NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is more honest:

moore is more honest- the swiftboat vets raped and killed babys in Veitnam

Who is more honest:
Moore is funnier, so I give him my vote.

I say that Moore is more honest, but it doesn't mean he's not a liar.

moore is more honest- the swiftboat vets raped and killed babys in Veitnam

Does being an idiot require any actual work, or does it come to you naturally?

I guess that means, since Kerry was a swiftboat vet, he raped and killed babys too eh? I'd sure like him for president then :rolleyes:

moore is more technically honest than the swift boat vets, he may rape facts and twist them until they cry uncle, but they are facts none the less, the swift boat vets are out and out liars

Moore trys hard, his information is probably all wrong and terribly researched but his heart is in the right place.
Moore gets my vote.

Does being an idiot require any actual work, or does it come to you naturally?

I guess that means, since Kerry was a swiftboat vet, he raped and killed babys too eh? I'd sure like him for president then :rolleyes:
Kerry was honest about the war crimes that occured and the swiftboat babykillers will never forgive him for airing their dirty secrets

Kerry was honest about the war crimes that occured and the swiftboat babykillers will never forgive him for airing their dirty secrets

And yet Kerry has backed off of some of his claims.

Swift Boats get my vote

And yet Kerry has backed off of some of his claims.

Swift Boats get my vote
Kerry backed off for political reasons but anyone whose actually been to nam (unlike Bush) knows hes telling the aweful truth. Once again your decieved by liers with an agenda

moore is more technically honest than the swift boat vets, he may rape facts and twist them until they cry uncle, but they are facts none the less, the swift boat vets are out and out liarsI agree, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that Moore "rapes" facts. He draws conclusions that, while they may fit the definition of logical, are perhaps not the most logical conclusion that can be drawn. But in his last book and last film most especially, he certainly gets the facts right, even if you disagree with the conclusions he draws.

The Swift Boat Veterans are out and out liars and have been busted down as such by multiple news organizations and others who were there. There are no "facts" in what they claim about Kerry's Vietnam service.

Funny thing about the Swifties is that if they'd run their second commercial first, they'd probably have done more damage, because there are plenty of people with legitimate gripes about Kerry's testimony. That would have given them some cred for their later attacks on his service. But they lost credibility when they were shown up as shills for the Republican party and the Bush campaign, and that dulled the effect of their second commercial.

Shills of the Republican Party? You mean how Benjamin Ginsberg was caught providing legal advice for both the Bush campaign and the Swiftees?

I guess moveon.org better review their 527 status because Joe Sandler serves as the general counsel for both the Kerry campaign and moveon.org... not to mention Harold Ickes, major Democratic fund-raiser, is now the head of the Media Fund, a left-liberal 527.

The fact that the media went beserk over Ginsberg but ignored Sandler for months is proof of a pro-Kerry bias in the media.

Oh, Kerry has yet come up with a good explanation for his 30 year lie of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. Swiftees win.

MM is nothing but a fat, lying slob that deserves to be deported to Canada or Europe. After all, they love him.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/189866

Michael Moore is a lying anti-american piglet. He twist the facts until he has wrung any truthfulness and logic out of them. He deserves to be stung up and cured like any plain old hog.

Kerry backed off for political reasons but anyone whose actually been to nam (unlike Bush) knows hes telling the aweful truth. Once again your decieved by liers with an agenda

First of all, if what Kerry said was true, why did he have to back off for political reasons? Wouldn't you want someone in office who stood up for the truth no matter the political climate? :confused:

Sure, some people in Vietnam did things they shouldn't have, but the fact is that they're in the staggering minority. Most of the soldiers behaved themselves. Kerry came back spouting generalizations to enhance his resume' for political office. And that's the truth.

Shills of the Republican Party? You mean how Benjamin Ginsberg was caught providing legal advice for both the Bush campaign and the Swiftees?

I guess moveon.org better review their 527 status because Joe Sandler serves as the general counsel for both the Kerry campaign and moveon.org... not to mention Harold Ickes, major Democratic fund-raiser, is now the head of the Media Fund, a left-liberal 527.

The fact that the media went beserk over Ginsberg but ignored Sandler for months is proof of a pro-Kerry bias in the media.
PAC, 527, look it up

Oh, Kerry has yet come up with a good explanation for his 30 year lie of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. Swiftees win.
so they win because they lie about everything and harass kerry about getting his dates wrong?

Michael Moore is a lying anti-american piglet. He twist the facts until he has wrung any truthfulness and logic out of them. He deserves to be stung up and cured like any plain old hog.
bingo, he twists FACT, therefore he represents facts, and the swift boat vets are liars. they have yet to come up with a single FACT

PAC, 527, look it up

527--An area of the tax code that these groups thrive in!

As for what PAC has said, he is right Chess Squares

Moore's a pig, and the Swift Boat guys have a personal vendetta against Kerry, but have no facts. They're all liars.

Oh, Kerry has yet come up with a good explanation for his 30 year lie of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. Swiftees win.
Kerry was too in Cambodia on a secret mission--the swiftboat babykillers are lying to hide their war crimes

MM is nothing but a fat, lying slob that deserves to be deported to Canada or Europe. After all, they love him.
we need to clone MM and put three of him in each state

Michael Moore is a lying anti-american piglet. He twist the facts until he has wrung any truthfulness and logic out of them. He deserves to be stung up and cured like any plain old hog.
you just hate him cause he gives you a taste of your own bile

First of all, if what Kerry said was true, why did he have to back off for political reasons? Wouldn't you want someone in office who stood up for the truth no matter the political climate? :confused:

Sure, some people in Vietnam did things they shouldn't have, but the fact is that they're in the staggering minority. Most of the soldiers behaved themselves. Kerry came back spouting generalizations to enhance his resume' for political office. And that's the truth.
actually 90% of kerry speech he was fighting for veterans rights and increased benefits for vets but Im sure the republican truth rapists left those details out and only isolated a few lines where he mentioned war crimes we all know happened--except for maybe Bush who NEVER went

Kerry was too in Cambodia on a secret mission--the swiftboat babykillers are lying to hide their war crimes

You have proof that he was in Cambodia?

Moore's a pig, and the Swift Boat guys have a personal vendetta against Kerry, but have no facts. They're all liars.
regardless of what a fat slob Moore is hes 125% more honest then this administration and the dishonorable backstabbers who are breaking their bonds of brotherhood by smearing another vet to defend an AWOL coward

regardless of what a fat slob Moore is hes 125% more honest then this administration and the dishonorable backstabbers who are breaking their bonds of brotherhood by smearing another vet to defend an AWOL coward

Then why was his movie debunked by just about everyone?

You have proof that he was in Cambodia?
those were top secret mission--I suppose you never saw the movie Apolcalypse now

Then why was his movie debunked by just about everyone?
it was only "debunked' by Bush defenders who never saw it

Kerry was too in Cambodia on a secret mission--the swiftboat babykillers are lying to hide their war crimes
Kerry claims he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, but Richard Nixon didn't take office until a month later. He was the one ordering the troops to Cambodia, not LBJ.

People always say they debunked his movie, but nobody actually says the debunked information... In fact, I remember reading the defense against some of those "debunked" accusations.

those were top secret mission--I suppose you never saw the movie Apolcalypse now

oh thats a switch! I don't believe what I see in the movies unless the words "Based on a True Story" is there and sometimes, they'll butcher that too.

Again, do you have proof that he was in Cambodia?

Kerry claims he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, but Richard Nixon didn't take office until a month later. He was the one ordering the troops to Cambodia, not LBJ.
we dont know what kinda secret missions they had during wartime so we cant say for sure thats hes not telling the truth--Im sure youve heard of covert operations before

People always say they debunked his movie, but nobody actually says the debunked information... In fact, I remember reading the defense against some of those "debunked" accusations.

Well that is natural however all the information is out in the public. Read the 9/11 Commission report then see what Moore says about the Saudis and other things.

People always say they debunked his movie, but nobody actually says the debunked information... In fact, I remember reading the defense against some of those "debunked" accusations.
LOL yeah the movie was "debunked" by people who never saw it. They mustve all seen it thru their crystal balls--even McCain whose trolling for an appointment never saw it

LOL yeah the movie was "debunked" by people who never saw it. They mustve all seen it thru their crystal balls

And debunked by people who did. Not to mention the 9/11 Commission Report debunked parts of the same movie as well.

Kerry claims he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, but Richard Nixon didn't take office until a month later. He was the one ordering the troops to Cambodia, not LBJ.
It has come out--not that the press has said anything where anyone who was deeply curious could have heard it--that Kerry was indeed in Cambodia, but in February/March of 1969, around the time of Tet, which is the Vietnamese equivalent of Christmas. It's easy to understand why the man's memory might fault him on a similar detail like that one, but there is physical evidence to show that he was there, and that would be during the proper time frame for Nixon as well.

oh thats a switch! I don't believe what I see in the movies unless the words "Based on a True Story" is there and sometimes, they'll butcher that too.

Again, do you have proof that he was in Cambodia?
do you have proof he wasnt?

Kerry claims he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968, but Richard Nixon didn't take office until a month later. He was the one ordering the troops to Cambodia, not LBJ.
you know my favorite thing about that whole incident? nixon didnt say those words until after kerry testified he said it if i remember correctly

It has come out--not that the press has said anything where anyone who was deeply curious could have heard it--that Kerry was indeed in Cambodia, but in February/March of 1969, around the time of Tet, which is the Vietnamese equivalent of Christmas. It's easy to understand why the man's memory might fault him on a similar detail like that one, but there is physical evidence to show that he was there, and that would be during the proper time frame for Nixon as well.
I'm sure it was, but really, if his memory was scrambled, let war records help you remember, not just some emotional statement. Besides, in the context of Vietnam, the Tet Offensive is just as emotionally rich as Christmas, because by and large, it was the beginning of the end. Some Viet Cong even made it near the US embassy in Saigon.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

This pretty well shows that Moore is very deceptive with his movies. I recommend that everyone, liberal and conservative, read what is on that site.

By the way, I'm an independent voter who holds beliefs from both sides of the political spectrum. I just don't like being lied to.

do you have proof he wasnt?

In regards to this comment, the burden of proof is on you since I was the one that asked you do you have proof. So care to provide it?

This survey is pretty pointless... a better comparison would be the Swiftees vs. Moveon.org. There's a no brainer :)

I'm sure it was, but really, if his memory was scrambled, let war records help you remember, not just some emotional statement. Besides, in the context of Vietnam, the Tet Offensive is just as emotionally rich as Christmas, because by and large, it was the beginning of the end. Some Viet Cong even made it near the US embassy in Saigon.According to this article from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/18/kerry_disputes_allegations_on_cambodia/) there aren't dated records from those missions because they were black--off the books. Separately, according to Meehan's statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces. In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date. That makes it hard to ascertain or confirm what happened. Kerry served on two swift boats, the No. 44 in December 1968 and January 1969, and the No. 94, from February to March 1969.

