Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during
his National Guard service.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen

Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen








True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign against
Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it quite
interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some Democrat
527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison of Bush's
smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current campaign
against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try and bury
this issue before it perhaps buries him.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen








True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign
against
Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it quite
interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some Democrat
527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison of
Bush's
smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current
campaign
against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try and
bury
this issue before it perhaps buries him.



Bruce J. Richman


Why do the Kerry people think it's OK to impose censorship on the Swift Boat
ads?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen








True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign
against
Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it
quite
interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some
Democrat
527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison of
Bush's
smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current
campaign
against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try and
bury
this issue before it perhaps buries him.



Bruce J. Richman


Why do the Kerry people think it's OK to impose censorship on the Swift
Boat
ads?



They didn't ask for censorship. They asked Mr. Bush to pull the ads because
they are untrue. Mr. Bush has even said in his round about way that he
agrees that Mr. Kerry's served his country correctly. It is a question of
honesty that Mr. Bush should rise above and take the high ground on this
issue.

Carl

"Carl Valle" wrote in message
om...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to
Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen








True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign
against
Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it
quite
interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some
Democrat
527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison of
Bush's
smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current
campaign
against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try and
bury
this issue before it perhaps buries him.



Bruce J. Richman


Why do the Kerry people think it's OK to impose censorship on the Swift
Boat
ads?



They didn't ask for censorship. They asked Mr. Bush to pull the ads
because
they are untrue. Mr. Bush has even said in his round about way that he
agrees that Mr. Kerry's served his country correctly. It is a question of
honesty that Mr. Bush should rise above and take the high ground on this
issue.

Carl

And if "Mr." Bush were actually capable of doing so it would be a clear
demonstration of a violation of laws governing 527's. What Bush has said is
that he and his campaign are not going to question Kerry's service record.

Too demand others not scrutinize his service record (a record which Kerry
could clarify by publicly releasing) implies to me that Kerry is living in a
glass house. All this aside, Kerry's own testimony to the Senate Committe
on Foreign Relations is enough to demand scrutiny.

http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp

Some scrutiny
http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/winter_...NTER%20SOLDIER

Was Hubbard present at Kerry's SCon FR testimony? I've read he was one of
the "vets" seated behind Kerry.

ScottW

"Carl Valle" wrote in message
om...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush
deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to
Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen








True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign
against
Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it
quite
interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some
Democrat
527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison
of
Bush's
smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current
campaign
against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try
and
bury
this issue before it perhaps buries him.



Bruce J. Richman


Why do the Kerry people think it's OK to impose censorship on the Swift
Boat
ads?



They didn't ask for censorship. They asked Mr. Bush to pull the ads
because
they are untrue. Mr. Bush has even said in his round about way that he
agrees that Mr. Kerry's served his country correctly. It is a question of
honesty that Mr. Bush should rise above and take the high ground on this
issue.


Thay are not proven to be untrue. On the balance,
the preponderance of evidence is against xome of Kerry's
calims. And they were asking book stores not to sell the book.
That is not censorship?

"Carl Valle" wrote in message
om...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush
deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to
Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Stephen








True, but he didn't do it for many weeks in which the smear campaign
against
Kerry via the Swift boat ads continued (and still does). I find it
quite
interesting that he didn't condemn the 527 advertising until some
Democrat
527's started hitting back with the historically accurate comparison
of
Bush's
smear campaign against John McCain in 1980 as similar to the current
campaign
against Kerry. Obviously, Bush's advisors probably told him to try
and
bury
this issue before it perhaps buries him.



Bruce J. Richman


Why do the Kerry people think it's OK to impose censorship on the Swift
Boat
ads?



They didn't ask for censorship. They asked Mr. Bush to pull the ads
because
they are untrue.

Why ask him? He's not running them.

Mr. Bush has even said in his round about way that he
agrees that Mr. Kerry's served his country correctly.

And I don't dispute that he most likely did, but there are questions that
have been raised and Kerry should answer them.

It is a question of
honesty that Mr. Bush should rise above and take the high ground on this
issue.

Carl
President Bush is not running the ads and has no power to make the swift
boat ads go away.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are
still open.


OSAF.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they
choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate
the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced.

You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data
shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans.

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat
ads to be pulled.

In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are
still open.


OSAF.

The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they
choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their candidate
the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced.

I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on
Bush's doorstep.

Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son.

