are Texas friends of Bush. All 3 work for Gannon International, a company that has seen its executive officers donate to the Bush campaign. This is the same company that does most of its overseas busines in Vietnam, supporting a socialist regime.

Now, if you can't do the most simple of fact checking, then I feel really sad for you.

And for the record, the 9/11 commission does not dispute Moore's movie and until you find anything that says otherwise from a legitimate source then your ranting is worth as much as a wooden nickel.

For pete's sake, check the swift boat rosters before you so smugly condemn a veteran of the very military you claim to support. Your callous disrespect for a veteran of our military goes against the grain of what you claim to believe. I take this as a personal insult. I've met people like that who have said such things to me, that I'm not a real veteran because I don't support Bush. Then they claim to love the military. Bull. That burns me to no ends.


And, for those that forget, Spaeth served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaisons under Reagan.

Gosh - no Republican affiliation there....

-Edit -
to add to her resume: She also coached Ken Starr on how to present his testimony before Congress urging Clinton's impeachment, and was also one of the people caught up in the bogus "Republicans for Clean Air" scandal that smeared McCain during the Republican Primaries of 200.

So, connect her to the Republicans in general, smear campaigns in general, and Bush's campaign team in specific.

Some things to consider when using the "Swift boat veterns for truth" people.

1) They are a Political Action Committee. This is mentioned on their site.

2) If they know the record, why don't start stating it? Why is their whole argument based on Kerry releasing his records. The Shrub locks his so why does Kerry have to release his?

3) The veterns themselves will not release their own records.

4) The artwork on the front page was done by these guys: http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/

5) Snopes is far more trustable then any political group.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

6) Druge? Welll if he endorses it that adds to the credibility factor.

6) Druge? Welll if he endorses it that adds to the credibility factor.
Well actually, this may be one of the few cases where he does. He's probably a good bit more pro-Kerry than they are.

Well actually, this may be one of the few cases where he does. He's probably a good bit more pro-Kerry than they are.

Opps!

I deserved that for not throughly looking.

I withdraw that comment.

HAHAHA

Thunderland, prove that they didn't serve with him.


I'll take care of that for him:

Hoffman, the top military guy behind this has ADMITTED that none of these men actually served with Kerry. At best, they served on other swift boats that sometimes ran the same patrols. But NONE were shipmates.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html



The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.




They EVEN go so far as to call Rassmann, Kerry's whole crew, and I asume the doctor that treated John KErry liars when they assert:



The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.



Because the only way that holds water is if EVERYBODY on the boat, the doctor that treated the wound, and Rassmann are all lying.

That provides a hell of enough of a credibility gap for me!

We shall see!

As stated, I'm going to look into this but alas, I do believe that they have served with him and thus know more than what Kerry is telling us.

As for getting whipped by the Left, I never truely was debating because the book ain't out yet. I will read it and post my conclusions on it.

These guys are talking about John Kerry. I've heard them on at least two different radio shows and soon to be one tv show. I know that CNN interviewed a couple too and one will be on live on another channel. I will be watching with great interest!

Here's something else.

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Television stations are being threatened by DNC Lawyers and telling them NOT to show the ad. Though the wording is hard to make out you can get the jist of what its saying.

What makes this letter interesting is that NONE of these people said they served ON THE SAME BOAT but that they have SERVED WITH KERRY, including a medical officer that treated Kerry.

Until more investigation is done and the book comes out, I will be withholding judgement. As for McCain, NOT ONCE did he ask these Vets if this was true. I have seen the ad personally and I find it damaging. I suggest that people look into ALL ASPECTS of this before condemning something. If this turns out to be false, I will be the first to condemn this.

So the very fact that people have already shown you the evidence that its false isn't enough. Please.....

DID.....NOT.....SERVE....WITH....KERRY.

Its like talking to a brick wall.

I'll take care of that for him:

Hoffman, the top military guy behind this has ADMITTED that none of these men actually served with Kerry. At best, they served on other swift boats that sometimes ran the same patrols. But NONE were shipmates.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...n.ap/index.html

If you LISTEN TO THE AD, not ONCE did they say that they served on his boat but SERVED WITH HIM. Big Difference

They EVEN go so far as to call Rassmann, Kerry's whole crew, and I asume the doctor that treated John KErry liars when they assert:

I never heard of them calling Rassmann a liar. NOT ONCE! What I've had heard is that on some of the occassions where Kerry claimed a firefight happened, none took place. Who knows what really went on. This will come out in due time.