According to this article from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/18/kerry_disputes_allegations_on_cambodia/) there aren't dated records from those missions because they were black--off the books.
Whatever. I'm sure the Pentagon would love to give it to a Senator, though. They probably do have records, but they're just classified. The last thing the Pentagon wants is some Senator advocating a budget cut.

Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe? The same Michael Kranish who wrote a glowing autobiography of John Kerry? See: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O9t1OL3bzW&isbn=0786268158&itm=3

Can you imagine the kind of uproar there'd be if a staff reporter for a major American newspaper moonlighted as a Bush campaigner?

Why doesn't Kerry just sign a Navy military records release form? That'd clear everything up.

Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe? The same Michael Kranish who wrote a glowing autobiography of John Kerry? See: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O9t1OL3bzW&isbn=0786268158&itm=3

Why doesn't Kerry just sign a Navy military records release form? That'd clear everything up.

Because he's scared too!

I'll just port this question over here, since it's been ignored on imdb.com (I didn't ask it, but I thought it was a good one) and ignored in the last "OMG, Moore invented editing, is overwieght and has an opinion-get him!" thread.

Why do you hold Moore to a higher standard than the president or the Swifties? If you have the standard, that is fine, but why isn't it applied the same?

I'll just port this question over here, since it's been ignored on imdb.com (I didn't ask it, but I thought it was a good one) and ignored in the last "OMG, Moore invented editing, is overwieght and has an opinion-get him!" thread.

Why do you hold Moore to a higher standard than the president or the Swifties? If you have the standard, that is fine, but why isn't it applied the same?

Many of Moore's claims have been proven as completely fabrications; the Swiftees' claims cannot be verified because of Kerry's stonewalling of the Navy records.

hehe, I don't know what you have to back your info up, but none of moore's information has actually been proven to be fabrication. and after all these years of the navy allowing access to kerry's records, they just suddenly stopped...

Many of Moore's claims have been proven as completely fabrications; the Swiftees' claims cannot be verified because of Kerry's stonewalling of the Navy records.
Really? (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)

Compared to that, websites that credit Moore with the invention of editing or nitpicking sentence structure for intent seem pretty weak.

So the standard is not up held. Why?

edit:spelling, for once....

hehe, I don't know what you have to back your info up, but none of moore's information has actually been proven to be fabrication. and after all these years of the navy allowing access to kerry's records, they just suddenly stopped...

Point your browser to one of many websites online that document Moore's fabrications. Here's a couple to start you off:

http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

And here's a really good one by longtime socialist Christopher Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Really? (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)

Compared to that, websites that credit Moore with the invention of editing or nitpicking sentence structure for intent seem pretty week.

So the standard is not up held. Why?

I guess people have not read the 9/11 commission report. It clearly debunks Moore's assumptions regarding the Saudis as well as other things Moore has said. I don't have it infront of me though because I left my book at home.

As for Moore, he's been debunked more times than the CIA has.

I guess people have not read the 9/11 commission report. It clearly debunks Moore's assumptions regarding the Saudis as well as other things Moore has said. I don't have it infront of me though because I left my book at home.

As for Moore, he's been debunked more times than the CIA has.
I guess we could just lob websites (http://michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24) at each other, but it really dodges the question and continues the attack on Moore without explaining why you don't hold the swift boat group or the president to the same standard.

Really? (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)

Compared to that, websites that credit Moore with the invention of editing or nitpicking sentence structure for intent seem pretty weak.

So the standard is not up held. Why?

edit:spelling, for once....

Whoever wrote this didn't read the book Unfit for Command (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/qid=1094432464/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-2096516-9861730?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). If someone is going to write a defense of Kerry, the least he could do is read the allegations.

Funny thing about moorelies, etc. is that they don't really debunk... they just say bad things about moore. The most I've seen them say is that some stuff is contextual. Unfortunately, everything is contextual.

I guess we could just lob websites (http://michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24) at each other, but it really dodges the question and continues the attack on Moore without explaining why you don't hold the swift boat group or the president to the same standard.

What are you babbling about? I used to hold Moore to the same standards as everyone else, until he came to our school and verbally abused everyone for 2 hours (and got paid $10000 for it). He has lost all the credibility he's ever had when he said, in all seriousness, "all conservatives are evil Nazis". Or something similar.

And Dubya called the war on terror a crusade. If one line is enough to destroy all (or in Bush's case any) of a person's credibility, that's one of 'em.

What are you babbling about? I used to hold Moore to the same standards as everyone else, until he came to our school and verbally abused everyone for 2 hours (and got paid $10000 for it). He has lost all the credibility he's ever had when he said, in all seriousness, "all conservatives are evil Nazis". Or something similar.
Often you can't convince and alchoholic that they are one, and it becomes a pointless argument. If you truly believe that you are holding Moore to the same standard of legitimacy that you are holding the Swift Vets to, or the president for that matter, I'm not going to waste time going "Uh-uh!!!" with you. But I have to say, based on the arguments posted and the reasoning behind your response, I don't see it. But that's all I have to go on.

And Dubya called the war on terror a crusade. If one line is enough to destroy all (or in Bush's case any) of a person's credibility, that's one of 'em.

It's a metaphor, dumbass. Besides, people like you tend to be completely blind to the Islamist threat.

Often you can't convince and alchoholic that they are one, and it becomes a pointless argument. If you truly believe that you are holding Moore to the same standard of legitimacy that you are holding the Swift Vets to, or the president for that matter, I'm not going to waste time going "Uh-uh!!!" with you. But I have to say, based on the arguments posted and the reasoning behind your response, I don't see it. But that's all I have to go on.

Yeah, you're right. No point talking to someone who doesn't see Moore as a mini-Chomsky demagogue... it's that obvious.

Yeah, you're right. No point talking to someone who doesn't see Moore as a mini-Chomsky demagogue... it's that obvious.
Still wasn't the question, but rant away.

It's a metaphor, dumbass. Besides, people like you tend to be completely blind to the Islamist threat.

Hey grit-eater, the didn't have decapitations in april 2003. Dubya realised he wouldn't get elected if he wasn't a war-president, so he pulled troops out of a recovering afghanistan to make a new war. Invading muslim countries left and right is not a good way to win hearts and minds. If he really cared about terrorism he'd have straightened his shit out in Afghanistan.


Dubya wasn't revolutionary in his war to retake the holy la- I mean war on terror. He was just the president who happened to be in office when 9-11 hit.

Might as well add my 2 pesos.

Moore gets the facts right 95% of the time. However, his style hurts him more than it helps. He should be figuring out ways to reach out to the right side of the spectrum instead of just appealing to the left. He puts segments in his movies that shoot down his message:

Examples:

1) In BfC he has one shot of Heston doing the "From my cold dead hands!" bit and then showing a bit from much later on at another NRA meeting. Pro-Gun people saw it as Moore trying to show Heston as gloating at the meeting held right after and close to Columbine and therefore happily rejected the entire movie as liberal bias bad blood. (Although I consider this a weak argument since its not like Heston's feelings towards gun control changed since then and the "we're already here" bit Heston said as he read the mayor's letter wasn't exactly sympathetic to the massacre)

2) In Far. 9/11, he showed Bahgdad as a happy place when there was a nasty dictator in charge and it glazed over the things he was doing. Right off the bat this gave critics ammo not to see it (even though they were saying it was garbage even before it even came out). I doubt, however, that you will find scenes like that occuring more often under US control than under Saddam. And scenes like that did occur (even nasty dictators can't harrass his people THAT frequently and efficiently. Happy moments had to exist somewhere).

So Moore shoots himself in the foot. He's a bit too overzealous and in return he's his own worse enemy. And his interpretation of the facts is often something to be desired. But he gets it right most of the time. Facts are facts.

The Swift Boats though are all liars. Proven time and again.

Hey grit-eater, the didn't have decapitations in april 2003. Dubya realised he wouldn't get elected if he wasn't a war-president, so he pulled troops out of a recovering afghanistan to make a new war. Invading muslim countries left and right is not a good way to win hearts and minds. If he really cared about terrorism he'd have straightened his shit out in Afghanistan.


Dubya wasn't revolutionary in his war to retake the holy la- I mean war on terror. He was just the president who happened to be in office when 9-11 hit.

Yeah, Afghanistan is all fucked up. http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/07/good-news-from-afghanistan-part-2.html

Where'd you get your news from? Al-bibicya?

Hey grit-eater, the didn't have decapitations in april 2003. Dubya realised he wouldn't get elected if he wasn't a war-president, so he pulled troops out of a recovering afghanistan to make a new war. Invading muslim countries left and right is not a good way to win hearts and minds. If he really cared about terrorism he'd have straightened his shit out in Afghanistan.


Dubya wasn't revolutionary in his war to retake the holy la- I mean war on terror. He was just the president who happened to be in office when 9-11 hit.

OH YES. The war against Islamic terror started with the beheadings of innocent hostages.

FYI, Daniel Pearl was beheaded in 2002.

Yup, afghanistan's all shits and giggles...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-9-2004_pg7_45

Nader Ahmad Nadery of Independent Human Rights Commission said the organisation had found several cases of “beheading and skinning” during recent factional fighting in Herat’s Shindand district.

You'll note this is from Pakistan. And if they're admitting that muslims are doing this, it's getting pretty damn bad.

Yup, afghanistan's all shits and giggles...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-9-2004_pg7_45

Nader Ahmad Nadery of Independent Human Rights Commission said the organisation had found several cases of “beheading and skinning” during recent factional fighting in Herat’s Shindand district.

You'll note this is from Pakistan. And if they're admitting that muslims are doing this, it's getting pretty damn bad.

Did I say it was shits and giggles? Typical liberal. You absoutely refuse to look at overall progress, instead you focus on individual events and assume they are the norm.

OH YES. The war against Islamic terror started with the beheadings of innocent hostages.

FYI, Daniel Pearl was beheaded in 2002.

FYI, Bush's crusade started a year earlier.

FYI, Bush's crusade started a year earlier.

It should have started much earlier. Too bad Carter was an impotent loser.

It should have started much earlier. Too bad Carter was an impotent loser.
YEAH! Because given our alliances back then, Saddam would control the area.....wait.......hmmmm

YEAH! Because given our alliances back then, Saddam would control the area.....wait.......hmmmm

Such obsession with allies. Another liberal trait.

Such obsession with allies. Another liberal trait.
Wow....you're kinda horrifying.....

Wow....you're kinda horrifying.....

So you think Carter's decision to allow Iranian fanatics to parade American hostages around like cattle was a good idea? In a period of unparalleled Muslim aggression in the Mideast? Man, you're deluded.

No worse than Bush putting americans in a situation where they get beheaded at least once a month. Needlessly, I might add.

