Why would anyone even mention the SWIFT BOAT book?

[cardcounter0]

One of the co-authors of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" is John E. O'Neill -- whose links in the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson" -- But that is nothing, look at the other co-author.

The other Co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD is a really really scary foaming at the mouth wacko. Corsi asserted that, in 1971, Kerry's anti-war activism amounted to a proclamation by him that "Communists were right in maintaining that American values were corrupt and that the only solution was for America to capitulate so Communism could continue to spread."

Recently, he has been contributing articles to the website wintersoldier.com on the subject of Senator John Kerry's record as an anti-war activist following his service in the Vietnam War. In this series of articles, Corsi has accused Kerry of "violating the legal provision against negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies during wartime (Article III, Section 3)"; asserted that Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist amounted to treason; and claimed that "Kerry and the VVAW consistently coordinated their efforts with Communists."

On August 6, Salon.com's Joe Conason documented links between Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the conservative online forum www.FreeRepublic.com. (http://www.FreeRepublic.com.) Conason noted that the designer of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website is Robert A. Hahn, a director of the Free Republic Network, a conservative activist organization affiliated with FreeRepublic.com. Scott Swett, who is listed as the webmaster of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website, swiftvets.com, also appeared on FOX News Channel host Sean Hannity's August 5 radio show to discuss the group. Swett posts frequently to FreeRepublic.com, using the pseudonym "Interesting Times," and is also a director of the Free Republic Network. The wintersoldier.com website to which Swett has contributed articles is a project of the Free Republic Network.

Corsi is also a frequent participant in FreeRepublic.com's online forums, posting under the pseudonym "jrlc" since 2001.

>>>> OKAY HERE ARE CORSI'S POSTS -- THINKING HE IS HIDDEN UNDER HIS LITTLE RIGHT WING ROCK --- HOW MANY OF THESE OPINIONS DO YOU AGREE WITH?

On Senator John Kerry

CORSI: After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal gradparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry? (03/04/2004)

CORSI: First let's undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy. (05/17/2004)

CORSI: Just don't let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school where that girl wants to wear a Muslim scarf -- OH, No --- then the RATS would complain. Anti-Christian, Anti-American -- just like their Presidential Candidate -- Jean Francois Kerrie. (03/31/2004)

CORSI: Kerry has a long history of Communist supporters. (03/12/2004)

CORSI: Kerry offers a clear choice. Anti-American hatred. (02/08/2004)

CORSI: John F*ing Commie Kerry and Commie Ted [Kennedy] discuss their plan to hand America over to our nation's enemies. (02/04/2004)

On former President Bill Clinton

CORSI: When is this guy going to admit he's simply an anti-American communist? Won't he and his leftist wife simply go away???? Enough already. (02/24/2002)

CORSI: Hey, Bill, didn't you steal enough when you had the chance? (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Clinton doesn't get it. Afganistan, and other Moslim countries, are not poor because they lack money. The culture itself is anti-modern. But then, maybe Slick did get it and he just wants to create another bork barrel from which he and his wife can draw slop. (02/15/2002)

CORSI: Clinton was more interested in gays in the military than going after OBL. Clinton had Janet Rhino pushing the FBI to deport a child to Castro's nondemocratic Cuba, not searching out OBL sleepers in the USA. Clinton was too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office to do more than Wag the Dog after the Cole was hit. (05/16/2002)

On Senator Hillary Clinton

CORSI: HELL-ary loves the Arabs so much (kiss, kiss Mrs. Arab*RAT) -- wonder how she would look in a Burkha? (05/21/2002)

CORSI: Mullah Ali'Gore-ah is very proud of his new Bin Laden beard and he hopes others in the Democratic Party will follow his lead. Hell-ary is disappointed she cannot grow a beard, but her press secretary reminds us she can still enroll in flight school. (01/07/02)

CORSI: Let the FAT HOG run!!! [regarding a possible presidential bid] (08/30/2003)

CORSI: Hellary should resign and go away. What ever happened to the people she ran over with her car at Westchester Airport? Can't anybody sue this b*tch? (11/17/2002)

CORSI: Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she? (06/08/2003)

On Chelsea Clinton

CORSI: According to Talk Magazine, Chubby Chelsea had a very great adventure on 9/11 in NYC and Hell-ary had the details wrong -- oh, it was terrible. (12/07/2001)

CORSI: Did the Journalist see Chubbie Chelsea among the wives. Little Katie Communist [Katie Couric] on the NBC Today show interviewed Hillary this morning and mom is worried sick about Chelsea. She was last seen in Kandahar at a Starbucks. But now, as Little Katie Communist sighed, "Who Knows?" Even British disinformation planted reports such as this grocery crap will be useful. Anyone with information about Chubbie Chelsea's whereabouts should post it now. Mom wants to know her daughter is out of harms way. Mom also wants to be at the center of the story. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: But the real question is: WHERE IS CHUBBIE CHELSEA? Is she in Kabul in danger, looking for a Starbucks? Waldo wants to know. Please, Little Katie Communist, HELP US FIND CHELSEA. THE SITUATION MAY BE URGENT. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: HILLARY SAYS CHELSEA IS MISSING AND JANET RHINO DOESN'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS? (11/28/2001)

On former Vice President Al Gore

CORSI: Gore isn't available for television. He is growing his regulation length Bin Laden beard. Mullah Ali'Gore-ah, as he now wishes to be called, is focused on his new career as a pilot. "Want to fly like bird," he says after his stint as a professor at Columbia. "No need to learn take-off or landing, just soar like bird and look at buildings." As to Florida, Mulllah Gore-ah says, "No big buildings," dismissing the importance of the state to his future plans." (12/15/2001)

On the Media

CORSI: Time to FREEP Chris Matthews of MSNBC. MSNBC is beginning to stand for "More Sh*t, Nothing But Communism." (05/16/2002)

CORSI: I didn't realize Little Katie Communist of the NBC Today Show knew how to hack a website. Finally something impressive from the little wimp. [responding to news that USA Today's website had been hacked and that the hackers were mocking President George W. Bush's Christianity] (07/12/2002)

CORSI: COMMUNISM -- it's simple NBC = NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM. (04/19/2004)

