John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[GePap]

Where does it say it was the SWB that went to ask him? And so what as well-do you think they did not know who he was? Like the people who set that group up would not know.

2. Can you prove any greater amount of collusion between dems and moveon than repugs and this group?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Can you disprove it or better yet show adinfitum article from the NYT doing expose on what is patently observable considering Sandler works for both.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
How in the world does what a tinpot aristocrat's public version of events have to do with what was actually going on?

-arrian

Arrian, there were no Cambodians in the narrow enclaves near the border. They fled to the cities as reported here by others. Not because of the bombing as alleged by the commies, but because the NV kicked them out.

Sihanouk was the King and beloved by his people. If that makes him someone you cannot trust, then so be it.

And of course, I suspect you trust Kerry.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Where does it say it was the SWB that went to ask him? And so what as well-do you think they did not know who he was? Like the people who set that group up would not know.

2. Can you prove any greater amount of collusion between dems and moveon than repugs and this group?

Nobody can prove anything.

At this point, the only way to be "fair" is to assume that both sides are either "indirectly" managing these "independent" smear campaigns, or they truely are independent. For either side to claim that theirs is independent and that the others isn't is just a fricken joke.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned


Arrian, there were no Cambodians in the narrow enclaves near the border. They fled to the cities as reported here by others. Not because of the bombing as alleged by the commies, but because the NV kicked them out.

Sihanouk was the King and beloved by his people. If that makes him someone you cannot trust, then so be it.

And of course, I suspect you trust Kerry.

Actually, don't really trust any politician. But I REALLY don't trust unelected "leaders" like Kings, Generals (who are running countries instead of divisions), and Dictators (a King w/o the fancy trappings).

-Arrian

p.s. And of course, I suspect you trust Bush.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ming


Nobody can prove anything.

At this point, the only way to be "fair" is to assume that both sides are either "indirectly" managing these "independent" smear campaigns, or they truely are independent. For either side to claim that theirs is independent and that the others isn't is just a fricken joke.

My point is that given this, the Repubs have for propiety sake asked Ginsberg to resign. No pressure from NYT on the Dems to do likewise given the fact that it is as easily (if not moreso) the ability to draw links back to the party and campaigns. Thus the double standard, espcially considering the length of time the Dems have been complicit vs the short time frame the SBV have been on the scene.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
My point is that given this, the Repubs have for propiety sake asked Ginsberg to resign. No pressure from NYT on the Dems to do likewise given the fact that it is as easily (if not moreso) the ability to draw links back to the party and campaigns. Thus the double standard, espcially considering the length of time the Dems have been complicit vs the short time frame the SBV have been on the scene.

I'm sorry... I think it's a double standard for either side to be pointing the finger on this one.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


Nobody can prove anything.

At this point, the only way to be "fair" is to assume that both sides are either "indirectly" managing these "independent" smear campaigns, or they truely are independent. For either side to claim that theirs is independent and that the others isn't is just a fricken joke.

Yes, the problem Bush's side got into was the level of vehemence of this attack: heck, its exactly what repugs wanted, getting so much press and causing damage- but there is a price to pay for it.
After all, none of MoveOn's ads have gotten this level of notoriety, for a reason- they aren't as vehement., or if they are, the "liberal news channels" don;t rush to create an echo chmaber and make sure everyone knows the smear like the Knightridder papers and Newscorp divisions do.

[St Leo]

w00t.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Actually, don't really trust any politician. But I REALLY don't trust unelected "leaders" like Kings, Generals (who are running countries instead of divisions), and Dictators (a King w/o the fancy trappings).

-Arrian

p.s. And of course, I suspect you trust Bush.

Yes, I do trust Bush. I feel his honesty and sincerity distinquish him from both is predecessor who was and is a notorious liar, and Kerry, who is apparently has no character or integrity whatsoever.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
However, we were not exactly bombing population centers either. We were bombing some of the most rural areas of the country. Not only that, for the most part we were bombing the same places over again.

The rural areas of Cambodia are not like the rural areas of America. There was no part of Cambodia that with within a B-52 strike "box" that did not have a village in it. Within the first half year of the bombing campaign (both "secret" and open), the number of rural refugees fleeing the area doubled the population of Phnom Pen, from 600,000 to 1,200,000. Within a year, there were over a million refugees in the capital. Out of a population of seven million, nearly two million were refugees.

There was, necessarily, a corresponding drop in agricultural output, and famine was the result.

[Ned]

What bothers me about Bush is that he seems to be falling into the same trap as his father. The major issue in the '92 campaign was Clinton's integrity. Bush I ignored that issue, so much so, that it became a non issue. But in the end, Clinton's lack of integrity came back to bite him and his presidency big time.

"W" is now doing the same it seems with Kerry. He is saying nothing about the controversy over Kerry's war and antiwar record. I think, rather, that he ought to call Kerry out to explain some of these charges concerning his war record and to apologized to his brethren for what he said as an antiwar leader. What he is doing, ignoring the issue, is starting to really piss me off.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The rural areas of Cambodia are not like the rural areas of America. There was no part of Cambodia that with within a B-52 strike "box" that did not have a village in it. Within the first half year of the bombing campaign (both "secret" and open), the number of rural refugees fleeing the area doubled the population of Phnom Pen, from 600,000 to 1,200,000. Within a year, there were over a million refugees in the capital. Out of a population of seven million, nearly two million were refugees.

There was, necessarily, a corresponding drop in agricultural output, and famine was the result.

Now we understand where you got the figure "600,000" "killed" or rendered "homeless."

[chequita guevara]

Ned, you do realize that when people become refugees, they don't produce food any more. When two million people in a country stop producing food, people starve . . . to death.

In addition, hundreds, maybe thousands, of villages were bombed. Contrary to Sianouk's assertion, Eastern Camobida di have villages. Contrary to other assertions, the same areas were not bombed over and over again. As the Vietnamese and KR fled west, the bombing followed them. In addition, because the bombing campaign had no effect on the war in Vietnam, the US command though that hand't hit the VC command structure, which was assumed to be equivalent of the U.S. command structure. If bombing one area didn't get it, then they had to bomb another area.

[chequita guevara]

Kerry has nothing to apologize for. The war was wrong, criminal, and evil. All righteous human beings opposed the war.