So you think Carter's decision to allow Iranian fanatics to parade American hostages around like cattle was a good idea? In a period of unparalleled Muslim aggression in the Mideast? Man, you're deluded.
Yeah, man. That's exactly what I was saying.......I'm impressed that you where able to get all that from calling you horrifying in reference to an attitude towards allies. You should teach reading comprehension with your ability to extrapolate all of that from my statements. Genius, sir-GENIUS!!! Why are you wasting your talents here?

No worse than Bush putting americans in a situation where they get beheaded at least once a month. Needlessly, I might add.

So if we never went into Iraq, Americans would be perfectly safe against Muslim terrorists? Oh Christ.

FYI, Bush's crusade started a year earlier.

FYI--There crusade started in 1993!

Yeah, man. That's exactly what I was saying.......I'm impressed that you where able to get all that from calling you horrifying in reference to an attitude towards allies. You should teach reading comprehension with your ability to extrapolate all of that from my statements. Genius, sir-GENIUS!!! Why are you wasting your talents here?

The funny thing is, you probably think appeasement is a good idea. :)

Invading Iraq didn't make us perfectly safe. the only difference is that they don't have to fly all the way to america to play jihad light.

Invading Iraq didn't make us perfectly safe. the only difference is that they don't have to fly all the way to america to play jihad light.

Indeed. We should have left Saddam's Hezbollah-funding, terrorist-harboring ass in power.

Come on, if we really wanted to invade a muslim country to fight terrorism and make a difference, we should have intervened in the Sudan. Or even help out fellow christians in Liberia.

Come on, if we really wanted to invade a muslim country to fight terrorism and make a difference, we should have intervened in the Sudan. Or even help out fellow christians in Liberia.

We did help somewhat in Liberia. As for Sudan, we're letting the UN handle it.

The funny thing is, you probably think appeasement is a good idea. :)
Okay slugger, here ya go:
http://www.brightok.net/~keepers/keys.jpg
shiny. I really was only interested in the question you couldn't answer. For the rest, you and FoB can congradulate each other for it.

Come on, if we really wanted to invade a muslim country to fight terrorism and make a difference, we should have intervened in the Sudan. Or even help out fellow christians in Liberia.

Sorry, we have to prioritize.

By the way, the US is the only country that is trying to stop Arab genocide in Sudan right now.

Let's see, in Liberia, we had a few SF guys doing beer runs for the barricaded embassy and then we had marines on the ground for exactly one week (after foreign troops already marched in). And the last time I checked, the Janjaweed militia was still committing ethnic cleansing in sudan.

Let's see, in Liberia, we had a few SF guys doing beer runs for the barricaded embassy and then we had marines on the ground for exactly one week (after foreign troops already marched in). And the last time I checked, the Janjaweed militia was still committing ethnic cleansing in sudan.

Ah, but I don't expect to see those muslim fuckers committing terrorist attacks in the US anytime soon. Our priority is to stop terrorism here. What's happening in Sudan is a tragedy, but at least the US is trying to do something about it. Look at the UN and the EU. They're afraid to say anything probably because they want to appease the muslims.

The simple fact of the matter is that Michael Moore has the integrity and courage to say what the major media has failed miserably to convey: The Bush family and their political affiliates are serving a personal, economic agenda through public office. The conflicts of interest among the Bush appointees and cabinet officers, and their private sector allies, are obvious and patent to anyone with enough sincerity to admit such.

But there continue to be those who will support this President without question or condition. Blind allegiance to leaders is far more dangerous than an inexperienced, ambitious and finance-oriented President ever could be.

Ah, but I don't expect to see those muslim fuckers committing terrorist attacks in the US anytime soon. Our priority is to stop terrorism here. What's happening in Sudan is a tragedy, but at least the US is trying to do something about it. Look at the UN and the EU. They're afraid to say anything probably because they want to appease the muslims.

Well, you wanted to invade a terror-supporting country, right? Dubya could have done the right thing for once.

The simple fact of the matter is that Michael Moore has the integrity and courage to say what the major media has failed miserably to convey: The Bush family and their political affiliates are serving a personal, economic agenda through public office. The conflicts of interest among the Bush appointees and cabinet officers, and their private sector allies, are obvious and patent to anyone with enough sincerity to admit such.

But there continue to be those who will support this President without question or condition. Blind allegiance to leaders is far more dangerous than an inexperienced, ambitious and finance-oriented President ever could be.

Spoken like a true believer.

Well, you wanted to invade a terror-supporting country, right? Dubya could have done the right thing for once.

I just said invading Sudan would be a misallocation of resources.

How old are you? You're probably about as old as Letila. LOL.

I just said invading Sudan would be a misallocation of resources.

How old are you? You're probably about as old as Letila. LOL.

To respond to the first part of your post, I feel the need to tell you that Sudan has as much oil as Iraq. not a misallocation of funds.

as for the second part, if the best argument you can come up with against my statements is to call me a kid, then you might wanna sit this one out and let the real grown-ups talk politics.

To respond to the first part of your post, I feel the need to tell you that Sudan has as much oil as Iraq. not a misallocation of funds.

as for the second part, if the best argument you can come up with against my statements is to call me a kid, then you might wanna sit this one out and let the real grown-ups talk politics.

I couldn't resist. Letila was so much fun.

You're right, Sudan and Nigeria both have lots of oil. If the US wanted foreign oil, those two countries would have been ideal targets. So much for the war for oil argument.

Moore would destroy them w/his liberal propaganda - plus the Swift Vets' boats' torpedoes would just bounce harmlessly off his fat

An article from Time magazine stated that a group was brought together to nitpick Farenheit 9/11 for facts. They found 0 inaccuracies. What they did find were questionable ways of interpreting facts. The Swifties have been disproven several times, and are known to be unfactual.

(Unfortunately I can't bring up the actual quote of the Time article. I'd have to pay for a subscrition. This (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040712-660968,00.html) is the first few lines of the article, in case anyone happens to have a subscription)

While Michael Moore does tend to twist facts to some extent, Swift Boats for Truth are simply a well funded group of Republicans with the goal of getting Bush re-elected (or elected in the first place) by making accusations that can never be proven false.

Guess who Bush's largest lifetime campaign contributor is. That's right. You guessed it......................Enron. How fitting is that? Gee, I wonder if Cheney's is Halliburton?

Regarding the oil issue, Nigeria does not have the same oil reserves that Iraq does. Do your homework. Siberia probably has more, but it is not as easily to drill. Iraq, much like Saudi Arabia, has large reserves and very little to limit drilling.

Keep in mind that the "President" sold this war as a war against terror, yet has never shown a link between terrorists who aim for US soil and the former Iraqi regime. Bush thought that a decisive victory would strengthen his position, but forgot to get the decisive victory. Oops.

Hanoi John's Military Service*

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime). On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate
contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty &ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 &$5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note.
that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001even
thoughhis service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have
these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve Inactive. On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was active as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words &actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed,
also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath .to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team-Director AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs" http://www.authentiseal.org>www.authentiseal.org


This is incredibly important for many reasons. First it shows Kerry's complete disregard for his oath and honor. It further shows that he violated and broke the law.

While Michael Moore does tend to twist facts to some extent, Swift Boats for Truth are simply a well funded group of Republicans with the goal of getting Bush re-elected (or elected in the first place) by making accusations that can never be proven false.

If you're going to talk about funding, how'd you think Democratic 527's managed to air $60 million of attack ads? I think Soros is single-handedly funding the entire attack campaign. Wait, there's also the Tides Foundation, run by... Teresa Kerry! :)

Guess who Bush's largest lifetime campaign contributor is. That's right. You guessed it......................Enron. How fitting is that? Gee, I wonder if Cheney's is Halliburton?

What the fuck is your point?

Regarding the oil issue, Nigeria does not have the same oil reserves that Iraq does. Do your homework. Siberia probably has more, but it is not as easily to drill. Iraq, much like Saudi Arabia, has large reserves and very little to limit drilling.

No shit Sherlock. But if America is only interested in seizing foreign oil reserves (as some people believe in), we wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Keep in mind that the "President" sold this war as a war against terror, yet has never shown a link between terrorists who aim for US soil and the former Iraqi regime. Bush thought that a decisive victory would strengthen his position, but forgot to get the decisive victory. Oops.

Tell that to Leon Klinghoffer.

those were top secret mission--I suppose you never saw the movie Apolcalypse now

You're ready to just believe Kerry without question or proof? That doesn't seem very wise, considering he's lied about so much else. He's also gone back on saying he was in Cambodia several times. So which one is it?

You're ready to just believe Kerry without question or proof? That doesn't seem very wise, considering he's lied about so much else. He's also gone back on saying he was in Cambodia several times. So which one is it?


The following people have endorsed John Kerry's service record in Veitnam:

President George Bush.
Senator John McCain.
The United States Armed Forces.

The following non-partisan organizations dedicated to truth in media have declared that there is no truth in the SBV for Truth's political assassination attemps:

www.spinsanity.org
www.factcheck.org


This means that you can stop being stupid.

Hooray!

Eh, who gives a shit. Clinton called Kerry from his hospital bed telling him to STOP TALKING ABOUT VIETNAM. Too bad Kerry won't have anything left to say without Vietnam.

Does anyone know that besides SERVING IN VIETNAM, Kerry also was once the lieutenant governor of Taxachusetts?

Yeah. He was also a prosecutor before that, and while he was a Senator, he was co-sponsor for 57 pieces of legislation that passed, as well as the leading force behind the breaking of the BCCI scandal, which led to the breaking of the Iran-Contra affair. He also broke ranks with his party to vote for the balanced budget amendment while Reagan was in office. So much for that "weak Senate record."

More twists facts.

Swifties make them up.

DOesn't sound like a hard decision.


Oh, and PAI, do you have something against muslims? A LOT of your posts in this thread have been "OMGWTF THE MOOSLIMS ATTACK US!!1!Shift+1!eleven!2@!

Yeah. He was also a prosecutor before that, and while he was a Senator, he was co-sponsor for 57 pieces of legislation that passed, as well as the leading force behind the breaking of the BCCI scandal, which led to the breaking of the Iran-Contra affair. He also broke ranks with his party to vote for the balanced budget amendment while Reagan was in office. So much for that "weak Senate record."

Then why isn't he running on this then Incertonia? Why? Because its crap. Iran-Contra really wasn't that big of a scandal. Come on, giving weapons to Iran WITHOUT the SPARE PARTS? Or arming the anti-communist rebels? Give me a break. If this was so grand then why isn't he running on it? I asked this question once but somehow no one answered it.

Both are incompetent as researchers, both lie, both may have accidentally stumbled upon facts or otherwise be on the right track with some small part of their claims.