CORSI: Susan Estrogen -- even the voice grates. But then with supporters like her and Ted Kennedy, who needs enemies. Let Susan BLAH BLAH screatch -- only Chrissy Matthews whines better. (04/13/2004)

Assorted

CORSI: Perfect Liberal -- lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else. [on Martina Navratilova] (06/26/2002)

CORSI: And now we get Pooh-LEFTY pushed on us by the RATS as Minority Leader in the House -- here come the SanFrancisco liberals -- hope the RATS go back to focusing the debate on gay marriages and other pro-choice topics close to Pelosi's heart. (11/18/2002)

CORSI: Too bad the plane didn't crash into the TV set of the NBC show "THE LEFT WING" -- especially when Martin Sheen was "acting." (06/07/2003)

>>>>>><<<<<<<
NOW WHO BUT THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY IS INTERESTED IN WHAT THIS PIECE OF CRAP HAS TO SAY ABOUT JOHN KERRY'S SERVICE RECORD? THINK HE MIGHT HAVE SUPPORTED THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING?

[MMMMMM]

Ignoring what has been written, based on your opinion of the source, is an inherently flawed approach.

The facts are ALL that matter, not the source.

I personally have not much interest in the book, nor even in the entire Swift Boat matter. If however I did, I would assemble information, analyze it, then try to formulate a conclusion of sorts.

Your penchant for the Ad Hominem Dismissal Approach is clearly revealed in your post title. When you get beyond that childish, churlish attitude, maybe you will start to be able to assess things on an entirely rational basis. I am not speaking to the Swift Boat issue only (because, again, I don't care much about it), but rather am speaking in general to your flawed approach to such things.

I can think of many reasons why someone with an interest in Swift Boat/Kerry would want to read the book, and be correct in so doing, if their aim is to assemble information.

This standard approach of yours--blanket dismissal when you don't like the source--is obviously why you persistently attacked the source rather than discussing the subject matter when I posted the WND article on Hastert's statements about taxation. Truly, it wouldn't much matter if the KKK or the Junior Stalinist League or some Neo-Nazi party posted the article: if it contains factual information about what a Congressman said on an important issue, it is worthy of discussion, not dismissal. And WND is a far cry from any of those groups--as the authors of this book are probably not nearly the "wackos" you portray them as being.

If you will turn your attention to the arguments and facts, and quit employing blanket dismissal, merely because you don't like "the source", you will have taken one giant step for cardcounter0 towards intellectual maturity and the rational approach.

[eLROY]

One question, cardcounter0: Do you think John Kerry was in Cambodia over Christmas?

[cardcounter0]

Actually considering the source and the source's agenda is very important. If I go to a lunatic asylum and some drooling idiot tells me he has invented a method of cold fusion, I consider the source and conclude it is likely that the raving looney is actually a raving looney. Now if a Noble Prize winner in Chemistry tells me he has invented a method of cold fusion, I will probably put more weight on this statement.

In this case, we have one of Nixion's old Dirty Tricksters teamed up with a man unable to distinguish the difference between NBC and Pravda. These guys are filtering and presenting 'facts' for us to consider. I think, just like in the case of the drooling idiot, it is safe to dismiss any findings they have.

Unless you believe Admiral Zumwalt was a Commie, since he was the guy that pinned the medals on Kerry's chest.

[cardcounter0]

I think he was one hell of a lot closer than Bush ever was.

I think he came under 100% more enemy fire.

I think he had to make 100% more decisions in the heat of battle.

I think he saw the direct consequences of his actions in war, I don't think Bush has ever even indirectly suffered from a mistake he has made, in fact, he can't recall ever making a mistake.

Actually your question shows how little you know about the matter. Kerry was in a hostile jungle swamp under enemy fire in a little boat on a meandering Mekong River. It seems he was maybe 50 miles from the border (this wasn't the era of GPS -- and any mission actually in Cambodia would be denied or classified). Years later, a war bill was being debated in the Senate, probably by a bunch of chicken-hawks who had never seen action, and Kerry said "Hey, wait a minute. I was there. I've seen action."

Now the nitpick Republican brigade, able to ignore the non-existance of huge stockpiles of WMDs, is taking him to task about "Where you ever actuall IN Cambodia?" What a smoke screen! Was Bush? Was Cheney? Was Rove? Was Rumsfield? Why is this such an important question, since we accept the lies of the administration without any problems?

[Chris Alger]

It's not ad hominem to dismiss the joint efforts of (1) an adolescent racist homophobe in the habit of labelling everyone to the left of Oliver North a "communist" (Corsi) and (2) a serial liar (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5049.shtml) (O'Neill). When people attack a source for no other reason than a perceived "bias," that's ad hominen. When people attack a source because of its proven inability to reason or tell the truth, it's common sense.

As for the authors "probably not nearly the 'wackos' you portray them as being," all one needs is read Corsi's own words quoted in the excellent and revealing post above.

[eLROY]

So you admit Kerry invented the turning point in his life that was seared into his memory. And then you lie about the debate in which he lied, and what he said in it. The debate dealt with Presidents running secret wars and lying about them. But in fact it was Kerry, not Nixon, who was lying. Was Nixon even in office?

[Utah]

Yes and no.

Facts are facts arent they? However, the credibility of the source is important, at least to me. For example, when someone posts something from the NYT (krugman excluded), Slate, or Salon I will give it a heck of a lot more credit than if its from FAIR or some left or right hate group.

I have thought that Kerry's record was clearly in play because Kerry made it so. However, I didnt accept the facts of those questioning him. Now that it has been shown that Kerry clearly lied about Cambodia and misled about Alston, I think there is now plenty to question.

[cardcounter0]

Yeah, the guy spend Christmas in the Hamptons, he wasn't in the middle of the Vietnam War on a little boat 50 miles from Cambodia (probably close enough to see the B52s flying over and hear the bombs exploding).

Nixon denied any involvement in Cambodia. The bombing didn't take place. Our troops weren't there.

So Kerry is the liar, and Nixon told the truth? Geez, were you the guy that came up with the photos that were shown to the UN 'proving' that Iraq had HUGE STOCKPILES OF WMDs? Now there is a real lie.

