Bob Dole Weighs In

[andyfox]

Former Sen. Bob Dole, a World War II veteran and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, suggested Kerry apologize for his 1971 testimony to Congress about atrocities U.S. soldiers allegedly committed in Vietnam.

No need for the country to apologize for the atrocities, just Kerry for having the indecency to talk about them.

[eLROY]

Then you should hate Kerry even more, for recently conceding that his representations were inaccurate and exagerrated.

[cardcounter0]

Man, you need to watch what you are 'cutting' that stuff with. Why don't you put the pipe down for a day or two?

[andyfox]

I don't hate Kerry, so I won't hate him "even more." I don't hate Bush either. I may prefer one or the other to be president.

What inaccuracies and/or exaggerations would make what Dole said less objectionable? The fact that Kerry was probably in Cambodia later than Christmas rather than Christmas? What is he wasn't there at all?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Former Sen. Bob Dole, a World War II veteran and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, suggested Kerry apologize for his 1971 testimony to Congress about atrocities U.S. soldiers allegedly committed in Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

We go from alleged atrocities committed by those Kerry served with to -------------

[ QUOTE ]
No need for the country to apologize for the atrocities, just Kerry for having the indecency to talk about them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atrocities certainly committed.

The Viet Nam vets that served with Kerry are pissed because they felt that they conducted themselves honorably in Viet Nam. Apparently Dole believes these Vets and doesn't feel that Kerry was right about what he testified to in Congress in 1971. Shall we discuss that testimony? Even Kerry has stated that he went "over the top" in making his statements then.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

I dont understand you post or you are baiting people to comment.

Either Kerry is a war criminal or a liar. Which one do you think it is? Do you believe he was speaking honestly in his senate testimony?

[cardcounter0]

According to the "Swift Voat Veterans for the Bruth", Kerry shot a young teenager in the back clad in a loin cloth running away from him unarmed.

So were the Swifties aware of atrocities committed by Kerry, and didn't report them? Covered up known atrocities?
Or are the Not-So-Swifties lying about Kerry's actions?

[Zeno]

The wounds of Vietnam cut very deep into the soul of America. This whole hullabaloo is proof of this - more than ever since it is now more than 30 years later.

Some points - atrocities are committed in all wars (aside from the fact that war itself is an atrocity). This point is not made as an excuse, but it is a fact that gets glossed over in many discussions.

The atrocities (alleged and/or factual) committed in Vietnam were used as a political football by a host of people for aims that spread the gamut from altruism to sheer scheming ambition and attention.

We both lived through this tumultuous time and we probably both carry scars of this era. I still have mixed feelings and unresolved issues about what happened. In general, it was a rather shameful period for America. But one thing that younger people may miss is that many Vietnam Vets (men and women) still have deep-seated pain from what occurred there and from all the political fall out, and the dismal aftermath of the post war period. All this is being resurrected in an ugly political atmosphere that reopens old wounds and issues, creates even more division, but brings no healing.

To me, that is the worse part of all of this.

All sides are probably to blame for this but I personally did not like Kerry doing his “Reporting for Duty’ thing at the DNC. This was unnecessary and too much braggart and swagger for a ‘war hero’ to take, in my opinion. This rankled many people. Including me. To be fair, Bush is probably no better.

That’s about all I wanted to say.

-Zeno

[cardcounter0]

"This was unnecessary and too much braggart and swagger for a ‘war hero’ to take, in my opinion."

For the true definition of 'swagger' watch Bush walk across the flight deck of the carrier in his flight suit. 'Mission Accomplished' is also the credo of a braggart, when people are still getting killed daily.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
What inaccuracies and/or exaggerations would make what Dole said less objectionable?

[/ QUOTE ]
John Kerry painted the other people in that picture with him as psycho war criminals. And they hate him for it. So he should apologize. Why is this hard to understand?

Vietnam vets have been looked down at with suspicion for 30 years, and now it's payback time.

[andyfox]

My point was that Dole believes that it's more important that Kerry apologize for going over the top than the country apologize for committing war crimes. Strange sense of priorities, that.

[andyfox]

I'm disgusted by what Dole said. He sees nothing wrong with what we did in Vietnam. He thinks an Kerry's remarks call for an apology, but the country did nothing wrong.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, you need to watch what you are 'cutting' that stuff with. Why don't you put the pipe down for a day or two?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe if I smoked the white woolie, I might start firing off posts so devoid of content, that I could use the same one in every argument and in every situation! And even imagine I was scoring points!

Aren't you the dumbass living in the alternate universe, where John Kerry has signed the form 180 (http://www.archives.gov/research_room/obtain_copies/standard_form_180.pdf) to release his military records?

See that text that looks different? That's known as a "link," you should try using one in a post. Before you know it, you'll be writing all sorts of relevant tidbits!

[andyfox]

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

I believe Kerry later said he went over the top to make himself more palatable as a politician. So I believe he is both a war criminal and a liar.

[andyfox]

I thought Kerry's "reporting for duty" shtick was a mistake and in poor taste. Kerry has made his military service part of the campaign and the trouble he's getting for it now is his own fault.

Indeed, Vietnam still stings. That's why what Dole said particulary rankled me.

[andyfox]

He should apologize if they did not do what he said they did. If they did, shouldnt they apologize to the people of Vietnam?

I agree with you that Kerry's opponents look on this as payback time and that they hate him.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
He should apologize if they did not do what he said they did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't in Vietnam. But I have been here when Kerry has conceded that he may have exaggerated and misled. If they did do the things he originally said they did, and Kerry just backed down under pressure, then Kerry should apologize for running for President.

[andyfox]

"If they did do the things he originally said they did, and Kerry just backed down under pressure, then Kerry should apologize for running for President."

Every politician attempts to make himself appear moderate when running for office.

