John Kerry: Unfit For Command

[Sava]

Ming

save the drama for obama!@^#^#%

[Ramo]

McCain is the shiznit.

I don't care for his politics, but he's a class act.

Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush (news - web sites).

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain

[Straybow]

Actually the DD's don't necessarily contain more than a fraction of what actually happened in the field. A superior officer's report, even a recommendation for decoration, is based on what he hears and the obvious tangible results. The means are often obscured in the smoke of battle.

Certainly there are cases where questionable actions are taken, and those party to or witnessing the actions say nothing.

Remember, Kerry is the one who made a big deal of broad accusations of war crimes. We have every right, perhaps even a duty, to examine him the more closely.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Straybow
Actually the DD's don't necessarily contain more than a fraction of what actually happened in the field. A superior officer's report, even a recommendation for decoration, is based on what he hears and the obvious tangible results. The means are often obscured in the smoke of battle.

Certainly there are cases where questionable actions are taken, and those party to or witnessing the actions say nothing.

Remember, Kerry is the one who made a big deal of broad accusations of war crimes. We have every right, perhaps even a duty, to examine him the more closely.

Well, I'm wondering if what Kerry did during the Vietnam war is relevant? This presidential election is a referrendum on Bush. I fail to see how Kerry's war experience has anything to do with whether or not Bush should be our president for the next 4 years. The only thing Kerry's war experience has anything to do with is his appreciation of our troops and an appreciation for the brutal nature of war. I agree with someone like Bill Maher who thinks that people with military experience perhaps have a better perspective when it comes to the use of military force

But all this nonsense about Kerry's military experience has little to do with the debate of policies. Who gives a **** about Kerry and his war experience when it boils down to policies? Kerry's war experience isn't a health care plan, nor is it a foreign policy. I'm more concerned about the policies Kerry is going to have rather than squabbling over **** that happened 30-35 years ago.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Straybow
Remember, Kerry is the one who made a big deal of broad accusations of war crimes. We have every right, perhaps even a duty, to examine him the more closely.

Yeah, and at no point during those hearings did ANY of these jokers come forward and say any of these things.

Why is it now, 30 years later?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Well, I'm wondering if what Kerry did during the Vietnam war is relevant?

Did you watch any of the Democrat's Convention

The Dems are the ones trying to make it relenvant.

I have no intention of getting into a debate whether it's a smart move or not, or whether the response of the right to throw mud is the proper move either... However, the Dems have made it fair game by using it as the base of his campaign... So they should be prepared to have his record put under microscope..

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ming
I just laugh when one side is outraged about something that both sides do all the time. Politics in this country have sunk to the lowest levels...

Seems to be a common theme in US politics. A lot of 19th century campaigns were just as sleazy, but it does get disgusting none the less. And the pols wonder why voter turnout is low and apathy high?

Unfortunately... as usual, both candidates have serious flaws, and I disagree with both of them on many issues... but, I will end up voting for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for somebody who I would really like to see as president. It seems to be the same ole crap every four years for the two major parties.

Yep.

And what's even worse is that my vote really doesn't make much difference. The Dems will carry Illinois whether I vote for Kerry or Bush... I might as well make my normal protest and write in Mickey Mouse...

Same with California.

[chequita guevara]

I think they were prepared. Someone needs to start sue Drudge for spreading libel. Everytime I see some of this stuff, it's always because Drudge is reporting it. I mean come on, even Fox isn't touching this.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ming
Did you watch any of the Democrat's Convention

I tried not to. But it's sad if it was a lovefest like that. I don't agree with the Dem's if they think they should play up Kerry's past like that.

The Dems are the ones trying to make it relenvant.

It seems like both sides are trying to spin it in some manner.

I have no intention of getting into a debate whether it's a smart move or not, or whether the response of the right to throw mud is the proper move either... However, the Dems have made it fair game by using it as the base of his campaign... So they should be prepared to have his record put under microscope..

I agree, I just think it speaks volumes about the Repukes. They are unable to talk about Bush's policies having any kind of success, so they need to resort to attacking Kerry's past. Personal attacks are the work of someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on in a debate. I should know.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Seems to be a common theme in US politics. A lot of 19th century campaigns were just as sleazy, but it does get disgusting none the less. And the pols wonder why voter turnout is low and apathy high?

Well, let's see . . . . . . . in the antebellum years when Republicans and Democrats were banging each other's heads in campaigns, Democrats often used race-baiting and appealed to bigotry by tarring the Republican Party as negro-lovers, or having nothing but "****** on the brain."


And today, we see some Republicans baiting by appealing to homophobia and bigotry for political gain.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
I tried not to. But it's sad if it was a lovefest like that.

Why sad?

I have to agree with Bill Maher on this:

Political conventions are important and they deserve to be broadcast and viewed in their entirety. You can't call everyone in Washington "morons" if you don't know exactly what it is that makes them morons. Now, the conventional wisdom about conventions is that they're no longer worthy of our attention because they're too produced and there's no drama. You want drama? Hitch a ride home with Ted Kennedy.