[Chris Alger]

It's incredible that defenders of the most notorious cabal of official liars since well, Reagan, can hope to tag Kerry for being "5 miles" across the Cambodian border on Dec. 24, 1968 (as Kerry originally claimed) or merely patrolling "in the watery borders" of Cambodia as Kerry's staff now admits.

Kerry raised his Cambodian experience to show that Nixon lied about the absence of troops in Cambodia ("we made a conscious decision not to send combat troops" to Cambodia). In fact, U.S. troops had been operating in Cambodia for nearly five years when Nixon told that lie. On this issue, Kerry has been proven right. The particular date on which he crossed into Cambodia before the U.S. was willing to admit it (that he did so no one seems to doubt) hardly seems material.

[MMMMMM]

"I think, just like in the case of the drooling idiot, it is safe to dismiss any findings they have."

There may be nothing wrong with dismissing their conclusions, if you wish, but one should not dismiss reported facts so lightly. That doesn't mean you should automatically accept their reported facts either, but you should list them, then attempt to verify or disprove them via other sources if possible.

Blanket dismissals based solely on source are a very dangerous, and non-scientific, approach.

[eLROY]

http://www.swiftvets.com/images/brothers.jpg

[cardcounter0]

Can you find someone Bush even served with in the Alabama National Guard? Find one person who served with Bush, since he wasn't AWOL, and was in the Guard in Alabama. There is a $50,000 reward if that person will step forward.

Then let's ask him if he thinks Bush is fit to serve.

>>>>> The people pictured all have a 30-year-old axe to grind with Kerry, about his anti-war stance and statments from the 70s.

[Utah]

Let's see - your defense of Kerry's lie is that Bush and Company are liars. That seems a pretty weak agrument from a lawyer such as yourself. I'd grade that an F.

Kerry didnt just claim - he said over and over and he used the word seared. He lied. Its a simple fact.

"The particular date on which he crossed into Cambodia before the U.S. was willing to admit it (that he did so no one seems to doubt) hardly seems material."

Its material because it shows him to be a liar. And yes, whether he ever crossed into Cambodia is very much in doubt.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry Chris, but that is an unscientific and needlessly biased approach and is incompatible with seeking the truth of the matter.

Dismiss their conclusions if you wish; view their reported "facts" with a jaundiced eye if if you deem so prudent, then attempt to get outside confirmation or denial of such "facts"--but to dismiss wholesale their reported facts, is simply unintelligent and prejudicial, especially since the Swift/Kerry matter is currently in the investigative stage to some significant extent.

[vulturesrow]

This post is yet another fine example of your typically liberal debating tactics, i.e., deflecting discussion from the main issue, attacking the source, etc. Here are some facts.

1) Kerry has repeatedly made his Vietnam service a cornerstone of his election campaign.
2) Bush didnt do the same in the case of his service, nor has he made an issue of Kerry's service.
3) It has already been shown that Kerry has misled people about the nature of his service in Vietnam.

Make of that what you will but the fact remains that Kerry made this an issue and when he got challenged on it he sent out his goons instead defending it himself. I will even say I dont think it should be an issue. But he made it an issue and now it cant easily be dismissed out of hand. Id rather talk about how incredibly liberal his voting record has been and why that makes him unfit to be President.

[eLROY]

Kerry's desire to attach himself to historical events just shows what a desperate, pathetic person he has always been. It's the chronic lie of baby-boomer nobodys, trying to cling to their own vanity, the stereotypical little guy trying to be part of something big described in Hoffer's "The True Believer" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060505915/ref=sib_rdr_toc/104-1069081-0355940?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S009#reader-page).

It's not about the Vietnam War or terrorism or the great economic debates of our time; it's about John "Cambodia" Kerry looking in the mirror. Healthy people can separate discussions of the world from discussions of their own special role in it, and speak objectively.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think, just like in the case of the drooling idiot, it is safe to dismiss any findings they have."

There may be nothing wrong with dismissing their conclusions, if you wish, but one should not dismiss reported facts so lightly. That doesn't mean you should automatically accept their reported facts either, but you should list them, then attempt to verify or disprove them via other sources if possible.

Blanket dismissals based solely on source are a very dangerous, and non-scientific, approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that basis I report the fact that Bush is in fact a 9 foot alien lizard, preping the world for alien invasion. This is evinced by his very poor understanding of human dialect and lack of knowledge of earth in general.

However his abilty to bring instability and confusion to Earths major powers and alliances is obvious to all.

In conjunction with his other earth Agent Osama we at Lizard HQ expect the Earth to be on its knees in less than 9 months.

[MMMMMM]

A little knowledge of logic is a dangerous thing--as your post seems to illustrate.

Your post is only apropos if the book's claims are as obviously fabricated as your Lizard Report. Given that they aren't an obvious fabrication, your response is meaningless.

But I suppose I could apply the "Ad Hominem Blanket Source Dismissal" to you and your future posts based on this post--if I thought anything like cardcounter0, that is.

The problem is the lack of an open mind. All who are interested in the matter yet would blanketly dismiss everything in the book simply do not have open minds.

2 keys to understanding life and the world: 1) Open Mind, and 2) Logic

[adios]

First of all there are affidavits from veterans who won medals as well that are offered as evidence by the writers. Why dismiss these veterans out of hand? We have Rassman's account which I would think carries the most weight (I posted Rassman's account last week). Kerry has made his record the centerpiece of his campaign therefore it's fair game. Kerry also refuses to provide a complete accounting of his military record by releasing some documents is my understanding. This whole thing will blow over soon is my take.

[cardcounter0]

This post is yet another fine example of your typically neo-nazi debating tactics, i.e., deflecting discussion from the main issue, attacking the source, etc. Here are some facts.

1) Bush has repeatedly tried to make Kerry's Vietnam service a cornerstone of his election campaign.
2) Bush didnt do the same in the case of his service, because he pulled every sting imaginable to avoid service, was technically AWOL, and ended his obligation early.
3) It has already been shown that Bush has misled people about the nature of many of his acts in the White House.

[cardcounter0]

Would this be similar to Bush strutting around on an Air Craft Carrier in his Flight Suit, like some Top-Gun wanna-be?

[The once and future king]

Prove it is obviously fabricated.

