I’m not attacking you personally, here or in GD. My position is that I don’t find your posts persuasive or balanced and that has come to affect how I perceive what you proffer as argument.
I am sorry if you think it was your honour I attacked. An attack on a claim to honour it was, but it was that of the S-Vets not you Sam. Likewise their open dishonesty, they have no interest in truth.
I can only surmise how your posts come to be. My suspicion is that you have a limited range of sources and some normal bias. That’s OK and I have no problem with it. I merely don’t credit you as a reliable or objective source.
I thought discussion of you in the third person was a fair reflection of the numerous readers a post is likely to attract and an indictaor that my post is not a personal attack, rather an argument with the content of the your post. That said, as you find 3rd person offensive, I apologise and will remember.
Oh, boy, what a victory. Ten hyenas tag-team the young lion. It’s fitting that your reward is a steamy pile of rotting meat.
And you quote a screed from a leftist vomit piece clearly labeled “OP/ED” to back your claim. Even if you missed the disclaimer, certain clues were there:
[ul]
[li]“darling of the right-wing talk show circuit”[/li][li]“from interviews with legitimate news reporters to the friendlier zones of hacks”[/li][li]“Neither O’Neill nor his band of liars”[/li][li]“they just keep throwing slime”[/li][/ul]
Even given your obvious bias, it is astounding that you would post such drivel — at Straight Dope of all places — to back your claim.
Wow, those are some balls you got there, lady. You’re like the guy with snot all over his face telling someone they need to blow their nose.
The extant documentary evidence is notoriously dubious and unreliable, so much so that the armed forces won’t even guarantee their accuracy. It is, in fact, official US Navy policy that the “commanding officer and the individual Sailor are jointly responsible for ensuring that the record is complete and contains information pertinent to the Sailor’s career”. (Cite).
What bullshit. Apparently, you think that “respond” and “debunk” are synonyms.
Actually, posters have cited Sam specifically as being among the most conscientious, well spoken, and honorable conservatives on the board. Here, for example. Or here. Or here. Or here, coupled with a reaming of Rjung. Or here. In fact, this whole thread was a failed and pathetic effort to Pit Sam Stone. He is lauded for his support for gay marriage here. Even his fellow conservatives recognize him as above the din. And so on and so on.
Ah, the Dewey Cheatem Undhow school of debate. Declare your opponent to be a martyr, and you have won!
Lt. William Calley volunteered too. So what? It sounds to me like you’re the one crying and whining.
Despite your grammatical gaffe, I presume you meant Sam’s post and not your own. However, I fail to see his hypocrisy. Were he to do as you are doing and pile onto some unsuspecting prey without having contributed anything to the kill, then maybe so…
I searched Great Debates for the past three months for a posting by “minty green” containing the string “O’Neill” and I got no results. Can you point to the post that gives the alleged debunking?
That pretty much flies in the face of what prominent Houston Democrat, Gerry Birnberg, chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party, says:
Isn’t it possible that O’Neill took personally the sweeping charges of rampant murder and rape, and merely has something against Kerry himself as opposed to something against the Democratic Party?
Once again, a response does not constitute a debunking. Perhaps you might be satisfied were the person whom you dislike to offer reams of evidence and his opponent say merely, “No, that’s all wrong.” Would that be a debunking?
Isn’t that just a repitition of your prior assertion?
And again?
I suppose that’s a debunking.
According to that bastion of right-wing hysteria, MSNBC:
There is at least some controversy. According to The Boston Globe:
I can’t imagine why he would carry around the piece of shrapnel, unless it was to say, “This is what hit me.”
Actually, SBVT member, Stephen Gardner, was Kerry’s crewmate. And John E. O’Neill, incidentally, took over command of Kerry’s boat after the latter’s brief stint. Keep in mind that not all the 254 veterans who signed the statement criticizing Kerry appeared in the famous ad.
No, let’s pause a minute. The man who signed the form, Jesus C. Carreon, was a medic, not a physician. The qualifications for a medic are basically good vision, a reasonably decent score on an exam, and some training. Carreon was in fact an “HM1”, or “hospital man first class”. That notation appears after his name. He was a clerk. Lewis Letson was the only medical officer at that base from September '68 to September '69. You can verify that if you’re interested.
