NationStates Jolt Archive

Blog Where I found the Link

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/06/swift-boat-slime-redux.html

Boston Globe Article

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

Whaddya think now Eutrusca? :)

Blog Where I found the Link

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/06/swift-boat-slime-redux.html

Boston Globe Article

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

Whaddya think now Eutrusca? :)
Though like it says I am really curious as to why he withheld during the campaign

Why didn't the Navy give him an Honorable Discharge when he originally left the service. He didn't get one until President Carter ORDERED it done.

Makes you wonder what's not in the public record - such as his disciplinary record.

Funny that you post it right after that fellow in the thread on Kerry's and Bush's intelligences perdicted that Kerry was involved in many war crimes.
Perfect timing.
:D

Funny that you post it right after that fellow in the thread on Kerry's and Bush's intelligences perdicted that Kerry was involved in many war crimes.
Perfect timing.
:D

You can thank CNN. I was watching it when they blurbed it in a short segment.

I went to the blog they were looking at that had it mentioned and the rest is history :D

Screw it, I'll be 'fair and balanced,' I did this in the Bush/Kerry intellegence thread, so it's only fair...

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2003/2003-06-04-maney.jpg
"Where are we going today, Mr. Peabody?"
"Well, Sherman-..."

It also leaves something unanswered:

If you were, say, a graduate student, and 30 years later, we talked to your professor, and to your fellow graduate students, to ascertain your character, we might talk to as many as, say, 33 people.

Now, if we didn't pay these people any money (except one), what might their opinion of your character and your academic ability be?

If 32 out of 33 thought you were a complete asshole, untrustworthy, and slime, and the one that was paid thought you were a great guy, what might we conclude from that?

Why didn't the Navy give him an Honorable Discharge when he originally left the service. He didn't get one until President Carter ORDERED it done.

Makes you wonder what's not in the public record - such as his disciplinary record.
Given what Kerry had to say about his superiors in Vietnam, I don't think it's terribly difficult to interpolate an approximate truth. Let's remember that the view of the veracity of claims such as those made by Kerry was much less certain than it is now. Then governor, Jimmy Carter even calling for "Rallies for Calley" (convicted of murdering four people at My Lai, but actually responsible for murdering hundreds more). It was the people like Kerry who came back from Vietnam and provided the pressure to turn the American military into what it is today. Their dissent, at all levels, was a great service to our country.

I like how we're STILL on the 2004 election.
fellow liberals: stop crying and get over it. This will all be over in 3 and a half years...except not.

conservatives: stop rolling around in your glory, you've been doing that for over four years now...get over it. Isn't that usually what you tell us to do? Please, it's over. :headbang:

Why didn't the Navy give him an Honorable Discharge when he originally left the service. He didn't get one until President Carter ORDERED it done.

Makes you wonder what's not in the public record - such as his disciplinary record.

Discharge witheld due to sour grapes for speaking out against the war, maybe?

A bit too petty of them. I wouldn't be surprised that Carter would have to demand that it be done on him specifically (if it happened as you say).

A long line of honourable vets that the Repubs have loved to mangle with their slander. John McCain, Max Cleland, and now John F. Kerry. (Karl Rove is a little shit isn't he?)

I get the feeling they don't like the troops very much. Y'know unless their dying for the wars they start. They don't like heroes. Virtue tends to rub evil the wrong way.

Screw it, I'll be 'fair and balanced,' I did this in the Bush/Kerry intellegence thread, so it's only fair...

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2003/2003-06-04-maney.jpg
"Where are we going today, Mr. Peabody?"
"Well, Sherman-..."

Oh, it deserves its own thread. This is undeniable. :)

Discharge witheld due to sour grapes for speaking out against the war, maybe?

A bit too petty of them. I wouldn't be surprised that Carter would have to demand that it be done on him specifically (if it happened as you say).

A long line of honourable vets that the Repubs have loved to mangle with their slander. John McCain, Max Cleland, and now John F. Kerry. (Karl Rove is a little shit isn't he?)

I get the feeling they don't like the troops very much. Y'know unless their dying for the wars they start. They don't like heroes. Virtue tends to rub evil the wrong way.

32 out of 33 unpaid former sailors (including officers) seem to think Kerry was an asshole.

The one fellow sailor who consistently had something nice to say about Kerry was on Kerry's campaign staff.

Go figure, eh?

Oh, it deserves its own thread. This is undeniable. :)
I just didn't want the dreaded 'bias' by only picking on the anti-Kerry zombie thread.

Something is happening, and it has nothing to do with Kerry and test scores or anything else. I smell the handiwork of The White Noise Machine. We're being distracted from something and I want to know what it is.

I just didn't want the dreaded 'bias' by only picking on the anti-Kerry zombie thread.

Something is happening, and it has nothing to do with Kerry and test scores or anything else. I smell the handiwork of The White Noise Machine. We're being distracted from something and I want to know what it is.

What's funny is that in the early days of the Clinton Administration, Republicans were all paranoid about "jack-booted thugs" and "black helicopters".

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are all paranoid about "the vast right-wing conspiracy" and "the white noise machine".

Please adjust your tin foil hats, for better reception.

I just didn't want the dreaded 'bias' by only picking on the anti-Kerry zombie thread.

Something is happening, and it has nothing to do with Kerry and test scores or anything else. I smell the handiwork of The White Noise Machine. We're being distracted from something and I want to know what it is.

'splain.

