Hypocrit thy name is Kerry

[johnb]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131319,00.html

Kerry received five medals during his four months in combat in Vietnam. Judicial Watch asked the Pentagon to investigate Kerry's receipt of the Silver Star with a "Combat V" designation (search), which stands for valor under fire.

Kerry's campaign Web site includes military records listing the Combat V citation. Navy procedures show that the Silver Star cannot carry a Combat V designation because part of the reason the medal is awarded is for valor under fire — the added designation would be redundant. The findings of the probe, therefore, will not change the record of Kerry's Vietnam service.

In 1996, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy Boorda committed suicide when he learned that a reporter was about to disclose he had wrongly worn two Combat V pins on a Bronze Star, a medal that does not denote valor under fire.

At the time, Kerry told the Boston Herald that wrongly wearing the medals is a severe error in judgment.

"Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes," he is quoted as saying.

Kerry also spoke to the Boston Globe about the matter.

"If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value, self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."

[johnb]

The best analysis of the race I've read so far. This writer has nailed it to a "T".

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/03/EDG7O8ICC01.DTL

Deserving victory

Debra J. Saunders
Friday, September 3, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York -- THE CONVENTIONAL talk about the Republican National Convention was that, like the Philadelphia convention in 2000, this would be a parade of moderates putting a kinder face on (what by implication is mean) conservatism. Instead the 2004 convention has been a parade of moderates and conservatives putting themselves on the line for President Bush because they believe that he is right about the most important issue before America today: The war on terrorism, which in this room includes the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

That sentiment was clear Thursday night when Gen. Tommy Franks endorsed George W. Bush for president because he doesn't believe "we should retreat into a defensive posture and hope that the terrorists don't attack us again."

Actor Ron Silver put it well when he told me he supports the GOP ticket because, "I'm a 9/11 person and not a Sept. 10 person." Silver has been a supporter of abortion rights but, he noted, "If we don't get this thing right, then the rest of it doesn't make much of a difference."

The difference between Boston and New York could not be starker.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in July found that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 86 percent of Boston delegates opposed the war in Iraq. Yet both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2002.

The same poll found that 19 percent of GOP voters and 3 percent of GOP delegates oppose the war. Those delegates are in harmony with Bush and Veep Dick Cheney, even if 51 percent of all voters polled oppose the war.

That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to -- no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry -- sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush.

That's how fanatical their hatred is.

Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to lose an election for a cause they believe in. Bush knew when he began that the war in Iraq could cost him the election, but he did what he thought was best. And he still isn't flinching.

"He may lose this election. But the principle of how he conducts himself is more important than if he wins or loses the election," said California GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that Bush is not political -- he is political. He's president. I am arguing that the Democratic Party has become so political that it stands for absolutely nothing. Dems know it, so they nominate men who also stand for nothing -- but raw ambition.

Kerry won the nomination because many Democrats believed they had to pick a pro-war candidate in order to beat Bush. They were able to look at Kerry's vote against the Persian Gulf War and determine that he did not believe his 2002 Iraq vote and does not mean the pro-war statements he has made during the campaign.

Some of the very folks who bellow, "Bush lied," are crossing their fingers in the hope that Kerry lied.

"I don't think the Democrats have confidence in the American people," Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot noted. That's why the Democrats are "angry."

And many Democrats think that they're going to lose. A famous wartime poster had Winston Churchill's face looming over the words, "Deserve victory." You deserve victory when you believe in a cause so much that you are willing to take risks for it.

This year, the Democrats abandoned their principles, implying either that they don't trust the America people to appreciate their message, or that they don't trust their message. Democrats aren't willing to take risks, but they are willing to choose someone whom they want to mislead the public. For that alone, they deserve to lose, and I think they know it.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

[Mark]

That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to -- no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry -- sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush.

That's how fanatical their hatred is.



This entire article turns on this quoted statement. Unfortunately for the author, I know of very very few democrats, myself certainly not among them, that would name opposition to the war as their core issue in this election.

What the author and, I'd argue, most anti-Kerry republicans fail to realize is that, far from selling out, most democrats are savvy enough to recognize that Kerry could well have supported a bill granting power to launch military action, while hoping that action wouldn't come, while hoping that diplomacy might prevail and while hoping the entire situation would be handled differently. They are also practical enough to realize that, even if Kerry is more hawkish than his average voter (though I suspect this isn't the case), his hawkishness is preferrable to the altenative. That calculus isn't called selling out in this country, it's called everyday politics.