May we also throw out the testimo… er, allegations from the veterans that Kerry dragged onstage with him during the Democratic Convention? May we also discard Kerry’s statement, which you cited, that he got his Purple Heart from an arm wound?
Very few of the records are on his website. Here they are. The alleged incident, according to the document, occurred on August 2, 1968 but the citation was not issued until 9 months later, on September 1, 1969. The other two took even longer. This is at least some evidence that his commanding officer did not take his claims seriously enough to expedite his medals, since they did not issue until after he was gone.
The Silver Star citation, which is linked above, describes two separate instances of fire: “heavy enemy small arms fire from the river banks”, and a “hail of fire” from the opposite bank, in between which, Kerry lept ashore, chased down a man into the jungle, and killed him.
I thought you assigned no merit to allegations. Is it better when they are a chorus of allegations? By the way, the three people include Kerry, whose testimony you might dismiss as unreliable given its self-interested bias were it a political adversary rather than a political ally. So, it’s really only two to one. Incidentally, the two have stated that they believe the skimmer received hostile fire.
None of his crewmates has confirmed that he was ever in Cambodia. Speaking of guys who weren’t there, the only support Kerry has for the January-February (new) claim is from an historian, Douglas Brinkley, interviewed by a London tabloid, who said that Kerry was “dropping off U.S. Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys”. But Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, who was in charge of all the swift boats during Kerry’s service, pointed out to another tabloid, the Guardian, that the idea of using swift boats for clandestine operations is patently absurd. They were loud, clangy, and slow. Swift boats were used for the opposite effect — to make a lot of noise. They attracted the enemy so that he could be engaged and routed. Swift boats were not compatible with the stealth tactics of special forces.
I think the fuzzy part is about Kerry’s alleged valor. There are questions about why it should take more than a mile to turn around, for example. And as slow as those boats moved, it meant that the man Kerry allegedly saved was in the water for an excruciatingly long time. That he survived the alleged heavy fire is nothing short of a miracle. Of course, that does not disqualify the event, since miracles do happen. Unfortunately for you, though, you don’t believe that.
He’s suggesting something very reasonable. He is demanding the same thing you would demand were it Bush rather than Kerry on the table. He wants Kerry to release the records so that we — the voters — can determine why his discharge took so long.
Do you have some evidence to the contrary? Or does that constitute yet another debunking?
Actually, you just admitted that the Cambodia thing is not debunked. And in general, you seem to equate giving a response to giving a refutation. There’s no reason why Kerry — a public figure who is running for president of the United States — shouldn’t put on his website ALL pertinent documents concerning his service in the military.
The closure of one’s mind does not constitute the lack of anything else to investigate. Plus, constant repitition of the mantra that the allegations have been disposed of does not constitute fact.
It ranks really high. But unless your slogan is “Vote Kerry because he can’t possibly lie more than Bush”, your point is misplaced. You have us weighing bags of shit and voting for the lighter one.
There werer also “official accounts” of WMDs in Iraq. What’s your point?
What a coward you are, hiding behind bushes while honorable men like Diogenes do your dirty work, so you can spring out from the shadows and spit on the guy who is down.
I won’t even address such a black-hearted attack on a member in good standing except to ask of Diogenes whether you are the kind of man he wants on his side.
Actually, what I usually see in three-year-olds is a tendency to hold grudges and pout, as you are doing.
Are you kidding me? Do you find the shit-slinging from RedFury, Rjung, Lissener, et al, to be persuasive or balanced? The very LEAST you could do, if honorable debate is your intention, is to disclaim their worthless screeds rather than present yourself as joining their pile-on.
Oh, please. And now it puts the lotion in the basket. It does this whenever it is told.
Boilerplate whining. How do you avoid the martyr charge when you open with this?
Are you suggesting that this is the only support for the assertion that O’Neill has been discredited? Clearly you are interested not in determining the truth, but in your own partisan attacks. I can’t help but recall that you were on about the Cambodia stuff too, prior to the revelation of O’Neill’s statements to Nixon.
Again, care to address the point?
Also equally helpful.
