quote:
It is more than a "plausible notion". It is the truth. And it is absolutely dishonest for democrats who know better to continue saying these people never served "with" Kerry because they weren't on the same 4-man boat. That's all I was trying to point out.
And as I was pointing out, the Smear Boaters continue to contradict their previous glowing after-action and fitness reports about Kerry's heroic acts. They are also contradicting Naval records as well as true eyewitness accounts of individuals who were NOT JUST ON KERRY'S boat. I demonstrated a number of individuals who have come forward lately to support Kerry whom were on other boats. According to Naval records, the closest the Smear Boaters were to Kerry's boat was a couple hundred yards away and were patrolling the OTHER side of the river. The eyewitnesses that support Naval record and Kerry's version were patrolling literally right next to Kerry.
I then demonstrated the contradiction with Thurlow's account as yet another piece of evidence against the Smear Boaters.
Combine this with this group's well-known agenda, previous smear record against McCain, and big-bucks Texas Republican backing, this group rots to high heaven.
quote:
I've heard arguments back and forth about this, and I generally believe the swift boat vets claims. However, as I said before,
You're free to believe their claims, so long as you accept the fact that you're believing highly contradictory evidence to Naval record, along with unsupported assertions.
quote:
I wouldn't base any decision on 4 months that happened so long ago and in a different environment.
Nor would I. But his act of volunteering to the military and request to serve his tours in Vietnam, vs. a guy who deliberately wanted to skip the war by enrolling in a politician-friendly Air Guard, scored in the 25th percentile on his test but was allowed in ahead of other passing scores anyway, flat-out requested NOT to be sent to fight in Vietnam, and couldn't even finish his service in the first place,
tends to speak volumes about the building of character to me.
quote:
OOooo... Ad Hominem... I'm starting to learn a little logic hanging around here.
Could have fooled me.
I stand by my statement. Odell's statement:
"I do not have a single document," Odell said. "I have the fact that I wasn't wounded in that 5,000 meters of fire that he wrote about."
is absolutely preposterous. Odell claims that Kerry has not been honest and does not have any evidence to his claim that Kerry embellished his after-action report on his Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart. In fact, as I so neatly pointed out, it's highly doubtful that Kerry even wrote the report for his Star and PP, given the fact that the initials on the report are not his and also show up on other reports unrelated to Kerry in any manner.
But yet he wants us to go by the fact that he himself wasn't shot, therefore there was no shooting involved? Please don't tell me you buy into that logic?
If he utilized this type of logic in a court, he would be laughed right out the door.
quote:
Now that's just bull. I watched his acceptance speech at the convention. From his corny introduction, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty," to the vets lining the stage to his statements that he would fight the war smarter and better because he served his country in vietnam, his wartime service was the main emphasis of the whole thing. You'd think he'd want to emphasize his senate career, but no, four months in vietnam....
Again I stand by my statement of "scarcely" during his speech. I do agree with you that his opening line was a little corny, but no biggie. After that line, however, he rarely referred back to his military service again (perhaps maybe one other time). The Swift Boat men on the stage were not a part of his actual speech, even though they were a part of the nightly speeches altogether. I was specifically referring to his speech.
quote:
As far as broadly outlining "nearly every one of his policies and stances" all I heard was string of unconnected generalizations that sounded as if he was painting a word picture from a wish list from the audience of what goodies they want to recieve when he gets in office. His lack of vision, clarity, presence, optimism, and humility were evident in his appearance at the convention and in the bits of his recent speeches I've seen.
Hmmm, must have heard a different speech than I did. I have an idea next time you hear a Kerry speech on TV -
Switch the channel off of Faux News.
That might cut down on the Conservative attack, I mean Conservative talking points during his speech a little better.
As for the speech itself, ALL nomination speeches are broad. Did you not listen to Bush's nomination speech in 2000? Very few details are given, which is kinda funny how that correlates exactly with what I said:
"he broadly outlined nearly every one of his policies and stances..."
The specifics are there for you to read here:
http://www.johnkerry.com
Feel free to read them, if you really care to.
quote:
Then why is Kerry touting his four months in vietnam rather than his umpteen years in the senate?
Have you really listened to any of his stump speeches or any of his speeches at all?
Granted, he has touched on his war record throughout his speeches, but he does so as a demonstration of his leadership and character. If you have listened to any of his speeches, and not to the distortions of Hannity or Limbaugh, you would hear about his proven accomplishments in the Senate.
For the most part, his Senate record was that of an investigator, not a policy maker (though he did create a few here and there). He wasn't the type of Senator that wanted his name on everything he touched. Rather, he utilized his investigative background on a number of events (Iran/Contra, BCCI bank, etc.) that proved invaluable for our government and our country.
Often times he went against powerful individuals in his own party, if he felt what he was doing was right.
Hardly the flip-flopper that the Conservative mouthpieces want to slap him with.
quote:
And aside from the lack of leadership characteristics I sensed, the nature of his policies absolutely give me the shivers.
Explain. Be specific as to which policies give you the shivers.
quote:
What hipocracy...