So, let me suggest, in the manner of the author, that the primary difference between republicans and democrats is that, with respect to reality, democrats understand nuance, republicans - by interpreting casual politics as fanatical hatred - understand only the simple, base, and easy.

[johnb]

This entire article turns on this quoted statement. Unfortunately for the author, I know of very very few democrats, myself certainly not among them, that would name opposition to the war as their core issue in this election.

You may be correct Mark. The primary issue for them is their unadulterated hatred of Bush. It knows little logic or proportionality. Bush is a "Nazi", Ashcroft is "destroying" the Bill of Rights, and Cheney is some macabre monster using the war for financial gain in this lefty kook playbook. What the donkeys/left is motivated by is "Anyone but Bush". The anti-war crowd provides the venom and the kooky conspiracy theories that give Kerry, et al, their momentum. He is a very maleable candidate. He stands on every side of every issue. His "nuance", as you call it, is nothing of the sort. What it really is is indecisiveness and paralyzing fear.

What the author and, I'd argue,...

It doesn't matter. What you and the other leftists are banking on is that Kerry is lying and that he will cut and run in the war on terror. Period.

They are also practical enough to realize that, even if Kerry is more hawkish than his average voter (though I suspect this isn't the case),

Thank you for proving my point. He claims to be more hawkish in order to reassure the vast center of the electorate that he won't endanger them by surrendering in the war on terror. The reason the extreme left can support him is you folks are betting he is lying on that point and that he will cut and run.

his hawkishness is preferrable to the altenative. That calculus isn't called selling out in this country, it's called everyday politics.

No, everyday politics is squabbling over the amount of money to spend on the necessary military equipment to defend this Republic. Voting against almost every single weapons system to come up on the Senate floor for a vote over a 20 year career in the Senate is a terrible lapse of judgement indicative of an individual whose assesment of the military remains the same as it was in 1971 when he pronounced every other of the 2.5 million GI's who served in Vietnam "war crimminals".

So, let me suggest, in the manner of the author, that the primary difference between republicans and democrats is that, with respect to reality, democrats understand nuance, republicans - by interpreting casual politics as fanatical hatred - understand only the simple, base, and easy.

So screaming that Bush is a Nazi is "casual politics" to you? The character assasination activities of George Soros and Moveon.org are "casual politics"? Wow.

Bush is going to win in November Mark. Get over it.

[hollyL]

Bush is going to win in November Mark. Get over it.

I wouldn't be so sure about that yet. Remember the whole electoral college thing last election. The republicans might be yelling for a popular vote this cycle.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-an0823.html

ps. It's the Wall Street Journal...not CNN

[Cathy]

I certainly believe that the "Anybody but Bush" radical left is highly motivated to go to the polls and vote. They are hoping that "average America" will once again ignore their chance to vote in November.

EVERYONE who is the least bit uncomfortable about having John Kerry as Commander in Chief and President of the US had better make certain that they do go and vote for another candidate.

[hollyL]

I agree with you on that one Cathy. And the left that voted for Nader last time isn't going to "waste" their vote on him again.

I also think as this race gets uglier - which I'm betting it will - it can either completely turn people off not to vote or will cause a record turnout...who knows?

[Cathy]

You're probably right about the Nader vote.

I won't be wasting my vote again on Nader this time.

And it will have to get pretty darn ugly before voters get turned off this time.

[johnb]

Holly,

The so called "ugliness" has a source...it was your buddies on the left. It started with the repeated and numerous references to Bush as a Nazi, an imperialist, and everything short of a cannibal. The base of Howard Dean's candidacy was a group of people so insanely hateful they could only be described as slobberingly rabid. Those folks are now Kerry's foot soldiers.

Questions concerning Kerry's conduct in Vietnam are legitimate 1- he uses that as a justification for electing him president and 2-his own stories contradict each other and established facts in the history of the war. He creates a certain level of suspicion. Calling him on the deficiencies of his story are quite legitimate. *IF* he would never have brought it up. However, once he tried to make that measly 4 months the most important line item on his resume, it's fair game to question and investigate it. As is his record of slandering GI's upon his return home, to include his illegal negotiations with North Vietnamese officials in Paris. Kerry was still a Naval Reserve officer at the time, his actions are a court martial offense per the UCMJ. The political situation by that time precluded any action against him. However, it demonstrates a clear lack of maturity and a profoundly disturbing sense of justice and moderation. Questioning him on these matters may be "ugly" to the harsh left, however, it is not comparable to George Soros and Moveon.org running ads screaming that Bush is a Nazi or out to destroy the Bill of Rights, or is an imperialist. One line of argumentation is built upon historical events, verifiable events, the other on irrational hatred and hyperbole.