Because the only way that holds water is if EVERYBODY on the boat, the doctor that treated the wound, and Rassmann are all lying.

That provides a hell of enough of a credibility gap for me!

The doctor has actually spoken out on one of his purple hearts. He also stated that some guys that where with Kerry when he claimed that a firefight happened, told the medics, out of ear shot of Kerry, that none took place.

We shall see what happens from this. I'm curious on how this will all turn out and if it turns out to be false, I will join the others in condemning them.

So the very fact that people have already shown you the evidence that its false isn't enough. Please.....

DID.....NOT.....SERVE....WITH....KERRY.

Its like talking to a brick wall.

If you bothered to listen, the never said that they served on the same boat but that they have served WITH HIM. Not a one said they served on the same boat.

I won't jump the gun into condemning anyone but alas, there are people here that will.

It's on Drudge. Nuff said.

It's on Drudge. Nuff said.

Berk, its everywhere, not just drudge. Just because its Drudge, DOES NOT make it false.

If you bothered to listen, the never said that they served on the same boat but that they have served WITH HIM. Not a one said they served on the same boat.

I won't jump the gun into condemning anyone but alas, there are people here that will.


If they weren't on the same boat, what gives them the right to talk about it?

I was in ROTC for 3 years. Does that make me the expert on information concerning someone else in ROTC 3 states away?

According to this logic, it does.

If they weren't on the same boat, what gives them the right to talk about it?

I was in ROTC for 3 years. Does that make me the expert on information concerning someone else in ROTC 3 states away?

According to this logic, it does.

*sighs and mutters to herself*

I will say this! Kerry brought this on himself by talking about his record. These are people that did serve with him including a medical officer that did treat a Kerry wound and talked about it.

I am not condeming it nor praising it. I will do some investigation and if it turns out to be false, I will condemn it and if its true, then Kerry should fess up to it.

I never heard of them calling Rassmann a liar. NOT ONCE! What I've had heard is that on some of the occassions where Kerry claimed a firefight happened, none took place. Who knows what really went on. This will come out in due time.


Ummm. Rassmann has gone on record describing the events of that day he was rescued - including the fact that he and the boat were under fire at the time. Yet according to that news article "The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed"

By denying the incident occurred, this book also paints Rassmann as a liar, as it does every crewmember of the boat who also stands behind him.

How can you possibly not see that?

Here is something that I have not seen brought up.....

Kerry VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam....he did not HAVE to go.

He spent a total of 4 months in action.

When he returned, he railed against a war he did not have to go to. Sort of hypocritical to me since he went there on his own accord. Had he been drafted and forced to go he might have an argument.

He is running on these 4 months in time only. Thats all he campaigns on...his service in Vietnam. Nothing about his 19 years in the Senate

Why is that? Because he did nothing of importance in the Senate. Oh, he sponsored a few bills to change the names of some buildings and register some fishing boats, but thats it. 19 years and not ONE major form of legislation written by the man who would be president. Not a very good endorsement at all.

However, he DID vote on some....

1986 he opposed the death penalty for terrorists.....he supports it now.

1990-2003 he voted against every payraise for the military.....he says he wants to properly pay the military now. (On a personal note I did not get a payraise for 7 years under Clinton, Kerry is part of that reason so I know this to be factual)

In 1995, Kerry Voted Against $11.1 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.3 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the funds.

In 1996, Kerry Voted Against $9.9 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.1 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 6 Senators to vote against the funds.

For a man who says he wants a strong military, he has some explaining to do...

I guess people don't know who the author is

John O'Neill was the naval officer who took over John Kerry's swift boat in the muddy waters of Vietnam. What he learned convinced him-and convinced the majority of veterans who served directly with Kerry-that John Kerry was and is unfit for command at the lowliest rank in the Navy, let alone as commander in chief of the United States.

From the Publisher
Find out why John Kerry is Unfit for Command as told by the men who served with him
Unfit for Command reveals a John Kerry you don't know-the true John Kerry that his political image-makers are trying to hide.

