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"


[ Browse | Search | Topics ]


Click to scroll to commentary.
The Un-Kerry: Meet John O’Neill, the Vietnam vet who once debated John Kerry
on
The Dick Cavett Show
NRO ^ | 4/21/04 | Alexander Rose

Posted on 04/21/2004 10:50:44 AM PDT by pookie18

More than 30 years after he returned to voluntary, and happy, obscurity as a
Houston lawyer, 58-year-old John O'Neill is making a prime-time comeback.
Who's
John O'Neill? He was the Vietnam veteran — a former commander of a Patrol
Craft
Fast, better known as the Swift boat — who famously debated one John Kerry,
a
fellow Swift skipper, for 90 minutes on The Dick Cavett Show back in 1971.
C-SPAN excavated this particular television gem a couple of weeks ago and
re-broadcast it.
In 1971, Kerry was leveraging his military experience for political gain
(old
habits die hard, eh?) and had recently testified before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee about the American soldiers who, he believed, habitually
committed war crimes. A few months earlier, Kerry had been involved in the
"Winter Soldier Investigation," which proved to be less a serious inquiry
into
American actions than a rigged indictment of AmeriKKKa. It was later shown
that
many of the "eyewitness" participants, as well as many of Kerry's colleagues
in
Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), were frauds who had never been near
a
battlefield, let alone seen these crimes happen. Undaunted, Kerry claimed in
his
Senate testimony that these were "not isolated incidents but crimes
committed on
a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command." In other words, these alleged horrors were endemic to, and an
officially sanctioned corollary of, the U.S. war effort in Vietnam.
Kerry, as we know, went on to great things, and perhaps may ascend to still
greater ones, but what ever happened to John O'Neill? His biography, perhaps
owing to its very ordinariness, is far more interesting than Kerry's
flashier
story of riches-to-riches. It is O'Neill, not Kerry, who embodies how
countless
regular Americans experienced, survived, and remembered Vietnam. His is a
world
away from the cynicism and the insanity, the cruelty and the self-hatred
represented by the Winter Soldier Investigation and transmitted into the
popular
consciousness by such movies as Apocalypse Now and Platoon.
The first thing you need to know about John O'Neill is that the O'Neills
were
sea dogs through and through. Even today, there are some 90 first cousins
living
in and around Annapolis — home of the Naval Academy — many of them serving
in
America's fleets. O'Neill's grandfather taught at the Naval Academy; his
father
graduated in the early '30s, flew fighters, fought at Iwo Jima, and retired
an
admiral; O'Neill himself, who grew up in landlocked San Antonio, Texas, was
in
the Naval Academy Class of 1967 (two brothers also graduated, '57 and '59).
An
uncle, a fighter pilot, was killed at Pearl Harbor; another, also a naval
pilot,
in Korea. Several of O'Neill's nephews fought in the first Gulf War in the
Marine Corps, and his brother-in-law commanded the Coast Guard, Atlantic
Area.
Nelson and Nimitz would have been proud of the O'Neills.
Young Ensign O'Neill chose to serve aboard a minesweeper, the Woodpecker.
His
fellow classmates had a good laugh. A minesweeper? Not exactly the most
glamorous gig in the Navy, and an especially odd choice for a man whose
class
standing was so high he could have breezed into pretty much any posting he
desired. But O'Neill's motive was nothing to laugh about: Mindful of the
"family
tradition of service," he says it was "important to me not to sit out the
war" —
and he supposed that he had a better chance of seeing action on one of the
smaller boats than he would have cooling his heels aboard an aircraft
carrier.
After a year on the Woodpecker, O'Neill transferred to the Swift boats in
the
spring of 1969, serving on them until the summer of 1970. His boat was fired
on
many times as it patrolled the Cambodian border, as well as the Uminh and
Namcan
forests in southern Vietnam. In the Swifts, says O'Neill, the average length
of
service was twelve months; John Kerry was in for four.
After a little over two years' duty, O'Neill himself departed Vietnam with
two
Bronze Stars (with "V"s for valor in combat) pinned to his chest. There were
apparently several more decorations, but when I asked about them, his
modesty
triumphed over my curiosity. He also came home with a badly damaged knee and