By the way Holly, how do you guys intend to defend Kerry over the meeting he attended with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Kansas City where they discussed assasinating 6 pro-war senators as a means to end the war? As a Naval Reserve officer Kerry had an obligation to report conspiracies to overthrow or destabilize the United States government. He did nothing of the sort. The plot died and he remained silent. That is a crimminal act, one of ommission on his part.

Kerry is a uniquely unqualified candidate for President. This November his record will either swamp DNC efforts at the polls, or prove the American electorate really, no longer deserves the sacrifices the GI's in the military offer up for them.

[Wuptdo]

I have known many guys who did their duty in Vietnam. Most did their "time" and left -- they did their jobs and even today, don't bellyache about it. Also consider that for every guy out in the "field," there were 5 to 8 people providing support. (Ok, they probably went a little overboard with the 33 ice cream factories). Mr. Kerry, is the one who made his "war" record the cornerstone of his quest to be "Commander in Chief."

With that said, both sides are picking at a very ugly scar from our past. However, what exactly was the justification for going war in Vietnam and who authorized it?

Moving on...

What has Mr. Kerry stood for during his 30 years for public life. What has he done to help better our country? What does he stand for (prior to running for President). Why can't he run on his record of accomplishments? What kind of snake oil is he selling this month. If elected, will the campaigning Kerry be the same man that we actually get? When I see Kerry campaigning, I see a very hallow person, someone with no soul. He can almost see the contempt he has for the American public.

At least with GW, you know you are getting the real deal. I don't agree with a lot of the things that GW has done, nor where he wants to go. However, as in past years, I will be voting for the lessor of two evils. The kind of people we need running this country don't run for office.

Wuptdo B-)

[hollyL]

I'm not quite sure why this Kerry bashing is always directed at me...I don't even like that guy! I don't like either one of them one bit.

The ugliest I have seen during this election has in fact come from a Democrat in the bizarre and insane rants of Zell Miller. I don't think I've ever seen anyone challenge someone to a duel on national TV.

For the record, again, I don't like either of them. I don't care if George Bush did coke, lied about WMD or whether he showed up for the national guard on time or whether he's VP's company got some preference in some military contracts. I don't care if Kerry shot himself in his own foot, whether or not he flip/flopped on this or that or whether be voted for $87 million or not - it really doesn't matter. We are stuck with these 2 fools and we have to choose one. They are close to equally stupid/bad in my eyes. I can only go on the basic principles of either party at this point.

I disagree 100% with the war in Iraq and that we are somehow "safer". I do not believe that Bush is a strong leader. On the contrary, I think he has weakened this country by alienating most of Europe, Russia and numerous other former allies. He has further infuriated Islamic fundamentalists by invading a Muslim nation that had nothing - zip - zilch to do with the terrorist attacks on our country. He has failed to find the mastermind of the 9/11 attack (Bin Laden). He has failed to take appropriate measures to secure our boarders and track foreigners in this country. His war has caused over 900 US deaths that are somebody's mother, father, daughter, son. And the war has done nothing, NOTHING to stop terrorism. Over 300 people died in Russia this past week; seems occupation isn't a big deterant to them. I think Bush has messed this up so much that I couldn't think about voting for him.

Bush is not a strong leader. Reagan was a strong leader. He ended the cold war when literally thousands of Russian nuclear intercontinental nuclear missiles were pointing right at us with not one shot fired or one soldier dead. That is strength. It is not how many nations we can occupy who don't have 1 single ship or operational plane to deliver a bomb to the US. It's not how many times we can scare the American public with ambiguous stop light looking alerts that mean absolutely nothing to anyone.

Terrorists are not a nation - until that is realized this war is lost. You can't threaten terrorists with death...death for their cause is a way to heaven. We cannot fight terrorists in every country - it is logistically impossible. We can never win against terrorists as they are not a sovereign nation with boarders unless we fight them in a different way. It is ridiculous to think we can occupy every country that "might" have WMD or terrorists in it. Nevermind the fact that the Bush administration has no idea what the "war" is about anyway. It's not about hating America because it is...is because of the way we act. Maybe he has Muslim "friends" or something but he and, from what I can tell everyone else in the administration, has no concept of the Islamic religion. I have a BA in Religious Studies and I know more about it then they do.