SBVT are a large organisation saying a lot of things, sifting through the rubbish for the gems is a relatively difficult business made easier by Kerry also out and out lying to sometimes ridiculous degrees, such as with the Christmas in Cambodia story and his war crimes testimony (most of which seems to be instantaneously made up and was rescinded when challenged, and which itself admits to his own war crimes.) SBVT's claims about his awards being undeserved are all rubbish though, it seems.

Moore is a ranting idiot who deliberately presents facts so that they will be misinterpreted by any reasonable person, omitting evidence to the contrary of his claims and reiterating already debunked claims; making him a liar.

Both Kerry and Bush are, as human beings, politicians, and viable representatives of the United States, complete and utter jokes. I am incredibly disappointed by any country that would vote either of the men to power, particularly as great a nation as America.

The SVT issue is BS, Bush and his cronies are trying to take attention away from the important issues that Bush cannot address because of his resounding stupidity. People who would vote on the issue of whether or not Kerry did something in Nam must have extremely bland lives. Kerry actually went and served his country in Vietnam, and Bush didn't bother to show up for the national guard service that got him out of going tro Vietnam.

SVT have little credibilty considering that they were not even serving with Kerry.

Say what you want about Mke Moore, but mulitple publications ran checks against the facts in his movies, and every single time only 3 issues can up, and they were minor as well.

I do think that he twists he facts a little, but then again, who doesn't?

AND NEVER call him "un american" he's fat, loud, obnoxious, and he quit going to college because he couldn't find a parking spot on the campus.


LT

Then why isn't he running on this then Incertonia? Why? Because its crap. Iran-Contra really wasn't that big of a scandal. Come on, giving weapons to Iran WITHOUT the SPARE PARTS? Or arming the anti-communist rebels? Give me a break. If this was so grand then why isn't he running on it? I asked this question once but somehow no one answered it.
Not that big a scandal, huh?. Well let's see what wikipedia says about it:

United States President Ronald Reagan's administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which was engaged in a bloody war with its neighbor Iraq from 1980 to 1988 (see Iran-Iraq War), and diverted the proceeds to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist and democratically-elected Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
Both actions were contrary to acts of Congress which prohibited the sale of weapons to Iran, as well as in violation of UN sanctions.

The Israeli government approached the United States in August 1985 with a proposal to act as an intermediary by shipping 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of the Reverend Benjamin Weir. The transfer took place over the next two months.
In November, there was another round of negotiations, where the Israelis proposed to ship Iran 500 HAWK anti-aircraft missiles in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon.
General Colin Powell attempted to procure the missiles, but realized that the deal would require Congressional notification as its overall value exceeded $14 million. McFarlane responded that the President had decided to conduct the sale anyway.
In January of 1986, Reagan allegedly approved a plan whereby an American intermediary, rather than Israel, would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with profits funnelled to the Contras. In February, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts. (No parts huh?).

In 1985, the Sandinista movement claimed a majority in elections validated by other independent observers from Western democracies as having been fair and free, but the Reagan administration rejected the election as fraudulent, ignoring the findings of these international observers, comparing the election to one-candidate "elections" in communist countries, although six parties ran against the Sandinistas in that election, winning 35 of 96 seats in the national legislature.
The Reagan administration, contrary to acts of Congress (specifically the 1982-1983 Boland Amendment), ferried funds and weaponry to the Contras gained by the sale of arms to Iran. The Contras, led by former members of the National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime (1936-1979) received weapons and training from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, especially in guerrilla tactics such as destroying infrastructural elements and assassination.

There is also evidence that the CIA and perhaps other parts of the US government may have been involved with drug trafficking to raise money for the Contra campaign. The 1988 report from the Senate Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations concluded that various individuals in the Contra movement were involved in drug trafficking, that other drug traffickers provided assistance to the Contras, and that "there are some serious questions as to whether or not US officials involved in Central America failed to address the drug issue for fear of jeopardizing the war effort against Nicaragua." At a minimum, Oliver North's notebooks indicate that he was informed repeatedly of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and there is no record of his passing this information along to the DEA.

In (June 27, 1986) the International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) ruled in favour of Nicaragua in the case of "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua". The U.S. refused to pay restitution and claimed that the ICJ was not competent for the case, and subsequently vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling on all states to obey international law. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm) in order to pressure the U.S. to pay the fine. Only El Salvador, which also had disputes with Nicaragua (and was run by a US-backed right wing military dictatorship), and Israel (which receives US$4 billion a year in aid from the U.S.) voted with the U.S. In spite of this resolution, the U.S. still elected not to pay the fine.

So lets sum up this 'little' scandal shall we?
The US sold weapons to a country illegally - a country that the US was publically beligerent towards - and funnelled these profits towards a terrorist organisation in another country, also illegally. This organisation was fighting to overthrow a legally-, and fairly-elected government. Both actions were not only against UN sanctions but also US Congress acts.
Said terrorist organisation used brutal tactics, including torture, rape and murder of men, women and children as well as assasination. When the government was fairly-elected again, the US government refused to recognise this and funnelled yet more money, illegally, into this terrorist organisation. They also provided training and flew drugs (primarily) cocaine into the States for them to pay for the weapons. Finally after several years of these actions, as well as a trade embargo and further threats by the US to make things worse, the legal government was voted out.
An international court ruling was, and has been, totally ignored and any UN resolutions vetoed by the US.
They illegally sold weapons to a country suffering under a religious Totalitarian dictatorship, illegally sold weapons and provided training to a terrorist organisation to help it overthrow a democratcally-elected government, illegally helped to fly cocaine into the States at the height of the "War on Drugs" and you say it "wasn't that big of a scandal".
Yes, quite. :rolleyes:

just check out Snopes.com. nuff said!

Incertonia, obvously he doesn't think anything of it because he is not running on it. If it was as important as people claim it was then why isn't he running on it. You never did answer me.

Incertonia, obvously he doesn't think anything of it because he is not running on it. If it was as important as people claim it was then why isn't he running on it. You never did answer me.
Maybe he isn't running on it, because he knows that most Americans are like yourself and have been sucked into the belief that "it wasn't that big a scandal".
Another point: As it occurred under Reagan's admin, Kerry would no doubt be villified as bringing the "Great" man's image into disrepute so soon after his death. The Bush admin would certainly be funding a 571 group to harp on about that.
I note you had nothing to say regarding my post. Out of curiosity, why was that?

Kerry backed off for political reasons but anyone whose actually been to nam (unlike Bush) knows hes telling the aweful truth. Once again your decieved by liers with an agenda
Why are you in a position to know "the awful truth"? where you there or do you just "know"?

Incertonia, obvously he doesn't think anything of it because he is not running on it. If it was as important as people claim it was then why isn't he running on it. You never did answer me.

Well, since Kerry is known as a strong finisher, and has been conserving his funding, since he has been limited to the $75 million ever since his convention, but Bush has just now finished his convention, and so is just now using his post-acceptance $75 million, maybe Kerry will start swinging and start making louder noises about all the other things he's running on that the corporate run, conservative attack-dog media has utterly failed to report.

go to JohnKerry.com and stop complaining that "he's not running on anything besides Vietnam." Unless, of course you are an illiterate that needs everything spoon-fed to him by flashy graphics and bloviating commentators.

If you ever bring up the "But he's only running on..." argument again, I'll have no recourse but to consider you either an idiot or a person with a specific inability to process information. I'm not saying you are those things, I'm only saying your continued argument on the topic will be considered as strong evidence that one or both of those things are true about you.

Maybe he isn't running on it, because he knows that most Americans are like yourself and have been sucked into the belief that "it wasn't that big a scandal".
Another point: As it occurred under Reagan's admin, Kerry would no doubt be villified as bringing the "Great" man's image into disrepute so soon after his death. The Bush admin would certainly be funding a 571 group to harp on about that.
I note you had nothing to say regarding my post. Out of curiosity, why was that?

Or maybe because no one really cares anymore since it was like 20 years ago? Just like his vietnam record is over 30 years ago?

Why are you in a position to know "the awful truth"? where you there or do you just "know"?
Son Thang: In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book Son Thang: An American War Crime describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted.
Tiger Force: The Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army "Tiger Force" unit that the Blade said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings," the Blade reported. "Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged."
"Hundreds" of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. "I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported," Turse was quoted as saying. "I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn't stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That's the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds."
"Exact Same Stories": Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he's interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."

And of course, My Lai.

Or maybe because no one really cares anymore since it was like 20 years ago? Just like his vietnam record is over 30 years ago?
Tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of Nicaraguans who were tortured and murdered that, because it occurred 20 years ago, they shouldn't care anymore.
In effect, you're saying that time heals all crimes? So you support a time limit on bringing murderers to trial do you? You support US congressional (and UN) acts being broken because if you can get away with it, after 20 years, no-one will care?
Out of curiosity, do you use the same response when Jews mention the Holocaust? Surely absolutely no-one cares about that. I mean that was 60 years ago! :rolleyes:

Why are you in a position to know "the awful truth"? where you there or do you just "know"?

Well, no one disputes the use of "free fire zones" or that villages were burned to the ground. Since these things are outlawed by the Geneva Convention, they are, technically, "war crimes." Please point out where Kerry specifically said that the more outlandish war crimes (like rape and baby killing,) were committed daily? Doesn't exist, does it? Can anything in Kerry's testimony be shown to be non-factual? I mean, if lying under oath to congress can get a President impeached, surely an ex-Lieutenant Jr Grade who was a thorn in Nixon's side would have been thrown in the slammer for lying under oath to Congress, wouldn't he?

Oh wait, I just remembered that Bush (or at least some of his lawyers,) doesn't believe the Geneva Convention applies to him.

Tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of Nicaraguans who were tortured and murdered that, because it occurred 20 years ago, they shouldn't care anymore.
In effect, you're saying that time heals all crimes? So you support a time limit on bringing murderers to trial do you? You support US congressional (and UN) acts being broken because if you can get away with it, after 20 years, no-one will care?

Never said that time heals all crimes DH! Sorry if you believe that I do but I don't otherwise, I would be completely healed regarding 9/11! I will tell you that I will NEVER FORGET what the terrorists did to my nation! However, Nicaragua is a different animal. I'm saying that the scandal, which never really did hurt Reagan because if it did-he would've been impeached and the Dems where in power then, took place 20 odd years ago. No one really cares about something that happened 20 years ago if it didn't directly affect them. That is the mindset of the American People. If it doesn't affect you, who cares.

As for your questions. No I don't support time limits for Murderers. I think they should be executed personally. No I don't support your second question either but when in relation to other nations breaking UN acts no one cares! Iraq is a prime example of that! I'm a law abiding Citizen. I don't violate the law because it is in my self-interest not to. I think that people who violate the law, being Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, everyone, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If the scandal was so raunces, then why didn't they try to Impeach Reagan when the Democrats held power in both House and Senate?

Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

If you would notice, Kerry is relaying what has been told to him, not his personal experiences. So the worst you can accuse him of is perhaps heresay.