You continue to be a deceitful cunt. There is nothing on the entire page that you cite that suggests the record should be regarded as “dubious and unreliable.” Does it even make sense to you that the Navy would have so little faith in its own history? The quote you provided comes from a section entitled “Record Maintenance Responsibility.”
Useless. Shithead.
Well, your first statement in this thread, about the hienas and the “young lion” smacks of such martyrdom, it is hard not to notice. But Sam has a history of fleeing debates only to comment on the same topic elsewhere. I give you the NASA issue, the Joe Wilson issue, and now the Swift Boat issue. He is cowed in the face of facts, but lacks the integrity to acknowledge his error.
Again, your grasp of logic eludes me. Calley has what to do with the point? Are you trying to divert and mislead?
We could do that, but why don’t we address the point. Try here (blind cite.)
Yeah, his personal opinion is compelling enough to account for the dramatic difference in campaign contributions that is documented.
Still not a reasonable explanation of the dramatic difference in campaign contributions. Also does not account for the lies about his service record.
You continue to suggest that responses with documented evidence and responses that serve to impeach the credibility of the attackers is just a “response”. Do you have a point? Do you have any evidence? This whole post seems to be a lot of words in service to Sam (service you seem to relish rendering), without any substance as to the points.
So you met same with same?
Glorious.
Wonderful. You are not a cunt. You are a stupid cunt.
You don’t even know which incident you are talking about. Useless. Fool.
See eRiposte again here for a reasonable review of the evidence regarding the third purple heart. (cite).
[quote=Liberal]
Individuals wounded or killed as a result of “friendly fire” in the “heat of battle” will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the “friendly” projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
(Cite.)
Gee, why didn’t you go to the Navy for that one. Please do so and let us know their policy on purple hearts. More importantly, you seem to be advancing a very novel claim that in these incidents, Kerry wasn’t intending to inflict damage or destroy enemy troops or equipment. I relish demolishing your argument on that front. Please clarify, if you do have a fucking point.
So, again, I call upon you to clarify your point. What the fuck are you trying to say? Which claim against Kerry are you suggesting that they have eyewitness evidence to?
Again, what are you trying to say? If you are asserting that Letson did the work, and Carreon simply signed for him, please do so. If not, please make a straightforward statement. I’ll be happy to rip the shit out of that too.
Dragged onstage? Yeah, they were so unwilling. Useless. Pathetic.
Wow. Here we have a purported delay in issuing medals working against Kerry. Usually that charge is trotted out in support of Thurlow. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
The Silver Star citation, which is linked above, describes two separate instances of fire: “heavy enemy small arms fire from the river banks”, and a “hail of fire” from the opposite bank, in between which, Kerry lept ashore, chased down a man into the jungle, and killed him.
Yes, and they state that the other guy wasn’t there. Are they lying? Why?
Wait, we discount partisans, except when they are partisans for us? Nice. Got the opinion of anyone who is not also trying to smear Kerry?
So why didn’t one of the other boats pick up Rassmann, if Kerry was so far away? Why do you believe Kerry was so far away? Why does the other bronze star winner, Lambert, who is no Kerry fan and who was also the witness for Thurlow’s bronze star citation, also claim that there was enemy fire? Why do crewmen on the boat behind Kerry’s claim that there was enemy fire?
This has been your tactic for the entire post. Deceitful fuck.
Why don’t you make some specific assertions, rather than all the little petty snipes and jibes and dancing around the matter? If you want to step up and defend Sam and the Shifties, let’s fucking go, partner.
Are you pulling comprehension out of your ass? I responded directly to a particular link.
The statements to Nixon are meaningless. He was a criminal who was encouraging illegal invasions of Cambodia. It’s like telling a crazy person that, uh huh, sure there are blue people in the mayonnaise — I’ve seen them, too.
Care to make one?
As opposed to what it addressed?
Yeah, and the responsibility belongs to the guy they’re about and his commanding officer, in this case Kerry and Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, whom you guys say is a liar. So that leaves Kerry. Whatever is right or wrong about his records, we’ll never know.
I know you are, but what am I?