This is a fundamental opinion that you probably won't share. My mother and I argue about this all the time but we can't agree on the facts so we certainly can't agree on the outcome. If we can't agree that Iraq had no WMD, no direct link to any terrorist group let alone the killers in the 9/11 attacks, we can never agree on the conclusion. If we can't agree that occupying nations will not stop terrorism we can't get their either. I believe this is the underlying cause of the "nation divided"; people do not see the "facts" the same.

So you can tell me that Access Hollywood has pictures of Kerry getting a BJ from Jeanna Jameson while snorting coke off Ted Kennedy's *** and it wouldn't matter to me. As long as he doesn't occupy a country that has done nothing to us or start with this US is always right and is the ruler of the world attitude I don't care. As I see it voting for Kerry is the only option for me. I'm forced to support the party that I think will stop this antagonist, imperialist behavior that will only lead to bad.

[johnb]

Whether he snorted coke off Kennedy's *** is not the issue, although it makes an ugly picture now seared into my mind and I wish to thank you for that holly. Ugh.

The issue is Kerry's actions while a commissioned military officer. Did he violate the law in his actions in Vietnam (he claimed to be a war crimminal and he claimed to have witnessed others raping, murdering, and pillaging yet failed to stop or report any of it at the time) ? Did he violate the law in his actions after leaving Vietnam (conspiring to assasinate US Senators, negotiating with officials of the North Vietnamese government while our troops were fighting the NVA)? Did he properly or improperly smear 2.5 million other GI's as "war crimminals"? He made his military service relelvant. Now his contradictory stories and his conduct concerning that war are legitimate issues.

Zell Miller did nothing but recite a litany of Kerry's votes against one military modernization program after another. It seems that Kerry voted against just about every single major weapons system the US military has deployed today from the F-18 to the Patriot Missile and so on and so forth. Miller was quite right to ask what Kerry would be commander in chief of, a military armed with spit balls..... If it were up to Kerry the military would not have had any upgrades or modernizations to the weapons systems since the Vietnam War. Miller is right, Kerry's votes reveal a dangerous man, one who would leave the nation and the people here dangerously unable to defend our interests and ourselves. I understand how that offends the hard left, that is not a by-product of their ideology, it is integral to it. A weak America at the mercy of renegades ideologies and rouge states would have to rely on the UN for assistance. Mutual weakness, indecisiveness, and helplessness is NOT a positive family value holly. I understand strength, decisiveness, and self-confidence are offensive to the hard left, but frankly, the lives and safety of the people and institutions of this Republic are more important to me and Zell Miller than placating the irrational sensibilities of the hard left.

[hollyL]

Why do we have to define "strength" as who has the most bombs? On a counterpoint does this mean Reagan was weak because he didn't send over a bunch of nukes to Russia?

The problem is we fundementally disagree on how to fight the war on terror and what the definition of "strength" is. You think we should bomb the crap out of everyone...so you see the means to the end of terror differently than I. Because of that we certainly can't agree on what is needed to achieve the goal. You're solution is one of military action - mine is one of vigilence on our borders, collaberation with allies and respect for the life mythos of the muslim cuture.

Most of the things you say JK is I agree with frankly.

Zell Miller is a complete nut. I'd say you would have had to seen his display on Hardball but the transcript is pretty scary itself (full transcript here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5892840/

MILLER: If you‘re going to ask a question...

MATTHEWS: Well, it‘s a tough question. It takes a few words.

MILLER: Get out of my face.

MILLER: If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Senator, please.

MILLER: You know, I wish we...

MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

Don‘t ask me—don‘t pull that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Can you can come over? I need you, Senator. Please come over.

MILLER: Wait a minute. Don‘t pull that kind of stuff on me, like you did that young lady when you had her there, browbeating her to death. I am not her. I am not her.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal. And I was trying to correct the record.

MILLER: You get in my face, I am going to get back in your face.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: The only reason you are doing it is because you are standing way over there in Herald Square.

MATTHEWS: Senator, Senator, can I speak softly to you? I would really like you to...

MILLER: What? No, no, no, because you won‘t give me a chance to answer. You ask these questions and then you just talk over what I am trying to answer, just like you did that woman the other day.