Since it looks like its coming from the people that served with him, this is rating moderately high on the truth Scale. What Kerry is doing will be what the politicians call "Damage Control"

I can't wait for this book to come out and I will read it.
It will make a nice companion reader on those nights that you are feeling anti-Kerry, and wondering how he managed to win the Presidency?

Ummm. Rassmann has gone on record describing the events of that day he was rescued - including the fact that he and the boat were under fire at the time. Yet according to that news article "The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed"

By denying the incident occurred, this book also paints Rassmann as a liar, as it does every crewmember of the boat who also stands behind him.

How can you possibly not see that?

Who denied it? I have heard of NO ONE denying that inicident took place. Not a one Zepp.

I'm going to watch Hannity and Colmbs tonight because they are going to have Rassmann as well as one of the people in that ad. I'm going to listen to it carefully.

I will not condemn nor praise something with as little information that I have. I've been listening to both sides but so far, I'm hearing nothing from the Kerry Campaign, only them saying this is lies. But how much of this is an actual lie? That is what we have to find out.

I for one will not jump the gun on this issue and I suggest others to do the same. I will read the book thoroughly and carefully then come to my own decisions.

For a man who says he wants a strong military, he has some explaining to do...
Perhaps he will build that strong military, one that will DEFEND the US, only if needed, and not wasting lives and money, playing in the sandboxes of the Middle East?

Perhaps he will build that strong military, one that will DEFEND the US, only if needed, and not wasting lives and money, playing in the sandboxes of the Middle East?

Well, since you are Canadian, you won't have to worry about that. Then again, you need a strong US military to defend your country so that you don't have to pay for one. Since you have no vote in the election, I will let your opinions slide. Not that I don't appreciate them, but your bias is impotent without a vote anyway.

Then again, you need a strong US military to defend your country so that you don't have to pay for one. Since you have no vote in the election, I will let your opinions slide. Not that I don't appreciate them, but your bias is impotent without a vote anyway.

Okay, let's see. Who has invaded Canada since it's creation?

The United States and well I am thinking .... um nobody else.

They also have a right to be concerned as out actions affect them as well.

Okay, let's see. Who has invaded Canada since it's creation?

The United States and well I am thinking .... um nobody else.

They also have a right to be concerned as out actions affect them as well.

Now we have basically the only undefended border in the WORLD!

*sighs and mutters to herself*

I will say this! Kerry brought this on himself by talking about his record. These are people that did serve with him including a medical officer that did treat a Kerry wound and talked about it.

I am not condeming it nor praising it. I will do some investigation and if it turns out to be false, I will condemn it and if its true, then Kerry should fess up to it.

Just curious though Formal. How are you going to ascertain "the truth" in a case of differing stories on events from 30 years ago?

At that point you will simply be believing because you want to believe.

Facts in evidence though:
1.) The people that REALLY served with Kerry (On the same damn boat) speak very highly of him.
2.) The person he rescued speaks very highly of him
3.) His evaluations at the time were ALL exemplary by his direct CO.s
4.) His actions AFTER he returned from war made a lot of people hate him.
5.) These people are financed by a group with direct connections to the Republican Party, and include a woman who was previously involved in setting up a false group to discredit another politician who stood in GW's way.
6.) Oh yes, and bear in mind that the military leader of this group - Hoffmann - was also implicated in setting orders that led to a massacre at Thanh Phong
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/3096.html

Also, an LA Times article (that you can purchase if you like by going to Latimes.com and searching for Hoffmann in the archives) noted that Kerry and Hoffmann had little contact in Vietnam, but that during the time they DID serve together that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in messages after several skirmishes.

Seems the story from Hoffmann changed.... AFTER Kerry got home and took his political stance.

So perhaps you should remember those facts as you evaluate the book. And bear in mind - as noted - that these people are willing to smear all of Kerry's crewmates and Rassmann as well with the same brush if what CNN says the book contains is true.

But to my mind, these facts place this group under some pretty poor light right off the bat.

Okay, let's see. Who has invaded Canada since it's creation?

The United States and well I am thinking .... um nobody else.

They also have a right to be concerned as out actions affect them as well.

Sure, they can be concerned all they want...but since they have no vote...their voice really means nothing in the end. All they have done so far is push me to vote for Bush. Ya see...I don't like people from other countries telling me who I should vote for since my vote is mine...and the future of my country is my concern. They don't have the same concerns that I do.