Also I have yet to see any evidence that you yourself possess : 1) Open Mind, and 2) Logic .

[cardcounter0]

Yes, I would like to keep an open mind about these things.
Could you tell me more about the lizards, please?

[MMMMMM]

Look, you are confusing things here.

The issue is NOT the difficulty of proving or disproving a negative proposition--that is essentially irrelevant to whether the book should be blanketly dismissed based on one's opinion of the authors.

The book contains reports from those who served with Kerry. The book contains SOME facts, anyway--and probably quite a bit of opinion. Some reported facts may be disputed.

Blanketly dismissing everything in the book based on one's dislike or distrust of the authors is STUPID--because the book contains objectively verifiable information, such as quotes from those who served with him.

I really don't see why you are diverting the topic to such an extent.

My point is that there are facts which should be reviewed in the book--and just because the authors may be weirdos or even liars (not saying they are) doesn't change that, especially since some material is no doubt objectively verifiable anyway.

[cardcounter0]

I'm still trying to have that open mind, but I can't find any reference to lizards in your post.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is yet another fine example of your typically neo-nazi debating tactics, i.e., deflecting discussion from the main issue, attacking the source, etc. Here are some facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations for being the first person to find a way to connect me somehow with neo-Nazis.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Bush has repeatedly tried to make Kerry's Vietnam service a cornerstone of his election campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has not said much about Kerry's war service and has distanced himself from the Swift Boat Veterans issue.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Bush didnt do the same in the case of his service, because he pulled every sting imaginable to avoid service, was technically AWOL, and ended his obligation early

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush was in the ANG, are you implying that those that serve in the reserves / National Guard are less patriotic or commited? That he was AWOL has yet to be proven and people leave military service early all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
3) It has already been shown that Bush has misled people about the nature of many of his acts in the White House

[/ QUOTE ]

Please name some, Id be happy to discuss.

Nice attempt at parody. I notice though that you didnt take me up on my offer to discuss Kerry's ultraliberal voting record. Also please try to avoid calling me neo-Nazi or implying any sort of connection such as you did. If being called a liberal or calling your debating tactics liberal insults you, please let me know and I will refrain.

[The once and future king]

"--because the "book contains objectively verifiable information, such as quotes from those who served with him."

Yes and I served with Agent 13456 (Bush) during the solaris project stardate 12223344. I can supply as many "objective quotes" from this period as you like. Obviously you will have to work hard to disprove them because your earth "science" is years behind ours.

P.S. Nothing by definiton can be more subjective than a quote.

I would say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but in your case I cant be confident you posses even that. Especialy as you cant see the relevancy of my posts in relation to yours.

[cardcounter0]

"liberal debating tactics"?

I was unaware there was such a thing. What exactly does that mean?

Let's use the word "poopie-loopie" instead. poopie-loopie debating tactics. poopie-loopie media. poopie-loopie french-loving wing nuts. Makes about as much sense.

So the next time you want to label 'liberal' thought, or 'liberal' actions, or 'liberal' this, that, or the other.
Especially when you want to modify it with the word 'typical'. Then don't be insulted with a 'typical neo-nazi' reply.

I find it amusing that in typical neo-nazi fashion, you don't want to be called a neo-nazi.

[cardcounter0]

Tell me more about this Solaris project. My open mind would like to objectively investigate these facts that you present.

[eLROY]

So then we both agree that we should end this sin, and secede from the union. Then people in my state will buy goods from people in your state, and we'll have nothing to argue about.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me more about this Solaris project. My open mind would like to objectively investigate these facts that you present.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a Human you are much advanced most of your species would unscientificaly dismiss my reports from Lizard HQ due to there ignorance about the existence of extra terrestrial life.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I was unaware there was such a thing. What exactly does that mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in my original post I qualified what I meant by that. As I said if that bothers you, I will refrain from characterizing your tactics as "liberal".

[ QUOTE ]
So the next time you want to label 'liberal' thought, or 'liberal' actions, or 'liberal' this, that, or the other. Especially when you want to modify it with the word 'typical'.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your view there are no typically liberal actions, thoughts, etc?

[ QUOTE ]
Then don't be insulted with a 'typical neo-nazi' reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have every right to be insulted by that. I think there is a world of difference between saying something is typically liberal and typically neo-Nazi.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that in typical neo-nazi fashion, you don't want to be called a neo-nazi

[/ QUOTE ]

What I find amusing is your ridiculous attempt to bait me and again steer the discussion away from the core matters.

[elwoodblues]

Has anybody actually read the book? I haven't and probably won't.

For me, the vietnam service issue boils down to a few questions:

Does a person with an admirable war service record have a leg up on someone who doesn't in a bid for commander in chief? <font color="blue"> I believe yes, but it isn't a big leg up and it can certainly be overcome when weighing the totality of the candidate </font>

Should a lack of service disqualify one for commander in chief? <font color="blue"> No, but it is one of many factors to consider. It was a factor with Clinton. It is a factor with Bush. Again, it is not the defining factor, but it should be considered. </font>

Do Kerry's actions protesting the war make him unfit as commander in chief. <font color="blue"> I believe no. I also can understand why people who served could be offended because claims of misdeeds tend to cast a bad light on everyone. If it were me, I would be angry at those conducting the misdeeds, not those who broadcast the misdeeds (similar to the prison abuse scandal). I personally feel that Kerry's actions after the war were admirable and are actually a plus in his column. </font>

All of the other issues are ancillary and meaningless to me --- how did Kerry earn his medals? I don't care. Were his wounds superficial? I don't care. Was Kerry actually in Cambodia or near the border? I don't care.

[MMMMMM]

It is easily objectively verifiable that those guys served with Kerry--that is not even in question. Your comparison is therefore pointless.

I'm not saying their quotes are objectively true; I'm saying it is objectively true that they served with Bush and are quoted in the book. If they say Kerry did such-and-such a thing while they served with him, I think it takes an especial amount of arrogance to completely disregard that because you don't like the book's authors. The persons quoted and the book's authors are different people.

Am I talking to a brick wall here or not?

[The once and future king]

"I'm not saying their quotes are objectively true"

Thats exactly what you said and when I pointed out the fallacy of such a statement you went back and edited the post in which you made the assertion.