MATTHEWS: Well, Senator...

MILLER: I don‘t know why I even came on this program.

MATTHEWS: Well, I am glad you did.

[johnb]

Why do we have to define "strength" as who has the most bombs? On a counterpoint does this mean Reagan was weak because he didn't send over a bunch of nukes to Russia?

Because I live in the real world holly. A nation which lacks the capability to project military power in defense of itself and it's interests is inherently "not strong". India has the capability to project power as far and as fast as it's infantry divisions can walk. It has minimal air power and no serious naval power. It is and has been a constant target of both China and Pakistan since it's independence. There should not be an argument about Kashmir. The province should not be divided. It should be wholly Indian and Pakistani aggression in that area continues only because India is unable and unwilling to stop it. That nation has been torn apart because it's population, while massive, is "not strong". Weakness begets more violence, more war, and more suffering. There have been no wars against the US because the US was "too strong". On those occasions when we were attacked it was executed at a point where our enemy perceived weakness (Pearl Harbor, Korea, 1812).

The problem is we fundementally disagree on how to fight the war on terror and what the definition of "strength" is. You think we should bomb the crap out of everyone...

You are almost correct, but your flaw is the same one lefists insist on lampooning. Primarily because the reality is one they cannot argue. We should bomb the crap out of those people, institutions, and nations which aid, harbor, and abet our enemies. Not "Everyone". Bombing Mexico would be ridiculous as that nation is not our enemy nor does it aid, harbor and abet the Islamofascist terrorists. If we keep you focused on the reality of the War on Terror you will see the error inherent in the leftist approach.

so you see the means to the end of terror differently than I. Because of that we certainly can't agree on what is needed to achieve the goal. You're solution is one of military action - mine is one of vigilence on our borders, collaberation with allies and respect for the life mythos of the muslim cuture.

So, do nothing until we are attacked and even then allow other nations to hold a veto over any military action we may contemplate. Interesting proposal holly but a complete non-starter. There is an old saying that is as true now as it has always been and always will be: Nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Russia and the US will forge a much closer and stronger military alliance in the wake of Beslan. Because now the Russians are awake to the evil on their southern borders. We fight the same enemy. In Afghanistan we were mortal enemies. Our friends have changed but our interests have not. Our first interest is to reduce if not eliminate the capability of our enemies to harm our people and our nation. That will not be achieved by gathering around a campfire and singing kumbayah, sorry, it will be achieved by going after them and killing them.

Most of the things you say JK is I agree with frankly.

What that he lied about his record and that he smeared/assaulted the integrity of the 2.5 million veterans who served in Vietnam?

Zell Miller is a complete nut.

Miller is like an ex-smoker. The ex-smoker is the most vehement anti-tobacco person around. Miller is the Democrat who realizes that in the post 9/11 world his party is still the counter-cultural group of appeasniks and hate Amerika firsters they were during Vietnam. He was betrayed by the "New Democrat" lie told during the Clinton Administration. The Donkeys are quite willing to sacrifice the lives of other people through their disdain of the military and their hatred of the intelligence services in order to gut those things to spend the loot on social programs. I, for one, am unwilling to terminate the war on terror and sit passively by waiting for the next strike against America and the American people before reacting. And when reacting, handling it as a "police matter" is both futile and counter-productive. War has evolved, we are not dealing with a movement that respects the traditional laws of war. Look at the IRA. They don't slaughter kids. That doesn't make them nice people. But they strike the British police, Army, and government institutions. Occasionally they hit soft targets (train stations, banks, et al) but they've never murdered, what's the body count at Beslan now? 500 kids? They engage in asymetrical warfare. The Islamofascists make war on children for two reasons 1-the kids are infidels and deserve no better treatment and 2-the shock value from slaughtering kids aids them (in their view) of terrorizing and subjugating non-Muslims. Tell me, how would you, holly, adivse a "President Kerry" to deal with people that would do a thing like that? Since "strength" is not a calculation of a nation's military might and willingness to use it and since we should only act with the approval of our so-called allies....how should we aid the Russians? Or should we?

Putin is right. No one has any right to tell the Russians NOT to go after the animals. The Russians are gonna run hell right through Chechnya. To answer your question, yes, the way to deal with these animals is to confront them, to kill them, and to slaughter any and all Islamofascists that thinks about a gun. We did it to the Nazi's and we did it to the Japanese. When did they last start a war?

