Kerry: Unfit For Command - DPChallenge Forums

08/26/2004 03:00:14 PM · #303

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:
The Dewey Square Group Provides Political Consulting Services For Both Kerry Campaign And America Coming Together (ACT).

Kerry Campaign Has Paid Dewey Square Group $194,936.48 For Political Consulting And Other Expenses. (Federal Election Commission Records, //www.fec.gov)
America Coming Together (ACT) Has Paid Dewey Square Group $51,808 For Political Consulting And Other Expenses. (Political Money Line Website, //www.tray.com)
At Least Four Kerry Advisors Are Associated With Dewey Square Group: Michael Whouley, Jill Alper, Minyon Moore And Joe Ricca. (Dewey Square Group Website, //www.deweysquare.com/)

Ron

sorry Ron, but who cares about the money connections between Kerry and these groups.

Not me, that's for sure - I've tried on multiple occasions to get across the idea that FUNDING shouldn't be the issue. My only purpose in posting the connections is to show how hypocritical the Democrats are in carrying on so loudly about the connections between the Bush/Cheney Campaign and the anti-Kerry 527 groups, while they turn a blind eye to the connections within their own Campaign and the anti-Bush 527 groups.

Ron

***I think the real concerns of democrats are to the campaign contributions of big business and their influence on the policies of the Bush administration, which has gotten hugh sums of money from companies the likes of Enron.

***I think the real concerns of Republicans are to the campaign contributions of big international financiers and their influence on the policies of the ( potential ) Kerry administration, which has gotten huge sums of money from big-money individuals the likes of Soros, and Bing.

Explain to me the difference????

08/26/2004 03:05:38 PM · #304

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I just love how you only quote a little of what I wrote. How Bush of you. Here's the REST you can respond to:

Look at the Bush family and the bin Laden families money connections. How can anyone in their right minds support GW Bush? Wake up man! If your not furious, your asleep!

a) I have looked at the Bush family and the bin Laden families connections. Only the liberals would castigate an entire family because of the actions of one member - but that's to be expected of those who are "tolerant".
b) I didn't respond because the question makes an argument that anyone who supports Bush is not "in their right mind" and then insults me by saying that if I'm not furious, I'm asleep. What kind of "logical" response does a charge like that elicit? Well, 1) I am in my right mind; 2) I do support GW Bush in this election; 3) I am awake; 4) I am not furious ( notice that I'm not the one who responds in all bold type, like some others ); and 5) as I have already said, I'm not asleep.

Ron

08/26/2004 03:25:01 PM · #305

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

The difference is that the Swift boat vets are a pack of demonstrated liars smearing Bush's political rival with falsehoods, all the while funded and coordinated by Bush allies, who have falsely denied the whole thing.

Repeating a pattern of disgusting behavior seen time and time again by not only George W but also by his father.

Lies, lies and more lies.

This is NOT true of the mirror image - there is no deliberate campaign of false testimony, nor a history of such a thing with Kerry, as far as I have seen.

So then, you really intend to vote for someone who admits to having violated the Geneva convention, and committed atrocities in Vietnam?

In an interview on Meet the Press, May 16, 2001 ( ref: here an audiotape of Kerry's testimony on April 18, 1971 was played:
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."

When asked for his response to HIS OWN TESTIMONY, Kerry said

"I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that."

In other words Kerry admits IN HIS OWN WORDS that he lied in 1971.

That's just ONE. If it weren't for the statute of limitations, he could be tried and convicted of perjury.

Ron

08/26/2004 03:26:07 PM · #306

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
I just love how you only quote a little of what I wrote. How Bush of you. Here's the REST you can respond to:

Look at the Bush family and the bin Laden families money connections. How can anyone in their right minds support GW Bush? Wake up man! If your not furious, your asleep!

a) I have looked at the Bush family and the bin Laden families connections. Only the liberals would castigate an entire family because of the actions of one member - but that's to be expected of those who are "tolerant".