I've posted Kerry's 1971 statement. One of the things he did was compare our actions in Vietnam to those of Genghis Khan. I don't think he particularly wants to hear that quoetd in a debate, so of course he has to say he was over the top. But our current president told us that if we didn't invade Iraq we might see a mushroom cloud here in America. Now THAT's over the top.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Every politician attempts to make himself appear moderate when running for office...

...our current president told us that if we didn't invade Iraq we might see a mushroom cloud here in America. Now THAT's over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's always something odd with you, andyfox. Bush hasn't backed away from that, he still stands by it! And his core supporters agree with him, which is probably why he stands by it. But that's why he is President, because the views that come naturally to him, nearly always win me over after if I take a moment to think about them.

Kerry's core supporters not only believe that the war in Iraq is evil, they probably also still hold the statements he made about Vietnam as truthful and important. Unless he considers himself the king of the idiots, why doesn't he try to sell the beliefs which his supporters hold dear?

[Taxman]

This post is so full of unilateral assumptions and overgeneralizations that I think you must not have thought it over very much. Are you saying that Iraq would have launched a nuclear attack against the US if we hadn't invaded?

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is so full of unilateral assumptions and overgeneralizations

[/ QUOTE ]
If you already think that we don't understand each other, then you should try to make more specific and clearly-stated criticisms. Like offer an example.

What I believe, is that the people going around Manhattan with radiation detectors before New Year's Eve were not homeless schizophrenic crazies. They were police acting as a result of genuine risks.

Of course people like Ramsey Yusef would nuke us if they could get a device. And Saddam Hussein, whose life goals were 1) nukes, and 2) killing George Bush, was their best hope to get them.

Are you really surprised that people like me believe these things? What is your opinion of our nuclear terrorist risk in 1999, 2001, and today? And if it is above zero, then can you describe how it might happen, put a face or a possible story to it?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What inaccuracies and/or exaggerations would make what Dole said less objectionable?

[/ QUOTE ]
John Kerry painted the other people in that picture with him as psycho war criminals. And they hate him for it. So he should apologize. Why is this hard to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Kerry has no reason to apologize. Your statement that "John Kerry painted the other people in that picture with him as psycho war criminals" is very broad. Maybe some were psycho war criminals, but he did not put down any individual or group specifically (as your statement suggests). He painted pictures of atrocities that occurred, that's vastly different from painting the other people in that picture with him as "psycho war criminals."

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Your statement that "John Kerry painted the other people in that picture with him as psycho war criminals" is very broad.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, actually my statement is very specific, referring to specific people in a specific picture (http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_before.jpg). Though Kerry meant his description of his experience to be taken as representative of US soldiers in general. So you wouldn't be surprised if other US soldiers were bothered by him.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some were psycho war criminals, but he did not put down any individual or group specifically (as your statement suggests).

[/ QUOTE ]
What planet are you on? He absolutely did! He said the soldiers he served with were evil. And not just that, he said they were cowards who left a man behind, whereas he was brave. And he said that identifiable individuals in his chain of command, right up to Richard Nixon who wasn't even in office yet, ordered him to commit atrocities.

[ QUOTE ]
He painted pictures of atrocities that occurred, that's vastly different from painting the other people in that picture with him as "psycho war criminals."

[/ QUOTE ]
You're nuts. He even painted himself in that picture. He said he, himself committed war crimes! (http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3)

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Former Sen. Bob Dole, a World War II veteran and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, suggested Kerry apologize for his 1971 testimony to Congress about atrocities U.S. soldiers allegedly committed in Vietnam.


[/ QUOTE ]
I used to like Bob Dole. I never thought he would make this sort of stupid request for an "apology".

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
According to the "Swift Voat Veterans for the Bruth", Kerry shot a young teenager in the back clad in a loin cloth running away from him unarmed.

So were the Swifties aware of atrocities committed by Kerry, and didn't report them? Covered up known atrocities?
Or are the Not-So-Swifties lying about Kerry's actions?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is obvious that the Not-So-Swifties have repressed these horrid memories of Kerry killing young teenagers. Now that Kerry is in the spotlight these 35 year old repressed memories of Kerry have come flooding back with a vengeance.

[Chris Alger]

The idea of Kerry owing an apology for whistle blowing about war atrocities is about what we'd expect from this stalwart party hack.

But Dole also said this: "One day, he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons. The next day, he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.'"

That makes sense. Kerry's cynicism about Vietnam is a legitimate issue that betrays a character as bad or worse than Bush's. Kerry's a manipulative weasel who (1) participated in a criminal war that any student in Boston could have explained to him was a crime; (2) bailed out to condemn not so much the war but the way it's fought; (3) bragged about his noble service during that war; (4) in order to claim that he's suited to better prosecute another wrong war. This guy expects to get the antiwar vote after admitting that he'd support the war authorization resolution all over again?

I don't care if I'm in a swing state. Ralph gets my vote again.

[sam h]

I found nothing in that testimony that is objectionable. Kerry gives a pretty honest account of what come out in the Winter Soldier hearings. He never says that every soldier in Vietnam committed atrocities and he ultimately puts the blame for the debacle where it should lie, which is on the shoulders of those in charge of the war.

If he later disowned his words, I blame him only for retreating from what was a courageous original position.

[andyfox]

"There's always something odd with you, andyfox."

-We're in agreement there.


"Bush hasn't backed away from that, he still stands by it!"

-I never said he backed away from it. I said it's over the top.


"And his core supporters agree with him, which is probably why he stands by it."

-I hope one of the debate questioners asks him if, in light of the non-discovery of the WMD cache, he would still say the same thing again. But if your point is that a politician will stand by a statement if his core constituency wants him too, then I'm in agreement.


"But that's why he is President, because the views that come naturally to him, nearly always win me over after if I take a moment to think about them."