What a stupid fuck you are to confuse abandoning hysterical pile-ons with fleeing debates. That he gives you cackling buzzards the time of day is a credit to his patience.
The logic escapes you because you’re an idiot who knows nothing about logic. The poster was citing that Kerry was a volunteer as evidence he was honorable. I showed that that is poor logic.
Speaking of diverting and misleading, do you have the post or not?
Campaign contributions? Are you saying that large Democratic Party contributors cannot possibly utter an honest word? Of course you’re not, because that would mean applying your bias consistently. You ignore that a prominent Democrat defends the man while at the same time committing a blatant crumenam fallacy.
Still argumentum ad crumenam.
I relish any and every day that I may defend a man of honor like Sam Stone against a turnip of a man such as yourself.
Was I incorrect?
Hallelujah.
Ah. Another debunking, I reckon.
Well, it’s a bit hard to keep straight because you have decided in advance that no matter what any source says, Kerry must be held up as a paragon of virtue incapable of error. You will not so much as acknowledge controversy; therefore, your whole case is one giant pile of amphiboly.
I dug that out of your shitty coding because you were in such a desperate hurry to respond that you neglected to preview. Do you have anything to counter my assertion that there are conditions for Purple Hearts to be awarded for friendly fire? No? Then shut the fuck up. And what the hell do you have against Wikipedia?
Huh? I was countering the assertion that no SBVT member was a crewmate of Kerry’s. Dumbass.
That’s what’s so funny! You actually believe you are ripping things! Oh, it is to laugh. Of course Letson did the work — he was the physician.
Is it or is it not all right to accept personal testimony as evidence in these matters. Stop evading the point.
Purported? It’s on Kerry’s own facsimile of the citation. You’re enough to make anyone’s intellect dizzy.
Did you mean to plagiarize my post, or did your haste damn you a second time?
Hell if I know. But you pretend you do. So prove it.
What opinion? That it doesn’t make sense to use loud, clanky, slow river boats to transport specialists in stealth operations who trained to operate independently and to infiltrate enemy lines silently and unobserved? Are you fucking drunk?
One was broken down, I hear. Maybe it was all that hail of fire coming from both banks that miraculously missed the man who walked on water until Kerry got there.
Well, according that bastian of right-wing conservatism, The Washington Post, Kerry might have gone as far as a mile before turning around. Apparently, he said in his journal that it was because he wanted to put his men out on the shore. Lord, he was like Superman that day, jumping from boats to riverbanks and back again, chasing the enemy through the jungle, ferrying his men to safety, piloting the boat all by himself back to save a man that other boats inexplicably ignored. Shit, you should be complaining that he didn’t get a Medal of Honor.
Care to answer the question since you’ve chosen to speak for Diogenes? And while you’re at it, care to examine your own tactic of empty curses and bad logic?
Done. Partner. Next time, preview so I don’t have to do half your work for you.
It’s in the thread entitled “John Kerry and Vietnam.” It’s twenty pages long and I don’t know how to search within a thread for a single post. You’ll have to take my word for it or search the latter half of that thread. In any case, Sam knows what I’m talking about and Sam is who I was talking to. This is the Pit, not GD. I wasn’t trying to debate with Sam, I was upbraiding him for running away from the GD thread and for spewing already discredited bullshit in this Pit thread.
Houston Democrat, Gerry Birnbirg can lick my ass. O’Neill has given $15,000 to Republicans since 1990 with nary a cent to the Democrats. O’Neill was handpicked by Nixon over 30 years ago to slime John Kerry. O’Neill has been surfacing ever since in virtually every election John Kerry’s ever run in.
The sweeping charges were true, and they were testified to by hundreds of other vets besides Kerry, but they were made made against Swifties with the exception of their (ordered) participation in Free Fire Zones, so O’Neill has nothing to be personally insulted by and I reiterate that O’Neill is a long time and generous contributer to exclusively Republican causes.
The debunking occurred in the GD thread. This is the Pit. I don’t have to go through all the details point by point again because it’s already been done in GD and Sam is familiar with all of them.
I provided the cite and the wuote of Kerry’s personal account in the GD thread. Since Sam has alredy sen it, there is no reason to do it again. Sam knows what I was talking about and he’s the only person I was talking to. This is the Pit, this is not GD.