If you would notice, Kerry is relaying what has been told to him, not his personal experiences. So the worst you can accuse him of is perhaps heresay.

And in that same testimony, he admitted that he participated in Free-Fire Zones and the burning of villages.

Then why isn't he running on this then Incertonia? Why? Because its crap. Iran-Contra really wasn't that big of a scandal. Come on, giving weapons to Iran WITHOUT the SPARE PARTS? Or arming the anti-communist rebels? Give me a break. If this was so grand then why isn't he running on it? I asked this question once but somehow no one answered it.
Others have answered the Iran-Contra bit of your question, so I'll leave it at that. As to why he hasn't "run" on it, two points to make. One, since the Democratic Convention, Kerry's been conserving money so he can try to be as close to head to head with Bush for the last 60 days of the campaign. They're both on public financing now, but Bush had to make his last less time because of the timing of his convention--I'm not bitching about this, just making a statement of fact. As a result, Kerry's basically been playing defense, and the offense has attacked his military record, so that's what he's been largely talking about.

Two, he has made jobs and healthcare the focus of his speeches over the last month, not that you'd know it from the press coverage. He hasn't run many ads, but that's related to the first point. But we're past the conventions now, and I'll be willing to bet that you'll see a decided shift in Kerry's message--he'll set up a clear choice, the classic challenger vs. incumbent choice. Do you want a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush or do you want a new direction? (And before anyone complains that he's simply arguing that he's not Bush, remember, every race involving an incumbent falls aong these lines, and he is offering more than just that.)

Never said that time heals all crimes DH! Sorry if you believe that I do but I don't otherwise, I would be completely healed regarding 9/11! I will tell you that I will NEVER FORGET what the terrorists did to my nation! However, Nicaragua is a different animal. I'm saying that the scandal, which never really did hurt Reagan because if it did-he would've been impeached and the Dems where in power then, took place 20 odd years ago. No one really cares about something that happened 20 years ago if it didn't directly affect them. That is the mindset of the American People. If it doesn't affect you, who cares.

As for your questions. No I don't support time limits for Murderers. I think they should be executed personally. No I don't support your second question either but when in relation to other nations breaking UN acts no one cares! Iraq is a prime example of that! I'm a law abiding Citizen. I don't violate the law because it is in my self-interest not to. I think that people who violate the law, being Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, everyone, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If the scandal was so raunces, then why didn't they try to Impeach Reagan when the Democrats held power in both House and Senate?
Yes that was something I've always wondered about. But I won't get involved in any comments over that because then it starts getting into the realms of accusations and hypothesis. And I think we'd just end up having an argument then. BTW that's why I used Wikipedia and not any biased media. I only wanted to present facts. All I will say is this: Remember, by the time the investigation finished, Bush snr was President and Ron was well into dementia. Perhaps it was decided not to persue it because of this.

So the gist i'm getting is that both Kerry and Bush are bad/good, depending on how you look at it. Politicians are like peas, they're good if you like 'em.

Both sides of the argument (discounting Moore because he treats important topics like they are the WWF...though he may have an argument that the American public has grown too fat, horny, and strung out to swallow anything else) have repeatedly pointed to lies made by either Kerry or Bush--and lots of other politicians, but they're just extracurricular examples.

Who knows whose facts are the 'true' facts, but lets just say this: if you read the whole thread, without a great deal of partiality, then you end up coming to the conclusion that they are both/all liars.

Does that make the question of the US Presidential election a question of who's the best liar?

And in that same testimony, he admitted that he participated in Free-Fire Zones and the burning of villages.
But the part that the Swifties have focussed on was the part that I quoted. I was just pointing out that their ads leave the false impression that Kerry is relating his actions, and/or making them up. He was relating points made in interviews by 150 veterans in this section. The Swifty ads make no mention of this.

Iran-Contra really wasn't that big of a scandal.

ROTFLMAO - Surely you're kidding, freaking right it was a huge scandal! I remember watching the public hearings on TV. If Ollie North had not taken the fall, there was even talk about impeaching Reagan. He covered his tracks too well and unlike Nixon, people were loyal enough to him not to rat him out. But not a big scandal, you have to be kidding!

ROTFLMAO - Surely you're kidding, freaking right it was a huge scandal! I remember watching the public hearings on TV. If Ollie North had not taken the fall, there was even talk about impeaching Reagan. He covered his tracks too well and unlike Nixon, people were loyal enough to him not to rat him out. But not a big scandal, you have to be kidding!

If it was as big as people say Steph, then Reagan should've been impeached NO MATTER WHO took the fall

ROTFLMAO - Surely you're kidding, freaking right it was a huge scandal! I remember watching the public hearings on TV. If Ollie North had not taken the fall, there was even talk about impeaching Reagan. He covered his tracks too well and unlike Nixon, people were loyal enough to him not to rat him out. But not a big scandal, you have to be kidding!Reagan certainly learned from the lessons of Watergate. It wasn't just North--it was Poindexter and all the rest of them sitting before Congress saying "I have no recollection of those events" 150 times and in some cases, either being pardoned or getting off on technicalities. People forget it almost cost Bush I the 1988 election, because he had to distance himself from it and succeeded just long enough to get elected.

Son Thang: In 1998, for example, Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis published the book Son Thang: An American War Crime describing the court-martial of four US Marines for the apparently unprovoked killing 16 women and children on the night of February 19, 1970 in a hamlet about 20 miles south of Danang. The four Marines testified that they were under orders by their patrol leader to shoot the villagers. A young Oliver North appeared as a character witness and helped acquit the leader of all charges, but three were convicted.
Tiger Force: The Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize this year for a series published in October, 2003 reporting that atrocities were committed by an elite US Army "Tiger Force" unit that the Blade said killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings," the Blade reported. "Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged."
"Hundreds" of others: In December 2003 The New York Times quoted Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University who has been studying government archives, as saying the records are filled with accounts of atrocities similar to those described by the Toledo Blade series. "I stumbled across the incidents The Blade reported," Turse was quoted as saying. "I read through that case a year, year and a half ago, and it really didn't stand out. There was nothing that made it stand out from anything else. That's the scary thing. It was just one of hundreds."
"Exact Same Stories": Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Nolan told FactCheck.org that since 1978 he's interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."

And of course, My Lai.
Your up to about forty soldiers (I don’t remember the exact number of Americans at My Lai). Even if I give you your unspecified and impossible to verify "hundreds" you still come up short of the hundred thousand number you would need to characterize all Vietnam veterans as committing war crimes. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity to talk with a number of Vietnam veterans and haven’t found one that knows "the horrible truth" that, according to you, they all do. The fact that you would slander so many who sacrificed so much, in order to support your candidate in a election thirty years later shows you are truly a ignorant and bigoted person.

Reagan certainly learned from the lessons of Watergate. It wasn't just North--it was Poindexter and all the rest of them sitting before Congress saying "I have no recollection of those events" 150 times and in some cases, either being pardoned or getting off on technicalities. People forget it almost cost Bush I the 1988 election, because he had to distance himself from it and succeeded just long enough to get elected.

And Gore did the same thing during the Clinton Scandal and HE lost that election.

Reagan certainly learned from the lessons of Watergate. It wasn't just North--it was Poindexter and all the rest of them sitting before Congress saying "I have no recollection of those events" 150 times and in some cases, either being pardoned or getting off on technicalities. People forget it almost cost Bush I the 1988 election, because he had to distance himself from it and succeeded just long enough to get elected.
Well that, and the "Willie Horton" tactics. I guess that's where Bush jnr learnt that playing dirty in politics is the only way to get elected.
It was rather surreal Bush snr saying he had nothing to do with it at the time; He was only the freaking head of the CIA when it was occurring!

Well, no one disputes the use of "free fire zones" or that villages were burned to the ground. Since these things are outlawed by the Geneva Convention, they are, technically, "war crimes." Please point out where Kerry specifically said that the more outlandish war crimes (like rape and baby killing,) were committed daily? Doesn't exist, does it? Can anything in Kerry's testimony be shown to be non-factual? I mean, if lying under oath to congress can get a President impeached, surely an ex-Lieutenant Jr Grade who was a thorn in Nixon's side would have been thrown in the slammer for lying under oath to Congress, wouldn't he?

Oh wait, I just remembered that Bush (or at least some of his lawyers,) doesn't believe the Geneva Convention applies to him.
Christmas in Cambodia.

If it was as big as people say Steph, then Reagan should've been impeached NO MATTER WHO took the fall
You will learn that there's a hell of a gap between "should have" and "is" in this world. Reagan covered his tracks nicely, and as I remember, while there was some talk of it, the Democrats also realized two things--Reagan would beat any real impeachment move the same way Clinton would later beat his and that if they tried it there would be a major public backlash. They chose to just air the scandal and go after the people most directly involved.

Reagan was in his second term by then and was popular personally and people wanted to believe he wasn't involved personally--there was no way to directly link him as far as intent was concerned. Reagan also made a speech that sort of threw himself on the mercy of the court of public opinion by saying that "in the past I have told the American people that we did not trade ams for hostages. I have learned that that was not exactly true." It allowed him to be contrite while also denying any personal part of the scandal. It was a political masterstroke.

Reagan was in his second term by then and was popular personally and people wanted to believe he wasn't involved personally--there was no way to directly link him as far as intent was concerned. Reagan also made a speech that sort of threw himself on the mercy of the court of public opinion by saying that "in the past I have told the American people that we did not trade ams for hostages. I have learned that that was not exactly true." It allowed him to be contrite while also denying any personal part of the scandal. It was a political masterstroke.
He actually said:
"In the past I have told the American people that we did not trade arms for hostages. I have since been told that that was not true. I still believe in my heart that we did not."
Which makes absolutely no sense, and surely would make an averagely intelligent person a tad worried that someone with his finger on the nuke button and is in control of the largest and strongest military in the world can't differentiate between facts and what actually happens and what he thought occured. And still refused to change his opinion even when shown the facts.
Yet the US public lapped it up and his popularity shot up something like 20 points because of this TV address. Which shows that the US public were desperately wanting Reagan to be innocent and willing to believe anything he said, no matter how illogical. Hence perhaps Reagan's non-impeachment and most likely Kerry not dwelling on this in his election build-up.

Christmas in Cambodia.

So, tell me. How many times have you ignored the evidence that Kerry actually was in Cambodia but was simply off by a month or two? I guess all politicials should be like Bush and never misspeak themselves.

Keep grasping at that single shining example of the horrible horrible malfeasance of John F Kerry. Your monomania is a credit to your party.

So, tell me. How many times have you ignored the evidence that Kerry actually was in Cambodia but was simply off by a month or two? I guess all politicials should be like Bush and never misspeak themselves.

Keep grasping at that single shining example of the horrible horrible malfeasance of John F Kerry. Your monomania is a credit to your party.