-That's not why he's president. It's why you support him. He's president because there are five Republicans on the Supreme Court. Were there five Democrats, Gore would be president, and that's why he would be president.

"Kerry's core supporters not only believe that the war in Iraq is evil, they probably also still hold the statements he made about Vietnam as truthful and important."

-I can't speak for others, only for myself. I'm voting for Kerry because, in my judgment, he's the lesser of two evils. I'm using the word "evil" here in the saying "lesser of two evils," not to mean that either gentleman is truly evil. There is no question that his statements about Vietnam were truthful and important.

"Unless he considers himself the king of the idiots, why doesn't he try to sell the beliefs which his supporters hold dear?"

-Because he's running for office and wants to win. Will Bush deliberately bring up his anti-nation building comments, or the fact that he was hesitant to have a 9/11 commission, or anything else that, in his judgment, or that of his political advisors, would not play well?

[sam h]

There are individual Vietnam veterans who feel Kerry has personally slandered them in various remarks, especially to his biographer. These people may have good cases. It's impossible to tell.

Then there is much larger group of Vietnam veterans who feel that Kerry's actions in 1971 gave them a bad name. If you read his testimony, however, he of course never cast the net that wide, and made pains to blame those in charge of the war rather than those fighting it. But the populace may not have taken it that way, of course, and so Vietnam Veterans Against the War may have contributed to the negative feelings of many Americans towards veterans in general. But that's not really Kerry's fault, is it?

Overall, however, I think that many veterans resent Kerry because he pointed out the truth - that the war was fundamentally wrong-headed, that we were slaughtering millions of people, and that we were sending young men to South Asia to sacrifice themselves for a terrible cause. There is nothing tougher to swallow than the fact that a defining event in your life - one in which you probably saw friends die and took lives yourself - was for a cause that was neither righteous nor necessary. But that's the ultimate tragedy of the war.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
He's president because there are five Republicans on the Supreme Court. Were there five Democrats, Gore would be president, and that's why he would be president.

[/ QUOTE ]
What hole have you been hiding in? Bush is President because he got Florida's electoral votes. He got Florida's electoral votes because he beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. And the Florida Secretary of State certified the election - as the Founding Fathers intended. And subsequent experiments have shown that, even if Democrat inventors kept counting for 2 months, Bush still would have won. You really sadden me when you cling to insane delusions like this. This is not poker, there is no prize for second place. Jeb Bush won reelection in Florida in 2002, what are you going to do about it?

[andyfox]

If the Supreme Court had voted 5-4 the other way, Bush still wins the election?

How do you know the Founding Fathers intended for the Florida secretary of state to certify presidential election results?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course people like Ramsey Yusef would nuke us if they could get a device. And Saddam Hussein, whose life goals were 1) nukes, and 2) killing George Bush, was their best hope to get them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Time for a reality check. Everybody in the policy world with half a brain understands that the best chance to get nuclear material is from Russia or Pakistan.

There are numerous reasons for this that I won't spell out, but we can start with the obvious one - those countries actually have nuclear weapons and, regarding Pakistan, people there have a track record of selling nuclear material to those who can pay.

The nuclear threat is very, very real. But the current administration is not trying to protect us in a very intelligent way.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Supreme Court had voted 5-4 the other way, Bush still wins the election?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the Supreme Court votes 5-4 the other way, the election becomes irrelevant. All hell would have broken loose. The Democrats would not accept a losing count, they could not in good consciense count their own loss with their own hands if they knew that is what they were doing. Of course I give the edge to Bush to become President because of the Florida power structure, but President of what?

People think we dodged a bullet there, but I'm not so sure. With the central pile of money we are fighting over only getting bigger every four years, I predicted that in 2004 it would be even worse. Unless we go back to a more federalist system, I give the Union until 2016. People won't stand for it, not people in New York, not people in Utah. But there's no way back, we're committed.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody in the policy world with half a brain understands that the best chance to get nuclear material is from Russia or Pakistan.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you taking about 'generic' material that can be processed into weapons grade material or already made 'artifacts' that need little or no processing or refining? Also, former Soviet states are problematic areas, like the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan more so than Russia proper. But this may depend on what kind of material you are talking about. Although I think some clean up in the former soviet states was done; I don’t know if the process is complete.

Gang terrorist will have to steal a ‘device’ not build one. State terrorist can build them.

The most likely scenario is a ‘Dirty bomb’. If they get some Plutonium then a dirty bomb could be very ugly. But enough said about that.

The best policy for protection is preemptive strikes. The US should have bombed Iranian facilities long ago or asked Israel to do so. If strikes do not work then I am for open nuclear warfare.

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
No, actually my statement is very specific, referring to specific people in a specific picture. Though Kerry meant his description of his experience to be taken as representative of US soldiers in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you point me to where Kerry uses the term "psycho war criminals"?

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
So I believe he is both a war criminal and a liar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe he is lying in the testimony recounted in the above link?

[andyfox]

No.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you taking about 'generic' material that can be processed into weapons grade material or already made 'artifacts' that need little or no processing or refining? Also, former Soviet states are problematic areas, like the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan more so than Russia proper. But this may depend on what kind of material you are talking about. Although I think some clean up in the former soviet states was done; I don’t know if the process is complete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, but I think the Russians yanked out all the actual nuclear weapons and nuclear material in the early 1990s from the other post-Soviet states. There certainly could be old facilities around, however, for an entrepreneurial spirit to plunder. And its quite possible (fairly likely?) the Russians missed some stuff.


[ QUOTE ]
Gang terrorist will have to steal a ‘device’ not build one. State terrorist can build them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It is very difficult and expensive to build a real nuclear weapon. If I wanted to steal one, however, I would be making calls in Russian. Also, if I wanted to stop states from building them, I would focus upon stopping the people giving them the parts and teaching them how to do it. In the Iranian and Libyan cases, this was the AQ Khan network in Pakistan. But Bush has not made Musharraf arrest Khan, since that might disturb the Osama-hunt.