Explain. It is just my opinion, of course, but it seems that the main issues of the day (Iraq, economy) favor Kerry, as does the public. How is what I said hypocritical?
quote:
He's a fence sitter. He's trying to have it both ways. He is saying that the war on terror needs to be fought but we aren't going to do the fighting... we're going to leave it up to france and germany and the UN to do it... a VERY scary thought.
You really should listen a little better to what he is saying as opposed to the Conservative mouthpieces.
If you think we can fight the war on terror by ourselves without the help of the UN and European nations, you are not only shortsighted but terribly misguided. The assistance of the European nations so far in fighting terrorism has been invaluable. But it certainly could be better.
With Bush's current "piss on the UN" type stance, however, we are only moving backwards on our global war on terror.
quote:
The endless criticism of the war in Iraq drags on, but when asked if he would have voted for the war knowing what he knows now, he says he still would have voted in favor of it.
Again, you really need to listen to what Kerry has said. He would have voted the same, but NOT for the President to utilize that power and fail to have a stronger coalition, kick the UN inspectors out prematurely, and have no real post-war plan.
But even more so, who's to say that under the same circumstances if Kerry were President 4 yrs. ago, that he would have even pushed Iraq on the forefront the way Bush did, while at the same time neglecting Afghanistan and pulling troops out of there who were searching for the REAL terrorist threat? My guess is that Kerry (or I guess, Gore to be more historically accurate) would likely not have pushed Iraq out there as a threat, esp. when there was counterevidence that clearly indicated Saddam was very well contained regardless.
quote:
What is that supposed to mean?
What part didn't you understand?
quote:
First of all, thats a hidden attack on Bush's intelligence.
Well if you think it's hidden, then allow me to come out and say it - Bush is a complete dumbass.
There, now there's no hidden feelings involved here.
quote:
Secondly, no one can know the future.
But one can listen and plan for possible consequences quite a bit better, can they not?
So was it true what Rumsfeld said about the Iraqi's welcoming us with "open arms"?
quote:
Thirdly, the war and the aftermath has gone VERY well and I'm very happy with the consequences and so are most of the soldiers over there who've risked their lives to accomplish what they've accomplished.
Most of the soldiers are happy with the consequences? Source, please.
Are you really being serious with this comment? It is reported by our own military that our troops are overstretched over there in Iraq. It is reported that men and women are serving longer than their expected 1 yr. tours. We are unfortunately having to use many retired reservists in order to keep our rotation of tours fair to everyone serving right now.
Bush and Rumsfeld was told we needed more troops by the State Dept. and high ranking Pentagon officials. They ignored this completely and now we have this overstretched military fiasco.
From a NYTimes article:
quote:
Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq's own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting.
Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq's own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting. It helps explain why so many Iraqis have come to resent the American occupation even though it removed a hated dictator and ended 13 years of punishing economic sanctions. Even people who initially welcomed the invasion have had a hard time understanding or accepting why, 16 months after American troops took Baghdad, electricity and clean water are only intermittently available and nearly half of employable Iraqis are without work.
Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last fall, only about $600 million has actually been paid out. Billions more have been designated for giant projects still in the planning stage. Part of the blame rests with the Pentagon's planning failures and the occupation authority's reluctance to consult qualified Iraqis. Instead, the administration brought in American defense contractors who had little clue about what was most urgently needed or how to handle the unfamiliar and highly insecure climate.
Occupation officials also felt free to tap into Iraqi revenues, which are subject to far less oversight and looser controls than Congressionally appropriated funds. Late last year, for example, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded a no-bid contract out of Iraqi revenues. At the time, Congress might have balked at further dealings with a company facing questions about the inflated prices it charged for importing gasoline into Iraq and about a no-bid contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers just before the invasion. Last week, The Washington Post reported that almost $2 billion in Iraqi revenues had been awarded to American companies.
This info. can be found here, BTW (free registration required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/opinion/...{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
Furthermore, the water supply is being tainted by sewage as a result of all the fighting occurring, offering lovely diseases such as typhoid and hepatitis E to the citizens:
http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5004.html
Additionally, the latest Iraqi public opinion poll still demonstrates a wide majority of Iraqis wanting our troops out now. They reject our help and their puppet government.
quote:
I don't know whether or not the Iraqis were giving the inspectors the run around or not.
There was no indication from intelligence that they were. Even if they had, surely something would have been found by now.
quote:
There is some very reliable intelligence that the Iraqi's shipped a lot of weapons to Syria just before the baloon went up,
A little hunt on your statement turned up this in March of 2003:
http://www.news24.com/...aq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html
But our Administration could not confirm such a link:
Page not found | Power Line
And then the Iraqi Survey Group offered the opposite account in Sept. of last year, saying such an event was "highly unlikely"
BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | No WMD in Iraq, source claims
But then the "trusty" old World Net Daily decided to run yet another unsupported account of events last January:
Page not found - WND
But then Conoleeeeeeza Rice came out and stated this:
quote:
"Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter," Ms. Rice said on Friday. "But I want to be very clear: We don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place. But we will tie down every lead."
http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_iraq_01_11.html
Unless there's something new since then that I haven't noticed, there is NO evidence to support the notion of WMD being smuggled into Syria at this time.
quote:
but regardless... Saddam needed to be taken out immediately.