And to think that before I found this site I was going to vote Libertarian as usual....

Who denied it? I have heard of NO ONE denying that inicident took place. Not a one Zepp.


Err... which part of the quote from the article can you fail to understand the english language in....

The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river


Is that not denial that the incident occurred?

Err... which part of the quote from the article can you fail to understand the english language in....

The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river


Is that not denial that the incident occurred?

Welcome to the world of "Formal Dances Debate Style": If you don't like it, ignore it.

Sure, they can be concerned all they want...but since they have no vote...their voice really means nothing in the end. All they have done so far is push me to vote for Bush. Ya see...I don't like people from other countries telling me who I should vote for since my vote is mine...and the future of my country is my concern. They don't have the same concerns that I do.

And to think that before I found this site I was going to vote Libertarian as usual....


So, you are saying that OUR views as Canadians, which you discount as not germaine, are going to cause you to change YOUR vote in an election.... just to spite us?


I'm trying to see the sense of that argument.... but failing Bif

(Incidentally, if you don't understand why some people might feel that they have a vested interest in who leads the world's only superpower and their largest trading partner, then I guess you think that politics exist in a vaccuum that has no impacts beyond your borders. Your foreign policies affect the whole world. your domestic policies regarding economic issues affects our largest foreign market, and so also affects our own economic health. Of COURSE it matters to us!)

So, you are saying that OUR views as Canadians, which you discount as not germaine, are going to cause you to change YOUR vote in an election.... just to spite us?


I'm trying to see the sense of that argument.... but failing Bif

(Incidentally, if you don't understand why some people might feel that they have a vested interest in who leads the world's only superpower and their largest trading partner, then I guess you think that politics exist in a vaccuum that has no impacts beyond your borders. Your foreign policies affect the whole world. your domestic policies regarding economic issues affects our largest foreign market, and so also affects our own economic health. Of COURSE it matters to us!)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, you cannot ACT on your opinion. I on the other hand have taken a longer look at the candidates in this election than I usually do. Maybe because it is so close. I have looked at Kerry's record and it really is pathetic. I think Bush will take us in a better direction than Kerry will. In this time of war, Kerry would be a disaster. I am deeply troubled by the fact that all Kerry goes on about is his 4 months in Vietnam...and looking at his Senate record I can see why...it is devoid of any major legislation....totally empty after 19 years.

Err... which part of the quote from the article can you fail to understand the english language in....

The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river


Is that not denial that the incident occurred?

No actually! No one is denying that he was picked up. After listening to both sides now that I have more information, I think what we actually have here is a case of the "Under Enemy Fire"!

An underwater mine can be considered enemy fire but most people consider enemy fire as gunshots.

From my understanding, a mine blew up throwing 4 people into the water. One of whom was Rassmann and was picked up by Kerry. No one has denied that Kerry picked up Rassmann.

Here is something that I have not seen brought up.....

Kerry VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam....he did not HAVE to go.

He spent a total of 4 months in action.

When he returned, he railed against a war he did not have to go to. Sort of hypocritical to me since he went there on his own accord. Had he been drafted and forced to go he might have an argument.

He is running on these 4 months in time only. Thats all he campaigns on...his service in Vietnam. Nothing about his 19 years in the Senate

Why is that? Because he did nothing of importance in the Senate. Oh, he sponsored a few bills to change the names of some buildings and register some fishing boats, but thats it. 19 years and not ONE major form of legislation written by the man who would be president. Not a very good endorsement at all.

However, he DID vote on some....

1986 he opposed the death penalty for terrorists.....he supports it now.

1990-2003 he voted against every payraise for the military.....he says he wants to properly pay the military now. (On a personal note I did not get a payraise for 7 years under Clinton, Kerry is part of that reason so I know this to be factual)

In 1995, Kerry Voted Against $11.1 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.3 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the funds.

In 1996, Kerry Voted Against $9.9 Billion For Military Construction, Including $4.1 Billion For Military Family Housing. Kerry was one of only 6 Senators to vote against the funds.

For a man who says he wants a strong military, he has some explaining to do...