Ron

GEORGE BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BIN LADEN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LARGEST TERRORIST ATTACK IN US HISTORY.
their families are buisness partners.
Hello?
Doesn't that scare you?
The only people allowed to fly after the terrorist attacks on 911 were the Bin Laden Family!
No Americans were allowed to go home to THEIR loved ones!
It's not just about being a democrat or a republican.

08/26/2004 03:31:11 PM · #307

Do any of you really believe that Sadam Housain was sponsering Al Queda?
Do any of you really believe that Sadam Housain had weapons of mass destruction?
Do any of you really believe that we should have gone to Iraq at all?
Do any of you really think they should impose the draft again? (which they WILL if GWB is re-elected)

They LIED to us.
Do your research.

08/26/2004 03:38:19 PM · #308

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
I just love how you only quote a little of what I wrote. How Bush of you. Here's the REST you can respond to:

Look at the Bush family and the bin Laden families money connections. How can anyone in their right minds support GW Bush? Wake up man! If your not furious, your asleep!

a) I have looked at the Bush family and the bin Laden families connections. Only the liberals would castigate an entire family because of the actions of one member - but that's to be expected of those who are "tolerant".

Ron

GEORGE BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BIN LADEN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LARGEST TERRORIST ATTACK IN US HISTORY.
their families are buisness partners.
Hello?
Doesn't that scare you?
The only people allowed to fly after the terrorist attacks on 911 were the Bin Laden Family!
No Americans were allowed to go home to THEIR loved ones!
It's not just about being a democrat or a republican.

a) True, George Bush IS the President of the U.S.
b) True, bin Laden IS responsible for the largest terrorist attack in U.S. History
c) was once possibly but is no longer true that their families are business partners
d) so what? Would you tell every living American to NOT do business with Timothy McVeigh's relatives? nor with Terry Nichols relatives? Why would you castigate an entire family for the actions of one member? WHY don't you answer that question?
e) No, that doesn't scare me - the family requested exit from the U.S. because they feared retaliation by American citizens solely because of their relationship to Usama ( folks like you, perhaps? ) and Richard Clarke, the liberals' buddy, is the one who vetted them and authorized their departure. Doesn't THAT scare YOU?
f) No, it's not about being a Democrat or a Republican - its about walking the walk you talk.

Ron

08/26/2004 03:43:46 PM · #309

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Not me, that's for sure - I've tried on multiple occasions to get across the idea that FUNDING shouldn't be the issue. My only purpose in posting the connections is to show how hypocritical the Democrats are in carrying on so loudly about the connections between the Bush/Cheney Campaign and the anti-Kerry 527 groups, while they turn a blind eye to the connections within their own Campaign and the anti-Bush 527 groups.

Ron

Funding isn't so much the issue. But when you are funded by the current administration, don't you think it reasonable to not then issue public statements claiming to be independant and non-partisan ? I'm not a democrat and I even think it is blatently dishonest.

E.g., this press release from SBVT.

August 21, 2004 - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a non-partisan group representing more than 250 Swift Boat veterans who served with Senator John Kerry in Vietnam, repudiates and disassociates itself from the flyer that was allegedly distributed in Florida regarding an upcoming political event. SBVT has not authorized any such rallies, communications, events or other similar political activities with any political party, candidate or other political organization. Any suggestion that SBVT coordinated the production and distribution of this flyer promoting an event, or the event itself, with a political party is false.

SBVT is an independent organization dedicated to correcting the false statements made by Senator Kerry about his service record in Vietnam and the service records of the men who served with him. SBVT acts independently from and is not affiliated with any political party â�� Republican, Democratic, or independent â�� or any candidate for public office. Only the SBVT Executive Committee, comprised of men who served on Swift Boats in Vietnam, has the authority to authorize communications on behalf of the organization or official events.

I haven't yet found ANY funding connection to anyone in the current administration. Perhaps you have, and can share them with us.

Personal connections, yes - and so far all of those on the Bush side have resigned one or the other of the positions if they thought that there might be a perception of irregularity ( not so on the Kerry side, of course ).

