Nope, nope. Get with the program! It’s because David Kay is working on a report that will confirm Sam’s suspicions. Due out any minute now.
(…sirens, flashing lights…)
All right, pull over Minty. Step away from the keyboard, sir. You been drinking tonight, sir? Do you realize you got 73 words in that parenthetical? This a 20 word maximum zone on parentheticals, sir. 73 words and a link, sir. Please put both hands on top of the monitor, sir, and spread 'em. Just your legs, sir…
Waitasecond – did we actually find witnesses who saw Boy George show up for duty between May 1972 and October 1973?
Somebody ought to sign 'im up to win $10,000!
Huhuh, you stoopid. You still sayin anyone who joined the Navy during th VN war was a stone coward. Stoopid, but still funny.
Well, who can argue with that?
It’s getting harder and harder to take some of you seriously.
I have to say, this just fascinates me, the way Sam keeps ignoring facts. It’s like he believes that people thirty years ago had some sort of prescience to see Sam’s opinion of Kerry, and that they somehow saw what Kerry would do in the future—Sam’s version of the future. So he believes that all this paperwork was falsified by Kerry or allies of Kerry because Kerry even then was laying the groundwork for his political career. When it’s an enemy of Kerry, it’s obviously a stand up guy who ‘made mistakes’; when it’s someone who has something admiralbe to say about him, he’s obviously a liar.
Someone’s mentioned it before, but damn, it’s just disgusting to watch a civilian shit all over a combat vet. There’s no facts there; there’s just desperation. Kerry volunteered, was wounded, saved at least one life, and went on to testify about atrocities that he saw. And the Shifties can’t handle that, much the way people nowadays dismiss Abu Ghraib as being the work of a few bad apples. The people who had the courage to blow the whistle on Abu Ghraib are now in protective custody becuase of death threats. They’re heros, because they told the truth, and because they said something that no one wanted to hear, they get blamed for opening people’s eyes.
I'm waiting for Sam to defend WMDs or something next.Speaking of facts, Kerry did not testify about atrocities that he saw. He testified that others had said that they had seen atrocities.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/downloads-pdfs/ktpages179-210.pdf
Who cares? The Shifties aren’t going to forgive him for breaking ranks. That’s the big deal for him. They aren’t doing their side any big favors: the lying and the shifting naturally make one wonder about just what they did do.
And it’s still disgusting to watch people going after someone who volunteered, was wounded, etc., etc., It’s partisanship at its worst. Why even bother with the pretense of fairness?
The Shifties have accomplished something, though. I didn’t like Kerry, but I do like facts. So while I was not originally going to vote for him, after seeing their tactics, and the tactics of their defenders I have no choice but to considerable them utterly dishonerable.
You say you like facts, and yet, when I gave you one, your response was “Who cares?”. Here’s another fact: the guys who are angered over Kerry’s accusations of rape and murder are themselves decorated veterans and not civilians shitting all over a combat vet. Is it not possible that all parties involved — the vets for Kerry and the vets against Kerry — are recalling some false memories from the fog of war? And is it not the case that, since Kerry made his Vietnam experience the centerpiece of his own campaign, it was to be expected that dissenters with opposing memories would arise? Shouldn’t Kerry have made his campaign about the future rather than the past?
The point is, Liberal, that these guys would prefer that no one, anywhere, ever, talk about wartime atrocities. Ever.
I was talking about Sam Stone, when I referred to a civilian.
The ‘fog of war’? Maybe we should apply that to their opinions of his wartime service.
The very quality of those opposing memories is what this debate has been about, and these guys have been pretty thorougly discredited. So what else is there?
I think that’s an exaggeration. Have you heard them denounce any other discussion of wartime atrocities? Would you personally not even raise an eyebrow if someone with political aspirations came back from Iraq, threw away his medals in a public display, and testified before Congress that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were not an exception, but the rule, and that rape, murder, and pillage are widespread among people like you serving there?
It struck me overnight that I probably should have offered a cite that shows contusions may indeed “REQUIRE” medical treatment. Therefore, cite, cite, cite, and cite, all of which address medical treatments for contusions.
I don't think it's a exaggeration, Liberal, because their attitude rang bells for me. It reminded me of colleagues that I have today.
Did Kerry have political aspirations back then? Do political aspirations make someone untrustworthy? Maybe he formed those political aspirations as a result of what he saw in Viet Nam.
As far as widespread atrocities here----That’s a complicated subject, and I’m not sure I can even speak to that now. But it’s not all sunshine and roses. It’s far more complicated than I can sum up in a few lines, but I do have to say this: Abu Ghraib was a war crime, and I don’t find it hard to believe at all that there are others out there, unknown. That’s all I can say. Does that reflect on the military in general? If the military aggressively searches them out, finds the perpetrators, and punishes them for all to see, then no, because dammit, the only weapon we’ve got now is decency. But if it’s covered up—anyone remember the ‘Casualties of War’ rape and murder?—and the offenders are given slaps on the wrist, then it DOES reflect on the military.
Kerry attempted to do the former. The Shifties want to do the latter, in a manner of speaking.
I’m sorry if this is unclear, I’m trying to post with a cold and a fever, so I will have to elaborate later.