Most of the data in the book is qualative not quantative therefore the source/author of the information is of upmost importance, just as the original poster asserted.

You are obviously a keen Bush fan and therefore sought to assert that the source was valid and that to dismiss it was "unscientific".

I took your arguements to there logical conclusion with my Lizard posts and therfore exposed the inherent absurdity of your dialogue.

[MMMMMM]

No, but perhaps I was less clear than perhaps I should have been. Read my earlier posts and you will see that I was never saying that their quotes were themselves necessarily true; only that it was true that the book contained verifiable or disprovable facts and that the men who served with Kerry are quoted. That they are quoted and that the book contains verifiable material is true.

And NO, I did not assert that the source was valid. Reread again earlier, please. I asserted that it would be unwarranted to disregard the book because it contains facts which may be objectively confirmed or denied. Further that some of these facts are undeniable, such as the existence of certain quotes by those who served with Kerry.

[The once and future king]

But the book isnt about facts it is about opinions. Therefore examining the subjective stance of the Authors is entirley valid.

[cardcounter0]

With such a great and open mind, why do you refuse to investigate the facts presented on this lizard thing?

""I'm not saying their quotes are objectively true"

Thats exactly what you said and when I pointed out the fallacy of such a statement you went back and edited the post in which you made the assertion. "

Hmmmm.... looks like a cover up. So you are trying to delibrately avoid the lizards, since Bush has made the non-existance of lizards a cornerstone of his campaign?

[MMMMMM]

But the book CONTAINS numerous facts amongst those opinions, so anyone seriously interested in the matter should not disregard the book.

[The once and future king]

"--because the book contains objectively verifiable information, such as quotes from those who served with him."

"I'm not saying their quotes are objectively true;"

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[The once and future king]

So even though Michael Moores books contain numerous objective facts you think that MM being the author is irrelevant and has no bearing on how those facts will be presented and everyone should check out his books.

I bet you dont, and that if not that makes you a hypocrite.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Blanketly dismissing everything in the book based on one's dislike or distrust of the authors is STUPID--because the book contains objectively verifiable information, such as quotes from those who served with him.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same thing that some people do with Michael Moore. For example, with Bowling for Columbine the central question of the film is why does the US have more gun violence than other countries. Instead of discussing that issue, people rant about Moore being anti-capitalist (and probably communist), they focus on his distortions instead of discussing the root issue.

For me, the root issue raised by the Swifties is whether anti-war activity makes someone unfit to be president of the US. I don't think so, but I'm willing to discuss it. Focusing on whether someone was in Cambodia or near it is silly.

[elwoodblues]

Objectively verifiable means they can be proven true or false not that they are true. They could be objectively false.

[MMMMMM]

"So even though Michael Moores books contain numerous objective facts you think that MM being the author is irrelevant and has no bearing on how those facts will be presented and everyone should check out his books."

Of course it has a bearing. However anyone with a serious interest in the matter should not disregard the book.

[The once and future king]

I take it he means the existence of the quotes themselves can be objectively verified.

He still removed the the first sentence and failed to mark his quote as edited.

As far as objectively verifying the quotes, only if the quotes are assertions of fact. If I say 'Kerry is a idiot" that is very hard to quantify as it is a qualitive statement as are most of the quotes in said book.

[Cyrus]

It is patently hilarious to see the stubborn Bush faithful grasping at anything that will save their man's credibility. What's more funny is that they are attacking the opposition on the issue of "military service record", its strongest point -- the beleaguered fools!

Beyond the chaff about which veteran said what about Kerry, remains, tall and distinct, the giant, ugly rock formation of Bush's own military non-record: Getting into the Air Nat'l Guard to avoid Vietnam; going AWOL repeatedly there; getting out earlier; etc. But even more importantly for the coming election is the more recent record: 9/11 and beyond.

The record shows that George W Bush is lousy at picking worthy team mates, is incompetent in leading a team towards formulating policy, listens badly if at all, is extremely indecisive, is likely to freeze (would you believe seven fucking minutes?) at a time of crisis, has been rated as "unfit to serve even as staff officer" by (otherwise extremely hawkish) British generals, and will throw good money after bad without much thought.

The man is clearly unfit to command a 4-table card room. Much less the Oval Room.

[MMMMMM]

If I edited that sentence--and I don't recall so doing, but I do often edit posts for clarity or typos--it was not for the reasons you seem to suspect. And if I edited it, I doubt I changed the meaning substantially--I certainly didn't reverse meaning or anything like that. Again, go back and reread all my posts in this thread and you will see the same theme: the book contains objectively verifiable information and therefore should not be completely disregarded by those seriously interested in the subject.

[Cyrus]

You want 'personal' ?

It doesn't get more personal than this :

NY Times - The Department of Defense has identified 932 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American on Friday:

Tarlavsky, Michael Yury, 30, Capt., Army; Passaic, N.J.; First Battalion, Fifth Special Forces Group.

[vulturesrow]

Cyrus,

What was the point of that post? Is that individual someone you know?

[MMMMMM]

"NY Times - The Department of Defense has identified 932 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war.
It confirmed the death of the following American on Friday:

Tarlavsky, Michael Yury, 30, Capt., Army; Passaic, N.J.; First Battalion, Fifth Special Forces Group. "



Every day, more Americans are killed in auto accidents, than the entire number of American servicemen who were killed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq war.

Latest victims are: ......., of (city, state), and ........., of (city, state).

Ad Hominen [b]that[/i].

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Every day, more Americans are killed in auto accidents, than the entire number of American servicemen who were killed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect, though I don't have the hard evidence to back up this wild assertion, that there might be a few more people that travel in cars each day in the US than there are US soldiers in Iraq.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that it has been shown that Kerry clearly lied about Cambodia and misled about Alston, I think there is now plenty to question.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) How do these things affect Kerry's ability to run the country now?

2) Any reason you can think of for #1 forces you to apply the exact same standard to Bush and I think Kerry wins that battle of comparisons

[MMMMMM]

"I would suspect, though I don't have the hard evidence to back up this wild assertion, that there might be a few more people that travel in cars each day in the US than there are US soldiers in Iraq."