Ron

08/26/2004 03:45:55 PM · #310

Ya Know,

it's people like you that scare me.

I'm glad I live in a free country.
It's too bad were loosing our freedoms left and right.
Your happy though, huh?
4 more!
yea!
can't wait till MY kid gets to go fight Georgies war!
nothing like getting a body bag for xmas is there?
My neighbor who is a hard working American requested exit from NYC because he feared more terrorist attacks (maybe from right wing nut jobs like you?), but instead had to wait at JFK for 2 days before he could fly. Jeez... that seems fair to me!

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/26/2004 03:51:25 PM · #311

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The difference is that the Swift boat vets are a pack of demonstrated liars smearing Bush's political rival with falsehoods, all the while funded and coordinated by Bush allies, who have falsely denied the whole thing.

Repeating a pattern of disgusting behavior seen time and time again by not only George W but also by his father.

Lies, lies and more lies.

This is NOT true of the mirror image - there is no deliberate campaign of false testimony, nor a history of such a thing with Kerry, as far as I have seen.

So then, you really intend to vote for someone who admits to having violated the Geneva convention, and committed atrocities in Vietnam?

In an interview on Meet the Press, May 16, 2001 ( ref: here an audiotape of Kerry's testimony on April 18, 1971 was played:
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."

When asked for his response to HIS OWN TESTIMONY, Kerry said

"I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that."

In other words Kerry admits IN HIS OWN WORDS that he lied in 1971.

That's just ONE. If it weren't for the statute of limitations, he could be tried and convicted of perjury.

Ron

I think that you have misidentified the tape as being that of Kerry's testimony to Congress. The tape is that of the Meet the Press show.

Here is the full text of Kerry's statement to Congress. I had never read it before.

After reading it, I am more impressed with him ( even as a very young man) than ever before. It is a very compelling and corageous statement, I think.:

Full text of Kerry's statement before Congress:

John Kerry, April 1971

Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington and Senator Pell.

I would like to say for the record, and also for the men sitting behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification [only] yesterday that you would hear me, and, I am afraid, because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

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. These were 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, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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 Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside 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.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970, at West Point, Vice President Agnew said, "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse," and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we cannot consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but, also, we found that the Vietnamese, whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image, were hard-put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that, all too often, American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism, - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai, and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free-fire zones--shooting anything that moves--and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings" with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using, were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and, after losing one platoon, or two platoons, they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese.

Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying, as human beings, to communicate to people in this country--the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions, such as the use of weapons: the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones; harassment-interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions; the bombings; the torture of prisoners; all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly: He told me how, as a boy on an Indian reservation, he had watched television, and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done, and all that they can do by this denial, is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission: To search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so, when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/26/2004 04:07:02 PM · #312

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Do any of you really believe that Sadam Housain was sponsering Al Queda?

Maybe, maybe not. He was sponsering terrorist attacks in Israel.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Do any of you really believe that Sadam Housain had weapons of mass destruction?

A lot of people beleived this, including John Kerry and both Clintons. Must we pull up the quotes again?

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Do any of you really believe that we should have gone to Iraq at all?

Yes. He fired upon US aircraft for years while they enforced the UN sanctioned no fly zone. That was a clear act of war. He was clearly a enemy of the USA and we dealt with it.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Do any of you really think they should impose the draft again? (which they WILL if GWB is re-elected)

Only if needed for the security of our country. Where did GW say he would do that? Did Kerry say he was opposed to it?

MadMordegon

08/26/2004 04:18:37 PM · #313

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
As that does now appear to be the case, there is still one glairing difference..
The anti Bush stuff is based on facts; the Swift boat crap is all lies. The entire premise for the thing is bullshit. Nobody nominates themselves for metals, so how could Kerry have lied to receive his metals?

Also, the Swift boat story, even though pure bullshit, has gotten FAR more media attention than any other 527 group ad.