No problem, and I won’t dog you any further. You already have been given by God or nature the intrinsic right to your own consent, and by your bravery have earned much more. I will say only that I respect your position, and that I might respect the positions of veterans who disagree with you. As you say, it is all very complicated.
Yep. That’s why we rely on the official written records that were documented at the time of the incidents. And yet, for some bizarro reason, since the official written records match precisely with John Kerry’s and his crewmembers’ recollections, it becomes necessary to rip apart the official written records and cast doubt on their accuracy. No. That’s not how it works. Unless, of course, you’ve got nothing else but your bone and your axe.
A) Kerry didn’t make his Vietnam experience the “centerpiece” of his campaign – his opponents did. They’ve been plotting and planning for this tack since last Fall. [Cite.]
B) Kerry continually talks about the issues and the future – it’s the media that keeps focusing on this Vietnam crap, because that’s exactly the way the Bush team, aligned with the SBVs, have planned it. Smut sells and they know it, so they’re ferociously peddling smut, because they have nothing else. Their record while in office has been abysmal. We’re involved in a protracted war that is widely unpopular, not just throughout America, but throughout the world. The economy is in the crapper, healthcare costs are going up while benefits are going down, “No Child Left Behind” remains unfunded, we’ve been hounded for 3 years about how “The terrorists are coming! The terrorists are coming!”, so there’s a thick fog of fear enveloping the nation. If you’re the party in power that brought all this about, how do you sell the nation on buying another 4 years of the same? You don’t, that’s how. You smear your opponent any way you can, because the only way you’re gonna get another shot at this is if the populace thinks the other guy is even worse than you are.
John Kerry’s war record is unimpeachable by these bozos. The eye witnesses who were actually on Kerry’s boat attest to that. Even some of the eye witnesses who were on other boats attest to that. The written records of the time attest to that. The rest is just Republican Smut.
If only the world were such a black and white dichotomy. Instead, it is a world in which there are more choices than believing the records or carrying an axe. As you can see from the ongoing discussions at Snopes, linked earlier, the records can often be vague, mistaken, or downright forged. Sometimes as well, the records are derived from the testimony of those whom the records serve. And sometimes, an axe is ground with respect to one issue (like Kerry’s war protests) and used haphazzardly on another issue (like Kerry’s war record). I think Margin got it right when she said that it is all very complicated — especially given that it all is based upon political expedience stretching all the way from Lyndon Johnson to George Bush.
I’m glad that you recognize that, because I was going to educate you in the same fashion after reading where you said this:
Which is of course entirely wrong (he hasn’t made his campaign about the past), and also falsely dichotomous (one can inform people of one’s own personal history, while at the same time discussing current issues extensively and providing a wide range of plans for the future).
That’s a valid point, Hentor. I stand properly chastised.
Sure, Lib, there’s a whole lot of things that could’ve happened. But when you consider all those possibilities, then line up aaaaaall the evidence and eyewitness testimony, and then add motive, reputation & reliability (as pertains to both sides) to the mix, the mental gymnastics one would have to go through in order to accept this convoluted conspiracy theory supposedly cooked up 35 years ago, and still being supported to this day, is humongous. It requires that we believe that John Kerry had a “plan” that numerous men in various positions of authority (COs, doctors, crewmates, etc.) would have had to participate in to “doctor the records,” that would lead him to today, where he’d be making a bid for the Presidency. It would require us to believe that people were willing to risk their military careers in order to forge documents on Kerry’s behalf, just so he could execute this “plan,” at some future unknown date. It’s an utterly absurd notion!
John Kerry says it happend a certain way.
EVERY crewmember who was actually ON his boat during these events concurs. Every single one of them (some of them not even Democrats!).
Several men who were involved in the incidents, but not actually ON Kerry’s boat, also agree with Kerry’s version.
Which, btw, matches the military’s written versions on every available document (both Kerry’s and other men’s).
The ONLY people who are attempting to cast doubt on the testimony of Kerry’s actual crewmates and the military’s written record, are men who clearly have an agenda and/or an axe to grind, and the majority of them were never even in the same unit he was, let alone the same boat or even in 'Nam in the same calendar year/month/week/day! When you remove everyone who never even so much as met John Kerry, the number of accusers who could possibly know anything is so small that it is dwarfed by the number who support Kerry’s version of events.
Several of his accusers have previously been his supporters. At least one of them has recanted his accusations (then recanted his recanting, if he even knows which way is up anymore). A couple of them have stepped forward and said they were misled about what they were being asked to attest to. Some have said they’re listed on the website against their will and all efforts to remove their names have been in vain (how many more are like that that we simply haven’t heard about?). Some have been exposed, and some have had to reluctantly admit, that they weren’t even there. Some have been proven to be liars in other areas of their lives. And some have been proven to be liars in specific details of their current claims.
The preponderance of the physical evidence and the believability of all of the witnesses, clearly supports John Kerry and flies in the face of this bizarre conspiracy theory.
…more lies and deceit from your Floating Seekers of Truth[sup]®[/sup]:
Indeed. Trust you’ve purchased the utensil I suggested earlier. Although if you keep sinking into the feces, it won’t matter – you’ll both become one and the same.
Cheers.