leg, which earned him some time in a military hospital. And it was there
that
John O'Neill started learning about the Senate testimony of someone named
John
Kerry. Distressed and angered by the future senator's allegations, none of
which
squared with his own experiences, O'Neill vainly wrote to the Foreign
Relations
Committee asking for a chance to testify himself.
Then he read an op-ed in the New York Times by Bruce Kessler, a former
Marine
and a leader of the new group, Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, which
disparaged the Kerry allegations. O'Neill wrote to Kessler, who got him
involved
in a Washington press conference. "We were convinced," says O'Neill, that
"Kerry's charges were false." 60 Minutes and NBC both offered time for a
debate
— Kerry vs. O'Neill — but the former repeatedly balked. And then,
miraculously,
Kerry accepted an invitation from Dick Cavett to go head-to-head with
O'Neill.
By this time, O'Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met
the
president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little frostier
when O'Neill confided that he'd voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68: "The
people
all around me were shocked" when he told Nixon he was a Democrat.) He was
also
introduced to several Democratic congressmen and senators who didn't like
Kerry's slanderous grandstanding.
As for the Cavett Show appearance, that was an invitation arranged by the
television host himself, and had nothing to do with the White House; O'Neill
even had to pay his own travel and hotel expenses. He wore "the only suit I
had"
— a not overly fashionable blue serge number unfortunately teamed with white
socks. It mattered not. What mattered, says O'Neill, was that "I felt very
passionate about the issue of war crimes. I had served in Vietnam with all
those
kids . . . and they reflected the people in the country as a whole. And the
way
[Kerry and his friends] falsely used war-crime charges involved a degree of
political cynicism beyond my comprehension. I was outraged. I thought
honestly
about my friends who had died out there. And the unit we were in — Kerry and
I —
had suffered substantial casualties because of the restraints we placed on
ourselves." O'Neill says that "Kerry, of course, knows this."
The debate was a success. "I always thought Kerry wouldn't be able to
document
evidence of war crimes," and so it was. His claim that these crimes were not
isolated incidents but ordered by officers was nothing but a "barefaced
lie."
"Of course," O'Neill, with good humor, adds, "he was there for such a short
time, he might not have known what was happening."
Well, the offers to do more TV appearances came rolling in, but O'Neill
decided
to pack his blue serge suit and go home. He went to the University of Texas
Law
School, and graduated first in a class of 554 with the third highest score
in
its history. In 1974, he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court justice William
Rehnquist before returning to Texas to practice law. Specializing in
large-scale
commercial litigation — though he has often represented poor clients for
free —
he's been there ever since, founding along the way his own 35-lawyer firm
(Clements O'Neill, for those of you with large-scale commercial-litigation
needs).
He hasn't been politically involved since those heady days of the '70s. From
1972 onward, whenever people ran against Kerry, they asked O'Neill to spill
some
more beans, but he always declined — "because I believed in forgetting the
thing." But I myself wondered, what suddenly prompted O'Neill to break his
silence after all these years and talk to National Review? As he recuperated
in
an intensive-care unit after donating a kidney to his wife, Anne (now well
on
her way to recovery), a television story about Kerry leading the pack
galvanized
O'Neill. "It was déjà vu all over again; there was a Lord of the Rings
quality
to it, because here was the guy I had debated on the Cavett Show reappearing
as
the presidential candidate."
What O'Neill found particularly unsettling was that here was "a guy who
believed
everything we did in Vietnam was a crime" but who was now "campaigning on
his
record and claiming to be a war hero." In short, "the only reason I'm
getting
involved now is because he's running for commander-in-chief of the United
States."
So there it is: a regular American — O'Neill, father of two, likes hiking,
playing golf, and taking an active part in his church — not content anymore
to
allow Kerry and his kind to keep hijacking the Vietnam War.