[ QUOTE ]
The most likely scenario is a ‘Dirty bomb’.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed again. But must say that Russia has to be the easiest place to get the goods at this point. Numerous policy analysts have warned that there is both "generic" and "weapons-grade" material (not incorporated into a device) there that is poorly secured. Yet the Bush administration has downplayed this as a foreign policy issue for political reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
The best policy for protection is preemptive strikes. The US should have bombed Iranian facilities long ago or asked Israel to do so. If strikes do not work then I am for open nuclear warfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just make sure to let the other guys know about our Doomsday Device and, just in case, lets ensure we're not faced with a mineshaft gap if things go wrong. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you already think that we don't understand each other, then you should try to make more specific and clearly-stated criticisms. Like offer an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies. I just figured that there were enough clear examples that you could figure them out for yourself. FOR EXAMPLE: You have assumed that all of Bush's "core supporters" think that Saddam Hussein was likely to launch a nuclear attack against the US. I suppose if you are creative with the term "core supporters," you could make this true, but it really is just an unsubstantiated generalization. You also assumed that all of Kerry's supporters think the war in Iraq is "evil," which you very well should know is a loaded statement. You also assume that they believe everything Kerry has said about Iraq is true and "important"(as an aside if you are referring to the "attrocities," it is undeniable that some were committed even if not by the specific people Kerry named, and saying "attrocities always occur during war time" does not make them excusable). Ironically you seem to also think that Kerry's statements were important though not for the same reason you claim Kerry's supporters do. You have offered absolutely no support to back these extremely broad assumptions and thus they are rendered relatively meaningless. Any support you could find would necessarily be from an unrepresentive faction of either camp and thus probably not "core supporters" unless you are referring to a relatively small precentage.

You also do not seem to distinguish between terrorists and countries. Iraq could never get away with an overt nuclear attack against the US. IF you want to argue that they might covertly support such an action, I wqould retort that there are other nations wiht equal if not greater inclinations to do something similar. Given that the US invasion of Iraq has probably reduced opinions of our country in that reason, we may have even increased the possibility of a terrorist response. At the least, the rise of ill will balances the loss of a potential sponsor.

I have already stated that I believe a suitcase nuke is a much more likely threat than an ICBM attack and such an attack would not come from any specific country. Obviously the risk of attack is probably higher than it was, bu I would name quite a few people more likely to execute one than the members of Hussein's regime.

[nicky g]

"And the Florida Secretary of State certified the election "

You forgot to add "and chief Florida Bush campaign organiser" to "Florida Secretary of State"


"And subsequent experiments have shown that, even if Democrat inventors kept counting for 2 months, Bush still would have won. "

Subsequent expirements show that if all the votes where voter intention was clearly discernible had been counted, as required by Florida law, Gore would have won by a small margin.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Subsequent expirements show that if all the votes where voter intention was clearly discernible had been counted, as required by Florida law, Gore would have won by a small margin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, and Svetlana Khorkina is the real gold medal winner in the women's all around. No amount of physical evidence, and no physically possible investigation or activity, will ever outweigh the enormous importance to Democrats to spread this myth. You're loony. But that's no surprise. Rows and rows of old ladies play slot machines and lottery day after day, teenage boys drive cars 100 miles an hour on local roads, people believe all types of crazy things...

[nicky g]

Believe what you want. The media consortium study showed if undervotes and overvotes where voter intention was discernible had have been inclded in a state recount, Gore won. If you want to pretend that isn't true, be my guest.

[eLROY]

At best, what the media consortium did was measure how far out on a limb counters would have had to go, and how much invention it would have taken, to erase enough Bush votes and add enough Gore votes to make Gore the winner. This is not unlike that TV show "Mythbusters (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html)" on the Discovery Channel. Once they've shown that it is impossible for silicon breast implants to explode in an airplane, they set out to discover what it would actually take to make silicon breast implants explode. And there is always something that will make a silicon breast implant explode, just as there is always some permutation of recount patterns and conjecture rules which will give Al Gore more votes than George Bush. Without the breasts exploding, there is no TV show. Without Al Gore winning, there is no news story. So when the Mythbusters can't pick up a radio signal from a dental filling, they try putting a wire in direct contact with the filling. When the media can't get enough votes for Al Gore under one count method, they then try considering all the blank ballots in a county that went for Al Gore as votes for Al Gore, or whatever it takes. That is how they entertain viewers, that is how they sell TV ads and newspapers. The Mythbusters won't give up until they've tried everything, which was never an option in the Florida election. I am sorry you were confused by it.

[adios]

From the testimony:

}They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

To me looking at this statement in context, Kerry implies with these words:

cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,

that this was a frequent occurance and the Viet Nam vets that are pissed don't agree. Again as you've noted Kerry himself stated that he "went over the top." What Kerry should do now is open to debate but I think some sort of reconcilliation is in order. Rightly or wrongly these Vets are bitter and hold a grudge. This is the state of affairs whether you like it or not.

[nicky g]

No. Counting these votes is not a whacky or obscure recount method. It is simply counting all the votes that the machines didn;t count that voter intention could be discerned from. Under every permutation of this method of recount, Gore won. That doesn;t mean to say Gore would have won if the Supreme Court hadn;t weighed in, because it's far from sure that all the conties would have adpoted this recount standard. But it is clearly both the fairest method, and the one closest to the Florida law stipulation that all votes where intention can be discerned should be counted. It is not remotely somw whacky permutation dreamt up to hand Gore victory.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Under every permutation of this method of recount, Gore won.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's about time you provided a link to a news story. I think that in the course of finding one, you would realize that your post is inaccurate. You may already know that.

[nicky g]

I've posted links to this about a dozen times before. Noone ever seems to read them. Do a search if you;re interested.