Which is true, and about as relevant to the overall thread as the point Cyrus was making;-)

[elwoodblues]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is true, and about as relevant to the overall thread as the point Cyrus was making;-)

[/ QUOTE ]
What the [censored]?????
Another one of our troops die in a war that should have never happened and you dimiss that as being irrelavent??? You may laugh at his point or think its absurd, but I sure as [censored] don't. I have friends and family over there fighting. Go [censored] yourself MMMMMM.

[ThaSaltCracka]

BTW, you are starting to look like quite a hypocrite and a buffon.
[ QUOTE ]
the book contains objectively verifiable information and therefore should not be completely disregarded by those seriously interested in the subject.

[/ QUOTE ] Again this is exact same thing can be said about F9-11 and every other politcal commentary book out right now.

[cardcounter0]

A lot of those troops getting killed over there are young, poor, and probably of a minority race.
Some of them could possibly be *gasp* liberal.

So it makes sense why the Administration would consider the mounting losses as irrelevant.

As long as Texaco/Chevron/Mobil/Shell continue to report ever and ever higher all-time record quarterly profits, all is good with the war on terror.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think I miss the point man. I think some other people do though.

FWIW, I don't even blame Bush solely for the Iraq debacle, its just to bad he didn't have the spine or brain to stand up for and think for himself.

[vulturesrow]

Oh come on. Way to purposely misunderstand his point. That point is irrelevant to this particular thread. Is it irrelevant in general, no of course not and I dont think that was the point.

[cardcounter0]

He was put in that position precisely because of those qualities. And Cheney was hand picked to watch over him, and make sure he never tries to think for himself.

When 9/11 occured, Cheney and Rumsfield took command while Bush aimlessly flew around the country.
When it was time to testify before the 9/11 commission, Bush insisted on having Cheney hold his hand while questioned.

Who do you think is in charge? BUSH? /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cardcounter0]

Actually, I was thinking about Chairman Mao's "Litte Red Book". There are some facts sprinkled in that, so we shouldn't dismiss out-of-hand some of the objective opinions expressed there either.

[ThaSaltCracka]

if Cyrus point was irrelavant to the thread then say that, don't spout off some bull [censored] about how more people die per day in car accidents, and make it sound like hardly anyone has died over there.

[vulturesrow]

The number is relatively small. The fact of the matter is though that people do die in war and people know that when they sign up for military service. But implying that he was saying the deaths dont matter or arent important is bit too much of a stretch.

[elwoodblues]

He might not have been saying that the deaths don't matter. However, when you say that fewer soldiers have died in Iraq than die every day in auto accidents you are clearly implying that the number of dead soldiers is insignificant (even if the statistic you cite as evidence is absolutely meaningless.)

[cardcounter0]

When I compare it to the number of troops killed during the 8 years Clinton was President, I find the number killed during 3 years of Bush RELATIVELY LARGE.

Of course, if I compare it to the number of people killed in auto accidents, then I wonder what all the fuss about the 1000+ people killed in the World Trade Center attack?

Why all the fuss? The people killed during 9/11 is relatively small. Why should we mount this huge war on terror on such a irrelevant small attack?

[ThaSaltCracka]

is the number still relatively small for an unneccesary war?

[vulturesrow]

You can twist my words all you want, but it doesnt make you right. MMMMM was trying to make a point that Cyrus's post was irrelevant in terms of this particular thread. I just think its crass to assume he is saying that american deaths are insignificant.

[vulturesrow]

Whether or not it is necessary is not relevant to the relative percentage of deaths. I happen to think it was a necessary war , you obviously dont. FWIW, most people I know over there very much support what they are being asked to do.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I base my reaction on his words. I hope he doesn't edit the post again. Maybe thats rash, but maybe he should think before he writes.

[MMMMMM]

Saltcracka,

I do not think that F911 should be completely disregarded by those seriously interested in that subject, either--even though as I feel that Moore probably contrived parts of it by "creative" editing.

I think Moore is a great windbag, propagandist, and distorter. Yet if I were researching or studying the subjects he covers in F911, I would be obligated, by pursuit of the scientific method, to note his points and attempt to either confirm or deny them.

cardcounter0 apparently has a great long list of villainous misrepresenters he will not touch, or read, with a ten-foot pole. I trust you and I are both a little more open-minded than that.

[MMMMMM]

Saltcracka,

Can you tell me what Cyrus' post had to do with this thread?

Also, can you tell me why the death of a soldier should be more of a grief to those who knew him, than the death of a civilian by automobile, to those who knew him?

[MMMMMM]

Saltcracka,

Cyrus' post was largely irrelevant to this thread. Furthermore he used a specific tactic.

The tactic he used was attempting to make things more personal in order to engender sympathy and enhance the impact of the number of deaths. There is nothing wrong with doing that in itself, but it was used to create more focus on the 900+ dead than otherwise would have been accorded in logical discussion.

Of course those deaths are significant. However the engendering special sympathy tactic is not appropriate to dispassionate discussion or debate. What about all those killed by say drunkj drivers every year? Do the numbers change if we list a few names and shed tears? Does that make them, or any other specific group, more important than others? Are 900 dead Americans more important than 3000 or 30000 dead Americans because we name each of the 900?

So I was both showing that Cyrus' point was irrelevant to the thread, and calling him on the use of the special tactic he used to elevate concern for those 900.

He asked if that was personal enough for me. Well can't the same tactic be used for any dead or suffering? Not to discount their deaths or sufferings, but it hardly adds anything to the discussion, and in fact detracts from logical discussion if his point were, say, to raise the question of whether we should have gone to war with Iraq.

[Chris Alger]

I never implied that Kerry's service wasn't a legitimate issue, but your implication that any legitimate issue is fair target for a smear campaign by loons and liars is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush didnt do the same in the case of his service, nor has he made an issue of Kerry's service.

[/ QUOTE ]
He-he. Since he was busy hiding from the war for which his family was trying to get other people's kids killed (indeeed, even hiding from his National Guard hideout), Bush doesn't have any military service of which he's proud. Duh.

As for Bush "not making" an issue of Kerry's service, his campaign has refused to condemn the smears, and is thus consciously exploiting them.