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.

For another take on John O'Neill, try Joe Conason at salon.com.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/con...04/23/o_neill/

On Fri, 07 May 2004 17:01:18 GMT, "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"

Counterbalanced of course by the Donald Rumsfeld Show.

This is going to be an interesting election.

There's soooo much on both sides for people to consider.

The unemployment numbers are finally down but on the other side, gas
prices, milk prices and interest rates are all going up. This could
signal the start of an inflationary cycle.

The glass isn't half full or half empty - it's overflowing.

MINe 109 wrote:
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

Interesting how unreadable something becomes when it goes against someone's
politics.

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

Now that's a non sequitor.

For another take on John O'Neill, try Joe Conason at salon.com.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/con...04/23/o_neill/

Yawn.

"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.
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.
I think when there are such questions as those raised by both O'Neil and
Kerry deserve to be investigated.
Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.



For another take on John O'Neill, try Joe Conason at salon.com.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/con...04/23/o_neill/

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

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.

Kerry has declared himself to be a war criminal.

If you twist his words hard enough, that is.

For another take on John O'Neill, try Joe Conason at salon.com.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/con...04/23/o_neill/

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
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

Interesting how unreadable something becomes when it goes against someone's
politics.

The quoted text must look better on your newsreader than it does on
mine, on which the bizarre line breaks certainly hindered reading.

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

Now that's a non sequitor.

It's from the first bit of the article, before I gave up on reading it.
I guess you didn't read it either.

For another take on John O'Neill, try Joe Conason at salon.com.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/con...04/23/o_neill/

Yawn.

You do have quite the supply of substanceless dismissals, don't you?

"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?

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.

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 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.

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?

Michael McKelvy a écrit :

McKelvy cannot help himself from soiling everything he disagrees.


Are you soiled Frog Boy?

Me ? No.
Your pants, yes but you have the habit... :-(

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"?

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.

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

Coverups for Bush, smears on Kerry. Kerry wins.

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.

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.

"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?

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.
And lies, I almost forgot the lies.
Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.
Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

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.

Bush
let his flight status lapse.

I seem to recall there being more to that story.

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

And Kerry left VN after 4 months, your point?


Coverups for Bush,
None.

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.



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.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy a écrit :

McKelvy cannot help himself from soiling everything he disagrees.


Are you soiled Frog Boy?

Me ? No.
Your pants, yes but you have the habit... :-(

Better than the diarrhea in you mouth. :-O

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.

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.

And lies, I almost forgot the lies.

Did you leave the radio on again?

Oh, yeah and pork barrel spending.

Best to line the pockets of the rich directly.

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

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.

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

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/

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.


Coverups for Bush,
None.

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

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

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.

A little suspicious. Ex-military right-wingers usually have
the whole spiel ready when asked (unit, rank, time of service),
and most have it all right there on their signature. But all we
get is a simple "yes." Tell us more, Mickey. Are your records
still vailable?
WS

Have you ever been in the army McKelvy ?

Yes.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 01:35:23 GMT, "bernard spilman"
wrote:

A little suspicious. Ex-military right-wingers usually have
the whole spiel ready when asked (unit, rank, time of service),
and most have it all right there on their signature. But all we
get is a simple "yes." Tell us more, Mickey. Are your records
still vailable?
WS

Have you ever been in the army McKelvy ?

Yes.

He was in Vietnam. He flew on tankers. KC-135s if I remember
correctly.

He was in Vietnam. He flew on tankers. KC-135s if I remember
correctly.

Cool! Did you fly the nozzle?
WS

"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.

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. 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 form asshole
in chief here in California, Who has run some of the nastiest smear ads in
the history of modern politics.

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

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.

Oops almost forgot hypocrisy.

Good spelling! Points off for reflexive name-calling.

Points off for being distracted by something not relevant.

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.