We're picking a president here, not the "Last Comic Standing." The media treats these conventions like pointless interruptions of their real job covering the Scott Peterson trial. No surprises, no excitement. Hey, you know what's exciting? It's exciting when politicians get drunk with power because people aren't keeping an eye on them. No one expected we'd retaliate for 9/11 by attacking... Iraq! Ooh, unpredictable, exciting!

And the reason the conventions are so "produced" is because if they weren't, the networks wouldn't air any of it. And the sight last night of John Kerry rushing through his speech in a cold sweat so that he wouldn't go over time and force viewers to miss the first two minutes of "Elimidate," was one of the saddest moments in the history of democracy. The man is proposing how to rule the globe, and we treat him like it's audition night at The Improv and he just got the light.

I'm not saying everyone has to pore over issues and read everything that's out there. We can't even get our president to do that. But the conventions are one of the only times when the election isn't reduced to sound bites and attack ads. When you can get to know these people a little. It's not exciting enough just to hear Theresa Heinz Kerry? Oh, I'm sorry, next time we'll get Justin Timberlake to whip her *** out!

You know - you know, maybe the conventions aren't boring. Maybe it's the people who don't participate in their society who are boring. You know, once every four years, the two parties put on a little pageant for you: "These are our faces. These are our voices. This is our vision of America's future." You'd think that would be a little more interesting than reruns of "Celebrity Poker." But convention viewership was actually down two million. What does John Kerry have to do to get your attention? **** Amarosa?!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
He beats Audie Murphy all to hell in awards per days served.

Medals were given out with less frequency during WW2, and the army infantry (and airborne units in particular) awarded them relatively less often than other services or combat branches. Enlisted personnel are also singled out for recognition relatively less often than officers for given acts.

I do get a gas out of MtG questioning the questioning. What exactly did he have to say about the Bush records from that era?

I don't question any examination of Kerry or Bush's FIA obtainable records, or any other official records or contemporaneous statements on the record or other documents if there is an issue raised by the official records. If some guy who had never come forward at the time claimed Bush had done something that wasn't in his official records, I'd call that BS just as much as this stuff with Kerry.

Bush's official records, not some out of the woodwork loon, state that Bush failed to report for a flight physical and was bumped from flight status. That is why Bush eventually took the step of releasing pay and other records that showed what the FIA obtainable portion of his records did not.

For me, the mere fact that Bush, like Quayle, got into an overstrength guard unit when he was IA draft bait is bogus, but then so was Gary Hart's convenient direct commission into the Naval Reserve.

If you want an example of a proper and reasonable inquiry into this sort of thing, look at Lyndon Johnson's Silver Star. Johnson, as a member of the House of Representatives was directly commissioned into the Naval Reserve as a Lt. Commander, and went to the Pacific as an observer.

He was awarded a Silver Star for supposedly flying along as an extra observer on a bombing raid over Lae. Why an observer would rate a medal that the actual flight crew didn't rate is questionable, but official records (funny how those things work) of the bomber squadron that flew the mission showed that the aircraft in which Johnson flew suffered engine failure, and turned back while still a few hundred miles from the target area and in friendly airspace.

The contemporaneous official records of the mission and the squadron's maintenance records flatly contradict and make impossible the claims on Johnson's Silver Star citation. That creates a legitimate basis for inquiry, and a conclusion that LBJ was full of ****.

What's that saying? What is sauce for the goose...?

As LBJ said, "I may not know much, but I do know the difference between chicken **** and chicken salad."

Unsupported character assassination 30 years after the fact is completely different than inquiries into official records. I find it interesting when people want to treat one with the same credibility as the other when it suits their ideology.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think they were prepared. Someone needs to start sue Drudge for spreading libel. Everytime I see some of this stuff, it's always because Drudge is reporting it. I mean come on, even Fox isn't touching this.

Publishers of libel can't be sued - it's only the writers. And Kerry is subject to a public official immunity, so these guys can accuse him of literally anything, including molesting Vietnamese hooch boys and farm animals with an absolute immunity against being sued. That's the only reason they'd do it.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Straybow

Remember, Kerry is the one who made a big deal of broad accusations of war crimes. We have every right, perhaps even a duty, to examine him the more closely.

I'll agree if you agree that Bush's war record undergo the same intense scrutiny.

Strange how times change. 12 years ago when Bush Sr and Clinton were running, the Dems and Reps were 180 degrees on the other side from where they are today on the issue.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


So in other words, rather than using the independent, documented records of the US Navy, the "issue" should be defined by unverifiable rants and statements of opinion made 30 years later. How convenient.

It's only an "issue" for desperate right-wingers who are hoping to make it an issue in light of their candidate's distinguished record and performance in office. It's a pathetic indication of political hypocrisy for the rest of us.

Finally gone off the deep end?

These are eyewitness accounts. IIRC that is the pre-eminent type of evidence in any investigation. The account has the actual person who treated kerry for the wound his first purple heart was given for and the man says Kerry lied.

Far from being "desperate", this appears to be the truth finally coming out. When you believe the "documented records of the US Navy" that were prepared in the rear vs. the actual eyewitness accounts the THAT is a pathetic indication of political hypocrisy.