Notice how none of this has anything to do with my point? Notice how none of this amounts to supporting Sam’s allegation?
Gardener has admitted that he was not present for any of John Kerry’s medal incidents.
Which means he didn’t serve with Kerry.
Keep in mind that only about four of those guys actually knew John Kerry during Vietnam. The rest are just soreheads about Winter Soldier.
My point stands, there is no record that this asshole ever examined Kerry. He also based part of his testimony on the word of Schachte (who he only met last year), the guy who lied about being present at this incident when he wasn’t.
Why should we? They have official records to back them up, the Swifties don’t.
All of the relevant trecords are on his website.
Wild speculation on your part. Medals often take a long time to process. Thjis means nothing.
I think you’re misunderstanding me here. When I said that “Kerry never claimed the enemy shot at him,” I was referring only to his first Purple Heart incident, not the entire war.
What allegation have I made? I said that Schachte’s allegation was contradicted by two other dispassionate witnesses besides Kerry. That makes Schachte a liar. I really don’t see your point here.
And yes, those guys say they were fired at, which pretty much guarantees the legitimacy of Kerry’s PH.
Whatever. It’s either important to you or it isn’t. It’s not important to me.
BTW, John O’Neill told Nixon that the Swift Boats were in Cambodia.
Where are you getting this “mile to turn around” stuff? That’s not part of any official record, nor is it supported by any witnesses.
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. The furthest anyone has said that Kerry went was a hundred yards, and that’s from the Swifties. What are you suggesting is the truth here? Are you suggesting that Kerry did not save that Green Beret’s life? Are you suggesting (in defiance of five separate documents and something like six eyewitnesses) that there was no fire from the shores?
I don’t see how it’s anyone’s business or why it’s an issue. Bush’s records were demanded to determine if he had gone AWOL (the records bore out that he had). There is no simolar allegation against Kerry. This is simply a fishing exoedition. What exactly is it that you want to know? What do you think you’re going to find? With Bush we had an allegation first and sought to confirm or debunk it with the records. Here you want to start with the records and then fish for an allegation. Huge difference.
You can’t prove a negative (I know you hate when people say that, but in this case it’s more or less accurate). No evidence is required on my part. I’m not the one making the assertion. Sam has put a conspiracy to defraud Navy records on the table. Why on earth should I be required to disprove that in the absence of any data to support it? You know how this stuff works around here.
His ferry excursions into Cambodia would have been black ops. There would be no records. It is interesting, though, that there seem to be no Operational Reports at all for Kerry during the period in question. The absence of OpReps in January would lend credence to to the possibility that he was black at that time.
In this case, it does. The medal debates have been dealt with exhaustively in GD. The Swifties have simply not offered any shred of evidence that anything in Kerry’s official service record is inaccurate. There is nothing more to investigate.
As it happens, that is my slogan, so I guess I’m safe. It is indeed my position that one should vote for Kerry merely because he is not as big a piece of shit as the other guy. That’s pretty much the criterion I use for every election.
Come on. Lib, there are five different eyewitness accounts of the Bronze Medal incident in writing. There are multiple eyewitnesses who say there was fire from both shores. There is only one guy who says anything different. That guy has a medal citation of his own that says he was under fire, and a medal with a V on it that can only be issued for valor under fire. A damage report also shows that he had three bullet holes in his boat after the incident and one of his own crewmates has come forward to they were under fire. How much evidence do you require to be satisfied that the flotilla was under fire. How many independent official accounts? How many more witnesses?
(BTW, I never saw any eyewitness accounts of WMDs in Iraq. I must have missed that)
For the record, DIO, I did not abandon that debate because I thought I was losing it. I abandoned it because it was futile. For instance, look at the skimmer episode: We have two conflicting eyewitness accounts here. On Kerry’s side, we have two enlisted men, who swear they were on the boat. On the other side we have an admiral, the former JAG of the Navy, and the guy who invented the type of OP Kerry went on, who claims that HE was on the boat. He cites the fact that Kerry was still in training at the time, and would never be sent on that mission by himself. Besides, he says, because he invented this type of mission he went on every single one. He says every mission went out with two officers and an engineman. The enlisted guys say otherwise.