And what zombie thread are you talking about?

(Jolt you *^&%*&! For God's sake lemme post!)

32 out of 33 unpaid former sailors (including officers) seem to think Kerry was an asshole.

The one fellow sailor who consistently had something nice to say about Kerry was on Kerry's campaign staff.

Go figure, eh?

Got link to this? Sounds vaguely familiar.

Got link to this? Sounds vaguely familiar.
It's the Swift vets.

Only one Swift boat vet thought Kerry was a good guy - and he was paid to be on Kerry's campaign staff.

32 out of 33 unpaid former sailors (including officers) seem to think Kerry was an asshole.

What? The guys who weren't even on the same damn boat?

What's funny is that in the early days of the Clinton Administration, Republicans were all paranoid about "jack-booted thugs" and "black helicopters".

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are all paranoid about "the vast right-wing conspiracy" and "the white noise machine".

Please adjust your tin foil hats, for better reception.

??

Republicans were concerned about this when?

Link?

Oh, and your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You can't possibly be suggesting that just because something didn't happen to one group that it will never happen to anybody. Besides, the repubs have ben trying this crap since before the Alger Hiss scandal.

What? The guys who weren't even on the same damn boat?

Ah. Now I remember. :p

32 out of 33 unpaid former sailors (including officers) seem to think Kerry was an asshole.

The one fellow sailor who consistently had something nice to say about Kerry was on Kerry's campaign staff.

Go figure, eh?

Reverse the roles the republicans would have done the same, sad really

??

Republicans were concerned about this when?

Link?

Oh, and your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You can't possibly be suggesting that just because something didn't happen to one group that it will never happen to anybody. Besides, the repubs have ben trying this crap since before the Alger Hiss scandal.

Do you not remember the Republican concern over the "jack booted thugs of the ATF"?

Besides, we've known now since the 1990s that Alger Hiss WAS a Soviet agent. So it was all true!

And you thought it was just paranoia on Nixon's part...

What's funny is that in the early days of the Clinton Administration, Republicans were all paranoid about "jack-booted thugs" and "black helicopters".

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats are all paranoid about "the vast right-wing conspiracy" and "the white noise machine".

Please adjust your tin foil hats, for better reception.
Please. Did this twice. You can learn or dismiss. I see you chose to dismiss. It's okay, sand keeps your head warm.

It's the Swift vets.

Only one Swift boat vet thought Kerry was a good guy - and he was paid to be on Kerry's campaign staff.

Why do people find this news worthy?

SHOCK NEWS: Politician makes a fraudulent claim that he was liked

I'd rather see that headline than

SHOCK NEWS: President went to war looking for WMD, couldn't find any so decided to "liberate" people instead

'splain.

And what zombie thread are you talking about?

(Jolt you *^&%*&! For God's sake lemme post!)
It's the Bush administrations admited media policy of blitzing the news outlets with a repeated sound bit, repeating the same thing over and over and over again. You can see it in full effect when the administration is criticized. What happens next is, instead of facing the criticism they blitz the media with a piece of discrediting that often doesn't have anything to do with the allegation and then repeat it over and over and over again. Bush himself has talked about his policy of repitition. It's a way of controling the debate by filling the airwaves, thus creating white noise, earning the title of 'White Noise Generator.' It's pretty transparent and easy to see, and not even being denied except, apparently, by it's pawns who aren't willing to admit that Polly really just wants his cracker.

Hey, Whispering Legs, I like how you don't give sources. At all. That's really a nice touch.

I'm not overly fond of Kerry, but if I could have voted, I would have voted for him. The lesser of two evils.

Umm what relavence does any of this have now? Bush won, he had he ceremony, he is continuing his war. So what does it matter about Kerry now?

It isn't so much what Kerry did in Vietnam, it is what he did when he came home. His slander of his fellow soldiers was disgusting, saying they commited war crimes, murder, rape so on and so forth as a matter of course. Hell, he even said he had commited warcrimes when he was in front of the Senate. (I always wondered why, if that was true, wasn't he prosecuted?)
He may have done an okay job in Vietnam but he betrayed those soldiers when he came back. He did all of this not because he really felt conviction of belief, but because he wanted to build a political career and he saw the way the wind was blowing at the time. The man is a typical politician, he blows with the wind. He has no fundamental belief strong enough to override a public poll and this is why he could never receive my vote.
Bush is strong enough to completely ignore public opinion if he disagrees with it, that is what a leader does. He gives the people what he believes is right, not what they want every other day. If they don't like what he believes is right they vote him out of office. If they choose to leave him in office then they will live with his decisions for another few years until they choose someone else.
The end of the world and democracy as we know it is not here. Things are just rambling along much as they always do.

I forgot that My Lai wasn't an atrocity. :confused:

Umm what relavence does any of this have now? Bush won, he had he ceremony, he is continuing his war. So what does it matter about Kerry now?

because its a way of repubulicans to slag off the dems and vice versa. sad really, American Politics is all too right wing for me so good job I don't live there :D

I like how we're STILL on the 2004 election.
fellow liberals: stop crying and get over it. This will all be over in 3 and a half years...except not.

conservatives: stop rolling around in your glory, you've been doing that for over four years now...get over it. Isn't that usually what you tell us to do? Please, it's over. :headbang:

Actually, we been rolling in glory for over 10 years. Someone hasn't been keeping up. :D

What? The guys who weren't even on the same damn boat?