You have a point there! Here's something else for ya:

http://members.sitegadgets.com/TSA1/board/14.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=225459&mesg_id=225459

Yea you can question those 2 sites but here is another site that you should look at his record for!

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Well...I have looked at Kerry...I have read more about that man in the last few days that I really wanted to. He has stated he is going to raise our taxes. Remember the last candidate that did that....Mondale. How did that work out for him? Oh yeah....Reagan slaughtered him.

As a member of the Libertarian party (which wants to do away with income taxes altogether) Kerry is Satan incarnate and I could NEVER support such a man. As if we do not pay enough taxes as it is, he wants us to pay more to pay for a national healthcare system that, being run by the government, will be very inefficient and wasteful. In short...a boondoggle.

Like Clinton coming out with Gays in the military :rolleyes: Kerry is starting out with an issue that falls short of being the most pressing.

Formal, I served with several thousand people in the Gulf. I can't for the life of me honestly say I knew what each and every one of them was doing. However, I can say what those in my unit were doing. I can say what I was doing.

It makes a difference. Everyone that was around Kerry has come out to say how his service went. They've all spoken very highly of him. The only ones who are trashing his record are people who wouldn't know a thing about his record in the first place.

They are calling everyone that ever served with Kerry a liar by saying that the events which occurred did not take place. Official military record says otherwise. Yes, you can read all about the official military record of the events in question. There is enough fact at hand to make a rational and intelligent decision.

You have those who served with Kerry and the military telling one story.

You have a bunch of other people who weren't with Kerry (thereby not serving with him on his boat) saying another story.

Those with Kerry have already said that they came out to tell their story on their own. Rasmussen has said it over and over that no one asked him to tell his story, he did it on his own.

Those against Kerry are being funded by people whose primary interest is to see Bush elected since they are friends and business associates of his family.

Its simple. Its proven....you asked for facts, you asked for proof. You've been given it, yet you still refuse to condemn the ads as despicable. You have chosen to stand by an ad that viciously attacks a veteran of this country. You are choosing to stand by an unpatriotic attack upon a man who served his country. What does that say about you?

Yea you can question those 2 sites but here is another site that you should look at his record for!

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

I find that site rather interesting too in that it seems to cherry-pick years.

Take a look a the Military Issues line and it shows:
2004 2002 2000 1999 1998 1993 1988

What happened to the rest of the years?

It would skip the fact that in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. etc. etc. how long should I go on?

Clearly the rest of the years WERE looked at given that the Trade ISsues line includes: 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1988

to my mind - if you are presenting the information as fair - either show something with the FULL record, or don't show at all.

No actually! No one is denying that he was picked up. After listening to both sides now that I have more information, I think what we actually have here is a case of the "Under Enemy Fire"!

An underwater mine can be considered enemy fire but most people consider enemy fire as gunshots.

From my understanding, a mine blew up throwing 4 people into the water. One of whom was Rassmann and was picked up by Kerry. No one has denied that Kerry picked up Rassmann.

NO Rassman has stated CLEARLY that he was under fire in the water. Gunshots. Sniper fire that was banging around him as he tried to clamber into the boat with Kerry's help.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/23/state1635EST7361.DTL

"Jim Rassmann was swimming in a muddy brown river in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, ducking Viet Cong bullets from both banks and expecting to be killed even if he made it to shore, when John Kerry turned his patrol boats around and came to the rescue.

"You know what a mad minute is?" asked Rassmann, who was a 21-year-old U.S. Army Special Forces lieutenant that day nearly 35 years ago. "A mad minute is when you fire everything you've got steadily for a minute. They do it in the military for demonstration purposes. That's what it was like."

The coxswain of Kerry's 60-foot patrol boat eased up to Rassmann, who pulled himself up a net hanging over the bow, but couldn't make it onto the deck. Kerry, his arm wounded in the explosion that blew Rassmann off the boat, ran to the bow and pulled him aboard.

Rassmann was so impressed by Kerry in the March 13, 1969, rescue that he nominated Kerry for the Silver Star, and was disappointed when the Navy awarded the Bronze Star with a "V" for valor.

Now, Rassmann is changing his registration to Democrat so he can vote for Kerry in the May 18 Oregon primary. He also is joining the senator from Massachusetts in his New Hampshire campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Newt Gingrich disparagingly called people like me the Volvo Republicans -- we are fiscal conservatives and social liberals," said Rassmann, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department lieutenant with a passion for orchids. "This political thing is just for John, and the fact that I think he would be the best president.