You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data
shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans.

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper
basket,' I might agree with you about Bush.

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat
ads to be pulled.

Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we
know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did
not. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans
by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison.

Now go play by yourself. Don't forget to use one of these (OT) next time
you start a political attack thread.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.


OSAF.

The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry.

At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in
context, it's somewhat different.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to
Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie
they
choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their
candidate
the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced.

I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on
Bush's doorstep.

But that's not what they're asking for.

Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son.

OSAF.

You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data
shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans.

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper
basket,' I might agree with you about Bush.

He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press.

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are
eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift
Boat
ads to be pulled.

Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we
know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did
not.

Which is meaningless to this discussion.

Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans
by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison.

It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly
is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets.

I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has
changed his story, not the Swifties.

In article k.net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.


OSAF.

The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry.

At least that's the way it gets reported. When you hear them speak in
context, it's somewhat different.

L-y-i-n-g. The real deal, the telling of deliberate untruths. Even the
formerly dormant press is catching on.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to
Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie
they
choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their
candidate
the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced.

I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on
Bush's doorstep.

But that's not what they're asking for.

Says who? Side issue, anyway. This was all started with the Swifties,
aided by the Bush campaign.

Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son.

OSAF.

They made up stuff about: Dukakis, Clinton, McCain, Gore, and now Kerry.

You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data
shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans.

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper
basket,' I might agree with you about Bush.

He instructed all his records be released and they were. To the press.

This is a side-issue that Bush has lost. Whether he was technically AWOL
when he blew off reporting to safe domestic service isn't much of an
issue.

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are
eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift
Boat
ads to be pulled.

Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we
know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did
not.

Which is meaningless to this discussion.

I don't accept your definition of 'meaningless'.

Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans
by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison.

It's important to find the truth about Kerry since he almost single-handedly
is responsible for smearing all Viet Nam vets.

Ah, the "Winter Soldiers" talking point. Kerry stood up for all Vietnam
vets by acknowledging the real experience of Vietnam for some.

I think there is substance to the Swift Boat claims since it's Kerry who has
changed his story, not the Swifties.

The Swifts are liars. This is your chance to recognize the McCarthy
tactics at work. Free your mind. Start by turning off your radio.

Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush are
still open.


OSAF.

The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie they
choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their
candidate
the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced.

I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on
Bush's doorstep.

Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son.

You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data
shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans.

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper
basket,' I might agree with you about Bush.

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are
eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat
ads to be pulled.

Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we
know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did
not. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans
by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison.

Now go play by yourself. Don't forget to use one of these (OT) next time
you start a political attack thread.








Political attack threads are one of his favorite activities. Personal attack
threads are a close second. He has a documented RAO history of initiating both
- and quite frequently.

No wonder he identifies with a political party known for its smear tactics -
even against other Republicans (John McCain - 1980) as well as Vietnam heroes
like Max Cleland.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Stephen wrote:


In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying
that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is
confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush
deserted
during
his National Guard service.

That's because the Swift Vets are lying and the questions about Bush
are
still open.


OSAF.

The Swifties are full of contradictions; the Navy supports Kerry.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow
better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to
Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

No, you're mixed up: it was Bush who recently condemned all 527s.

Yes because the Democrats feel they have the right to make up any lie
they
choose and when somebody has something critical to say about their
candidate
the Demcrats want to have those voices silenced.

I imagine they'd prefer the voices be contradicted and the blame left on
Bush's doorstep.

Making stuff up is more of a Bush trait, father and son.

You don't suppose it has someting to do with the fact that polling data
shows that Kerry is losing ground with Vetrans.

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

If by released you mean, 'had tossed into a Camp Mabry waste paper
basket,' I might agree with you about Bush.

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are
eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift
Boat
ads to be pulled.

Despite your feeble attempt to equate the attacks on Bush and Kerry, we
know that one of the two volunteered for overseas duty and the other did
not. Whether Bush was AWOL when he was working for Alabama Republicans
by day and drinking by night is not so important in comparison.

Now go play by yourself. Don't forget to use one of these (OT) next time
you start a political attack thread.








Political attack threads are one of his favorite activities. Personal
attack
threads are a close second. He has a documented RAO history of initiating
both
- and quite frequently.

I think you may have the edge in attacks Bruce since you pretty much stopped
doing anything else about 2 months after you showed up here.

