John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[Drake Tungsten]

There is nothing more pathetic than someone too stubborn, proud, or simply deluded enough not to notice when they have made a total ass of themselves.

I know. That's why I'm contemptuous of you.

Now, I think I'll go back to my policy of ignoring you to focus on people whose opinions are actually worth listening to.

[Drake Tungsten]

One has to wonder whether Kerry's decision to rely so much on his comparative Vietnam war record versus Bush was a grave error.

Kerry has made a lot of errors recently in his attempts to ride his four months in Vietnam to victory. I think the most glaring mistake is his use of that picture of his unit in Nam in those "Band of Brothers" ads. Turns out that a majority of the people pictured not only don't support Kerry, but are so against his candidacy that they are members of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. What kind of idiot uses the images of some of his most vocal critics in a campaign ad? Did he really think no one would notice? Or is he just counting on the mistake getting no play in a obviously pro-Kerry media?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

There is nothing more pathetic than someone too stubborn, proud, or simply deluded enough not to notice when they have made a total ass of themselves.

I know. That's why I'm contemptuous of you.

Now, I think I'll go back to my policy of ignoring you to focus on people whose opinions are actually worth listening to.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, poor baby got his ass handed to him, and he goes off crying, without a worhtwhile response



The sad part is, all the things you said in that "wise" reponse of yours had been said before, and addressed before.

The sad thing is, Ned has made a more worthile contribution here than you, since:

1. he isn;t half as obnixious, rude and spiteful
2. he has moments of clarity, hiwle your assumed net persona (or perahps sadly your real personality) does not allow you to be anything other than a smartass. Sometimes earnestness is worth something.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, poor baby got his ass handed to him, and he goes off crying, without a worhtwhile response

It's sad that you actually believe this.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanS
One has to wonder whether Kerry's decision to rely so much on his comparative Vietnam war record versus Bush was a grave error. There's got to be a lot of decades-old footage of Kerry saying some things that will reflect poorly on him in today's environment, given his anti-war protests.

WaPo has an article on this, showing that this issue is cutting like a knife among veterans, or at least both campaigns believe it is cutting like a knife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug20.html

Yes, you've really gotta wonder why Kerry thought that running as a vet was a good idea at all. Nevermind the SBVs, the guy did and said some things that a lot of people could take serious issue with. Not all people, of course, but the damage is done by running on that record and inviting past statements into debate for the consumption of the undecided.

I'm sure a lot of people consider the anti-war protestors to have done a good service. I can't say they didn't. But then you have a vet who took a very high profile position against the war, and said things that POWs were being pressured (or tortured) to say and refused to... Damn, this looks ugly.

WTH would the Democrats pick him? Do they think that Iraq has spun the clock back 30 years and that this is a winning ticket? Has it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Oh, poor baby got his ass handed to him, and he goes off crying, without a worhtwhile response

It's sad that you actually believe this.

And now Drake flip flops in just 1 post.

PZZZNWED!

Its easy to believe - you hand in a reply to where people should seek their info- I provide a counter to it, and all you can reply with is a pathetic troll about ignoring me (which you then instantly flip-flop on), and no real substance.

If you can provide a substantive counterarguement, fine. But if you don;t, well,

PZZWNED!

[Drake Tungsten]

You've really gotta wonder why Kerry thought that running as a vet was a good idea at all.

Very true. I know his Senate record is hardly impressive, but it's lengthy and it would be easy to come up with something to tout. Or, he could've just ignored the past and tried to focus on his plans for the future of America. Now, I'm not sure he has any plans or, even if he did, that he would want to focus on them given his penchant for being on both sides of every issue, but at least it's a forward looking campaign strategy that would've avoided a lot of the issues Kerry is having to deal with now.

I really don't know what Kerry was thinking. Maybe he thought the whole veteran thing would be an easy ticket to the White House. Whatever the reason, though, he's taking his beating for that decision now.

[Drake Tungsten]

If you can provide a substantive counterarguement, fine.

You first. Making up reasons why the mainstream media can't investigate Kerry's record when amateurs all over the internet are busy doing a pretty damn good job of it is hardly a "substantive counterargument". I'm not going to waste my time responding to claims that are obviously false on their face. The mainstream media is clearly not doing its job with regards to the SwiftVet's accusations. The fact that you can't see this speaks volumes about the usefullness of your opinions.

[DanS]

Yes, I am sure that a lot of people consider the anti-war protesters to have done a good service, and that I can't say some protesters didn't. Kerry benefitted greatly from his high profile among protesters during his Senate career.

However, it gets really messy when you go outside Massachusetts with regard to this stuff -- a different world politically. Also, the simple fact is that we are at war and we have to ask ourselves whether a public figure born of the anti-war protest movement is the right person to lead the charge.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If you can provide a substantive counterarguement, fine.