It might make the survivors mad. That's fine, get mad, get dead, problem solved. Animal control kills rabid animals. So should the Army.

[johnb]

By the way holly, that young woman Chris Matthews visciously attacked was Michelle Malkin. She made the point that one of Kerry's purple hearts was undeserved because purple hearts cannot be awarded for self-inflicted wounds or wounds received in the absence of enemy fire. She did not say Kerry deliberately shot himself, that was Chris Matthews, former Jimmy Carter aide and Tip O'Neil lackey, attacking Malkin in defense of his Donkeycrat buddy John Kerry. Matthews lied and slandered her when she was making a rather straight forward and truthful point. Kerry was wounded by his own actions, whether deliberate or not is irrelevant, we can even give him the benefit of the doubt and agree it wasn't deliberate, that one purple heart is still, clearly, undeserved.

Matthews is a viscious SOB and Miller confronted him as one would confront a viscious SOB. Matthews is not a journalist, he is a rabidly partisan Donkeycrat placed before the MSNBC cameras to do exactly what he is doing, pump the Donkeycrats line and attack any and all who disagree. He is a leftwing version of Bill O'Reilly, just nowhere near as commercially successfull.

[Mark]

Fireworks. Nice.


Questions concerning Kerry's conduct in Vietnam are legitimate 1- he uses that as a justification for electing him president and 2-his own stories contradict each other and established facts in the history of the war. He creates a certain level of suspicion. Calling him on the deficiencies of his story are quite legitimate.

1- No he does not. Generally the tenor of the Kerry camp, and what matters to me, is that he served, not how he did it. It's a bonus that he has some decoration, but that isn't the focus. Simply put, he showed, Bush did not.

2- Maybe, maybe. Kerry's account is incomplete and somewhat contradictory. So is, perhaps 95% of the recollections of all war vets. More importantly, so is the accounts of the Swift Vets for Truth. Based on the web of contradictions and half truths, I'll rely on the official record which is indisputable. Kerry served and at least most of his awards were deserved. He does create a certain level of suspicion, and people can challenge it sure - just don't expect people not to challenge the serious questions of desertion and misconduct on behalf of the President... who, may I suggest, is equally, if not more, suspicious.

Also, let me add that you're out of line with the right on challenging Kerry's service. They seem to be suggesting that it isn't proper to do so, but his post-service activities are fair game.

And, neither Moveon nor Soros ever ran any ads comparing Bush to Hitler. As you full well know John, two videos were submitted to an ad contest that Moveon hosted and, when discovered were immediately removed and condemned as inappropriate. Rush has, on the other hand, made frequent and unapologetic reference to Democrats and Nazi Germany.

Wup asks
What has Mr. Kerry stood for during his 30 years for public life. What has he done to help better our country? What does he stand for (prior to running for President). Why can't he run on his record of accomplishments?

And, to a point, he's right. Kerry hasn't done enough to highlight is service in the Senate. His campaign is silly for neglecting it for precisely the point that his service, even if meager, is far superior than were Bush's credentials during his first candidacy. It amuses me that for the chorus of people bemoaning Kerry's slim legislative record, such accomplishments were not a factor in their electing Bush. In fact, any accomplishment wasn't really a factor in electing Bush. By most accounts, he seemed personable, he wanted to cut taxes, and he wasn't Al Gore. If that's what it takes to get elected, fine, just don't invent electable criteria after the fact. Or, rather, don't pretend you didn't ignore your own criteria last time around.

Holly does raise an interesting question about why the attention is focused, in Presidential politics, so intensely on the candidates themselves. We're educated people, we know that the head of the ticket is the representative of the party, the person who will, at best, control which groups get access to the White House. I often think of when I hear someone say, "I support GWB 100%, he's a strong leader, right for America." What that actuallly means is, "I support the Republican party machinery in Washington 100%." The party that
rejected a unity plank in it's platform. The party that said, "Come to think of it, no, you can't be a good Republican and think ******s aren't evil." That's what Bush is, just as Kerry is the symbolic head of the Democrats. Chickenhawks too, still pro big business, just less inclined to enact policies that make disadvantaged groups suffer. So, it's not about Kerry v. Bush, it's about whether you think gay people are humans, for starters, whether the ultra wealthy should continue to get support from the working class, whether you think the approach to Iraq was the right one, whether the U.S. should continue to flip off Europe, whether healthcare for people that make less than you is something that you are concerned about...

you get the picture.