[ QUOTE ]
It has already been shown that Kerry has misled people about the nature of his service in Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah right. Other than eyewitness disputed and "recovered"-by-Kerry-hating-billionaire recollections from 35 years ago, examples just don't come easily, do they?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
your defense of Kerry's lie is that Bush and Company are liars

[/ QUOTE ]
No, my defense of his "lie" (or perhaps his confusion about irrelevant dates) was that it was immaterial. The point about Bush defenders accusing anyone of lying is that they can't be taken seriously because they abviously have no concern for truth and are raising the issue for transparently ulterior motives, which calls into question their veracity as well.

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
I am not pointing fingers at you, but explain to me why people are so quick to accept the word of these swifties and yet quick to dismiss people like Moore or Richard Clarke? There is indeed a hypocrisy here, one that seems to be prevailing more from the right than the left. I, like you apparently, try to read a wide array of things, but always with some skepticism, and thats partly why I find this new book so absurd. I mean obviously this book is politcaly motivated, and more than likely backed by some rich men, so I am even more skeptical of it. I actually read the book Blinded by the Right , sorry the authors name is alluding me, and I was appaled by the allegations made in the book. I know the right wing bash machine came out quickly and fiercely, but that only seemed to illustrate to me just what the author was exposing. I worry far more about the "vast right wing conspiracy" making things up then I do about the "lilberal-media" not reporting something.

[ThaSaltCracka]

It had nothing to do with it, and thats all you had to say, instead you make a smart ass(and yes it was) comment about more people dying in car accidents everyday blah blah blah. You definitely tried to make it sound insiginifcant, and I took offense to that. I am little touchy about this now because I greatly feel we were lead to war under false pretense and EVERY death over there is very significant to ne atleast. I realize we all may have become desensitized to the violence and death over there, but if you really sit back and reflect on the amount of death that has come out of this war, it should really make you ask, "was it worth it?" And there are 950 famalies here in the states that are really thinking about it. IMO, the government let those soldiers down and their famalies. So I am sorry if I am little touchy about it.

[MMMMMM]

Saltcracka,

I don't know how well or ill-received the book has generally been, nor do I know how much trust the average reader places in it.

My point all along in this thread has merely been that one who is seriously interested in the matters the book discusses, should not dismiss all material in the book out of hand--regardless of what one might think about the authors.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I made a smart ass remark to Cyrus in the same spirit in which he made one to me.

I was not trying to diminish the deaths of our soldiers per se; rather I was trying to counter Cyrus' overemphasis on those deaths for his purposes of one-upmanship of his position.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
your defense of Kerry's lie is that Bush and Company are liars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, my defense of his "lie" (or perhaps his confusion about irrelevant dates) was that it was immaterial. The point about Bush defenders accusing anyone of lying is that they can't be taken seriously because they abviously have no concern for truth and are raising the issue for transparently ulterior motives, which calls into question their veracity as well.

[/ QUOTE ]


Heh, Chris, what is it...you don't agree with Andy Fox that all politicians are liars?

If you are going to say any politician who has been discovered lying can't be taken seriously, well, I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to implications.

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
there really was an easier way for you to say all of this: Don't judge a book by its cover.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to say any politician who has been discovered lying can't be taken seriously

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I never said that. Politicians are in the business of selling policy and themselves to an public steeped in ignorance and mythology. To say they tend to lie misses the mark. It's like accusing tent show preachers of being "unscientific."

Those who discern magic importance in the precise date that Kerry was in Cambodia when the substance of Kerry's claim was that he and others were in Cambodia prior to 1971 are the sort who love lawyers' quibbles. Those who chastise Kerry for this "lie" about the dates while defending or downplaying the White Houses WMD lying campaign cannot be taken seriously as proponents of truth, are and just if not more likely to be lying as their target.

[Utah]

Those who discern magic importance in the precise date that Kerry was in Cambodia when the substance of Kerry's claim was that he and others were in Cambodia prior to 1971 are the sort who love lawyers' quibbles.

Nope. Its not a question of exact dates. If it was some second hand comment he made at some point in his career, I would agree. However, when he uses the word "seared" several times then it isnt a question on exact dates now is it? And when that statement was used to make a very serious allegation against the govenment....and when the Kerry camp is running on his record in Vietnam and when that camp bashes anyone who challenges the facts and when those facts are shown to be false......well, now we have a clear lie and now we have a significant story.

[Utah]

1) How do these things affect Kerry's ability to run the country now?

Well, if he is shown to have lied about the very cornerstone of his campaign (his service in Vietnam), then it shows he cannot be trusted in the least.

2) Of course the same standard should be applied to both. I dont think Kerry wins the battle of comparison.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if he is shown to have lied about the very cornerstone of his campaign (his service in Vietnam), then it shows he cannot be trusted in the least.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) It is not the very cornerstone of his campaign, it's just one of the biggest differences between him and Bush.

2) The few things that might actually true about Kerry's supposed lies mean very little in that they did not have much of a negative affect on the lives of others. Bush endangered other people's lives by driving drunk, he used a highly illegal drug in cocaine and he could not even manage to perform the minor service for his country to which he had committed. And he has lied about that as well. Ant then there's the WMD thing and everything else that has already been discussed to death

Bush's indiscretions and lack of owning up to them are in no way worse than the minor issue of Kerry's war service. This whole issue is completely illogical. I find it amazing that intelligent people seem to prefer to spend more time criticizng Kerry for crap like this than for problems they have with his political stances. Lets get back to discussing the relevant issues, shall we?

[Utah]

1) It is not the very cornerstone of his campaign, it's just one of the biggest differences between him and Bush.

I find this so funny. No democrat seemed to care that Clinton was a draft dodger. And, it is the cornerstone of his campaign. I have yet to hear him tout his 30 year senate record.

The few things that might actually true about Kerry's supposed lies mean very little in that they did not have much of a negative affect on the lives of others.

Well, I am sure the Viatmanese he shot in the back would beg to differ.

I find it amazing that intelligent people seem to prefer to spend more time criticizng Kerry for crap like this than for problems they have with his political stances. Lets get back to discussing the relevant issues, shall we?