[elwoodblues]

What exactly in these words:

[ QUOTE ]
cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,

[/ QUOTE ]

suggests to you any sort of frequency to lead you to conclude that he implies that it was a frequent occurance.

[MaxPower]

They make no bones about what is really motivating them. They are angry at John Kerry's actions AFTER he served in Vietnam.

If they want to criticize Kerry for his post-service actions, that might be effective. They are doing that with there new ad, but even that takes Kerry's words out of context.

Reference (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244#)

However, they have ruined their credibility by attacking his service in Vietnam. Their account is contradicted by military records, most eyewitness accounts, their own previous statement, and common sense.

Reference (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231)

They should have stuck to criticizing Kerry for his post-war actions. Unfortunately, I think this could have a chilling effect our veterans who hopefully will be coming back from Iraq. They will be discouraged from talking about what actually happened in Iraq for fear that their words will be twisted and used against them some day.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly in these words:

[ QUOTE ]
cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,

[/ QUOTE ]

suggests to you any sort of frequency to lead you to conclude that he implies that it was a frequent occurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, he did imply that

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did lay blame for these incidents with the military commanders, but some veterans took these statements to be a personal attack on them. I don't think that is true, but that is their opinion.

[nicky g]

Did he actually accuse his fellow Swift Boat soldiers of these actions? Or was he talking about the US army in general?

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Do a search if you;re interested.

[/ QUOTE ]
Should I type "nickyg" into Google? I know what happened in the election. The only question, is how have you become so delusional?

[nicky g]

Try a forum search. I have this argument every two weeks and it's getting dull.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Did he actually accuse his fellow Swift Boat soldiers of these actions? Or was he talking about the US army in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was not talking about the Swift Boat Veterans in particular. He was relating stories he had heard at a meeting of Veterans in Detroit. He was simply relating what he heard without any firsthand knowledge of the incidents (although he did say somewhere that he personally served in free-fire zones).

Since that time, some of the stories discussed at those meetings have turned out to false, while many others have turned out to be true.

Even if some of the incidents he mentioned were not true, one cannot say he was lying in his testimony. Just as many people will say that Bush was not lying about the evidence of WMD in Iraq.

[eLROY]

You should hold yourself to a higher bar of precision and accuracy, and people would take you more seriously. Your post two posts ago was ridiculous. Nobody falls for statements like "Under the only fair divination method, Gore wins." Of course Democrats are going to label whatever bizarre contrivances would have been required to give Gore the win as "fair." Mind you, it took like six months for such a bizarre scheme to even be allegedly discovered, and separated from all the equally far-reaching contrivances in which he "lost."

[adios]

For actually reading my post and fairly commenting on what I wrote. I made the comment that the bolded quote in context (which means I was reffering to Kerry's entire testimony not just the bolded quote) implies that the atrocities mentioned were frequent. Kerry states that these atrocities more or less reflected U.S. policy from the top down. If Kerry was referring to infrequent, isolated incidents that did not reflect U.S. policy then why is this relevant to what Kerry was testifying about? Anyway it doesn't matter what you or I feel about the justification for the Vets bitterness as you've more or less pointed out. It's what the Vets feel rightly or wrongly and again that is the state of affairs whether people like it or not.

BTW the latest scuttlebut is the controversy over Kerry's first first Purple Heart. Apparently in Tour of Duty a book basically sanctioned by Kerry, a Kerry journal entry has come into focus. The journal entry was made 9 days after Kerry's alleged wound that he received his Purple Heart for. The journal entry states that he has not encountered any enemy fire to that point and the troops he's commanding haven't encountered any either.

[nicky g]

What the hell is divination, and where did I say that?

Including countable overvotes, Gore wins. If you want to argue that including votes which machines couldn;t read but where intention was clearly discernible in a hand recount is unfair, go for it. It seems to me that including all votes where a clear intention was registered is fairer than not doing so, and Florida law stipulates that they shoudl all be counted. If you want to argue against this go for it, and we can have a discussion. I'm not going to respond to any more nonsensical ramblings, however.

[adios]

Have you accounted for the voters that were voting in New York and Florida, 68% of which are registered Democrats. At least that's the statistic I remembered. This is a story that has been making the rounds in the U.S. the past few days. There's little doubt that there are/were voters that were registered in both Florida and New York that voted in both places. Who knows how many other voters in Florida are voting in two states.

[Utah]

"You're loony"

Nope. nicky g is one of the sharpest liberal minds on this forum and although I often disagree with his conclusions, his facts are pretty much always correct.

[Ray Zee]

dole is a joke anyway. all i remember is him campaining for president with newt on his side and newt doing all the taliking all the time.

whats this crap anyway. who cares about a persons views 40 years ago. i know mine are 180 degrees opposite then. i care what that person is going to do now, and how he is going to accomplish it. have him put it in writing and follow it if he wins. neither idiot will say what they are exactly going to accomplish. where is the third party.

[Utah]

The problem is that Kerry could not point to a single incident in his 1971 Dick Cavett debate. He went past "going over the top". He flat out lied to launch his political career.

[nicky g]

I've not heard anything about this (yes I know, not watching enough Fox News /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). IMO there are two broad issues here: one is the recount itself, the other is all the issues both sides have brought up about how the elcetion was run (barred voters, ballot design, problems with machines, preemptive announcements, postal votes, this etc). Here I'm just discussing the recount.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Including countable overvotes

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, is that all? /images/graemlins/grin.gif What about "every permutation" of countable overvotes?

If it's so "clear," then why do you concede that hardly any counties would actually use all your tricks?

What about statistically deductible partial votes in Oregon? Where will you ever stop?

Obviously you'll stop just as soon as you have convinced yourself - and very few other people with a college education - that Gore wins...

[nicky g]

"Including countable overvotes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, is that all? What about "every permutation" of countable overvotes?"