Yet even the people that actually patrol the border said that no swiftboat was allowed up there and he was with the swiftboats! So how can you ignore that evidence?

Yet even the people that actually patrol the border said that no swiftboat was allowed up there and he was with the swiftboats! So how can you ignore that evidence?

Oh, the evidence, such as John O'Neill speaking directly to Nixon about being in Cambodia in a recorded conversation?

Oh, the evidence, such as John O'Neill speaking directly to Nixon about being in Cambodia in a recorded conversation?

I've heard it and you know what? I've actually stopped listening because frankly, its old news to be perfectly honest!

I've heard it and you know what? I've actually stopped listening because frankly, its old news to be perfectly honest!Hold on--what are you saying here? Do you believe O'Neill to be credible when he's talking on the tapes to Nixon or is he credible now when he's saying he was never in Cambodia? Or are you saying that since all this happened 30+ years ago that it doesn't really matter and if you're saying that, then why are we having this discussion at all?

Hold on--what are you saying here? Do you believe O'Neill to be credible when he's talking on the tapes to Nixon or is he credible now when he's saying he was never in Cambodia? Or are you saying that since all this happened 30+ years ago that it doesn't really matter and if you're saying that, then why are we having this discussion at all?

Incertonia, if he's on tape saying, I can't deny it but the problem is Kerry SPECIFICALLY SAID CHRISTMAS he was in Cambodia. He WAS NOT there Over Christmas and THAT has been proven.

I've heard it and you know what? I've actually stopped listening because frankly, its old news to be perfectly honest!


Funny how this works.

Some anonymous, mentally deficient Right-winger: Kerry lied!

Liberal: He did? Prove it.

Righty: Cambodia. Seared. seared I tell you. The man said seared!!!!!!!!!!!

Lib: Oh, the same Cambodia that O'Neill himself said he himself went into on a swiftboat? Eh, so Kerry was off by a month or so. I think you over-misunderestimate the perfection of "seared" memories.

Right: Why are we talking about this? This is old news, and why is Kerry only running on this???

Lib (sighing as he knows his next link won't even be looked at, unless it's to ogle at the utterly damning "V" next to the Silver Star, a document Kerry neither typed himself, nor has the power to unilaterally edit.) Look at JohnKerry.com, it spells out his ideas nicely.

Right: (Wanders off to convince some poor people that bearing a larger portion of the tax burden while costs go up and salaries go down is really in the interests of a safer America.)

Incertonia, if he's on tape saying, I can't deny it but the problem is Kerry SPECIFICALLY SAID CHRISTMAS he was in Cambodia. He WAS NOT there Over Christmas and THAT has been proven.And you're not willing to concede that Kerry might have been thinking Christmas but remembering Tet? Not even the possibility?

Incertonia, if he's on tape saying, I can't deny it but the problem is Kerry SPECIFICALLY SAID CHRISTMAS he was in Cambodia. He WAS NOT there Over Christmas and THAT has been proven.

If he was there on a secret mission, then no, there will be no way to prove it one way or the other. However people do admit they can place him 50 miles from the border on x-mas 1968, so begs the question, Is it just a red herring? I think so... 50 miles is freaking close enough for me.

And you're not willing to concede that Kerry might have been thinking Christmas but remembering Tet? Not even the possibility?

Its not even mentioned in TWO biographies that he was there over christmas. In both and I do mean both Biographies, there is a different account as to what he was doing on Christamas during the timeframe in question.

If he was there on a secret mission, then no, there will be no way to prove it one way or the other. However people do admit they can place him 50 miles from the border on x-mas 1968, so begs the question, Is it just a red herring? I think so... 50 miles is freaking close enough for me.

Being close and actually being there are TWO seperate things. I live like 20 minutes from ohio. By your logic I could say I was in Ohio over Christmas 2004 since I'm 20-30 minutes away. Does that make it that I was in Ohio over Christmass in 2004? No it does not. If he was 50 miles from the border then he's 50 miles from the border but DOES NOT make him at Cambodia over Christmans.

Its not even mentioned in TWO biographies that he was there over christmas. In both and I do mean both Biographies, there is a different account as to what he was doing on Christmas during the timeframe in question.

How many versions does Bush have about his National Guard duty? How come he would never answer any questions about his alleged cocaine use? What did that hedge he drove into ever do to him? Why are at least 5 required documents missing from Bush's National Guard records...those records that we DO have that were lost...wait, destroyed...wait, found them! Ah dang, the records still don't really show what was happening. How about we call this a wash then, and we just let the issues decide?

How many versions does Bush have about his National Guard duty?

Well he has a new version each time Cheney speaks through his mouth.
Bush is a deserter and a proven coward.FACTS.

Its not even mentioned in TWO biographies that he was there over christmas. In both and I do mean both Biographies, there is a different account as to what he was doing on Christamas during the timeframe in question.
Okay--I'm going to ask you to use your imagination for a minute here. You're in a foreign country, so foreign that all the regular social hints and clues that you use to orient yourself in time and place don't work. You're in a war zone, and experiences you're not prepared for are coming at you so fast and furious that you're having processing all of them. You're thinking about one particular mission, remember that there was a local celebration going on at the time, at that it was winter. Your mind, if you're from the US, is likely to latch onto Christmas because it's such a large part of our psychological construct, even if you don't celebrate it--trust me, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and never celebrated it until I was in my twenties, and yet I can't think of winter without thinking of Santa Claus. Chances are that's what happened to Kerry's memory--it's so dead on with the other details that are corroborated by other people who were there that the one wrong detail doesn't countermand the rest of the available evidence.

How many versions does Bush have about his National Guard duty? How come he would never answer any questions about his alleged cocaine use? What did that hedge he drove into ever do to him? Why are at least 5 required documents missing from Bush's National Guard records...those records that we DO have that were lost...wait, destroyed...wait, found them! Ah dang, the records still don't really show what was happening. How about we call this a wash then, and we just let the issues decide?

<claps> You've just proved a point! TWO biographies BOTH have him elsewhere but NOT in Cambodia. The minute I mention that, you drag out Bush's record. Hint: Bush isn't running on his. Kerry is!

Being close and actually being there are TWO seperate things. I live like 20 minutes from ohio. By your logic I could say I was in Ohio over Christmas 2004 since I'm 20-30 minutes away. Does that make it that I was in Ohio over Christmass in 2004? No it does not. If he was 50 miles from the border then he's 50 miles from the border but DOES NOT make him at Cambodia over Christmans.

Oh please! Give it a rest. This has so nothing to do with any thing. If you asked me where exactly where I was on x-mas 15 years ago I might get it wrong let alone 30+ years ago.. This has nothing to do with him running for president. Imagine the guy might of been off by 50 miles. This to you is reason for him not to be president? Mean while your guy 30+ years ago was drinking & driving and doing drugs, but that's okay? Give it up. Sheesh!

Okay--I'm going to ask you to use your imagination for a minute here. You're in a foreign country, so foreign that all the regular social hints and clues that you use to orient yourself in time and place don't work. You're in a war zone, and experiences you're not prepared for are coming at you so fast and furious that you're having processing all of them. You're thinking about one particular mission, remember that there was a local celebration going on at the time, at that it was winter. Your mind, if you're from the US, is likely to latch onto Christmas because it's such a large part of our psychological construct, even if you don't celebrate it--trust me, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and never celebrated it until I was in my twenties, and yet I can't think of winter without thinking of Santa Claus. Chances are that's what happened to Kerry's memory--it's so dead on with the other details that are corroborated by other people who were there that the one wrong detail doesn't countermand the rest of the available evidence.

Hint: There are boats on the border to keep people from entering Cambodia. He was on a Swift Boat during this time and swiftboats were not allowed that far north. They know that no swift boat went that far north and they've even stated it that his boat was no where near them.

Hint: There are boats on the border to keep people from entering Cambodia. He was on a Swift Boat during this time and swiftboats were not allowed that far north. They know that no swift boat went that far north and they've even stated it that his boat was no where near them.

So then why did John O'Neil tell Nixon he was?

Oh please! Give it a rest. This has so nothing to do with any thing. If you asked me where exactly where I was on x-mas 15 years ago I might get it wrong let alone 30+ years ago.. This has nothing to do with him running for president. Imagine the guy might of been off by 50 miles. This to you is reason for him not to be president? Mean while your guy 30+ years ago was drinking & driving and doing drugs, but that's okay? Give it up. Sheesh!

No the reason he shouldn't be president is because of all the trash he's talked about our armed forces. Serving in the Guard or Reserves is the eassy way out but yet forgot that he signed up in the Naval Reserves. Your right, his Vietnam Record won't get him elected. It has nothing to do with this. What he did in the Senate Does and he hardly did anything while there. Fine he help break Iran-Contra but yet is not running on it. To me this is a mistake. He should be running on what he did in the Senate and not what he did 30 years ago in Vietnam

<claps> You've just proved a point! TWO biographies BOTH have him elsewhere but NOT in Cambodia. The minute I mention that, you drag out Bush's record. Hint: Bush isn't running on his. Kerry is!

Total and complete BS. It boils down to a question of honesty. Are you saying that just because Bush doesn't bring up issues that may reveal dishonest behavior that he doesn't merit the same scrutiny, is that what you're saying? Are you saying, in effect, that lies go away, as long as you evade the issue? Complete and total double standard, and you know it.

And yet again, need I remind you that Kerry is not running solely on Vietnam. I warned you that you would prove yourself to be a complete and total idiot if you brought up that flagrant bit of unreality, and you are therefore branded for eternity as such.

Enjoy. There's a village looking for you.

So then why did John O'Neil tell Nixon he was?

I haven't heard the tape so I can't answer it. In all honesty, I don't really care. I've stopped listening to the Swiftboats and moveon.org and all the other 527 groups out there because I want to hear it from the candidates not some surraget groups.

I haven't heard the tape so I can't answer it. In all honesty, I don't really care. I've stopped listening to the Swiftboats and moveon.org and all the other 527 groups out there because I want to hear it from the candidates not some surraget groups.

Then why do you repeat their lies, and why do you not look at Kerry's site to see what he actually is running on...you know, information directly from a candidate?

Hanoi John's Military Service*

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime). On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate
contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty &ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 &$5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note.
that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001even
thoughhis service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have
these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve Inactive. On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was active as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words &actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed,
also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath .to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team-Director AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs" http://www.authentiseal.org>www.authentiseal.org


This is incredibly important for many reasons. First it shows Kerry's complete disregard for his oath and honor. It further shows that he violated and broke the law.
What is this Hanoi stupid name? At least call him by his name but some stupid title, repubs can trust them to lie.


Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was active as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Kerry didn't lie under oath, crimes were committed in Veitnam.
Kerry might have misunderstood the question, I still think he isn't a war criminal.
Constitution doesn't talk against meeting with others in Paris since we were not at war with them at the time or Reagon would be in direct violation when he met with that Russian Leader guy.