Yep, I think there are a million better reasons to hate Kerry - starting with his immediate post war action and ending with his record on the Iraq war. His entire past is a target rich environment.

[Taxman]

Your logic is pretty twisted and it is quite apparent that I won't change your warped views, so if you care to respond to this post, feel free to have the last word.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
And when that statement was used to make a very serious allegation against the govenment

[/ QUOTE ]
That the U.S. invaded Cambodia while denying it is not an "allegation" but a fact. From, among many other sources, a website dedicated to U.S. Special Forces (http://www.specialoperations.com/MACVSOG/Overview.htm) in SE Asia: "When created in 1964, the SOG [Special Operations Group] . . . established a policy that called for the use of both indigenous and U.S. personnel for operations conducted in Laos and Cambodia." In April 1970, Nixon claimed (http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc15.html) that "American policy since [1954] has been to scrupulously respect the neutrality of the Cambodian people." In fact, "by October 1967, SOG’s teams had permission to infiltrate the entire Cambodian border area to a depth of 20 kilometers." There are reams of material on covert operations in Cambodia about which Kerry spoke truthfully when he accused Nixon and the U.S. government generally of failing to disclose and lying about them.

Lying about a secret war is serious. Torturing families for years by listing their loved ones killed in Cambodia as "MIA" because they can't admit the whereabouts of the dead is serious. Whether Kerry was in Cambodia in December '68 or January '69 is not.

Your ignorance of these basic facts, while castigating Kerry for lying about a precise date, is telling. So is the acquiesence of the mainstream press, which succeeds so well in keeping people like you in your intellectual cave, about the U.S. government's legacy of lying about war.

[cardcounter0]

Really amazing isn't it? Now Kerry can be faulted for shooting fleeing Viet Cong in a battle zone.

Guess he should have just ordered the Iraq civilian population to be bombed at high altitude. Not as personal that way.

Amazing the twists, turns, loop-de-loops, omissions, and half-truths that must be navigated to justify continued support for Bush. Black is White! Freedom is Slavery! Heil Bush!

[adios]

To my knowledge nobody.

[cardcounter0]

I didn't realize that these people didn't know the Government had lied for years about our involvement in Cambodia!

IF they were old enough to be aware what was going on during the Vietnam War, they must have been in the same state of self-brainwashed denial then as they are about Bush now.

[cardcounter0]

To my knowledge nobody.

[nicky g]

Clearly, Bush was in Cambodia with Kerry.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Dang man, I was born in 1981 and I knew that the US had missions in Cambodia during the Vietnam war. I thought that was also one of the main reasons Francis Ford Coppola mentioned Cambodia in his film Apocolypse Now.....

[Cyrus]

"Every day, more Americans are killed in auto accidents, than the entire number of American servicemen who were killed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq war."

So this is the (new) measure of success for the war in Iraq.

As long as we have fewer dead than those killed in auto accidents, we are doing alright.

Brilliant logic.

[Cyrus]

Thank you for making my point more eloquently than I could hope for.

"Another one of our troops die in a war that should have never happened and you dimiss that as being irrelevant??? You may laugh at his point or think its absurd, but I sure as fuck don't. I have friends and family over there fighting. Go fuck yourself."

People like MMMMMM think that a verbal, personal ("ad hominem") attack is more relevant than the ultimate personal loss. I wish your friends and family a safe return home.

...As to that gangster aphorism (taken from "Godfather") in the title of my post, the proper response to it was given in another movie ("Analyze This"), and, although the movie was a comedy, the point was deadly serious: "Don't fool yourself, it doesn't get more personal than this."

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, the freakin' thread was about Kerry and the Swift Boat business--why are you even bringing up the Iraq war dead in this thread? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MMMMMM]

"People like MMMMMM think that a verbal, personal ("ad hominem") attack is more relevant than the ultimate personal loss. "


No, Cyrus, I don't think that.

I did, however, think this thread was about cardcounter0 asking why anybody would want to read the Swift book--not about discussing the Iraq war dead. Guess I must have been wrong to think that.

[elwoodblues]

The Iraq war dead is related to that question (tangentially.) The implication is that one's true priorities shouldn't be on what happened 30+ years ago in Cambodia (or nearby) and that there are bigger issues to think about happening today.

Raising the Iraq dead issue is a way to say that we need to focus on real issues, not triviality.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe so, but raising that issue in this thread without giving a clue as to why is asking way too much of this reader. Sorry Cyrus I am not a mind reader.

[elwoodblues]

Yet you require mind reading when you reply comparing the number of dead soldiers with traffic accidents.

[MMMMMM]

I was also making a valid point: that this number is much ballyhooed by those opposed to the war, but is actually a much smaller number of deaths than deaths from many other causes (even many entirely needless causes, such as drunk driving).

My point was not to diminish the importance of those deaths but rather to put them in perspective. It is important to keep such things in perspective, especially when people are using howling about something in place of an argument. Much like an attorney may do in a trial, engendering sympathy for one side does not change the underlying arguments of the case. It is, simply put, a questionable, and often irrelevant and distracting, sort of tactic.

Putting something on a more personal emotional level does not change the arguments pro or con in any way. Cyrus was attempting to do this, and what's more, he was doing it out of the blue in an apparently unrelated thread.

[cardcounter0]

Okay let's put it in perspective.

How many people have been killed in Iraq because Bush ordered them to go there?

How many people have been killed by people driving drunk because Bush ordered them to drink and drive?

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
I think you are the one lacking perspective here.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe so...why, may I ask, do you think that?

[ThaSaltCracka]

First of all, I just want to say, I am sure you are not trying to make the deaths of our soldiers insignifcant. But lets think about this situation.....
We have 950 troops dead in Iraq, and that may be a small number in the whole history of wars, but thats a large and significant number, especially when you consider how we were told we were going to steam roll Iraq and be embraced with open arms..... only part of this happened. We were told Saddam had direct connections with Al-Qaeda and that he had WMD's, neither of which were entirely true. Now what we have here is a war that was sold to us, a war that many people accepted blindly by a lot of people. IMO, 950 people is a lot of troops killed, especially for a war that was not neccesary. Put those deaths in perspective man, was it worth their lives? I doubt it, and I am starting to have my doubts Iraq will get better.