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

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

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

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

"MINe 109" wrote in message

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

The Un-Kerry: Meet John O'Neill, the Vietnam vet who
once
debated
John
Kerry
on The Dick Cavett ShowFreeRepublic.com
"A Conservative News Forum"

snip unreadable quoting

I guess serving in the military is bad according to the
Bush
campaign.

I don't think so. I think trotting out one's service in the
miltary
when you've fought in a war you despised is a bit odd.

One does not preclude the other.

It's even more odd when all the Democrats seem to be syaing
you
can't
challenge his patriotism because he was a war hero.

No, you shouldn't challenge his patriotism just because he
objected to
the Vietnam war.

It doesn't strike you as odd that the current Democrat part is
made
up
of
people who overwhelmingly oppsed the Viet Nam war, but have a
decorated
vetran of that war as their
persumtive nominee?

No, it doesn't. If you remember, Kerry opposed the war and
demonstrated
against it when he returned from serving his country.

Carter also served in the military.

Why are some Republicans called "chickenhawks"?

Because Democrat Politicans are pigs?
Because it's easier than debating issues?

Wrong. It's fundamental to the hypocrisy of smearing someone who
served
in the military.

I think my version is more accurate.

Even you can't think that.


Of course I can, the idea that someone who hasn't served in the military is
forbidden from criticizing anyone or anything in the miltary is just stupid.
The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism are
Dems.


The war hero and military service part simply
strengthens this point.

Only if it's as he's reported it. That seems somewhat clouded
now.

Nope. Partisan smears don't change the facts, the service record
or
the
decorations.

Partisan smears are what the Democrats love, well that and raising
taxes.

Careful. That knee's jerking something fierce.

Simply a matter of historical record.

No, it isn't.

Below are examples. Sure you're not thinking of a river in Egypt?

You do remember who came up with the
Willy Horton ads, don't you? Then there's the Democrat ad with the
little
girl running though
the field and the mushroom cloud, that they ran against Goldwater. Or
our
own former asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads
in
the history of modern politics.

The Willie Horton ad was for Democrats?
The first one was done for Gore against Dukakis.

And lies, I almost forgot the lies.

Did you leave the radio on again?

Radio, TV, print media, it doesn't matter, you can here them everywhere.
My personl favorite is the calling increases, cuts. This is very simply
the
way Democrats work.

It's also the way Bush measures environmental controls. Points off for
parroting Rush.

So it's bad to use terms that are correct, simply because somebody else said
them before?

They don't like facts, they get in the way of controlling the power.

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

He doesn't like publicv speaking, I don't like him doing it either, it's
painful
to watch, he sucks at it.

Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.

Best to line the pockets of the rich directly.

Best to allow people to keep what they earned. Best to allow an
atmosphere
where jobs are created and the people that want them can find them.

Like Clinton did.
When was that? When he was pushing for tax increases?
Presidents don't do job creation, not Clinton, not Bush, not Reagan.
If a president's party is in the majority or if the party in power sees the
handwriting on the wall,
a President can sometimes get economic policy through Congress that helps.
Beyond that they have next to nothing to with it.


How's the Bush job record?

See above. If you want to give credit for such things, right now his record
is damn good.
Unemployment is down, job creation is up.

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

Points off for being distracted by something not relevant.

You spew a paragraph of irrelevant Dem-bashing and you say I'm
distracted when I respond?

Irrelevant? You must mean that accuracy is annoying.

But it's fair to challenge Bush on his miltary service?
If that's fair then going after Kerry's service in Viet Nam and
his
subsequent avtivities after, are fair game.

I'll take that dare anyday. Bush asked not to be assigned
overseas.

Yhat's a new one on me. If he didn't want to go overseas
being a pilot in the reserve was a bad move.


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...Sheet_BUSH.jpg

Note that an overseas options was not selected, although the
"volunteer/not volunteer" boxes have been redacted.

I don't see that at all, it is ALL redacted.

The overseas options were NOT redacted because NONE of them were
selected.

They were all balcked out just like volunteer boxes.

It isn't a bad move if one doesn't intend to fulfill one's commitment.

And you are a mind reader?

You read Kerry's mind just a ways down, but, no, it was a conditional
statement.

Actually that was based on things he's been credited with saying. I don't
remember the exact source. if it bothers you I retract it.
You could of course search and see if it's true.

Bush
let his flight status lapse.

I seem to recall there being more to that story.

That's right: he dodged his first medical exam that included drug
testing.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/

An opinion piece, proving nothing.

It's true that he did not take his exam, and that exam would have
included drug testing. Fact, not opinion.

You are speculating on the reason.
I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the story.

Bush left his service early, even if one
grants that he served at all.

And Kerry left VN after 4 months, your point?

I believe he was authorized to do so, unlike Bush.


He requested it.

With three medals and glowing commendations.
Three purple hearts? Meaningless most of the time, I got one for a tiny
piece of shapnel in my arm.
Another guy I know got one for cutting his toe while running to a bunker
during a mortar attack.

Bush just left.

To work on a political campaign, for which he was given permission.


Coverups for Bush,
None.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...l?day=20040211

Follow the link to the Dallas Morning News, which requires
registration.

Thanks but no thanks, I won't even do that for a local paper.

The Salon article summarizes it.

Lots of things get reported in the papers. That doesn't make them true.

That's pathetic, even for you. It doesn't make them untrue, either.

It means that they prove nothing. Bush released his entire miltary record.
There are no coverups.


smears on Kerry. Kerry wins.
Not likely. Not if he hasn't captured more attention and favor
by now.

I think when there are such questions as those raised by
both
O'Neil
and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.

Vietnam war crimes? I don't expect that to happen soon, maybe
after
the
9/11 commission finishes its job.

Shouldn't they have been investigated when he admitted to them?
I'd say it's way overdue.

The political and military leadership knew what was going on in
Vietnam.
Only if Kerry's version is true.

No other possibility?

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

No twisting at all, he flat out admitted to war crimes, or was
it
atrocities?

Collectively. To call him a war criminal is twisting his words.

It's restating them but keeping it in context.

Twisty, twist, twist. He blamed "The United States of America," that
is,
all of us, collectively.

That's a nice way of denying responsibility for one's own actions.

No, it isn't.

You want contradiction, that's just down the hall.

Here's that mind-reading:
IIRC he was against the war before he enlisted, but enlisted because it
would look good on his resume.

You knew Kerry in the 60s? Why didn't he pull strings to get into the
National Guard, or start a family right away?

Answered above.