The group of guys who:

1. Weren't on the same boat (except for a single sailor, all sailors who actually served on Kerry's boat spoke positively of him)
2. Were founded by the guy Nixon recruited to go after Kerry when Kerry made himself Nixon's political enemy.
3. Were caught repeatedly lying in their attacks on Kerry. My personal favorite was the one where they started parading around Larry Thurlow, one of the other swift boat commanders on the day Kerry earned his bronze star.

There he is going on about how it's all total BS, claiming there was no enemy fire, asking why nobody ELSE got a bronze star during that incident if it was really as bad a situation as Kerry said. Claiming that if he had known they had handed out a bronze star for that incident he would have spoken out about "the truth" of the situation earlier. Etc...

Then the Washington post digs up Thurlow's record and guess what? He got a bronze star for THAT EXACT INCIDENT. His own bronze star citation says he was under heavy enemy fire. His own gunner also got a bronze star for that same incident... and his citation ALSO says they were under heavy enemy fire at the time. After that little peice of information broke the guy started trying to claim he didn't know what he got his own bronze star for! Yeah, sure. It says so right on his citation but he didn't have a clue.

And that's just one of dozens of examples of what these slimeballs pulled. They got caught signing vets up on their statement against Kerry without their permission... some of the signers got caught falsely claiming to know Kerry was lying about things they later had to admit they had never been in a position to even witness in the first place...

Anyone who actually cites these people as if they were a reliable source of information is out of their minds. They're a pack of slander and libel artists.

It isn't so much what Kerry did in Vietnam, it is what he did when he came home. His slander of his fellow soldiers was disgusting, saying they commited war crimes, murder, rape so on and so forth as a matter of course.

It's only slander if it's not true. The incidents he spoke of were greatly confirmed by subsequent military investigations.

I don't suppose you're familiar with what won the reporters at the Toledo Blade the Pullitzer just a short while back?

Hell, he even said he had commited warcrimes when he was in front of the Senate. (I always wondered why, if that was true, wasn't he prosecuted?)

I am so tired of this idiocy.

He said that US military policy in Vietnam was in violation of the Geneva Conventions and as such damn near every soldier there, YES including himself, had committed war crimes by acting according to the established US rules of engagement. He was not saying that practically every soldier there was running around cutting the heads off children and raping the women... just that atrocities were happening with alarming frequency.

In order to prosecute him for what he said HE did you would have to prosecute almost every soldier serving in Vietnam.

I am so tired of this idiocy.

He said that US military policy in Vietnam was in violation of the Geneva Conventions and as such damn near every soldier there, YES including himself, had committed war crimes by acting according to the established US rules of engagement. He was not saying that practically every soldier there was running around cutting the heads off children and raping the women... just that atrocities were happening with alarming frequency.

In order to prosecute him for what he said HE did you would have to prosecute almost every soldier serving in Vietnam.
Indeed. And what he was saying were signed statements on behalf of other people...

Though like it says I am really curious as to why he withheld during the campaign

I seem to recall Republicans saying that loosing was "all Kerry's fault for making the vote about his war record."

Meaning that Bush attacked him with lies about his war record and he defended himself by saying the truth. He kept getting asked about his war record, so he couldn't really say things like "what the hell is wrong with you people? How the hell is my record on trial when he's a fucking deserter?"

Also, can you imagine the field day that the right wing media would have had if he had said something like "well now if you take a look at my actions in Vietnam, you'll see that I was in fact quite heroic. An almost Ramboesque figure if you will."

They wouldn't actually contradict the facts, they'd just say that he must be pretty wimpy to use a french-sounding word that ends in "esque." And the whole affair would descend into a debate about how manly could any man be who would end a word in a suffix derived from French.

It also leaves something unanswered:

If you were, say, a graduate student, and 30 years later, we talked to your professor, and to your fellow graduate students, to ascertain your character, we might talk to as many as, say, 33 people.

Now, if we didn't pay these people any money (except one), what might their opinion of your character and your academic ability be?

If 32 out of 33 thought you were a complete asshole, untrustworthy, and slime, and the one that was paid thought you were a great guy, what might we conclude from that?
Sounds like you're really getting desperate. You've been pining for Kerry's records for 6 months. Now you want more, and claim that what you have is bunk? Can he ever win with you?

I like how we're STILL on the 2004 election.
fellow liberals: stop crying and get over it. This will all be over in 3 and a half years...except not.

conservatives: stop rolling around in your glory, you've been doing that for over four years now...get over it. Isn't that usually what you tell us to do? Please, it's over. :headbang:


this may be the most intelligent post I've seen all day. You sir and/or madam, get a cookie

It's only slander if it's not true. The incidents he spoke of were greatly confirmed by subsequent military investigations.

I don't suppose you're familiar with what won the reporters at the Toledo Blade the Pullitzer just a short while back?



I am so tired of this idiocy.

He said that US military policy in Vietnam was in violation of the Geneva Conventions and as such damn near every soldier there, YES including himself, had committed war crimes by acting according to the established US rules of engagement. He was not saying that practically every soldier there was running around cutting the heads off children and raping the women... just that atrocities were happening with alarming frequency.

In order to prosecute him for what he said HE did you would have to prosecute almost every soldier serving in Vietnam.

If you are tired take a genki drink. :)
Ah reporters and pullitzers, those reporters, always patting themselves on the back.
I prefer asinine to idiocy, try that one next time. :D
Sorry, I don't agree with Mr. Kerry or the general attacks upon the US military in Nam.

