Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He first ran for political office before 1978, however.

This fact supports Ogie's point.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
An admission doesn't cut it??

Again, if Nixon didn't prosecute, then there was no evidence Kerry broke a law, because Nixon would have prosecuted him. Nixon hated Kerry and wanted him out of the way. Had Kerry not been related to the Kennedys, I suspect Nixon would have had something invented, but you can only do that to people who don't have connections.

As Kerry said, it was on the border. Apparently is was on the side of law, because Nixon never tried to go after him on this. Unless you believe that Nixon wasn't the kind of guy to use everything against his enemies that he could, in which case I'd have to say you were mental.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
This fact supports Ogie's point.

How?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


How?

Sorry, I misread your post.

But there does seem to have been a problem with the discharge that was resolved at the same time as the Carter pardon of draft dodgers, et al.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Again, if Nixon didn't prosecute, then there was no evidence Kerry broke a law, because Nixon would have prosecuted him. Nixon hated Kerry and wanted him out of the way. Had Kerry not been related to the Kennedys, I suspect Nixon would have had something invented, but you can only do that to people who don't have connections.

As Kerry said, it was on the border. Apparently is was on the side of law, because Nixon never tried to go after him on this. Unless you believe that Nixon wasn't the kind of guy to use everything against his enemies that he could, in which case I'd have to say you were mental.

Let me see if I understand your logic. An admitted murderer who doesn't get prosecuted isn't in fact guilty of a crime? (I realize I exaggerate as Kerry nuanced)

Similarly, I realize you may think I am presuming guilt, but in fact what I really am is alleging charges against him that were never taken to their logical conclusion hence no means to say if guilty or innocent. Until they are decided one way or the other he stands charged in the book according to Ogie (unfortunately not the same as US law )

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Let me see if I understand your logic. An admitted murderer who doesn't get prosecuted isn't in fact guilty of a crime?

One, Henry Lee Lucas admitted to killing over 300 people. Law enforcement now thinks he may have killed only ten. HLL, despite his admission, is therefore not guilty of the murders of some 290 people.

Two, Kerry did not admit to breaking the law. He admitted to coming close. If I drive 65 in a 65 zone, I'm on the border of breaking the law, but I'm not breaking it.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Again, if Nixon didn't prosecute, then there was no evidence Kerry broke a law,

not necessarily...

because Nixon would have prosecuted him. Nixon hated Kerry and wanted him out of the way.

OH... SOOOOOOO TRUE!

Had Kerry not been related to the Kennedys, I suspect Nixon would have had something invented, but you can only do that to people who don't have connections.

Some might argue that his relationships to the Kennedys is what Kerry out of trouble... that there was massive political presure for Nixon to let it lie...

Unless you believe that Nixon wasn't the kind of guy to use everything against his enemies that he could

You are right there... no dirty trick or attack was beyond Nixon... and that's why I think massive political presure was applied to Nixon, and that's why he backed off...

[chequita guevara]

Hey Ned, standard attribution for quotes is to put the author's name behind the quote. They way you have it now makes it look like I would have given Hitler the Nobel prize.

[Drachasor]

Kerry was in the reserves and hence the rule of military law that active members of the military can't meet with the enemy the way Kerry did doesn't apply. The military itself said so, as anyone that gave it even a cursory look would have found out.

Kerry did say that numerous atrocities happened in Vietnam at the hands of U.S. troops, though he wasn't able to bring forth any evidence of this. The fact is that there is a decent amount of evidence to suggest such things did happen.

Vietnam is certainly a black point in American history. We propped up an unpopular government that the vast majority of people didn't want. This government was in not really all that better than the one we opposed, and it was agains the will of the people. The administration gave misleading reports on how well we were doing, because of the tactics we had to emply we had no chance of winning over the will of them majority there.

Kerry was right in opposing continued conflict in Vietnam, and almost everyone who is all that sensible about that war acknowledges we should have pulled out sooner. There was no chance we were going to win, and all that happened by staying longer was the further loss of human (both American and Vietnamese) life.

So yes, Kerry wanted to find a way to peace, he wanted to find a way to get back all the POWs from Vietnam too (that was one thing he inquired about). He did not in any way give aid to the enemy though. He merely wanted American out of a war that helped neither side, and served to damage America's image; a war we were never going to win.

Make no mistake, Vietnam was a mistake. If anything it speaks of Kerry's bravery and honesty to note that he both served in the war, and when he came back, he sought to end it as soon as possible. If desiring the end of unnecessary wars does not make you a traitor, it does not make you unpatriotic. Fighting for what is right for your country, and for what will help your country in the long run; fighting for policies and practices that enhance the fairness and justice of your home country are the true acts of a patriot.

People that say otherwise are the same sort of democracy-challenged fools that say you should never question the President or the current administration*. I am ever thankful that this sort of attitude is something that is more and more being recognized as pure foolishness and as a burden to honest and true journalism and citizenship; I can only hope the recognition continues to grow.

-Drachasor

*Usually this only applies when they like the current people in charge though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He first ran for political office before 1978, however.

He ran for office in 1970 and 72. 1970 predated the Paris accord. 1972 post dated it and he was spanked after the local paper rightly portrayed him as a leftist anti-war candidate. His war record was never material for debate IIRC.

[chequita guevara]

Kerry's never been a leftist. The local paper hammered not so much on being antiwar but on his Congressional testimony and his participation in the Winter Soldier investigations. According to Frontline it turns out a lot of what came up in the WI was actually true. According to other sources, a lot was made up. Both are probably true.

I wonder why it is when a vet comes up and says, "I saw and did X" if it agrees with what the right is saying, he's a hero. But if it disagrees with what the right is saying, he's a liar.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

I wonder why it is when a vet comes up and says, "I saw and did X" if it agrees with what the right is saying, he's a hero. But if it disagrees with what the right is saying, he's a liar.

Only from the standpoint that he was atempting to establish the problem as a widespread epidemic. As an example, his definition of freefire zones was to his mind a condemnation of the entirety of the armed forces whilst throughout history free fire zones were used in exactly the same manner.

So while not quite the liar, surely an exaggerator extrodinaire.

Funny we found the same attempts to broad brush paint the troops in Iraq after Abu Ghraib.

[GePap]

How common were free fire zones? I only hear about them in Vietnam, not in say WW2.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not very but they were esatblished in both WW2 France IIRC as well as Korean conflict.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hey Ned, standard attribution for quotes is to put the author's name behind the quote. They way you have it now makes it look like I would have given Hitler the Nobel prize.

Sorry Che, I will look into it.

But, given the choice of Bush or Hitler, and no other choice, not even abstension, who whould you choose to award the Nobel peace prize based on career performance?