MadMordegon,

You're wrong. Kerry did nominate himself for the purple hearts and the medals. It was his after incident reports that are now the "official" navy records that supporters say to check out. The after incident reports do not match what the versions published in the book supporting his "Valor". They also do not match the accounts of those that were "present" on the same "field of fire".

Further, the liberties taken in farenheight 911 (although not a 527) went way beyond "TRUTH". The liberties taken by moveon.org are vain attempts at the truth at best. The new adds from Hollywood are so filled with mis-representations that the truth is almost unrecognizeable. The bottom line, is many folks do not like, nor want Bush re-elected. Few of them actually WANT Kerry. He just isn't Bush. That is fine with me. Just say so, up front. ABB. But don't defend a liar because he your guy. He isn't really. He is just not the other guy. Which by default is who you are left with. Like it or not. Kerry's 527's have a direct line to Mephistopheles for their recantations of the truth. Unfortunately, when the only criteria for your candidiate, is that he/she is not the other one, then the bed you lie in may be a damning bed indeed.

Well, acording to 2 guys I work with who retired from the military, the person receiving an award has no say in it. He is nominated by other soldiers and its ratified by a general.

Also, maybe your new to these political disscussions but, ABB has allways been my modo. The difference now is that anyone is Kerry.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/26/2004 04:19:09 PM · #314

Originally posted by louddog:

A lot of people beleived this, including John Kerry and both Clintons. Must we pull up the quotes again?

Louddog, looks like you missed this post:

The Bush administration, and even some fellow DPCers, have been passing the buck and have been promoting the false idea that it's only in hindsight that doubts over Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are apparent. Certainly, Iraq HAD possessed WMD; however, at the time of our invasion, it wasn't clear whether Iraq CONTINUED to possess WMD. Mr. Bush's supporters -- on this board and elsewhere -- point to some quotes by Democratic officials (including Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry,) where they state what was the U.S. government's public position on Iraq's WMD: 1. That Saddam Hussein had used WMD in the past (over 10 years ago), 2. That Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man, and 3. That the U.S. would prevent Iraq from developing WMD. Here's one of the quotes that Mr. Bush's supporters point to, and which I lifted from another thread in the DPC message board:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Please notice how ellipses (i.e., ...) are used in the quote; indicating that it's not a complete statement, thus Mr. Kerry's meaning has been completely stripped. Now, Mr. Kerry's full statement is longer, but worth reading if you're interested in discerning his real meaning:

First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 (For the full text of the speech before the Council of Foreign Relations please see here).

Mr. Kerry, in that same speech, continues:

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

Please note how important sentences were completely omitted from the quote that Mr. Bush's supporters -- on this board and elsewhere -- attribute to Mr. Kerry. The example of this quote is a good illustration of Bush & Co. twists facts, omit important truths and aim to deflect criticism against the Iraq war -- a war of choice, and not one of necessity.

From Mr. Kerry's full statement the following are clear:

1. Mr. Bush failed to aggressively pursue al Queda in the Afghan-Pakistan border; thus allowing Osama Bin Laden to get away.

2. Saddam Hussein is a bad man and that if permitted to obtain WMD -- that is, "Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction" -- would be bad, given his propensity to miscalculate. However, note that Mr. Kerry's full statement makes it clear that there were doubts about whether Iraq possessed WMD. I'll grant you that there's some nuance here; however, I'd hope that my fellow citizens would have the patience to weight issues of war and peace with some serious consideration.

3. At the time that Mr. Kerry made this speech, only eight weeks before the Iraqi invasion, it wasn't absolutely clear that Iraq possessed WMD; nor, as Mr. Kerry points out, was it clear that Mr. Bush had made a compelling case for war as the only alternative.

Again, it's worth remembering that Mr. Bush's rhetoric during the pre-invasion period did not hint at any doubts over the existence of Iraq's WMD. In fact, Mr. Bush unequivocally stated that Iraq still had WMD: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons." (George W. Bush, Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002). Please see Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq.) So, even though doubts over the continued existence of Iraq's WMD abounded, Bush & Co. sold war to the American people as if it were a clean cut case without any detractors. I sincerely wonder whether the American people would've supported invading another country if the serious doubts that abounded had been publicly weighted by the Bush administration (not to mention the media).