If you are tired take a genki drink. :)
Ah reporters and pullitzers, those reporters, always patting themselves on the back.
I prefer asinine to idiocy, try that one next time. :D
Sorry, I don't agree with Mr. Kerry or the general attacks upon the US military in Nam.

Feel free not to agree with him.

The facts do.

Feel free not to agree with him.

The facts do.

Historical "facts" are funny things, they change depending on who your speak with. If as many people say A as say B then in the end we will agree with what we agreed with before we saw that as many people said A as said B.
I have seen the "facts" spoken of by Kerry and his side and I have seen the "facts" spoken of by the other side.
You are agree with one, I agree with the other. but. . .
Were you in Vietnam during the conflict? Was I? Heck, how old are you? You might be old enough to have been out protesting at the time or just watching on tv. If you aren't then you, as well as I can only rely on what different people say about something and so again it goes back to who we choose to believe.
In the end we are on exactly the same level looking across a room at each other.
The most important thing is not to let it bother you. Not saying it did, but you did state you were tired and refered to my idiocy. (I still recommend asinine!)

Historical "facts" are funny things, they change depending on who your speak with. If as many people say A as say B then in the end we will agree with what we agreed with before we saw that as many people said A as said B.

You might want to consider which people you're talking about.

The people I'm talking about are the Army investigators and their records...

They say 'A'.

Who says 'B' who is in a position to know better, or even nearly as well?

You might want to consider which people you're talking about.

The people I'm talking about are the Army investigators and their records...

They say 'A'.

Who says 'B' who is in a position to know better, or even nearly as well?

then A is second hand sourcing at best, also it depends what they were investigating and what they have a passing interest in and also what possible outcome they want. nothing is ever purely unbias. thats why "Nothing personal" is an oxymoron

Not saying it did, but you did state you were tired and refered to my idiocy. (I still recommend asinine!)

Just so that the English language retains some of its... worth, I will point out here that idiocy is a noun while asinine is an adjective, making it impossible to replace the former with the latter or vice versa. If you changed idiocy to idiotic or asinine to asininity (what a silly word), then it would work, but otherwise it cannot. And of course, in the above example, only the changing of asinine would work. But that just sounds awful. Please don't do it.

Cheers! ^.^

then A is second hand sourcing at best

And what sources do you recommend we rely on that are more informed on the matter?

Bush is strong enough to completely ignore public opinion if he disagrees with it, that is what a leader does.
Hahaha. Very funny. That was a joke, right?

Right...


Politicians are spineless, every last one of them, and Bush is no exception. Don't try to paint him as some glimmer of hope and truth in a mess of cowardly politicians, they're all equally guilty of being weak.

Not true, his records have not been released to the general public. This means he STILL hasn't signed Form 180. He sent his records to the BG and we have no idea whether any contracts were entered into that detailed what the Globe could or could not publish. Until the scumbag makes them generally availible to the public he's probably hiding something.

John Kerry's own testamony before congress! Verdict: War Criminal

John Kerry secretly meets with NVA officials in Paris while still a naval officer! Verdict: Treason

Hahaha. Very funny. That was a joke, right?

Right...


Politicians are spineless, every last one of them, and Bush is no exception. Don't try to paint him as some glimmer of hope and truth in a mess of cowardly politicians, they're all equally guilty of being weak.

If President Bush was spineless, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. Try again.

I realy do not understand the relevance of this whole topic.

WHO CARES?

The man ran, the man lost, the man should never run again.

Not true, his records have not been released to the general public. This means he STILL hasn't signed Form 180.

What part of...

"On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe."

...confused you?

John Kerry's own testamony before congress! Verdict: War Criminal

Already covered in this thread. Your statement is true only if you consider about 95% of the serving military in Vietnam to also be war criminals.

John Kerry secretly meets with NVA officials in Paris while still a naval officer! Verdict: Treason

I'm sorry... secretly? Kerry was in Paris, talked with both delegations at the peace talks to find out what was going on, and talked about it in front of only the entire country in an on camera speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Real secretive of him.

What part of...

"On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe."

...confused you?

Right, and why didn't he release them to the general public, which is another choice on said form. Instead he sent it to a friendly news service with who knows how many contracts drawn up on what they could or could not publish. Until the records go public he has not honored the spirit of the argument, but he has honored he letter of it.

They should try him for treason no doubt about it. Meeting with the enemy while not officially sanctioned negotiations.

I realy do not understand the relevance of this whole topic.

WHO CARES?

The man ran, the man lost, the man should never run again.

I second this wonderful statement

*Hands Vanhalenburgh a cookie*

They should try him for treason no doubt about it. Meeting with the enemy while not officially sanctioned negotiations.

Not to mention admitting to committing warcrimes while in Vietnam to a Congressional Committee.

They should try him for treason no doubt about it. Meeting with the enemy while not officially sanctioned negotiations.
Isn't treason.



Try reading the Constitution some time, and the case law behind it.

Isn't treason.



Try reading the Constitution some time, and the case law behind it.


Nice try. This does fall under treason. Amongst other things mentioned in posts prior. The guy isnt fit for duty in the senate. He should be tried for his actions against the American people. Remember Bendidict Arnold was a war hero too. Then look what happened.

Nice try. This does fall under treason. Amongst other things mentioned in posts prior. The guy isnt fit for duty in the senate. He should be tried for his actions against the American people. Remember Bendidict Arnold was a war hero too. Then look what happened.
Sigh...no.