...

Rassmann recalls sidling along the deck next to the pilot house, a rifle in each hand, intending to give one to the bow gunner, when a second mine detonated, launching him into the water. Weighed down by guns, grenades, and ammunition, he sank to the bottom until the five boats passed overhead, then shed his gear and surfaced.

"That's when the VC started shooting at me," he said. "I was closest to the north bank. I decided that was the way to go. But I remember thinking it really didn't matter, because they were shooting at us from both banks. If I couldn't evade them or didn't get rescued, I figured I would get killed if I got captured, because that's what they almost always did to people in my unit."



So. Is Rassmann a liar?

After all , it WAS Rassmann that put Kerry in for the Bronze Star after that event, and one assume that it would have needed to have been corroberated as that is the standard practice is it not?

Well the guy DID serve with him

No, he didn't serve with him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/20/kerry.military/

"I saw some war heroes ... John Kerry is not a war hero," said John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer who joined the Navy's Coastal Division 11 two months after the future senator left Vietnam.

Furthermore, O'Neill has had a personal animus for Kerry since the early 70s, when he was encouraged and backed by Nixon.

There may indeed be new information in this book about Kerry's war record. But I don't trust O'Neill's motives.

Edit: More on O'Neill.

http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp

After a little over two years' duty, O'Neill himself departed Vietnam with two Bronze Stars (with "V"s for valor in combat) pinned to his chest. There were apparently several more decorations, but when I asked about them, his modesty triumphed over my curiosity. He also came home with a badly damaged knee and leg, which earned him some time in a military hospital. And it was there that John O'Neill started learning about the Senate testimony of someone named John Kerry.

Far from "serving with" Kerry; the two had never even met before the Cavett Show appearance.

Zepp, you need to get your head out of the sand. I've heard different, and not because of this book either but when this all started, that MANY of those that served with Kerry, consider him Unfit to lead the USA. Those behind him except for one, said that they served with him. These people that are speaking out probably did serve with him and that is why they are speaking out. They are tired of what Kerry is saying. I'm not saying they're right, not saying they're wrong. I will read the book and make up my own mind.

1) None of the veterans featured in the new ad served alongside John Kerry.

2) The group of veterans has received funding from a major Republican donor.

3) All of the men who actually served with Kerry on the same swift-boat support his version of events.

Nit Pick Nit Pick Nit Pick!

That is all you people ever do is Nit Pick! THEY SERVED IN THE SAME UNIT so YES they would know about him. They served ALONGSIDE HIM. May not have been the same boat and they never claimed that anyway. Jesus why do you people always nitpick everything.

They served in the same unit and the Medical Officer was attached to that unit that treated Kerry that resulted into his 1st purple heart. The people that were there where joking about it because they never thought that it would result into a purple heart.

Just because someone didn't serve on the same boat, doesn't mean these guys are not telling the truth. I'm not believing Kerry NOR am I believing what these people say.

You people need to stop nit picking because it goes nowhere. My dad was also in the Gulf War and in this War. He knows what his unit is doing at any given time due to COMMUNICATIONS. If there was hostile fire, does it stand to reason that someone would've communicated to the other boats that they were under fire? As far as I know, no one communicated there was hostile fire. If your under attack, you Communicate that you are under attack. Rassmann may have been underfire but maybe the firefight stopped before the boat got there and Kerry hauled him out of the water. No one is denying that Rassmann was hauled out of the water. Everyone aggrees on that.

I, for one, am investigating. Two conflicting sides here and they will have to be reconciled. Frankly, I don't care! What I want to find out is if Kerry lied to the US Senate. If he did, and if he was under oath, then he should be thrown in Jail.

Read some links:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1132586/posts

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040422-121900-7315r.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38337

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4499.shtml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1089716,00.html

I, for one, am investigating. Two conflicting sides here and they will have to be reconciled. Frankly, I don't care! What I want to find out is if Kerry lied to the US Senate. If he did, and if he was under oath, then he should be thrown in Jail.
Clearly what you don't care about is the truth. Before this thread even started you decided that you'd take the word of the people in this book, and even though we've demolished the arguements that you give that claim their credibility (they didn't serve with Kerry, they're funded by major players in the political right-wing), but even so you stick to your guns and claim that they are credible, and reliable and independant, even though you no longer have any grounds for it. It's the height of poor logic, and you're ignoring anything remotely connected with the truth simply because you don't like Kerry. I'm wasting my time even arguing here, cos there's no way that you're going to listen to the truth.