What about it? The consortium tested six different recount standards which included overvotes. Gore won under all of them. Both my statments are correct - one is simply more specific than the other.


"What about statistically dedcutible partial votes in Oregon? Where will you ever stop?"

You are being obtuse. An overvote is simply a vote where the ballot has been marked twice meaning the machine can't read it. The countable ones were votes where people had ticked a box and written the candidate's name in, or ticked and circled the box as well etc. The purpose of the hand recount was to count all discernible votes the machines couldn;t. Do you not agree that every available vote where voter intention was discernible should have been counted in such a recount?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]


BTW the latest scuttlebut is the controversy over Kerry's first first Purple Heart. Apparently in Tour of Duty a book basically sanctioned by Kerry, a Kerry journal entry has come into focus. The journal entry was made 9 days after Kerry's alleged wound that he received his Purple Heart for. The journal entry states that he has not encountered any enemy fire to that point and the troops he's commanding haven't encountered any either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just looked at the Navy's guidelines for giving out purple hearts.

http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/1650/1650_1g.pdf

[ QUOTE ]
e. Determination of Eligibility. During World War I,
and World War II, and Korea, an individual must have been
wounded as a direct result of enemy action. During subsequent
conflicts (Vietnam and Operation DESERT STORM), the individual
must have been wounded as a result of enemy action (direct or
indirect).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the hell that means, but is seems vague enough that one could get a purple heart for injuries suffered in a combat zone even if there is no enemy fire. It is also clear that you don't have to bleed to get one and that you can get one even if the would is accidently self-inflicted (as the Swift Boat Veterans claim).

Who the hell knows what happened and who cares. If Kerry got a medal that he didn't deserve in the military, he wouldn't be the first or the last.

[adios]

I agree with Ray that it's a bunch of crap but Kerry has promoted his service in Viet Nam as a key qualification for being president. If that's the case then his record seems fair game. A spin doctoring opportunity has become available now /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not agree that every available vote where voter intention was discernible should have been counted in such a recount?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you not agree that, at the first point you had "discerned" enough votes for Gore to win, you would stop discerning, even if additional discerning would have swung it back to Bush? You're simply saying that if you stop at the first point on the discernment road where Gore wins, Gore wins. And that is what the media does, because that makes their story. Even where a voter makes a clear vote that can be read by a machine, you can only discern his "intention" was with an uncertain probability. As it was, it was already way too far down the road to even be much of a story.

[cardcounter0]

I don't think Kerry has made VietNam Service a 'centerpiece' of his campaign.

I think Republicans wish he would make it a centerpiece, since it draws away from things like Bush's record, or real issues. Plus, they have such a good track record of smearing vets.

I find this talk about Kerry focusing on Viet Nam amusing. The Republicans are the one's so focused on it, and then accuse the Democrats for it.

Similar to the Republicans wishing and praying that the Democrats would nominate Joe Lieberman to run against Bush. "I hope they don't nominate somebody silly like Kerry", they would say, "Everybody knows Joe Lieberman is the only candidate that can beat Bush." Very similar strategy employed by Briar Rabbit. "Oh please, Mr. Fox, Don't throw me in the Briar Patch!"

News Flash: The Democrats didn't nominate Joe Lieberman (Bush Lite), Hillary isn't running for President, and VietNam is not the 'centerpiece' of the Kerry Campaign.

Put down the kool aid, and let's look at real issues.

[nicky g]

"Do you not agree that, at the first point you had "discerned" enough votes for Gore to win, you would stop discerning, even if additional discerning would have swung it back to Bush? You're simply saying that if you stop at the first point on the discernment road where Gore wins, Gore wins. "

No, I'm not. I'm saying under the method that counts all the votes where intention was discernible, the consortium found Gore would have won. Clearly you're not willing to debate that or discuss this properly.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying under the method that counts all the votes where intention was discernible, the consortium found Gore would have won.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the method where you hire David Sklansky to deduce how many people clearly voted for Ralph Nader, but didn't intend to? On NONE of the votes is "voter intention" EVER discernible with 100% certainty. Some voters are too dumb even to have an "intention," and some marked ballots got that way without a voter even being involved. But there is literally no limit to the incremental increases in "accuracy" which can be obtained at increasing expenditures of time and money and influence, to account for all this. In fact, the more sensitive your measurement device becomes, the more it picks up the noise of the counters themselves! So that the more the data is pored over and the more people it is handled by, the noisier it becomes! Are you certain the media didn't pass the sweet spot and increase the noise, long before the first interval where Gore "won?"

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying under the method that counts all the votes where intention was discernible...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, are you saying that they should only count those that you want them to count. Oh, you only wanted them to count the Gore votes. Then you'd be satisfied. How about the votes that aren't discernible. I suppose you'll want to count those as well (and probably for Gore). And what does discern mean anyway, what if I can't tell who they intended to vote for, maybe we should count those for Gore too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that Kerry could not point to a single incident in his 1971 Dick Cavett debate. He went past "going over the top". He flat out lied to launch his political career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry did mention on Dick Cavett that he served in a free-fire zone.

Kerry was given information by his fellow veterans that he believed to be true. He related this information in his testimony. Even if a portion of the information he discussed in his testimony turned out not to be true, you cannot say he lied. He believed it to be true.

We can say the same thing about Bush. He was given intelligence that indicated that Iraq had WMD. He believed that this was true and communicated that to the UN and to the American people. It turns out that the intelligence was bad, but Bush cannot be said to be lying because he believed the information to be true when he said it.

Now, I might say that Bush wasn't really sure that Iraq had WMD and he was lying about how convincing the evidence was. I also might say that Kerry truly believed that was he was saying was the truth.

You might say that Kerry knew that his testimony was false and that Bush really was 100% sure that Iraq had WMD.