No wonder he identifies with a political party known for its smear
tactics -

I do not identify with the Democrats who are the leaders of smear IMO.

even against other Republicans (John McCain - 1980) as well as Vietnam
heroes
like Max Cleland.


Cleland is one of the people wanting to violate the free speech of the
swifties.


McCain still campaigns for Bush. As does the mayor of Youngstown Ohio, I
love his name.

Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Political attack threads are one of his favorite activities. Personal attack
threads are a close second. He has a documented RAO history of initiating both
- and quite frequently.

Concerning political threads McKelvy is without possible contestations
the RAO first class troller.
Concerning personal attack threads, hypocrit attitude, character
assassination (lol), defamation, slandering, abusive diagnostics on
public forums, unethical attitude and libel our coward licenced
psychologist and Jewish zealot(*) the good Doctor Bruce J. Richman win
in all categories. :-)

Note that if you have had the good taste to chose a French president you
would not have any metaphysical concerns about his real or fictive
bravoure. ;-)

(*) Bruce J. Richman is now a world class luminary since he has actively
participated to the training of Abou Ghraib jailers as psychologist
consultor.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Bush released all his military records, shouldn't Keryy do the same?

The charge that Bush was AWOL was without substance. There are eyewitnesses
who say Kerry is lying about his service. Bush never asked for the ads
against him to be pulled. The Kerry campaign is asking for the Swift Boat
ads to be pulled.

There's a spot in Farenhieght 9/11 where Moore shows a copy of Bush's
service record that he obtained several years before Bush released his
version - and that he held onto.

The interesting thing is that it clearly shows the name of the
other person who was named alone with him. Just ask him what happened.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during
his National Guard service.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

Well, when they stretch the truth, maybe they should be spanked. We're
already hearing untrue things bandied around, things like you only get
a Purple Heart for "enemy fire", for instance and that this would
disqualify his first Purple Heart (it wouldn't). We have a doctor who
comes out of the woodwork claiming that he treated Kerry, but it's his
corpsman who's the "doctor of record" (funny how the doctor treats
every scratch, right)?. Also, he suddenly remembers all sorts of
details about a minor injury to a Naval LT (jj) that he treated 35
years ago. We have reports saying that you could "request" leaving a
combat zone after 3 Purple Hearts when Naval regs at the time REQUIRED
transfer out of the combat zone (although you *could* request to stay
if you were gung-ho).

Anyone can say anything they want about things that happened 35 years
ago, so you pretty much have to go on the written record. And the
written record supports Kerry.

I'm with Bush though - let's get rid of all of the 527s please.
However, Bush shouldn't be such a weasel and condemn those specific
ads (talk about parsing his words carefully).

Dave Weil wrote:


On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during
his National Guard service.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

Well, when they stretch the truth, maybe they should be spanked. We're
already hearing untrue things bandied around, things like you only get
a Purple Heart for "enemy fire", for instance and that this would
disqualify his first Purple Heart (it wouldn't). We have a doctor who
comes out of the woodwork claiming that he treated Kerry, but it's his
corpsman who's the "doctor of record" (funny how the doctor treats
every scratch, right)?. Also, he suddenly remembers all sorts of
details about a minor injury to a Naval LT (jj) that he treated 35
years ago. We have reports saying that you could "request" leaving a
combat zone after 3 Purple Hearts when Naval regs at the time REQUIRED
transfer out of the combat zone (although you *could* request to stay
if you were gung-ho).

Anyone can say anything they want about things that happened 35 years
ago, so you pretty much have to go on the written record. And the
written record supports Kerry.

I'm with Bush though - let's get rid of all of the 527s please.
However, Bush shouldn't be such a weasel and condemn those specific
ads (talk about parsing his words carefully).








That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did *not*
even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several
weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the
so-called Swift Boat Veterans. It's no accident that his rather belated and
transparently cynnical "condemnation" comes only after mounting evidence that
the Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth were blatantly lying (according to actual Navy
records and eyewitness accounts). In all likelihood, Bush's handlers advised
him to try and bury this issue before it buried him - via public backlash from
uncomitted voters who resent personal attacks in political campaigns.


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:


On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:04 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.

It seems to me that the Democrats figure their 527's are somehow better
and
should have a free hand to make stuff up, but eyewitnesses to Kerry's
actions should have their voices and their 527's silenced.

Well, when they stretch the truth, maybe they should be spanked. We're
already hearing untrue things bandied around, things like you only get
a Purple Heart for "enemy fire", for instance and that this would
disqualify his first Purple Heart (it wouldn't).