Well we know now that he has no WMD, and there were no ties between him and the 9/11 terrorists, as well as no working relations between him and bin Laden, so what was the vital reason that he "needed to be taken out immediately", esp. since he posed no imminent or "serious" threat to us?
quote:
He should have been taken out in the first gulf war.
That I can agree with. But then again, that's Bush Sr.'s fault, wasn't it?
quote:
He had a sizeable coalition (I've heard numbers from 30 to 50 something). Some nations are wimping out and surrendering to the terrorists demands. While its good to have some global support, I could really careless what the world thinks of him or us, it was the right thing to do, and when people see the consquences of a free democratic Iraq, the objective person will agree.
Yeah, a coalition of individuals who gave a few troops here or there and a coupla bucks and a pat on the back. When it comes down to it, however, it was us and the British. And when it comes down to who's paying the big majority of the bill,
it's most certainly us.
How could it be the right thing to do if Saddam has no WMD, and no ties to Al Qaeda terrorists, esp. the ones that attacked on our soil?
quote:
And besides that, we have filled in one more gopher hole for the terriorists to pop their heads out of.
Oh, perhaps you didn't read the reports that indicated that Al Qaeda and it's supporters have now poured into Iraq to kill our men and women there?
Or perhaps you didn't read the confession by Powell that global terrorist attacks are actually much higher now than they ever were before?
Hardly a hole plugged up by anyone's standards.
quote:
There IS stability and freedom throughout the vast majority of the nation now. The only instability is the result of radical muslims from Iran and other terrorist groups sending in militants in order to try and make this attempt at providing freedom and democracy in the middle east fail.
Which is effectively crippling the rest of the country of Iraq as a result. Read the report on the water and sewage as an example.
Let me be clear, there are some positives here and there. But the negative effects override the positives, and for good reason - they have a much more lasting effect on the people as a whole.
quote:
I don't care what you say,
Then why debate me in the first place? Just kindly don't respond then. Or don't even read, if you so desire.
quote:
transforming a tyrranical dictatorship into a democracy in a little more than a year is a phenomanal feat and no easy process, but we have made huge progress.
It would be quite a feat if it were true and done on correct pretenses. I won't deny that progress has been accomplished, but the cost of that progress on us is astonishing (esp. when you consider that we are trying to recover from a domestic economic downturn), and the process from which it has occurred is nothing shy of sloppy and shortsighted.
quote:
And I like what I see... Why do all of Kerry's supporters think we've been living in "hell" for the last four years?
Because of both the foreign and domestic policies by this Administration have done very little to truly move us forward.
quote:
First of all, the war was a worthy cause to pay for.
It would have been much more worthy if Saddam truly was a threat to us, and that our pretenses for invading their country were true.
That was not the case by any stretch of the imagination.
quote:
Second of all, there is a LOT of unworthy excess baggage that needs to be eliminated from the governments expenditures.
I agree.
quote:
Defense spending and the war on terror is not something you can convince me we need to spend less on.
I didn't realize I was trying to convince you of this, nor is Kerry. But since Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, and since there were no ties to bin Laden, I fail to see how invading Iraq was a worthy fight right now in our war against terrorism.
Don't you think our efforts should have been more towards Al Qaeda instead?
quote:
If that were the case it would be a miracle, since %95 of the press is absolutely enthralled with Kerry. I thought Peter Jennings was going piss his pants he was so excited at the convention.
Oh just give Peter a chance for the RNC - he'll be pissing his pants there just as much.
I would hardly agree with you about the press and Kerry. I can't remember how many times I heard the numerous Conservative talking points coming out of their mouths about him ("flip-flopper", "liberal Senate record", etc. etc.).
In fact, the case can be made for the opposite. Just recently, both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have made open apologies in their papers for going along the Conservative and Bush rhetoric about Saddam's WMD without equally weighing or even INVESTIGATING counterevidence against this claim.
The press is out for one thing - sensationalism. They care very little who they trash or praise. If it makes them a few extra bucks or it grabs higher ratings, then they will all be for it.
quote:
There IS a lot of information floating around out there, and I've heard enough to make my decision. I'm very happy with many of Bush's policies, and Kerry telling me, "Iii'm going to do it better," and "help is on the way," and "Iii'm going to take this matter to the UN" is not going to convince me that he is a better choice.
Well then perhaps you should read more about his proposals instead of listen to his rhetoric:
http://www.johnkerry.com
And then weigh his ideas with Bush's. If you do so with equal footing on both and still vote for Bush, more power to you. But at least you can read exactly what Kerry stands for instead of listening to the Conservative mouthpieces attempting to define/distort his words and policies for him.
This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-25-2004 03:13 PM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-25-2004 03:41 PM
™ Version 4.2