Mr. Bush and his supporters are desperately hoping that the American public will now forget the serious doubts that were voiced about the CONTINUED existence of Iraq's WMD. It's worth remembering that various United Nations members and millions of people around the world, were not convinced by the weak case that Bush & Co. were making for invading Iraq. The head of the U.N.'s WMD inspection team at the time, Dr. Hans Blix, reflecting back on the pre-invasion period, said:

"Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time."
Dr. Hans Blix (read the rest here)

One can argue if Mr. Bush intentionally misled us about the CONTINUED existence of Iraq's WMD; however, one thing is not open to interpretation, because it's a FACT: THERE WERE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF IRAQ'S WMD AT THE TIME OF INVASION. That fact simply isn't going away, no matter how often Mr. Bush & Co. beat us over the head with their trite excuse of, "Oh, it's only in hindsight that doubts have come to light." As I mentioned to a fellow DPCer on this board, to believe that it's only in hindsight that doubts over Iraq's WMD seem apparent, is to lie to one's self and to willfully ignore recent history.

At the very least, Mr. Bush & Co. should: 1. Stop deploying the "it's only in hindsight" defense; 2. Mr. Bush should acknowledge that mistakes were made; and, 3. We should not let anyone mislead us (again), by their distortions of the record and by ignoring recent history, into believing that war was the only alternative that we had before Bush & Co. invaded Iraq.

...................

You'll find the original post at: Bush: Flip Flopper In Chief

08/26/2004 04:23:18 PM · #315

Sorry,
can't respond now, I gotta drive to NYC for a meeting.
Anyways, our views may never change, I just hope and pray for a better world for my children.

Peace
Eric

MadMordegon

08/26/2004 06:53:04 PM · #316

More here about Paul O'Neil.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

08/26/2004 07:11:59 PM · #317

Originally posted by ericlimon:

They're going to impose the draft again no matter who gets elected. It will at least be fairer this time, with no automatic deferments for elitist college students.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/26/2004 10:29:07 PM · #318

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The difference is that the Swift boat vets are a pack of demonstrated liars smearing Bush's political rival with falsehoods, all the while funded and coordinated by Bush allies, who have falsely denied the whole thing.

Repeating a pattern of disgusting behavior seen time and time again by not only George W but also by his father.

Lies, lies and more lies.

This is NOT true of the mirror image - there is no deliberate campaign of false testimony, nor a history of such a thing with Kerry, as far as I have seen.

So then, you really intend to vote for someone who admits to having violated the Geneva convention, and committed atrocities in Vietnam?

In an interview on Meet the Press, May 16, 2001 ( ref: here an audiotape of Kerry's testimony on April 18, 1971 was played:
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."

When asked for his response to HIS OWN TESTIMONY, Kerry said

"I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that."

In other words Kerry admits IN HIS OWN WORDS that he lied in 1971.

That's just ONE. If it weren't for the statute of limitations, he could be tried and convicted of perjury.

Ron

I think that you have misidentified the tape as being that of Kerry's testimony to Congress. The tape is that of the Meet the Press show.

For the record, - the audiotape that was played on the Meet the Press show on May 16, 2001, and to which Mr. Kerry responded, was from an interview of Mr. Kerry conducted by Crosby Noyes of the Washington Evening Star, which he recorded on April 18, 1971 - it was NOT from Kerry's testimony before Congress in that same month.

