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

"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.

"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?

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.

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

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

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.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
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?

Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air.

Side issue, anyway.

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

This was all started with the Swifties,
aided by the Bush campaign.

Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry
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.

No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign.

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'.

Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no
consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go.


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.

More OSAF.

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.

Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties?

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

"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.

"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.

In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
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.

Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness.

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?

Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air.

'Want', not the same as 'order'.

Side issue, anyway.

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn? And why won't Bush
step out of his house to greet him?

This was all started with the Swifties,
aided by the Bush campaign.

Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the Kerry
campaign.

The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated, so it's not an equivalent
situation.

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.

No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign.

It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof.

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'.

Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no
consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go.

To campaign for a GOP senate race.

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.

More OSAF.

That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense.

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.

Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the Swifties?

Any changes are inconsequential. The Swifties have no proof, no
credibility and are transparently partisan.

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

Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news
clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment.

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

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
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.

Not so's you'd notice. They did scores of stories on the 3 major networks
about Bush supposedly being AWOl, they've done about 8 on the Swift Boat
allegations.


Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness.

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?

Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air.

'Want', not the same as 'order'.

Nobody from the Bush campaign even hinted at such a thing for the Democrat
527's which have spent 4 times as much.

Side issue, anyway.

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn?

Free speech.

And why won't Bush
step out of his house to greet him?

No reason to participate in political theatre, especially since yesterday it
was Kerry who said we should move on and start talking about the issues.

This was all started with the Swifties,
aided by the Bush campaign.

Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the
Kerry
campaign.

The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated,

Bull****.

so it's not an equivalent
situation.

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.

No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign.

It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof.

Then the ad should continue and Kerry should release his records. The
seriousness of the charge warrents an investigation.

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'.

Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no
consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go.

To campaign for a GOP senate race.

He had permission.

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.

More OSAF.

That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense.

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

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.

Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the
Swifties?

Any changes are inconsequential.
They got him to retract the bull**** about being in Cambodia. Hardly
inconsequential.

The Swifties have no proof, no
credibility and are transparently partisan.

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

Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news
clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment.

I always do.

In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
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.

Not so's you'd notice. They did scores of stories on the 3 major networks
about Bush supposedly being AWOl, they've done about 8 on the Swift Boat
allegations.

The LA Times, the NY Times, and the Washington Post have discredited the
Swifts. Despite this, the attacks continue.

Again, you're trying to make equivalent unequal things.

Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness.

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?

Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air.

'Want', not the same as 'order'.

Nobody from the Bush campaign even hinted at such a thing for the Democrat
527's which have spent 4 times as much.

So what?

Side issue, anyway.

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn?

Free speech.

Free speech, except for Cleland?

And why won't Bush
step out of his house to greet him?

No reason to participate in political theatre, especially since yesterday it
was Kerry who said we should move on and start talking about the issues.

Didja know the guy Dubya sent out in his place took money from the big
Swiftee backer?

This was all started with the Swifties,
aided by the Bush campaign.

Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and the
Kerry
campaign.

The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated,

Bull****.

Besides, Kerry denounced them explicitly, not like Bush's equivocation.

so it's not an equivalent
situation.

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.

No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush campaign.

It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof.

Then the ad should continue and Kerry should release his records. The
seriousness of the charge warrents an investigation.

No, the ad having been shown to be false should be discontinued. The
Navy has explicitly supported Kerry's story.

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'.

Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no
consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go.

To campaign for a GOP senate race.

He had permission.

He's still missing two months.

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.

More OSAF.

That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense.

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation. Stories of Vietnam
atrocities are still coming out. You can't blame Kerry for the sins of
the US government, Johnson, and Nixon.

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.

Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the
Swifties?

Any changes are inconsequential.
They got him to retract the bull**** about being in Cambodia. Hardly
inconsequential.

O'Neil was in Cambodia, too, or so he told Nixon (Nixon tapes! at last
on topic). And Kerry could have been on the border in the morning and
fifty miles away by night.

The Swifties have no proof, no
credibility and are transparently partisan.

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

Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news
clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment.

I always do.

You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in
order to repeat them. On top of that, you seem to have trouble
assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it.

MINe 109 said:

In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

snip 200+ lines of political "debate"

http://lelombrik.free.fr/LoMBriK/STFU.jpg

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

MINe 109 said:

In article .net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

snip 200+ lines of political "debate"

http://lelombrik.free.fr/LoMBriK/STFU.jpg

Girlie-men, beware!

http://tinyurl.com/4sv7z

As I'm the only one responding to the off-topic political threads, I'll
declare victory and go home.

Stephen

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.

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.

"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

"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.

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?

"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'.

"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!

"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!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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?



Arny, this is a discussion about truth and virtue.
You are definitey NOT invited.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"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?

Opposing the war is one thing. False testimony to Congress is another.

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?

What were the full effects of the anti-war movement?
I guess you'd like to be one of the only generation of vets to have lost a
war. A war that wasn't lost militarily.

I have no problems with anti-war efforts provided they make their case based
on facts. I have huge problems with liars saying anything to support their
agenda.



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.

Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas
in Cambodia and sear our memories.

(note: reply via reply due to cox news server being down half the day and
missing numerours posts).


ScottW

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:37:44 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"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?

Opposing the war is one thing. False testimony to Congress is another.

You can say it was false. I'm not sure that it's been determined
ABSOLUTELY that he *wasn't* in Cambodia on Xmas Eve. It's becoming
"conventional wisdom", but that doesn't make it true.