Clearly, there is a problem here. One worth getting to the bottom of. But the modus operandi of you guys is to search high and low for anything you can find that smears the reputation of the eyewitness you dislike in any way, no matter how much of a stretch it is. Then when you’ve got it, you post your A-HA! message, declare the case closed, and belittle the person who brought it up in the meantime. In the meantime, the rest of you jump into the thread to offer high-fives and pile a few more insults onto the other person. Then if anyone dares bring that issue up again, it’s met with a chorus of indignant howls about how it was ‘debunked’ long ago.
Then there are the despicable people like Hentor, who likes following me from thread to thread calling me a liar. His latest? Because I said there did not appear to be any holes in the boats which I said before evidence came out that there were. So once the three bullet holes showed up, suddenly I was a liar for once saying otherwise. Then everyone can pile on with the liar charge, and on it goes.
You guys keep claiming that this whole thing has been completely debunked, but it hasn’t. There are serious questions about some of those incidents. For example, I keep bringing up the fact that Kerry’s own journal contradicts the after-action report for the Bay Hap river incident. In his own journal, he vividly describes getting peppered in the ass by rice shrapnel. Rassman was there, and they were both laughing about it, etc. There was no enemy fire. Later, the medical report for the river incident lists Lt. jg Kerry as having been injured in the butt by shrapnel from enemy fire. It seems to me that we have here a clear-cut case of Kerry taking the opportunity to promote a stupid accident into meritorious injury under fire. I see no other explanation. If you do, I’d like to hear it.
No one has explained how five boats could sit in the middle of ‘intense enemy fire from both banks’ and conduct rescue operations for an hour and a half. These were aluminum boats, and they should have been swiss cheese.
Another outright lie on Kerry’s part is his ‘no man left behind’ story, in which Rassman falls of the boat and all the other boats run away from the withering fire, while heroic Kerry turns around and goes back. This was the story they promoted at the DNC, and It DIDN’T HAPPEN. The boats didn’t run, except for Kerry’s. How far he ran is in dispute. It’s even in dispute whether he ‘ran’ or was trying to put men on the riverbank, or whatever. But we do know the other boats stayed right in the middle of the ‘kill zone’ while Kerry’s boat left it, and it got later spun into everyone leaving and Kerry going back.
Here’s another tactic you guys use: The witnesses on Kerry’s side are absolutely unimpeachable. When the Rood account appeared in the paper, you guys declared the issue closed, slam-dunk, drop it. But when Schachte appeared to dispute Kerry’s side, he was an instant liar, scoundrel, and tool of the Republicans. If one of the anti-Kerry witnesses varies in his story even one iota, that’s all you need to completely discredit him. On the other hand, James Rassman has told numerous different, incompatible versions of his story (in one, he’s not even on Kerry’s boat. In another, all the boats leave. In a third, he had to dive down to avoid the props of the boats coming behind him (they were on the other side of the river). In one account, Kerry’s arm is bleeding. ) But any attempt to even suggest that he might have been confused gets met with howls of derision for daring to contradict such a fine, upstanding soldier. Which he may be, but I don’t see the same concern for the characters of the various admirals and ranking officers who are on the other side.
The ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ story is one in which all parties now admit Kerry was wrong. But of course, you spin it into just an honest error - a confusion about dates. Which of course ignores the fact that Christmas figures prominently into the story, as does his being ordered into Cambodia. Kerry describes it as a ‘road to Damascus’ moment - a moment so absurd in its details that it changed him forever. It was seared in his memory. Sitting on Christmas eve in a boat in Cambodia, being shot at by the enemy and his own guys, while his own president was saying no one was there. These elements are KEY to the point of this story, and they simply didn’t happen. Kerry lied. The most generous thing we can say is that he was maybe near there, and at some point he massaged the truth a bit to make it sound a little more like Apocalypse Now. But of course, that too is met with howls of derision, and totally irrelevant points are offered up as slam-dunks (“O’Neill said he was there! NYAH NYAH!”). Of course, no one bothers to note that O’Neill was serving when there was actually open invasions of Cambodia going on, and that O’Neill served in An Thoi, which is off the coast and where you can technically be ‘in Cambodia’ by simply travelling a bit north from An Thoi before going inland.