" In Ex parte Bollman,1291 which involved two of Burr's confederates, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. ''However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war.'' Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. ''On the contrary, if it be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.''"

If President Bush was spineless, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. Try again.
Wow. Really brave of him to spend the lives of better men so cheaply. If only we all had such courage, or at least the luxury of it....

Wow. Really brave of him to spend the lives of better men so cheaply. If only we all had such courage, or at least the luxury of it....

If Washington was spineless, the whiskey rebellion would've succeeded. If Madison was spineless, he wouldn't have declared war on Britain. If Lincoln was spineless, we would have 2 countries on this land mass instead of one. If Wilson was spineless, we wouldn't have gotten involved in World War One. If FDR was Spineless, we would have capitulated after Pearl Harbor. If Truman was spineless, the Korean Peninsula would be one country instead of 2! If Eisenhower was spineless, see previos statement. If JFK was spineless. We would've had missiles pointed at us from Cuba.

Not all politicians are spineless.

"If Lincoln was spineless, we would have 2 countries on this land mass instead of one."

So Canada, Mexico, Central America and South America are all part of the USA now?

"If Lincoln was spineless, we would have 2 countries on this land mass instead of one."

So Canada, Mexico, Central America and South America are all part of the USA now?

Land mass=the USA

The USA ain't the only country on the land mass.

The USA ain't the only country on the land mass.

No kidding sherlock. I was talking about THE UNITED STATES!!!

Then you should have said that we would have the CSA and USA rather than making a statement that made it seem as if you believe that the USA is the only country on the land mass.

If President Bush was spineless, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan or in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. Try again.

Yes! Only a very courageous man is willing to let other people die in a war when he himself was unwilling to serve in the army when he had the chance. And he even went to Iraq. Under secret cover long enough to walk out from behind a curtain with a rubber turkey. In fact, courage isn't even the word. That takes balls. Oddly, it doesn't take a spine.

"Only losers are in a hurry to start a war. Winners know what the battlefield looks like afterwards." -- more or less Terry Pratchett

Then you should have said that we would have the CSA and USA rather than making a statement that made it seem as if you believe that the USA is the only country on the land mass.

I think most people would've gotten what I was talking about when I said LINCOLN!

Though like it says I am really curious as to why he withheld during the campaign
So he could have it "updated." :rolleyes:

If Washington was spineless, the whiskey rebellion would've succeeded.

Washington was a Military man and as such fought first hand against enemy.

If Madison was spineless, he wouldn't have declared war on Britain.

Actually since Madison was just sitting back never in danger he could have been spineless.

If Lincoln was spineless, we would have 2 countries on this land mass instead of one.

Lincoln never fought in a war just commanded so he could very easily been spineless.

If Wilson was spineless, we wouldn't have gotten involved in World War One.

Again, Politician not a military man.

If FDR was Spineless, we would have capitulated after Pearl Harbor.
If Truman was spineless, the Korean Peninsula would be one country instead of 2.

Did FDR fight before...I'll grant you him then. Truman fought I think.

If Eisenhower was spineless, see previos statement. If JFK was spineless. We would've had missiles pointed at us from Cuba.

Not all politicians are spineless.

We did have missiles pointed at us from Cuba. Bay of Pigs failed.

Not many Presidents ever fought in a war. Those that did I can't call spineless, but those that didn't are unknown. All i know is the current President never fought in a war. He was safe at home. Sure he "could" of fought if called, but he didn't.

If Washington was spineless, the whiskey rebellion would've succeeded. If Madison was spineless, he wouldn't have declared war on Britain. If Lincoln was spineless, we would have 2 countries on this land mass instead of one. If Wilson was spineless, we wouldn't have gotten involved in World War One. If FDR was Spineless, we would have capitulated after Pearl Harbor. If Truman was spineless, the Korean Peninsula would be one country instead of 2! If Eisenhower was spineless, see previos statement. If JFK was spineless. We would've had missiles pointed at us from Cuba.

Not all politicians are spineless.
Oh for Christ's sake... did it ever occur to you that perhaps negotiation works better than blowing things up?

Let's nitpick.

Washington? Who cares!? A, it was a tiny rebellion. B, the men who lead it, accused of treason, were pardoned. You say he wasn't spineless?

Madison? Oh yeah, fat lot of good the War of 1812 got you aside from a few thousand Americans killed, burning your capital and destroying your economy (temporarily). If he had a spine, he would have stood up to the War Hawks and not bothered going to war, because Britain had already fixed the problem.

Lincoln? You've got a point, but he also got 630,000 people killed. And for your information, there's a country to the north of you and a country to the south of you in that "land mass" known as North America. Having a spine just destroyed the South and engendered generations of hatred. EDIT: Your saying that land mass known as the "United States" just makes you seem even more self-centred. Damned if you do...

Wilson? Hmm... you lot may have been late, but at least you were there. I'm not touching that one.

Roosevelt? If he'd really had a spine, he would have seen that coming a long way away instead of sitting around waiting to get sucker-punched.

Truman? Did the thought ever occur to you that dividing Korea has brought nothing but death? It's not even as if the South is "free". Now there's a threat to world peace, a threat to your security, and the risk to millions of lives. Thanks to who? Truman and his "spine".

Eisenhower? See previous statement.