Clearly what you don't care about is the truth. Before this thread even started you decided that you'd take the word of the people in this book, and even though we've demolished the arguements that you give that claim their credibility (they didn't serve with Kerry, they're funded by major players in the political right-wing), but even so you stick to your guns and claim that they are credible, and reliable and independant, even though you no longer have any grounds for it. It's the height of poor logic, and you're ignoring anything remotely connected with the truth simply because you don't like Kerry. I'm wasting my time even arguing here, cos there's no way that you're going to listen to the truth.

Believe what you will Spoffin! I have neither condemned nor praised them. I will wait for the book to come out and read it then come to my conclusions. You on the other hand, have immediately bought the DNC Party line that they are lying because these people are speaking out against Kerry. I find that childish.

I will not jump the gun. I will wait and form my own conclusions because that is how intelligent people do things. I will not base my opinions on those that have their hearts set on Kerry and will do anything to defend him. I for one, have no such qualms. I do support Bush, I will freely admit it, however, when something like this comes out, it deserves to be investigated throughly. I hope Kerry releases his records. That would put this whole thing to rest.

I hope Kerry releases his records. That would put this whole thing to rest.


You mean these records?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

He released them months ago.

Psst, hey Zeppistan. Do you want to point out to anyone that the official military records you posted give an account of the action in question? And that the records clearly state that Kerry was under small arms fire? Thanks for adding yet another piece of the truth to the mix, but sadly it won't sway the thinking of some people who still want to wait to "read the book."

So we have all of Kerry's shipmates, Kerry himself, the man he saved, and the United States military all giving an account in which he was under fire.

But hey, let's all wait until a book comes out from a man that wasn't there. Doesn't that make more sense?

What do you say Zepp, wanna switch sides with me? We'll go together. I have an extra set of blinders so we can't see the truth anymore. I even have some extra ether so we won't care that we are being lied to by the Republicans. Come on Zepp, we can lock arms and skip all the way over to the other side together. We won't even have to think anymore. We can just sit there and drool and listen to what O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Faux News tells us to believe.

So what do you say, wanna go over to the dark side with me?

So what do you say, wanna go over to the dark side with me?

I'd rather set my hair on fire and let Formal put it out with a baseball bat... lol.

That being said, I am NOT strictly partisan. If the Republican party had lived up to even just the fiscal ideals of Conservativism then I would have applauded them for that. However while they call the Democrats "tax and spend", it seems the Republican motto is now "don't tax but spend more! Let our grandchildren pay for it!"

I may be socially liberal, but I firmly believe in accountability, honesty, and fiscal restraint. While there are some issues regarding Kerry that are troubling (I have stated repeatedly that I do not think he was a terrific choice), GW's deceptions, actions, and sometimes lack-of-actions just can't be excused in my opinion.

Does that make me one of the "anyone but Bush" camp? To some extent, although I sure as hell would not have supported Kusinich. It would not have stopped me from keeping up my criticism of Bush though. I am an equal-opportunity critic when the situation warrants it.

Whoever gets elected in November will have their actions scrutinized just as hard by me as I have with GW.

As they should!

I, for one, harshly criticized Clinton for his apathy in investigating Gulf War Syndrome. It was never taken seriously by his administration and I was really hoping that the Bush administration would take up this cause. Unfortunately, they've dropped the ball on this as well. But I was terribly disappointed with the Clinton administration on this one.

As they should!

I, for one, harshly criticized Clinton for his apathy in investigating Gulf War Syndrome. It was never taken seriously by his administration and I was really hoping that the Bush administration would take up this cause. Unfortunately, they've dropped the ball on this as well. But I was terribly disappointed with the Clinton administration on this one.

I was disappointed by a number of issues with Clinton as well. what I always find hilarious is how so many Republican's just can't get past the blowjob as their prime complaint about him.

As if that related to how he ran the country....