And so it goes. And each ‘debunking’ is met with an every-increasing cacaphony of personal abuse and sneering, until at some point even the most patient of posters goes, “Oh, to hell with this” and decides its a lost cause.
But this is a huge part of my problem with you, Sam. Don’t you see it as dishonest to make a statement of fact, using it expressly and without qualification, when it is fact false. I suspect that you read it on the Shifties website, and assumed it to be true. When you bring it here, you become responsible for it.
[quote]
During all of this, where was the withering enemy fire? These guys engaged in a long, stationary rescue operation. Not a single boat had so much as a bullet hole in it, and no one was wounded other than the people injured by the first mine.
But there were bullet holes, and you expressly said that there were not. You knew that it would influence people in a particular direction, so you said it. How is that not dishonest? If at least you stepped up afterward and said, “Yeah, sheesh, I fucked that one up,” I could have some respect for you. But you don’t. You shift and dissemble and run.
By the way, I wouldn’t have to follow you if you wouldn’t run away. Finish it where you start it, or don’t bring it up elsewhere. It’s really quite that simple. Where do you have a problem with that?
Liberal you tried to re-polish the turd Sam brought to the table. If you consider that honorable that is fine, but you still get covered in shit.
By the way, I only quoted from that opinion piece what it had been shown to be the truth elsewhere, opinion based on the truth are valid in my book, your opinions based on the unfounded accusations of proven partisan liars are less so.
On preview: Sam, Shayna just showed how the swifters are lying once again, and I see you are still trying to polish the swifter shit, You become a liar Sam when you begin to ignore clear and new evidence to the contrary on purpose.
If a conservative like Briker can yield to evidence, your actions now can only mean that you were a stinky liar when you said you wanted to only know the truth and to give the swifters a fair airing of their “sincere” opinions, it is clear now that you had never the intent to keep an open mind to the possibility that they were lying, and now that we have evidence that they did lie you should at least concede. Just as I concede that Kerry padded his experience (take that, Virgin boots Bush!) you have to concede the Swifters padded their non experience and lies (considering that many of the Swifters never were in the area)
You ignore that the Swifters “forgot” that 30 years ago they had (do you still beliebe this shit?) the great goods to discredit Kerry’s medals, did not do this, and then many of them praised Kerry during the past 30 years, and only now they change their tune? this to me points one logical conclusion:
They did not have any evidence against Kerry then. and they virtually have none today.
The reason why we consider the witness on Kerry’s side unimpeachable is because the record confirm what they say, it is as simple as that.
The only thing that changed this last 30 years is that Kerry became a candidate to presidency of the USA. And the only recourse the Swifters and Bush had was to become mudslingers. Stop being their proxy, at least even Bush recognizes is time to bail.
Right – because I’m the one that’s attached himself to a pack of proven fucking liers and shit-slingers while claiming, on the one hand, to be a “skeptic looking for The Truth” and on the other, calling Kerry “an empty suit.” Not to mention that this is the same “skeptic” that spent the better part of the last two years defending every single demonstrable lie and preposterous ‘justification’ told by this Administration vis-a-vis the Iraq invasion. A one-man Republican talking-points machine, and yet he has the balls to a-claim victimhood and b-expect anyone here with minimal awareness of his posting history to believe that he is “being ojective and honorable.”
Well, fuck the disingenuous asshole – and fuck YOU for while we are at it, you hypocritical pompous scumbag. For someone’s that’s on record as saying that you have no choice BUT to vote for the Democrats in the upcoming election, all you ever do is cast aspersions on the very choice you’re making. If you’re so fucking convinced that Kerry and the Democrats are such a pile of shit as well, grow a spine, stick to your much-ballyhooed convictions, and vote for your beloved Libertarian nutballs.
Lastly, I have no idea what kind of man Dio “wants on his side,” that’s obviously his choice to make, but what I am sure of is that I wouldn’t want to be “the kind of man” that either of your represent.