First proof about number 1. I bet its mostly heresay.

Total and complete BS. It boils down to a question of honesty. Are you saying that just because Bush doesn't bring up issues that may reveal dishonest behavior that he doesn't merit the same scrutiny, is that what you're saying? Are you saying, in effect, that lies go away, as long as you evade the issue? Complete and total double standard, and you know it.

Lets talk about the Issues. Bush in his speech on Thursday, outline precisely what he will do during his next term in office. He went step by step. On the other side, Kerry stated plans but NOT how he will go about them. Bush is talking issues whereas Kerry is talking about Vietnam. Yea he throws in something about an Issue then Bashes Bush but doesn't tell the people how he will do it better. Give me a break. As for Double Standard. Watch American Media. Bash Bush? Front page News and Top story. Bash Kerry? Page 13 and 2 miutes on Television.

And yet again, need I remind you that Kerry is not running solely on Vietnam. I warned you that you would prove yourself to be a complete and total idiot if you brought up that flagrant bit of unreality, and you are therefore branded for eternity as such.

He pretty much is since I have not heard him spell out preciously what he plans to do as President. And if you give me his website, I'll say this to stop you. Its fine to put it on a website but if he does not Say it, then its meaningless. As for proving me an Idiot, I think you just proved the opposite. I've actually been told that I am quite Intelligent. And I am intelligent. Just because I have a different opinion of issues does not make me an idiot as you yourself has just called me.

Enjoy. There's a village looking for you.

ANd a village looking for you too.

Then why do you repeat their lies, and why do you not look at Kerry's site to see what he actually is running on...you know, information directly from a candidate?

Why do you blindly follow a candidate without looking into him?

Here's a question: If John Kerry committed all the acts under the nose of an openly hostile President, how come he wasn't put away for a long time?

I call BS on the whole "smear Kerry" campaign. Give it up. This issue should be done and closed, but the Republicans can't let it go. Repubs, you lost on this issue, at least when based on logic and facts! Your repeated cries only show the propaganda machine is working overtime.

What happend to the ideal of "losing with honor is preferable to winning without honor?"

How can we tell our children that cheating is bad, and then give them the example to follow of this presidential race? Both sides are guilty, but we know the Bush campaign has been the most egregious violator of any sort of decency in campaigning. Great moral lesson. Hey kids, lie, cheat and steal, win the Presidentcy!

Why do you blindly follow a candidate without looking into him?

Good question. Why do you follow Bush? I for one, have looked into Kerry very closely, so you can't be talking about me.

Why are you in a position to know "the awful truth"? where you there or do you just "know"? .
So I did. You reply:
Your up to about forty soldiers (I don’t remember the exact number of Americans at My Lai). Even if I give you your unspecified and impossible to verify "hundreds" you still come up short of the hundred thousand number you would need to characterize all Vietnam veterans as committing war crimes. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity to talk with a number of Vietnam veterans and haven’t found one that knows "the horrible truth" that, according to you, they all do. The fact that you would slander so many who sacrificed so much, in order to support your candidate in a election thirty years later shows you are truly a ignorant and bigoted person.
You wanted some examples and I offered some. Why do you dismiss them by saying it was a minority? I never said all vets committed crimes, yet you seem to accept the notion that none did and insult anyone who says otherwise. And I'm bigoted and ignorant? :rolleyes:
Kerry interviewed 150 vets for his testimony to Congress.
Keith Nolan, author of 10 published books on Vietnam, has interviewed over 1000 vets for his books.
Both were told similar stories of atrocities and crimes being carried out by some troops on a regular basis.
For example the US Army "Tiger Force" unit killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage in 1967.
There were crimes committed, ok? Obviously not everyone who was there did so, but certainly quite a large number did. Learn to accept it.

Lets talk about the Issues. Bush in his speech on Thursday, outline precisely what he will do during his next term in office. He went step by step. On the other side, Kerry stated plans but NOT how he will go about them. Bush is talking issues whereas Kerry is talking about Vietnam. Yea he throws in something about an Issue then Bashes Bush but doesn't tell the people how he will do it better. Give me a break. As for Double Standard. Watch American Media. Bash Bush? Front page News and Top story. Bash Kerry? Page 13 and 2 miutes on Television.

Funny, I could say just the opposite. Also, if Bush so much as winks, cameras are on him to see what he's going to say. It's just shows how derelict in their duty the media has been that Kerry's own words about his specific intentions and how he will accomplish them are not shown regularly (unlike Bush's sudden slide back into Compassionate Conservative.) Other than the hurrican, what's been the #1 story on cable news for weeks? SBVT. Just try to deny it.


He pretty much is since I have not heard him spell out preciously what he plans to do as President. And if you give me his website, I'll say this to stop you. Its fine to put it on a website but if he does not Say it, then its meaningless. As for proving me an Idiot, I think you just proved the opposite. I've actually been told that I am quite Intelligent. And I am intelligent. Just because I have a different opinion of issues does not make me an idiot as you yourself has just called me.

I'm not calling you an idiot because you disagree, I'm calling you an idiot because you are pretending as if things that are readily available didn't exist. I'm calling you an idiot because you keep repeating the same debunked things over and over and over again, as if this is some political version of the movie "Memento."



And a village looking for you too.

hmmm, yes. Even less original than my use of the phrase.

Good question. Why do you follow Bush? I for one, have looked into Kerry very closely, so you can't be talking about me.

Because I trust Bush on National Security and the Economy.

Why do you follow Kerry?

Because I don't trust Bush on National Security and the Economy.

Funny, I could say just the opposite. Also, if Bush so much as winks, cameras are on him to see what he's going to say. It's just shows how derelict in their duty the media has been that Kerry's own words about his specific intentions and how he will accomplish them are not shown regularly (unlike Bush's sudden slide back into Compassionate Conservative.) Other than the hurrican, what's been the #1 story on cable news for weeks? SBVT. Just try to deny it.

I've haven't had a challenge like that since High School!

Newsflash: Number 1 Story for the Past few days is Hurricane Frances. Now a Tropical Storm and ravashing the Florida Panhandle. In a few days, They'll be talking about Hurricane Ivan that is churning up.

Hurricanes are a big story. They can even over do Politics. I've seen massive coverage on this on CNN, MSNBC, and on Fox News. Frances was the Big Story of the week.

Because I don't trust Bush on National Security and the Economy.

Well that is your choice. I won't bash you becaue of it. Besides, I don't bash anyone. Bashing is name-calling and I avoid that at all costs

Because I trust Bush on National Security and the Economy.

Why do you follow Kerry?

Because Kerry will not favor corportate interests at the expense of the middle class, the group primarily responsible for economicc strength, to the same extent that Bush has.

Because Kerry recognises the mistakes in the Patriot Act, and will work to mend them.

Because Kerry recognises that rising poverty numbers are a bad thing and has plans to reverse that trend.

Because Kerry recognises that angering our allies is an impediment to fighting global terror, and is an impediment to international trade.

Because Kerry realizes that short-term profit gains are not worth long-term environmental damage.

Because Kerry sees that more and more Americans without healthcare is a national disgrace.

Because Kerry realizes that recruiting and funding first-responders is vital to our national safety.

Because crime dropped every year under Clinton, and rose every year under Bush, and Kerry will go back to that methods that worked previously.

Because a fully literate and well-spoken Kerry is a better spokeman to the world-at-large.

Because Kerry will not give a key to the public coffers to his big corporate buddies.

Kerry will not start any ill-planned, poorly executed wars of regine change.

Kerry will not claim to be a war president one day, and a peace president the next.

Kerry knows first hand how terrible war is.

The list goes on and on.

I've haven't had a challenge like that since High School!

Newsflash: Number 1 Story for the Past few days is Hurricane Frances. Now a Tropical Storm and ravashing the Florida Panhandle. In a few days, They'll be talking about Hurricane Ivan that is churning up.

Hurricanes are a big story. They can even over do Politics. I've seen massive coverage on this on CNN, MSNBC, and on Fox News. Frances was the Big Story of the week.

Yes, and in my post, I said other than the hurricane what has been the #1 news story? This is why I question you, you have a remarkable ability to ignore what does not forward your case. The #1 news story, aside from Frances, has been SBVT. That, and the RNC. Nice little one-two punch the corporate owned (how many of the media moguls are liberal again? Bueller?) media had there.

Yes, and in my post, I said other than the hurricane what has been the #1 news story? This is why I question you, you have a remarkable ability to ignore what does not forward your case. The #1 news story, aside from Frances, has been SBVT. That, and the RNC. Nice little one-two punch the corporate owned (how many of the media moguls are liberal again? Bueller?) media had there.

Number 1 News Story: Top Hussein official Captured!

Number 1 News Story: Russian School Crisis

Number 1 News Story: Bomb outside of Faluja

Number 1 News Story: Top Hussein official Captured!

Number 1 News Story: Russian School Crisis

Number 1 News Story: Bomb outside of Faluja

Yes, but these came after weeks of SBVT free advertising on the cable news shows.

Yes, but these came after weeks of SBVT free advertising on the cable news shows.

But they are really no longer front page news. They are 3rd page news at best. You've asked me about the top news stories. I gave them to you.

Since I am Jewish and Josef Goebbles wasnt a really good guy I vote for the Swift Boat Vets...

Did Moore ever tell you about the factory GM opened 50miles from Flynt that employed the same amount of people but was more efficent and had higher productivity? How bout the way he showed evicted people and stated they were fired from GM when it fact it was random people from another city?

I suppose some of Goebbles work was funny, so yeh I guess Moore should get my vote. Hey it works for lawyers too. Losing your case? Crack jokes. Scott Peterson's lawyer is doing it!

Because Kerry will not favor corportate interests at the expense of the middle class, the group primarily responsible for economicc strength, to the same extent that Bush has.

Because Kerry recognises the mistakes in the Patriot Act, and will work to mend them.

Because Kerry recognises that rising poverty numbers are a bad thing and has plans to reverse that trend.

Because Kerry recognises that angering our allies is an impediment to fighting global terror, and is an impediment to international trade.

Because Kerry realizes that short-term profit gains are not worth long-term environmental damage.

Because Kerry sees that more and more Americans without healthcare is a national disgrace.

Because Kerry realizes that recruiting and funding first-responders is vital to our national safety.

Because crime dropped every year under Clinton, and rose every year under Bush, and Kerry will go back to that methods that worked previously.

Because a fully literate and well-spoken Kerry is a better spokeman to the world-at-large.

Because Kerry will not give a key to the public coffers to his big corporate buddies.

Kerry will not start any ill-planned, poorly executed wars of regine change.

Kerry will not claim to be a war president one day, and a peace president the next.

Kerry knows first hand how terrible war is.

The list goes on and on.

and those are a bunch of reasons why i wont vote for Kerry...