Ron

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/26/2004 11:05:34 PM · #319

'This is what I saw that day,' a first-person account published in the Chicago Tribune on August 22 by William B. Rood. Rood, now an editor with that paper, was the captain of a swift boat in 1969. Here is an excerpt from Rood's article:

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service - even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/26/2004 11:08:17 PM · #320

Link to original

It is not important that the charges be true, only that they appear plausible and be taken up by the media as worthy of examination and debate. The smear campaign has accomplished this already. The trumped up charges, riddled with inconsistencies and contradicted by the documentary evidence, have become the subject of many debates on the cable channels and the Sunday talk shows. The result is a drop in support for Kerry among veterans. It is a marvel of manipulation and a consummate irony that the campaign of a man who volunteered for service at a time of war and received five medals is being hurt through a slanderous campaign to the benefit of a hawkish president who in order to avoid Vietnam enlisted in the National Guard, from which he apparently absented himself for long periods of time.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/26/2004 11:41:05 PM · #321

I'm waiting for someone to explain this:
There were 5 swift boats going down river - 3 in a line on one side, 2 in a line on the other. The front boat in one line is severly damaged by a mine. According to Kerry, heavy automatic weapon fire ensues from both banks and spans 5000 meters of the riverbank ( that's nearly 3 miles ). Yet
1) None of the 5 boats sustained any damage from enemy gunfire - only the 3 boat was damaged, and that was from the mine.

2) None of the sailors sustained wounds as a result of enemy fire, the only men wounded were two who were on the 3 boat, and that was from the initial mine explosion - oh, and Kerry.

3) Instead of picking up the crew from the damaged 3 boat and exiting the scene in the most rapid manner possible - all of the them remained on site for 90 minutes working on the damaged boat so that it could be towed when they left.

How did all of these folks, and their boats, escape without damage under all that enemy fire?

Ron

nborton

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/27/2004 12:06:16 AM · #322

you guys on both side crack me up. you talk as though the president is a dictator, and whatever he says goes. these things are voted on you know. why even have a congress if the president has so much power. if the president is all powerfull, then we should save tax dollars by eliminating all the people wasting our money doing nothing in congress.

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/27/2004 08:32:41 AM · #323

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The difference is that the Swift boat vets are a pack of demonstrated liars smearing Bush's political rival with falsehoods, all the while funded and coordinated by Bush allies, who have falsely denied the whole thing.

Repeating a pattern of disgusting behavior seen time and time again by not only George W but also by his father.

Lies, lies and more lies.

This is NOT true of the mirror image - there is no deliberate campaign of false testimony, nor a history of such a thing with Kerry, as far as I have seen.

So then, you really intend to vote for someone who admits to having violated the Geneva convention, and committed atrocities in Vietnam?

In an interview on Meet the Press, May 16, 2001 ( ref: here an audiotape of Kerry's testimony on April 18, 1971 was played:
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."

When asked for his response to HIS OWN TESTIMONY, Kerry said

"I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that."

In other words Kerry admits IN HIS OWN WORDS that he lied in 1971.

That's just ONE. If it weren't for the statute of limitations, he could be tried and convicted of perjury.

Ron

I think that you have misidentified the tape as being that of Kerry's testimony to Congress. The tape is that of the Meet the Press show.

For the record, - the audiotape that was played on the Meet the Press show on May 16, 2001, and to which Mr. Kerry responded, was from an interview of Mr. Kerry conducted by Crosby Noyes of the Washington Evening Star, which he recorded on April 18, 1971 - it was NOT from Kerry's testimony before Congress in that same month.

Ron

So, do I get this right, RonB?

You claim that Kerry contradicts his own TESTIMONY, except his "testimony" turns out to be an audiotape of an interview, not TESTIMONY in front of congress.

Because what you provided was Kerry on a TV show talking about what he said on a TV show 30-something years previously.

When I point this out, you correct me for the source of the original TV interview, but you don't apologize for falsely accusing Kerry of perjury, or for the misleading nature of your post, which keeps talking about TESTIMONY.

I then provide the actual transcript of Kerrys TESTIMONY to Congress, which is NOT contradicted under oath, or by his statements on TV, as far as I can see, and you ........ correct me.

Are you like George Bush who refuses to admit any mistake at all, or am I missing something again?

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

08/27/2004 08:35:32 AM · #324

Originally posted by RonB:

Gosh. That's a breathtakingly detailed account. Where did it come from?