What you and I think is matter of opinion, but you cannot say that Kerry clearly lied and Bush clearly told the truth. I cannot say that Kerry clearly told the truth and Bush clearly lied. That is logically incositent.

History has proven that the was a great deal of truth in Kerry's testimony (perhaps he was lying, but accidently stumbled on the truth /images/graemlins/tongue.gif), we will have to wait a while to see what history makes of Bush.

I didn't express that very well, but I hope somebody gets my point.

[nicky g]

"Voter "intention" is never discernible with 100% accuracy. But there is literally no limit to the incremental increases in "accuracy" which can be obtained at increasing expenditures of time and money and influnce. In fact, the more sensitive your measurement device becomes, the more it picks up the noise of the counters themselves! So that the more the data is pored over and the more people it is handled by, the noisier it becomes! Are you certain the media didn't pass the sweet spot and increase the noise, long before the first interval where Gore "won?" "

Finally you make a proper point. Yes, you are right, it is hard to agree on voter intention 100%. The consortium;s findings refer to the votes they agreed would be classified as expressing a clear preference, ; they did not for example include votes where circumstances eem to indicate many people accidentally voted for the wring Presidential candidate (eg voting for all Democratic candidates for other offices and then voting for Pat Buchanan for President). Generally they were referring to votes where, as I said before, two marks were made for the same candidate, which seems reasonable to me. Most people have accepted the study as impartial. You may not accept that and can dismiss their interpretations if you wish, but with it you dismiss the entire experiment you claim validated the Bush victory.

[adios]

Kerry got a shortened tour of combat duty (4 months, instead of a year if memory serves) due to his three purple hearts. The first one appears to be debateable according to the info I cited. The Swift Boat Vets group is stating that the 3rd Purple Heart was a self inflicted wound thus Kerry didn't deserve it. Whether or not Kerry promoted himself for these Purple Hearts is open to debate. Britt Hume referred to Kerry as an unscrupulous opportunist or some such. For those that feel that way this is more evidence to them that he is an unscrupulous opportunist. From the biography I read, Kerry's request to terminate his mission before it was complete was highly unusual but justified since he won 3 purple hearts.

[nicky g]

No, let me repeat: I think all votes where discernible intention was not discernible should have counted for the Queen of Sheeba.

Does anyone have a synonym for discernible?

[MaxPower]

Of course he is an unscrupulous opportunist. He is a politician - isn't that part of the job description.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people have accepted the study as impartial.

[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether it was impartial, the experiment did not conclude that Gore got more votes than Bush!

[andyfox]

An interesting analogy. Let's assume that it was in Kerry's interest to assume what he was told was true. It fit in with his political leanings, his feelings in general about the war, and, apparently, with his aspirations to go into politics in a very liberal state.

I've been arguing all along that it was in Bush's, and many in his administration's interest, to believe the "intelligence," or to shade it, as well. It fit in with the neocons long-held convictions that Hussein needed to be removed, with Bush's ill-feelings towards Hussein because of the attempted assassaination of his father and with all of their feelings that they should have done the job the first time.

[nicky g]

It did in the scenario where overvotes were counted.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your statement that "John Kerry painted the other people in that picture with him as psycho war criminals" is very broad.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, actually my statement is very specific, referring to specific people in a specific picture (http://www.swiftvets.com/images/Vets_before.jpg). Though Kerry meant his description of his experience to be taken as representative of US soldiers in general. So you wouldn't be surprised if other US soldiers were bothered by him.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some were psycho war criminals, but he did not put down any individual or group specifically (as your statement suggests).

[/ QUOTE ]
What planet are you on? He absolutely did! He said the soldiers he served with were evil. And not just that, he said they were cowards who left a man behind, whereas he was brave. And he said that identifiable individuals in his chain of command, right up to Richard Nixon who wasn't even in office yet, ordered him to commit atrocities.

[ QUOTE ]
He painted pictures of atrocities that occurred, that's vastly different from painting the other people in that picture with him as "psycho war criminals."

[/ QUOTE ]
You're nuts. He even painted himself in that picture. He said he, himself committed war crimes! (http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know he, himself, said he committed war crimes. But guess what? John Kerry was not in charge of the Vietnam War. Man, that is some imagination you have! Please provide audio or transcripts of where he specifically said these soldiers are "psycho war criminals" or that the "soldiers he served with were evil."

He did not agree with how the war was being conducted. So what? Does that mean that you should blindly follow whatever happens and automatically agree that it is the right thing? Just because someone was previously in the military, they should agree that any act performed by military is always correct and right?

I have to give the anti-Kerry folks some credit, you people are definitely not lacking when it comes to imagination.

[cardcounter0]

"Does that mean that you should blindly follow whatever happens and automatically agree that it is the right thing? Just because someone was previously in the military, they should agree that any act performed by military is always correct and right?"

According to John Ashcroft, that would be the proper true American attitude. Anything less makes you a gay liberal tree-loving pinko commie faggot.

[eLROY]

[ QUOTE ]
It did in the scenario where overvotes were counted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if it did in a scenario where only the same clear votes were counted again, Bush winning the first count is not sufficient legal grounds to trigger such a recount! The law doesn't say "Bush wins, we recount."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know he, himself, said he committed war crimes. But guess what? John Kerry was not in charge of the Vietnam War.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was only following orders, the same defense that Nazi war criminals used. It wasn't a valid defense then and it isn't now.

[nicky g]

OK but that's a completely different argument. As far as it goes, it seems to me there were clearly enough problems with the machines and a narrow enough margin of victory to mandate a recount.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
According to John Ashcroft, that would be the proper true American attitude. Anything less makes you a gay liberal tree-loving pinko commie faggot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide some references where Ashcroft is quoted as saying or implying this?

[Utah]

I will leave the analogy alone as I dont like to mix issues and I think its a very weak form of debate.