You first. Making up reasons why the mainstream media can't investigate Kerry's record when amateurs all over the internet are busy doing a pretty damn good job of it is hardly a "substantive counterargument". I'm not going to waste my time responding to claims that are obviously false on their face. The mainstream media is clearly not doing its job with regards to the SwiftVet's accusations. The fact that you can't see this speaks volumes about the usefullness of your opinions.

God, you trully are deluded- I mean, honestly.

To your first claim- I believe all your references to bloggers and such are based solely on his Cambodia statements- well, maybe you have some sort of mental problem that does not allow you to understand basic sentences, BUT I DONT GIVE A DAMN NOR AM I ARGUING ABOUT THOSE CAMBODIA STATEMENTS.

And what bloggers have found are serious inconsistencies between mission logs and his statements. Were the hell do you think these logs came from? FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN MILITARY RECORDS! Is that too hard for you to grasp???? These very same records are being used to asses the validity of the far more serious charges made, that Kerry lied about the circumstances under which he recieved his medals (the point of the first add, which does not even mention anything about Cambodia, something that has become "a story" post the beginning of this smear campaign)

So, the press, using the very same type of public domain records bloggers and anyone else, incluidng you, have access to, have found that the allegations made in the TV ad are simply not supported by the evidence of military records.

To summerize your entire case:

Bloggers have been able to show that Kerry's Cambodia statement, which IIUC were made in the Senate in 1986, do not match the mission logs the public can get their hands on, and thus this claim made by him is very likely not true.

You then extrapolate to the entire set of Swiftboat claims, including those on the TV ad and try to make the leap that IF the Cambodia claim was false, then all Kerry;s claims atre false.

Of course, that assumption does not pass any basic logical hurdles, but you throw it out there anyway, cause God knows logic is not for you....

The media set out to investigate the claims MADE IN THE TV AD CURRENTLY RUNNING (CAMBODIA IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THAT AD) and that is what the NYT piece does, and it more than adequately shows massive holes in the claims of this org., meaning that Kerry hardly has to porve anything, since the swift boat vets have failed to show even the most basic burden of credability for thier claims in that ad.

Lord, I fear this reply might be too long and logical for you. Let me simplyfy it:

PZZNWED!

[DanS]

WTH would the Democrats pick him? Do they think that Iraq has spun the clock back 30 years and that this is a winning ticket? Has it?

I don't know. I don't think so. Even 30 years ago, this issue would have been damn messy nationwide -- not a winner at all. Nixon cut and run and won a landslide, although whether he would have done any worse had he not cut and run is a matter for speculation.

[DanS]

And Veterans are a small part of the voting public, and far less important than say women or minorities for Kerry - he should be spending his time and money ensuring maximum hispanic and black voter turnout than worrying about keeping what has always been a highly republican field like veterans.

I agree with this. So why has Kerry pushed the issue so much? It seems like an error, since he was running even up against Bush among veterans before the swift boat veterans publish a book and run two ads.

Now he's got to spend money during a period where he wasn't planning on spending money in order to counter these charges and for a small number of votes.

[GePap]

WTH would the Democrats pick him? Do they think that Iraq has spun the clock back 30 years and that this is a winning ticket? Has it?

Bush has stated several times he is a war president, and has tried to make his war on terror a pillar of his campaign, and Iraq supposedly is the most important part of that whole thing. Bush made this campaign about "war". So Kerry uses his record, which may I add Bush yesterday called honorable and said Kerry should be proud of (does this mean Bush is a liar?), to try to cement the notion that if this is a question of a country at war, well, maybe its time to bring in a war hero to run the show, and not just this chump chimp in the WH.

[Drake Tungsten]

To summerize your entire case:

Bloggers have been able to show that Kerry's Cambodia statement, which IIUC were made in the Senate in 1986, do not match the mission logs the public can get their hands on, and thus this claim made by him is very likely not true.

That's incorrect. The bloggers didn't use mission logs to prove that Kerry was lying, since they can't get their hands on the logs. They used the testimony of other vets and Kerry's own diary, two sources I suggested the mainstream media might use (and sources you claimed were worthless or not available for use).

No wonder your making an ass out of yourself; you don't understand my arguments because you don't have even a basic understanding of the facts, as usual. I don't need to waste my time being berated by you, only to find out that you don't have the first damn clue what you were talking about. Now, run along and educate yourself. I'm trying to discuss this issue with intelligent posters.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


I agree with this. So why has Kerry pushed the issue so much? It seems like an error, since he was running even up against Bush among veterans before the swift boat veterans publish a book and run two ads.

Now he's got to spend money during a period where he wasn't planning on spending money in order to counter these charges and for a small number of votes.

Sadly the Kerry campaing is under thet mistaken impression that minorities will simply come out and vote democrat without him having to do anything. This is wrong- more likely their turnout will be low, if Kerry does not start mobilizing his base. Kerry is under the mistaken impression he should fight for the white male vote. Screw them, nothing he does will win him that demographic. Stick to the base and undecided women and so forth.