Kennedy? In case you didn't know, there were missiles pointed at you from Cuba anyway! If JFK had had any more "spine", he would have antagonised the Soviets and started World War III!

Yeesh.

There's a fine line between not being a pushover and going and pushing people over.

So he could have it "updated." :rolleyes:
You know, I expected better from you than to get into another partisan mud slinging. Can't you even admit that you might have been wrong?

Besides, there's some "updatings" and inconsistencies with Senor Bush's military record as well. I could repeat something about pots and kettles for you...

Kerry's Military Records Have Been Released! Verdict: Lying Sack of Shit!

Kerry's Military Records Have Been Released! Verdict: Lying Sack of Shit!
Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Classy :rolleyes:

What was "updated" exactly? Where was he found to be a "Lying sack of shit"? What is your source? Oh thats right, only the left need 40 sources before anything they say can have any weight and even then it's all a big vast left wing conspiracy, right?

What was "updated" exactly? Where was he found to be a "Lying sack of shit"? What is your source? Oh thats right, only the left need 40 sources before anything they say can have any weight and even then it's all a big vast left wing conspiracy, right?
Apparently you weren't here during the election. I more than adequately explained my postion on the "honorable" Mr. Kerry. He was no hero, only an opportunistc SOB using the military to further his political ambition, just as he used two rich women to further it. I am not any more "anit-left" than I am "anti-right." Why in God's name are we rehashing this nonsense? :headbang:

I was here and you presented as little evidence then as you are doing now. Absolutely none. Thanks for the re-directional post. Actually, no thanks.

Apparently you weren't here during the election. I more than adequately explained my postion on the "honorable" Mr. Kerry. He was no hero, only an opportunistc SOB using the military to further his political ambition, just as he used two rich women to further it. I am not any more "anit-left" than I am "anti-right." Why in God's name are we rehashing this nonsense? :headbang:
It's perfectly fine to be angry about it but seriously... be a tad more dignified about it. Live up to your reputation, for Christ's sake.

I mean, Lying Sack Of Shit is a tad strong even by my terms, and keep in mind that I go to an inner-city high school...

Wilson? Hmm... you lot may have been late, but at least you were there. I'm not touching that one.
I'll touch this one. Yeah, Wilson was spineless and made his pacifism US foreign policy, which is why Teddy Rosevelt was campaining around the country for the US to enter WWI. Woody was such a staunch isolationist and pacifist the Germans had to drag the US into WWI with the sinking of the Lucitania (morality of of that either way aside). It's no secret the US view at the time was, "If there's war it's good it's over there. Worst case scenerio: Fewer Europeans." It's an example that's short on Presidential courage. He sacrifices his convictions for political expedience, joining the war when maintainence of his policies only when they become politically impossible to sustain. It's worth noting that even the normally boisterious Teddy was diminished by his choices, having lost one (it's been a while, I believe it was just one, and his youngest) son to a war that was very different from his own experiences.

It's perfectly fine to be angry about it but seriously... be a tad more dignified about it. Live up to your reputation, for Christ's sake.

I mean, Lying Sack Of Shit is a tad strong even by my terms, and keep in mind that I go to an inner-city high school...
Ahem. [ gathers together the remaining tatters of his dignity ] Sorry. This is very much a "hot button" issue for me and I tend to get a bit ... vociferous. :)

This thread was everything I expected it would be, and more.

Apparently some people - I won't name names - are willing to admit that bad apples do get into the military, but not that any bad apples in the military have gotten into, say, I don't know... Guantanamo or Iraq.

And what sources do you recommend we rely on that are more informed on the matter?

Primary sources of course. So this obviosly rules out Brown ;)

So has anyone figured out why Kerry waited until six months after the election was over to release his records? That'd be a real story.

So has anyone figured out why Kerry waited until six months after the election was over to release his records? That'd be a real story.

Kerry's own explanation doesn't make any sense. He would have been smarter to have released them during the campaign - but then again, if we go by his academic record, he's at least as stupid as the Democrats say that Bush is. And not releasing those records was STUPID.

So has anyone figured out why Kerry waited until six months after the election was over to release his records? That'd be a real story.

frankly I couldn't care less. I didn't see why people based it on military records. Military records have no effect on how well you govern. The military records of both people in general are pretty questionable but from a neutral perspective, at least Kerry went to a war.

Kerry's own explanation doesn't make any sense. He would have been smarter to have released them during the campaign - but then again, if we go by his academic record, he's at least as stupid as the Democrats say that Bush is. And not releasing those records was STUPID.

I agree but if he had we would be discussing something else, like who's the bigger coward which we do anyway

frankly I couldn't care less. I didn't see why people based it on military records. Military records have no effect on how well you govern. The military records of both people in general are pretty questionable but from a neutral perspective, at least Kerry went to a war.

And at least he found a loophole that would get him home from Vietnam after being there only six months. A completely voluntary loophole.

I find him just as weasel-like as Bush in terms of his military service.

Additionally, if you consider that both were junior officers in the military of the 1960s, their military experience qualifies them to be - - - junior officers in the military of the 1960s (which differs from today's military by orders of magnitude).

And at least he found a loophole that would get him home from Vietnam after being there only six months. A completely voluntary loophole.

I find him just as weasel-like as Bush in terms of his military service.