National Healthcare is not in a crisis and should be abolished anyway. The poverty is not a problem here. Kerry IS supported by special interests. Kerry has yet to state anything wrong with the Patriot Act(i also doubt you read it). Kerry said we lost allies when we didnt(Ive been waiting for someone other thna Goldwater to dismiss the UN). Because Kerry believe short term employment is better than GDP recessions...

Kerry is also lacking any knowledge in economics...

So, tell me. How many times have you ignored the evidence that Kerry actually was in Cambodia but was simply off by a month or two? I guess all politicials should be like Bush and never misspeak themselves.

Keep grasping at that single shining example of the horrible horrible malfeasance of John F Kerry. Your monomania is a credit to your party.
Kerry said, and I quote, "The Memory of that night is burned into my mind." I'll give him a break thou, he said that almost thirty years ago and as we know from a lot of his statements recently, he was always confused about the facts of something right after it happened to him. But give him thirty years and a presidential campaign and he remembers what actually happened perfectly.

Because Kerry will not favor corportate interests at the expense of the middle class, the group primarily responsible for economicc strength, to the same extent that Bush has.

Actually:

Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/) vs Bush (http://www.georgewbush.com/Economy/Read.aspx?ID=2005). Keep in mind these are just their claimed aims, they're both liars.

Business

Both: Cut taxes/invest in businesses. Increase international trade ties, work to lower tariffs in other countries, though technically both are going to practise protectionism and probably provoke more tariffs. Both are anti-outsourcing (or at least, both claim to be, and both are lying.) Bush (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/13/opinion/main600351.shtml) is against outsourcing in the face of political pressure, Kerry's anti-outsourcing position is deliberately exaggerated. Bush's anti-outsourcing stance is not explicitily stated in his six points because he likes to go with the free trade crowd, except in swing states. Stupidity on both their counts.

Kerry: is in favour of small business and giving them "more opportunities", through larger loans, options etc. Also in favour of more regulations for business and a higher minimum wage. The higher minimum wage in particular is harmful to small businesses and the poor particularly as it limits the number of jobs offered by employers and forces productivity to increase. The same goes for increased regulations.
Bush: Wishes to remove many regulations and make it more difficult to sue. Pushing for more percentage of compensation given out going to the victim or whatever legalese is for the person suing another person.

Taxes

Both: Cut taxes for middle class families and businesses, as previously mentioned.

Kerry: Increase taxation on upper class folk. Actually claims that 98% of people and 99% of business (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0407.html) will pay lower taxes under his presidency. Not explicitly stated but those 2% are going to be paying for just about everything he does.
Bush: Decrease taxation on upper class folk, though he won't ever say it.

Government revenue

Both: Limit government spending and cut the deficit dramatically.

Kerry: Emphasis on telling you how he's going to pay for programmes, already failed to do so in regards to medicaid and how he's going to cut health care costs. Magic I'm assuming.
Bush: It is about as likely that he will keep to his word on this as it is that I get laid tomorrow.

Medicaid

Both: Cut health care costs, initiate a few expensive, token medicaid programmes that will almost instantly be shown to be stupid.

Energy and the environment

Kerry: (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/) "...invest in new technologies and alternative fuels, create tax incentives that help automakers produce more fuel efficient cars, and reward the consumers who buy them...increase energy conservation and create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize...growing our economy and protecting our environment." Also stresses independence from Middle Eastern oil, which is kinda optimistic. Is very probably lying about the environment since he doesn't seem to actually know very much about it.
Bush: "upgrade the nation's electrical grid, promote energy efficiency, increase domestic energy production, and provide enhanced conservation efforts, all while protecting the environment." Has also said he will fund basically exactly the same programmes Kerry will. Is lying about the environment (http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/01/01182001/krt_fuel_41422.asp).

There is no real difference between the two in terms of the economy, gentlemen, except that Bush is slightly better at it.

Because Kerry recognises the mistakes in the Patriot Act, and will work to mend them.

Well it's partly his fault it came into existance, the inconsistent fool.

Because Kerry recognises that angering our allies is an impediment to fighting global terror, and is an impediment to international trade.

Hence why he still fully supports Iraq - even knowing what he does now - asserts that Bush should be tougher on terrorism, and has already voted for other unilateral operations, such as Desert Storm.

Because Kerry sees that more and more Americans without healthcare is a national disgrace.

And has no plans about how he will finance any project to rid America of that disgrace, and is about as incompetent as any other American president when it comes to medicaid.

Aswell as everything else I've mentioned, both believe life begins at conception but that current abortion legislation should remain the same, both are pro-military spending, both want to crack down on firearm ownership, Bush just doing it quietly. Both are anti-gay marriage, Kerry just supporting a state's ability to ban it and contradicting his earlier stance on the matter. Both were for the ridiculously expensive reorganisation of America's federal defensive and investigative agencies (particularly but not only the PATRIOT act,) but that was actually probably a good thing that should have been done sooner.

The rest is all piffle, Kerry and Bush are both incompetent fools who believe the best way to deal with a Muslim mindset is to incite moderates to radicalism through poorly advised attacks on foreign nations. The Democrat party successfully managed to pick absolutely the worst candidate they could, so bad that there's actually a chance Bush might win again. Given Kerry's incompetence, that might not necessarily be a bad thing; my main hope is that one of the third parties gets enough votes to force the Democrats to actually stop being Republicans mark 2.

and those are a bunch of reasons why i wont vote for Kerry...

National Healthcare is not in a crisis and should be abolished anyway. The poverty is not a problem here. Kerry IS supported by special interests. Kerry has yet to state anything wrong with the Patriot Act(i also doubt you read it). Kerry said we lost allies when we didnt(Ive been waiting for someone other thna Goldwater to dismiss the UN). Because Kerry believe short term employment is better than GDP recessions...

Kerry is also lacking any knowledge in economics...

I guess that's why 10 Nobel Prize winning economists support Kerry's economic plan. I guess you'd rtather trust the economic abilities of a several-times failed businessman who was investigated by the SEC.

You know almost half of the swift boat vets were not in the war at the same time kerry was?
You know Moore is just another hollywood director that only cares about box office returns?

You know almost half of the swift boat vets were not in the war at the same time kerry was?
You know Moore is just another hollywood director that only cares about box office returns?
Moore cares about more then that-he speaks truth to power, just like Oliver Stone

Moore cares about more then that-he speaks truth to power, just like Oliver Stone

he cares about money. The only reason he made that film was because everyone would want to see it. That is the reason he made it so political.
hmmm... Maybe I should hire him for my next propaganda campain. I am going to try to convince the world that it is ok to use cloned humans for "sapre parts" :p

Kahrstein, all you've actually proved is that Bush has lied and will most likely continue to do so when it comes to the economy. Kerry hasn't had a chance yet. A senator has to compromise many times a day, and his voting record, especially distilled down to outright misleading either/or propositions, is a poor way to gage a person's priorities if they enter the executive branch.

Yes Kerry voted for the PATRIOT act, as did most everyone else. It's the smarter people who have realized their error, and are now trying to fix it. Bush, on the other hand, NEVER owns up to mistakes and continues to push through his failed policies.

Kerry does not support the way in which war was declared nor how it has been carried out. Kerry does not support the way in which war was declared nor how it has been carried out. Kerry does not support the way in which war was declared nor how it has been carried out. Kerry does not support the way in which war was declared nor how it has been carried out. Got it yet?

Against all evidence to the contrary, people still believe Kerry would do nothing differently.

One thing I notice is that everyone who thinks Kerry is horrible has never actually sat down and watched or read what the man has done and said. They've ingested their Kerry information through several layers of commentary and biased observation, usually using soundbites out of context.

And then there are the people who admit that Bush is horrible, and yet still believe what the Bush administration has to say about Kerry. This is the height of absurdity to me, and I am losing hope that there is any way to help such people see the error of their ways.

Kahrstein, all you've actually proved is that Bush has lied and will most likely continue to do so when it comes to the economy. Kerry hasn't had a chance yet.

The man has been making speeches, Gymoor. Unless Kerry has been lying we know exactly what he will do. If he is lying he should not be elected, and in both Bush and Kerry's case if they're telling the truth they're incompetent and should not be elected, but I don't doubt people will ignore the option of a third party.

A senator has to compromise many times a day, and his voting record, especially distilled down to outright misleading either/or propositions, is a poor way to gage a person's priorities if they enter the executive branch.

It's a good thing I'm looking at what the two chaps are saying then rather than basing my ideas off Kerry's voting record, isn't it?

Yes Kerry voted for the PATRIOT act, as did most everyone else. It's the smarter people who have realized their error, and are now trying to fix it.

Yes, his problem is that it leaves too many holes open. As Kerry says:

"Most of it has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th."

And even now that he wants "95%" of the PATRIOT act kept intact and "to strengthen the rest":

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0525b_a.pdf

Ah, wonderful, pdf. Are you entirely certain you want to adopt the position that Kerry is admitting a mistake?

Bush, on the other hand, NEVER owns up to mistakes and continues to push through his failed policies.

And Kerry owned up to his mistake with Iraq, did he?

Kerry does not support the way in which war was declared nor how it has been carried out.

Yes, <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html">Kerry </a> believes that Bush has not been aggressive enough with terrorism, that the military should be made stronger, that the time Bush spent trying to win over the UN did not exist, but that a unilateral approach is fine and dandy:

"Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."

"First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world – and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.

America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday."

So, unilateralism, and support of everything Bush supports.

This analysis would not be complete without a contradiction of course: "Where [Bush has] acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations." In contention with something Kerry said in 2003:

"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Kerry doesn't seem to have any specific problems with Bush whatsoever until he's running for president, at which time he makes ambiguous, vague claims that he never comes close to explaining or justifying, yet outlines his support for policies which are "unilateral" or whatever he'd like to pretend to whine about now. Which is where Bush actually differs, in that Bush usually resorts to straw man attacks on Kerry's policies. Then again he'd look bloody daft attacking his own policies minutes after he outlined them...

Against all evidence to the contrary, people still believe Kerry would do nothing differently.

Really, what evidence? All I've seen from you are claims that entirely lack justification, whereas I'm looking at what the men are saying and doing.

Your point about myself or anyone else somehow believing that Kerry and Bush share far more policies than either are willing to admit when both have been trying to hide this fact; take Bush trying to claim Kerry doesn't support the PATRIOT act, for instance. Bipartisan politics at its finest, two people denouncing the others' policies whilst having exactly the same policies. Why not just give it all up and agree on the one party running each year?

Yes, and in my post, I said other than the hurricane what has been the #1 news story? This is why I question you, you have a remarkable ability to ignore what does not forward your case. The #1 news story, aside from Frances, has been SBVT. That, and the RNC. Nice little one-two punch the corporate owned (how many of the media moguls are liberal again? Bueller?) media had there.


Umm, Ted Turner!