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?

What were the full effects of the anti-war movement?

You tell me.

I guess you'd like to be one of the only generation of vets to have lost a
war. A war that wasn't lost militarily.

It doesn't matter what you or I "want to be". The war was lost when it
started.

I have no problems with anti-war efforts provided they make their case based
on facts. I have huge problems with liars saying anything to support their
agenda.

You mean like the "Swifties"? Is *that* what you mean? Do you mean
like saying things like he didn't deserve a Purple Heart, when,
according to regs, he certainly did?

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.

Yet Presidential candidates are less accountable. Hey, lets party this xmas
in Cambodia and sear our memories.

Or let's go to Alabama and party like it's 1969. Let's not get pulled
over though. They might find the coke.

(note: reply via reply due to cox news server being down half the day and
missing numerours posts).

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:37:44 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

You mean like the "Swifties"? Is *that* what you mean? Do you mean
like saying things like he didn't deserve a Purple Heart, when,
according to regs, he certainly did?



Actually, according to the regs, he did not,
if one sticks to the factual unembellished events.

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

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

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
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.

Not so's you'd notice. They did scores of stories on the 3 major
networks
about Bush supposedly being AWOl, they've done about 8 on the Swift Boat
allegations.

The LA Times, the NY Times, and the Washington Post have discredited the
Swifts. Despite this, the attacks continue.


The 3 newpapers you mention are decidedly pro Kerry, their investigations
ain't worth spit.

Again, you're trying to make equivalent unequal things.

Lying! Yes, fabrication, deception, bearing false witness.

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?

Max Cleland for one. They want the spots pulled from the air.

'Want', not the same as 'order'.

Nobody from the Bush campaign even hinted at such a thing for the
Democrat
527's which have spent 4 times as much.

So what?

Side issue, anyway.

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn?

Free speech.

Free speech, except for Cleland?

I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so.


And why won't Bush
step out of his house to greet him?

No reason to participate in political theatre, especially since
yesterday it
was Kerry who said we should move on and start talking about the issues.

Didja know the guy Dubya sent out in his place took money from the big
Swiftee backer?

Didn't know and don't care.

This was all started with the Swifties,
aided by the Bush campaign.

Not proven, even if true not worse than the moveon.org people and
the
Kerry
campaign.

The moveon.org ads aren't fabricated,

Bull****.

Besides, Kerry denounced them explicitly, not like Bush's equivocation.

so it's not an equivalent
situation.

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.

No proof of the Swift Boat people co-ordinating with the Bush
campaign.

It doesn't matter. Besides, Rove doesn't leave proof.

Then the ad should continue and Kerry should release his records. The
seriousness of the charge warrents an investigation.

No, the ad having been shown to be false should be discontinued.

Sorry there's still that pesky 1st Ammendment. They have not been PROVEN to
be false.

The
Navy has explicitly supported Kerry's story.

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'.

Bush became a pilot, his asking not to be sent overseas is of no
consequence. If the miltary wants you somewhere, you go.

To campaign for a GOP senate race.

He had permission.

He's still missing two months.


With permission.

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.

More OSAF.

That doesn't change it. Besides, your statement is all but nonsense.

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to.

Stories of Vietnam
atrocities are still coming out. You can't blame Kerry for the sins of
the US government, Johnson, and Nixon.


I don't, I blame him for his own sins, either he's a liar or a war criminal.

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.

Then why has Kerry changed his story when challenged on it by the
Swifties?

Any changes are inconsequential.
They got him to retract the bull**** about being in Cambodia. Hardly
inconsequential.

O'Neil was in Cambodia, too, or so he told Nixon (Nixon tapes! at last
on topic). And Kerry could have been on the border in the morning and
fifty miles away by night.

Kerry said he was there at a time when he wasn't.

The Swifties have no proof, no
credibility and are transparently partisan.

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

Media Matters has a good website. They link to original sources (news
clips, etc) so you can use your own judgment.

I always do.

You give the impression of someone who has collected 'talking points' in
order to repeat them.

As do you.

On top of that, you seem to have trouble
assimilating contradictory information when you are shown your way to it.

I don't trust the sources.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

The 3 newpapers you mention are decidedly pro Kerry, their investigations
ain't worth spit.

Where'd that open mind go?

How about a nice cuppa?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Big issue. Censorship of political speech.

See above.

Since the ads have been shown to contain falsehoods, why is it not
within Cleland's rights to ask they be withdrawn?

Free speech.

Free speech, except for Cleland?

I guess he's free to ask for censorship, it's just moronic to do so.

Asking for ads containing proven falsehoods to be withdrawn is not the
same as censorship.

Next!

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

There was never any discussion of these sorts of crimes as being
commonplace
until Kerry made them. I know of no other war where American G.I.s were
subjected to the kind of abuse the VN vets were treated to, and I think
Kerry is a large factor in that treatement.

Sounds like a "shoot the messenger" situation.

Can't shoot until we convict him of the war crimes he has admitted to.

"Free fire" zones are against international law. As for the "Winter
Soldier" stuff, Kerry was paraphrasing what he heard to the Senate, not
recounting his own deeds.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Me:
O'Neil was in Cambodia, too, or so he told Nixon (Nixon tapes! at last
on topic). And Kerry could have been on the border in the morning and
fifty miles away by night.

Kerry said he was there at a time when he wasn't.

Not necessarily. It could be the same case as with O'Neil in the White
House speaking informally. Or do think O'Neil is also a liar?