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

And you are a mind reader?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
IIRC he was against the war before he enlisted, but enlisted because it
would look good on his resume.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy - t -
vendredi 7 Mai 2004 19:01 wrote:

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

[snip ****in' garbage]

Don't you mean you did the written word version of putting your hands
over
your ears and screaming, LALALALALALALALALALALALALA, I don't want to hear
it?

Have you seen the Lious Theroux documentary on the "KKK"? In one scene
a key speaker is filmed at a public rally screaming nonsense at
passers by through a megaphone. It's almost unendurable. Your
squawkings are reminiscent of that...


--
Then don't read them.

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.

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.

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 form 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?

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.

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

Not like the open and forthcoming Bush administration.

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. How's the Bush job record?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. Bush just left.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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.

Now you're changing your tune. The point is that Kerry's military record
is more than enough to shield him from attacks on his patriotism.

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

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.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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?

It's bad to use terms incorrectly and hypocritically. Plus you didn't
acknowledge that Bush administration and campaign uses the same game for
pollutants (and counting Kerry tax "increases").

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Dems
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.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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.

"Accuracy"? It's empty name-calling. And how can it be relevant if my
replies to it are irrelevant?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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.

Okay. Take it as a coincidence.

I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the story.

Bush could set the record straight, but he hasn't.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.

Anyone else look?

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

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.

Now you're changing your tune. The point is that Kerry's military record
is more than enough to shield him from attacks on his patriotism.

No they are not. Benedict Arnold was a war hero.
That he did something good in Viet Nam doesn't mean he's not been a complete
dickhead since.

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.
The only people I have heard make the Chicken type argument are Democrats.

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

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?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

Fine, it's a matter of personal observation.

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.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

And that means what? Nothing.

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

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.

Another non-issue.

Points off for
parroting Rush.

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

It's bad to use terms incorrectly and hypocritically. Plus you didn't
acknowledge that Bush administration and campaign uses the same game for
pollutants (and counting Kerry tax "increases").

Which game is that?

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

Dems
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.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

Another non-issue. Dean wants to make some money.

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

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.

Okay. Take it as a coincidence.

Which means it's irrelevant.

I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the
story.

Bush could set the record straight, but he hasn't.

He released all his military records, what more do you want?

What has it to with anything except to try and smear him?

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

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.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.


I saw them as ALL blacked out.

Anyone else look?

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

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.

Since you haven't read the summary or the article, you have no basis for
your statement.

Bush released his entire miltary record. There are no coverups.

That you know of.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

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.

No, they weren't. Hint: they were named for overseas areas.


I saw them as ALL blacked out.

Look *under* the line that says "OVERSEAS (Number areas in order of
preference". You'll see squares labelled: European area; Pacific area;
Alaskan area; and Caribbean area. None have been selected.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

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.

Okay. Take it as a coincidence.

Which means it's irrelevant.

No, it doesn't.

I wish I could remember the details, but I know there's more to the
story.

Bush could set the record straight, but he hasn't.

He released all his military records, what more do you want?

No, he hasn't.

What has it to with anything except to try and smear him?

Release it all and you'll see for yourself.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

Dems
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.

This administration is so secretive that John Dean of the Nixon White
House wrote a book about it.

Another non-issue. Dean wants to make some money.

Dean has all the money he needs.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

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.

Another non-issue.

Non-issue for Bush, then it's a non-issue for Democrats.

Points off for
parroting Rush.

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

It's bad to use terms incorrectly and hypocritically. Plus you didn't
acknowledge that Bush administration and campaign uses the same game for
pollutants (and counting Kerry tax "increases").

Which game is that?

"(C)alling increases, cuts".

In article et,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

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

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?

"Partisan smears are what the Democrats love..." is not a matter of
historical record.

Fine, it's a matter of personal observation.

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.

Yes, but it took Republicans to use the face of a black man to represent
a parole program whose beneficiaries were overwhelmingly white.

And that means what? Nothing.

It's 'playing the race card'.

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

The only people who ever have a problem with this sort of criticism are
Dems.

And this "the only people that" argument is idiocy.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.....

Even I'm getting bored with this.