Hentor: Why do you keep ignoring the fact that when I said it, THAT’S WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS. The report about the three bullet holes came out later, after which I immediately acknowledged it (and even said it was a point in Kerry’s favor).
Begging yer pardon, but isn’t that pretty much what happens when one loses an argument? Other than the honorable course of admitting error and changing one’s view?
Are you suggesting that Schaacte’s status as an officer has some bearing on his reliability? Or is it his exceptional creativity at at “inventing” tactical manuevers that renders him more credible than these mere enlisted men? He says, they say. Two of them, one of him. Anything else?
As has been laboriously explained to you, an injury incurred while destroying enemy resources is a legitimate injury. If Lt. Kerry snuck behind enemy lines to blow up an ammo dump, would you have a case? As has also been laboriously explained, it was not Kerry’s call to make whether or not he received a medal. It was certainly likely, after he reported an injury that he very well might. But he was obligated, under standing orders, to report any injury to himself or his crew, regardless. From that point on, the matter is out of his hands.
As a matter of fact, a “stupid accident” is, indeed, a “meritorious injury”, but that definition is not, and was not, yours to make, mine to make, or Kerry’s to make. Injury by friendly fire certainly qualifies, does it not? And is that not, as you say, a “stupid accident”?
Oh, but we have, from about six different directions, with varying degrees of likelihood. You didn’t like the explanations, you don’t accept them, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Perhaps the boats are more sturdy than you imagine, aluminum is, after all, a metal, it is not balsa wood. Perhaps Charlie was a lousy shot. Perhaps he didn’t much feel like sticking his head up and giving away his position when the Americans are chewing up the foliage with machine gun fire. Perhaps his fervent dedication to the dictatorship of the proletariat was momentarily lacking, faced with the prospect of getting his head blown off. It happens. And, lest we forget, Charlie was drafted.
Your explanation demands that we accept some of the testimony as unimpeachable gospel (the testimony you like) and other testimony as unreliable. You offer no criteria for such a distinction, save that you believe a, and not b. Pending evidence of omniscience from you, I think I’ll go with the testimony on the official reports, backed by a clear majority of the participants, and participants who have not changed their stories.
Really quite simple, Sam
As to the Cambodia story, what of it? If Kerry embellished his story to aggrandize his own importance, if he told a tall tale, so what? If telling inflated war stories is to be the mark of vile and unworthy character, going to be whole lot of people in a whole lot of trouble. Men lie about their courage under fire, Sam. Perhaps that’s because all sane men are cowards under fire. The odd thing about it is that we honor the man who suppressed his cowardice in order to do his duty with the same honor that we award a psycho who doesn’t feel such fear.
Of course, if you intend to press the point that there is some doubt that Kerry has been invariably truthful and honest in every incident of his life, that is a point I am compelled to accept. People being people, and all.
But then of course we would have to compare such scurrilous mendacity with the record of the Shining One, that paragon of candor, who’s record for straightforward truthfulness is entirely unblemished.
I should think you would find that a difficult point to defend. Yes, difficult. Quite.
Sam: Do you realize the only conclusion is that swifters lied when they were saying there was no enemy fire?
Good.
What it is bad is that you can not recognize that the evidence “coming later” was not so: IT WAS THE WAY IT WAS, there was enemy fire, from there realizing who was lying was a no brainier, can you concede at last who doesn’t deserve the time of day, or efforts to keep their sinking ship afloat?
[applause dying down, as Billy Joel advances to the podium…)
And the SDMB 2004 award for perfectly futile rhetorical questions in the face of adamant refusal to accept facts goes to…may I have the envelope please…
Um, Sam, while I hate to be anticlimactic after Shayna’s post, I just don’t think it’s right for you to try to wriggle out of making a baldly false statement. Your argument that you were only being a mouthpiece for the Shifties until contrary evidence came to light is simply insufficient.
The evidence, in the form of the report, was written 30 some odd years ago. You chose to swallow whatever you were told by the Shifties, and state it here as fact. Are you saying that you searched for evidence contrary to what the Shifties were tellling you? Okay, what non-Shifty evidence did you have for the no-bullet-hole assertion? If none, why should you be blameless for repeating their lie here for our benefit?