Additionally, if you consider that both were junior officers in the military of the 1960s, their military experience qualifies them to be - - - junior officers in the military of the 1960s (which differs from today's military by orders of magnitude).

agreed that Kerry's war record looks a lot worse when you account for his roadrunner impression

frankly I couldn't care less. I didn't see why people based it on military records. Military records have no effect on how well you govern. The military records of both people in general are pretty questionable but from a neutral perspective, at least Kerry went to a war.

Gee, maybe he shouldn't have promised to sign the forms during the campaign, then, eh? Maybe he should've just said "I don't think it's important, and won't sign" rather than promising to do it, and then ignoring the whole thing.. until a year later? Something doesn't make sense.

agreed that Kerry's war record looks a lot worse when you account for his roadrunner impression

What I haven't understood is the weight that's placed on military service. As though only the military produces leaders, or as though just by being an officer, it means you were a leader, or just because you won some medals, you were a leader.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of civilian leaders. And most officers can't tie their own shoelaces without a good NCO. And most medals are won by just continuing to do your job while people shoot at you - and being lucky enough to be written up for the medal afterwards. I have personally known people who were in the exact same combat situation I was in, doing the exact same actions, or less, and they wrote THEMSELVES up afterwards, and got Bronze Stars with the V - and I got nothing, because I didn't bother. Most people don't bother.

And what does military service qualify you to do? The same job you were doing in the military - one might imagine that previous experience as a company CEO or some previous experience as a government executive authority or legislator would be better prior experience.

So Bush can fly old fighter jets, and Kerry can command a small boat. Very nice.

Neither of those jobs is anything like the Presidency.

Gee, maybe he shouldn't have promised to sign the forms during the campaign, then, eh? Maybe he should've just said "I don't think it's important, and won't sign" rather than promising to do it, and then ignoring the whole thing.. until a year later? Something doesn't make sense.

I agree. I just didn't see why the fuss over Bush or Kerry's military record was made.

What I haven't understood is the weight that's placed on military service. As though only the military produces leaders, or as though just by being an officer, it means you were a leader, or just because you won some medals, you were a leader.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of civilian leaders. And most officers can't tie their own shoelaces without a good NCO. And most medals are won by just continuing to do your job while people shoot at you - and being lucky enough to be written up for the medal afterwards. I have personally known people who were in the exact same combat situation I was in, doing the exact same actions, or less, and they wrote THEMSELVES up afterwards, and got Bronze Stars with the V - and I got nothing, because I didn't bother. Most people don't bother.

And what does military service qualify you to do? The same job you were doing in the military - one might imagine that previous experience as a company CEO or some previous experience as a government executive authority or legislator would be better prior experience.

So Bush can fly old fighter jets, and Kerry can command a small boat. Very nice.

Neither of those jobs is anything like the Presidency.

Agreed it all just lacks common sense

Agreed it all just lacks common sense

Here's an example:

I know that Cat-Tribe has at least some understanding of the law and the Constitution. I might not always agree with him, but I know he's competent and thorough.

I would believe that his experience as a lawyer (and that doesn't apply to all lawyers - I only do contracts and the occasional protective order in my daily work) probably would be an important asset as a political leader.

I'd rather have someone with experience somehow related to being a politician - a qualified lawyer rather than some small boat captain or fighter pilot.

I could go even further.

What would have happened if back in time, MacArthur had run for President and won?

I know we had Eisenhower (a former General) as President, but he was cognizant of the separation of civilian and military power. I do not believe that MacArthur cared for the separation himself.

Is it really a good idea to elect a strong military leader? Think about it.

Here's an example:

I know that Cat-Tribe has at least some understanding of the law and the Constitution. I might not always agree with him, but I know he's competent and thorough.

I would believe that his experience as a lawyer (and that doesn't apply to all lawyers - I only do contracts and the occasional protective order in my daily work) probably would be an important asset as a political leader.

I'd rather have someone with experience somehow related to being a politician - a qualified lawyer rather than some small boat captain or fighter pilot.

Here in the UK most of our Prime Ministers have a legal background. EG Tony Blair

Ahem. [ gathers together the remaining tatters of his dignity ] Sorry. This is very much a "hot button" issue for me and I tend to get a bit ... vociferous. :)
Well you're good enough to say something instead of ignoring it! Good job.

Kerry will still be there for flaming later, believe me. ;)

Here in the UK most of our Prime Ministers have a legal background. EG Tony Blair

So did most of the Presidents of the U.S. in the early days and sporadically throughout.

Edit: Even more of them were lawyers than I had remembered, probably more than half, maybe 2/3..

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0768854.html

Failed Presidential candidate and negligible Senator John Kerry claims to have released all of his military records to the public. It is unlikely that this claim is entirely truthful.

Lets be clear: he did not release anything to the public. He released some records to his homies and long-time supporters at the Boston Globe, who have written an article glossing over the gaps in what they got from him, but have not made the records available to the public in any way, shape or form.

It seems pretty clear that the Globe didn't get the full records, for reasons summed up in this rather pithy post (http://www.lyonresearch.com/html/john_kerry_mil__records.html). There is good reason, in short, to believe that the full record described prior to the election, was not released even to the Globe.

Its always dicey to reach a conclusion in the absence of full information, but when the people involved refused to release that information, well, they invite speculation. I think the reason it took Kerry so long to "release" his "records", as he promised on national television some months ago, and the reason they weren't released to the public as promised, is because he was playing games with (a) who he requested records from and (b) what records he actually released.