The regs at the time allowed for the awarding of a purple heart for
unintentional self inflicted wounds, but only if enemy fire is present.

According to Kerry's own journal entry 9 days afte the date of the incident,
he had not been shot at.

We have a doctor who
comes out of the woodwork claiming that he treated Kerry, but it's his
corpsman who's the "doctor of record" (funny how the doctor treats
every scratch, right)?. Also, he suddenly remembers all sorts of
details about a minor injury to a Naval LT (jj) that he treated 35
years ago. We have reports saying that you could "request" leaving a
combat zone after 3 Purple Hearts when Naval regs at the time REQUIRED
transfer out of the combat zone (although you *could* request to stay
if you were gung-ho).

Anyone can say anything they want about things that happened 35 years
ago, so you pretty much have to go on the written record. And the
written record supports Kerry.

I'm with Bush though - let's get rid of all of the 527s please.
However, Bush shouldn't be such a weasel and condemn those specific
ads (talk about parsing his words carefully).








That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did
*not*
even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several
weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the
so-called Swift Boat Veterans. It's no accident that his rather belated
and
transparently cynnical "condemnation" comes only after mounting evidence
that
the Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth were blatantly lying (according to actual
Navy
records and eyewitness accounts).

Or maybe it has to with the fact there might be a connection between the
Swift Boat ads and the fact that Kerry's poll numbers have fallen amongst
Vetrans, and that he has had to change his story since their ads started
running.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:

That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did
*not*
even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several
weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the
so-called Swift Boat Veterans.

I heard a couple of attorneys on both side debate the legality of 527's and
the requirement to prove control and coordination with a campaign to
disallow the 527 exemption. Both agreed the president could condemn
specific adds from a group provided it caused no reaction. If the president
condemned a swift boat add and they pulled it as a consequence, he risked
being in violation of the law.

Reality is the dems revealed the potential of 527's with the success of
moveon.org . Now they're regretting it.

I also have to say the first add has some disputeable content but the book
still shows him to be a repeat liar (christmas in Cambodia). However the
second (current add) is Kerry's own words and reveals him to be the traitor
he is. The resentment to his antiwar actions among Vietnam vets appears to
be very strong.

ScottW

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:05:36 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:

That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did
*not*
even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for several
weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by the
so-called Swift Boat Veterans.

I heard a couple of attorneys on both side debate the legality of 527's and
the requirement to prove control and coordination with a campaign to
disallow the 527 exemption. Both agreed the president could condemn
specific adds from a group provided it caused no reaction. If the president
condemned a swift boat add and they pulled it as a consequence, he risked
being in violation of the law.

So, does this mean that the President has lost the right of free
expression?

Reality is the dems revealed the potential of 527's with the success of
moveon.org . Now they're regretting it.

I don't disagree, although there is a long history from both sides of
this sort of brokered advertising. I'm tired of having side groups do
the dirty work for the candidates. This doesn't mean that they can't
air the most foul sort of invective, but they'd better have their
facts straight or face the consequences.

I also have to say the first add has some disputeable content but the book
still shows him to be a repeat liar (christmas in Cambodia).

I don't think that this proves that he's a liar. I think that it shows
the fog of war. I can certainly imagine being 5 miles one side or the
other of the border in jungle terrain and thinking that you've crossed
that border.

However the second (current add) is Kerry's own words and reveals him to be the traitor
he is. The resentment to his antiwar actions among Vietnam vets appears to
be very strong.

Since when does speaking out on a non-war that ended up costing 50,000
US lives with no particular strategic value constitute traitorous
behavior? Are we just supposed to sit idly by while Democrats and
Republicans wage non-war in such a fashion, especially when one had
actually been there to see the full effects?

Vietnam vetss are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But
when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as
the rest of us.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message


Since when does speaking out on a non-war that ended up costing 50,000
US lives with no particular strategic value constitute traitorous
behavior?

Just guessing here, but doesn't that which is actually said have something
to do with it? I guess content means nothing in Weil-land.

Or, did I lose track of something in the midst of all the Weilish?

Are we just supposed to sit idly by while Democrats and
Republicans wage non-war in such a fashion, especially when one had
actually been there to see the full effects?

This is interesting. In the first paragraph Weil suggests that merely
knowing the topic is sufficent to judge the statement. Now, he changes his
belief system to claim that it isn't sufficient to know the topic, but one
must personally experience it?