I will have to go look at Kerry's testimony again. However, I dont believe he said or portayed his comments in a "this is what I heard" format. I believe he portayed them as a first hand witness.

[elwoodblues]

In response to people raising concerns over the implications of the USA PATRIOT act, Ashcroft made several statements suggesting that if you disagree with the administration you support terrorists. Just a couple of examples are:

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."

John Ashcroft said, in response to a critic of the Patriot Act, "your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
I will leave the analogy alone as I dont like to mix issues and I think its a very weak form of debate.

I will have to go look at Kerry's testimony again. However, I dont believe he said or portayed his comments in a "this is what I heard" format. I believe he portayed them as a first hand witness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the entire testimony:

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

Without taking his statements out of context, if you can find anywhere in there where he "dishonered" or "betrayed" (the words used in the SBVFT ad) his fellow veterans I would like to see it. The way I read it he showed sympathy and brotherhood with the soldiers who fought the war.

He is not claiming to have witnessed all of these acts first hand. He is trying to represent the experiences of other veterans. It is very clear to anyone with good reading comprehension.

I really didn't like John Kerry that much when he was first nominated. Now that I am looking into his past, I am starting to like him more and more. John Kerry put together more cogent thoughts on this single day in 1971 than George W Bush has in his entire life.

[andyfox]

"[W]e had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam . . ."

[andyfox]

"Think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says 'I want you.' And a young man comes out of high school and says, 'That is fine. I am going to serve my country.' And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

"The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

"Another young man just died in a New York VA hospital the other day. A friend of mine was lying in a bed two beds away and tried to help him, but he couldn't. He rang a bell and there was nobody there to service that man and so he died of convulsions."

Kerry was pleading for help for veterans.

[cardcounter0]

Sounds like a plea for french loving liberal socialized medicine. Those veterans should pay for private health insurance like true Americans. Lazy liberal "make the state care for me" pussies.

[adios]

Maybe the Vets are sore about these statements:

From the transcript of Kerry's testimony:

I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Statements where he is stating that he is representing all Viet Nam Vets. Perhaps these Vets have a problem with Kerry representing them and they don't agree with Kerry's assessment.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

Perhaps these Vets feel these statements are inaccurate.

Anyway he uses the term "We veterans" a lot and from his initial portion of his testimony he claims to be representing all Veterans. That's my take on what the Vets are pissed about. Why don't you ask them, they've got a web site, email address, and discussion boards.

[Utah]

Please provide evidence. Are you referring to the Winter Soldier investigation? That was shown to be a huge fraud.

[andyfox]

It's clear to me Kerry said that he was representing "those veterans" in Vietnam Veterans Agasinst the War, not all veterans. "These men" refers to the 150 whose testimony he had heard in Detroit. I don't read it as saying he was representing all veterans at all.

Regardless, there are many who still view those who opposed the war, especially those who fought there and then "turned" after coming back, as traitors. Note that one poster put up a picture (can't remember if it is this thread or another) of Kerry with Jane Fonda. Hanoi Jane and Hanoi John. If not for the anti-war movement, we would have won. I imagine that's what O'Neill, for example, thinks, since he was recruited and coached by the Nixon administration to counter what Kerry was saying in 1971.

As you know, I'm not a big Kerry fan. But this was powerful, eloquent, thoughtful stuff. If only he were like this today.

[andyfox]

You said you thought that perhaps Kerry was saying he had witnessed the events first-hand. He did not. He's saying he heard the testimony from veterans as the Winter Soldier Investigation.

There is no defense of United States conduct of the war in Vietnam. It was, to borrow a phrase from one of our illustrious hosts, a crime against humanity. And those reporting the facts were often accused of treason. When Morely Safer did the piece with the soldier who was burning a hut and, when asked why, said that in order to save the village it had become necessary to destroy it, LBJ tried to have "that Canadian" [Safer] deported. When Nixon heard that New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh was reporting a massacre in My Lai, he screamed that it was those damn disloyal "New York Jews" who were responsible.

The "respectable" opposition to the war (Walter Cronkite, William Fulbright, David Halberstam, George Ball) turned on the war because they thought it was a mistake in priorities or unwinnable or counterproductive. It went beyond the pale to voice a moral opposition, to allege war crimes.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Please provide evidence. Are you referring to the Winter Soldier investigation? That was shown to be a huge fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

This article address that well I think:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244#

[cardcounter0]

"I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped."

Just wait until all those vets from Iraq get back. They have seen a lot of the senseless violence that the Vietnam vets saw. If you don't recall, shortly after the war there were a lot of cases of someone walking into a McDonalds or something and just gunning people down. I predict in the next couple of years you are going to have a lot of cases of people 'snapping' and randomly killing people.

What Kerry says above was true then, and I think we are going to see the same thing again shortly.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

As you know, I'm not a big Kerry fan. But this was powerful, eloquent, thoughtful stuff. If only he were like this today.

[/ QUOTE ]

How true.

There was an op-ed in NYT saying the very same thing today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/opinion/24brooks.html

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
In response to people raising concerns over the implications of the USA PATRIOT act, Ashcroft made several statements suggesting that if you disagree with the administration you support terrorists. Just a couple of examples are:

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."

John Ashcroft said, in response to a critic of the Patriot Act, "your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is certainly extreme hyperbole. But I dont think that Ashcroft was implying that the critic was a pinko liberal commie fag as cardcounter posted. In (overly) dramatc fashion I think Ashcroft was saying that A) Patriot Act wasnt taking away liberties on the scale that critics claimed and B) that not supporting the administration in the period following 9/11 might embolden terrorists. Certainly A is debatable but I dont seen much wrong with B.

[Cyrus]

"I don't care if I'm in a swing state. Ralph gets my vote again."

This is completely wrong.

I'll let Mason elaborate.