Restrictions on release of information. Release of information is subject to restrictions imposed by the military services consistent with Department of Defense regulations and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974. The service member (either past or present) or the member's legal guardian has access to almost any information contained in that member's own record. Others requesting information from military personnel/health records must have the release authorization in Section III of the SF 180 signed by the member or legal guardian, but if the appropriate signature cannot be obtained, only limited types of information can be provided.

Unless we know whether Kerry signed Part III of form 180, we won't know if he has released his "full record". If people can get a copy of Kerry's records, can they get a copy of the Form 180 to see if he signed part III?

The Navy said they had over 100 pages they could not release without Kerry's authorization. Did the Globe get that many and are they reporting on all of them?

The biggest question of all remains unanswered. What type of discharge did Kerry originally receive? Remember, Kerry had his discharge re-issued by Jimmy Carter.

The answer as to the type of discharge he originally received might be at Harvard. A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.

It is worth noting that Standard Form 180 has a section where the person filling out the form can specify certain years to be omitted from what is released per the request (Section II, Question 1). I think it would be very revealing to see what Kerry put down there... I think anyone can conclude that there are definitely things missing from this release.

So has anyone figured out why Kerry waited until six months after the election was over to release his records? That'd be a real story.

Maybe he couldn't bring himself to believe that the American public were sufficiently pawn-like to vote on the issue?

Maybe he accorded the American public more 'discernment' than they finally showed....

Maybe he couldn't bring himself to believe that the American public were sufficiently pawn-like to vote on the issue?

Maybe he accorded the American public more 'discernment' than they finally showed....

Maybe even now, he hasn't released all of his records. We still haven't seen the complete Form 180, signed. No one has. Not even the Globe.

And maybe, he was just stupid not to release them and let the wind go out of the Swift Boat sails...

Or maybe he had something to hide

Like his initial less than honorable discharge, and the reasons surrounding that.

Maybe he couldn't bring himself to believe that the American public were sufficiently pawn-like to vote on the issue?

Maybe he accorded the American public more 'discernment' than they finally showed....
Well he IS a politician … he SHOULD have seen that coming lol
Even if it is not right being a politician she SHOULD be able to read people and once the response started develop negatively should have acted on it rather then keeping it locked down

That and if there was almost nothing in there besides a few more acclaims why not release it from the start … there would be no real point on expending the effort to “filter” those parts out

Failed Presidential candidate and negligible Senator John Kerry claims to have released all of his military records to the public. It is unlikely that this claim is entirely truthful.

Lets be clear: he did not release anything to the public. He released some records to his homies and long-time supporters at the Boston Globe, who have written an article glossing over the gaps in what they got from him, but have not made the records available to the public in any way, shape or form.

It seems pretty clear that the Globe didn't get the full records, for reasons summed up in this rather pithy post (http://www.lyonresearch.com/html/john_kerry_mil__records.html). There is good reason, in short, to believe that the full record described prior to the election, was not released even to the Globe.

Its always dicey to reach a conclusion in the absence of full information, but when the people involved refused to release that information, well, they invite speculation. I think the reason it took Kerry so long to "release" his "records", as he promised on national television some months ago, and the reason they weren't released to the public as promised, is because he was playing games with (a) who he requested records from and (b) what records he actually released.

Restrictions on release of information. Release of information is subject to restrictions imposed by the military services consistent with Department of Defense regulations and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974. The service member (either past or present) or the member's legal guardian has access to almost any information contained in that member's own record. Others requesting information from military personnel/health records must have the release authorization in Section III of the SF 180 signed by the member or legal guardian, but if the appropriate signature cannot be obtained, only limited types of information can be provided.

Unless we know whether Kerry signed Part III of form 180, we won't know if he has released his "full record". If people can get a copy of Kerry's records, can they get a copy of the Form 180 to see if he signed part III?

The Navy said they had over 100 pages they could not release without Kerry's authorization. Did the Globe get that many and are they reporting on all of them?

The biggest question of all remains unanswered. What type of discharge did Kerry originally receive? Remember, Kerry had his discharge re-issued by Jimmy Carter.

The answer as to the type of discharge he originally received might be at Harvard. A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.

It is worth noting that Standard Form 180 has a section where the person filling out the form can specify certain years to be omitted from what is released per the request (Section II, Question 1). I think it would be very revealing to see what Kerry put down there... I think anyone can conclude that there are definitely things missing from this release.

I thought you didn't care? Or do you only not care when its looking like you were wrong?

Well he IS a politician … he SHOULD have seen that coming lol
Even if it is not right being a politician she SHOULD be able to read people and once the response started develop negatively should have acted on it rather then keeping it locked down

That and if there was almost nothing in there besides a few more acclaims why not release it from the start … there would be no real point on expending the effort to “filter” those parts out

I think he hasn't released the whole thing - because no one has seen the Form 180.

I believe, based on the Harvard information, that his initial discharge was dishonorable (probably because the Navy saw him help the VC with his public statements, which would be a violation of Article 134 at the very least).

Now, this probably doesn't add up to anything real - we all know he was a protester. And we know that Carter changed his discharge to Honorable.

But in the middle of the shitstorm, it wouldn't do him any good to raise a white satin sheet.

I thought you didn't care? Or do you only not care when its looking like you were wrong?

I don't care from the perspective of the election - that's over.

I do find it fascinating, though.

Notice that he still hasn't signed the Form 180. If we can't see that form, we don't know if he's specifically authorized ALL records or selective records released.

So, he hasn't released everything.