Given that the ground undulates in Weil-land, does that mean that visitors
should take Dramamine 2 hours before entering?

Vietnam vets are entitled to feel however they'd like about it.

I thought this was about statements not emotions. I can hear verbal and read
written statements, but unlike Weil I can't read minds too well.

But when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as
the rest of us.

I thought that being there was required? Now, all that is required is being
accountable?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Since when does speaking out on a non-war that ended up costing 50,000
US lives with no particular strategic value constitute traitorous
behavior? Are we just supposed to sit idly by while Democrats and
Republicans wage non-war in such a fashion, especially when one had
actually been there to see the full effects?



Of course not, but hangiing around with
Hanoi Jane and making all sorts of
false claims doesn't help in ascribing
any virtue to his actions.

Vietnam vetss are entitled to feel however they'd like about it. But
when they start stretching the truth, they are just as accountable as
the rest of us.


YES!
SCORE!

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:a%mXc.46508$yh.1224@fed1read05...

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Dave Weil wrote:

That might be a good idea. That said, it's worth noting that Bush did
*not*
even condemn (in a vague, non-specific way) *any* of these ads for
several
weeks *after* the first appearance of the attack ads against Kerry by
the
so-called Swift Boat Veterans.

I heard a couple of attorneys on both side debate the legality of 527's
and
the requirement to prove control and coordination with a campaign to
disallow the 527 exemption. Both agreed the president could condemn
specific adds from a group provided it caused no reaction. If the
president
condemned a swift boat add and they pulled it as a consequence, he risked
being in violation of the law.

Reality is the dems revealed the potential of 527's with the success of
moveon.org . Now they're regretting it.

I also have to say the first add has some disputeable content but the book
still shows him to be a repeat liar (christmas in Cambodia). However the
second (current add) is Kerry's own words and reveals him to be the
traitor
he is. The resentment to his antiwar actions among Vietnam vets appears
to
be very strong.

Now his minions are out to trash the personal lives
of the vets willing to stand up to his (I'll be nice here)
'embellishments'.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted during
his National Guard service.


Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as
young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the
debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government
is actually fairly impressive.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.


Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as
young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the
debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government
is actually fairly impressive.

With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get
reelected in Mass.?

ScottW

"ScottW" a écrit dans le message news:
q0nXc.46509$yh.5830@fed1read05...

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.


Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as
young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the
debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government
is actually fairly impressive.

With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get
reelected in Mass.?

Taratatarata! Tararatataratata! Tatratatatraratatatatata!
ScottW is back on the battlefield. :-)
Nice to see you back and well Scott...
Dave was a little bit depressed past last months. I guess that he will
recover soon all his vitality. :-)

ScottW wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:


Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.


Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as
young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the
debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government
is actually fairly impressive.


With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to get
reelected in Mass.?

I doubt if you could or I survive in politics for that long.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
k.net...


ScottW wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:


Since the Swift Boat Veterans have started running their ad saying that
Kerry has been misleading people about his Viet Nam service, the
Democrat
have been losing their minds. They are crying foul. This is confusing
to
me
because they were all for it when people were claiming Bush deserted
during
his National Guard service.


Who CARES? Really. Both of them were questionable back as
young adults. This is just a tactic by Bush to avoid the
debate moving to experience - because 20+ years in government
is actually fairly impressive.


With what accomplishments to show for those 20+ years? The ability to
get
reelected in Mass.?

I doubt if you could or I survive in politics for that long.

You're not a good enough liar, I suppose!

George M. Middius wrote:


Clyde Slick said:

Its also a good argument for bigamy, polygamy, and bestiality.

Really? So you're saying that nobody gets hurt by bigamy and polygamy?

You can have bestiality. Leave it up to the livestock, I say.












Please, let's leave Lionel and his family out of this.




Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:


You can have bestiality. Leave it up to the livestock, I say.

Please, let's leave Lionel and his family out of this.

Good Bruce, thank you for your kind attention but I still don't like
you. :-)

Bruce J. Richman
*LICENCED* PSYCHOLOGIST

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:


Clyde Slick said:

Its also a good argument for bigamy, polygamy, and bestiality.

Really? So you're saying that nobody gets hurt by bigamy and polygamy?

You can have bestiality. Leave it up to the livestock, I say.












Please, let's leave Lionel and his family out of this.




Is he your daaaaaad?