The only reason I care a whit about what Zell Miller, George Bush, or John Kerry does is insofar as they reflect the views of the people of their party that will be running the show when, or if, elected. They're just shills for the people pulling the strings, its a rare person that actually has the insight and talent to break the mold - and that person is absent from either side of the ticket.


The Donkeys are quite willing to sacrifice the lives of other people through their disdain of the military and their hatred of the intelligence services in order to gut those things to spend the loot on social programs.

Which people would that be? Don't get me wrong, I think the Democrats are nearly as arrogantly aggressive as the Republicans, I'm just curious who they, singularly, might have sacrificed. Usually, when Dems or Repubs want to sacrifice people, they happen to be darker than us and usually we increase spending in the military to do it. Witness Clinton in Haiti, or Bush now to Israel.

And, finally, John at his best.
I, for one, am unwilling to terminate the war on terror and sit passively by waiting for the next strike against America and the American people before reacting.

A few things strike me as utterly infantile about this thinking, coupled with his bombs/strength line of reasoning. First, is the false dichotomy he presents. Either it's Bush's war, or it's sitting passively praying for an attack. Second, it's the belief that Kerry wants, or politically could, do very much different than the current plan. Third, the belief that any changes Kerry might make, such as broadening international support, are destined to fail and further hurt security. Fourth, the unabashed belief, one not supported by a casual glance at the newspaper, that killing people makes others like them less likely to want to kill you. Fifth, that, above all else, the U.S. must not admit that its foreign policy has a role in fostering hate towards this nation of people and should, never, not even remotely, consider the possibility of altering its ideology of securing global dominance through pressure, muted aggression and fear.

Heaven forbid that. Not on John Barbara's watch. Continue the bang-up job of stopping terrorism we're already doing. U.S victim 1000 in the dumbest idea of the century comes tomorrow.

[Wuptdo]

About Sen. Miller's speech (didn't see the Mathews thing): Today in Comm Class we reviewed his speech. The biggest problem with the speech was the audience. Sen. Miller speaking style is considered a very "Southen" manner of addressing the public; almost like preaching (tent revivals). Someone should of gone out in the floor and tell people not to cheer and appauld, but to say "Amen." This would of helped the cadance of the speech and given it a more dramatic appeal.

Be that as it may, the class consensus, was that this speech was from the heart (or soul). His tone, body language, and direct style all added to the strength of his speech. Next we viewed formal Pres. Clinton's "I did not have sex with that women" speech. Big difference.

Anyway, Holly, glad you came aboard. Really enjoy you and JohnB "sparring." :lol:

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

1- No he does not. Generally the tenor of the Kerry camp, and what matters to me, is that he served, not how he did it. It's a bonus that he has some decoration, but that isn't the focus.

Completely untrue. He went so far as to list his medals on his campaign web site. He had an autobiography ghost written for him placing his 4 months in Nam front and center. He prefaced most all of his campaign speeches, til the Swift Boat Vets spoiled the fantasy, with constant references to Vietnam. If you wish to deny his actions in this regard Mark you indict your own personal integrity. Kerry flaunted his ribbons, his alleged heroism, and used it to insult and attack Bush.

2- Maybe, maybe. Kerry's account is incomplete and somewhat contradictory. So is, perhaps 95% of the recollections of all war vets.

Your own personal study of the matter or just an "everyone knows" bit of nonsense Mark? He claimed to have been shot at by the Khmer Rouge, over a year before the organization even existed. That isn't a "maybe". That was a memory supposedly "seared" into his consciousness, much like President Nixon ordering him into Cambodia before Nixon was innaugurated President.

"...I'll rely on the official record which is indisputable."

No you won't. Be honest. You'll believe whatever Kerry tells you to believe on the matter regardless of how outlandish it is.

Kerry served and at least most of his awards were deserved.

Most of his awards were deserved. That is sickening. Of course, being someone who never served you cannot understand the repugnance of that statement.

He does create a certain level of suspicion, and people can challenge it sure - just don't expect people not to challenge the serious questions of desertion and misconduct on behalf of the President... who, may I suggest, is equally, if not more, suspicious.

First off, you're a fool if you believe there is any "serious question" about Bush "deserting" the National Guard. As a drilling reservist I cannot "desert" Mark. If I fail to show up I go into an unsatisfactory drill status. It isn't possible for me to desert unless I have been activated and placed in an active duty status. You leftists demonstrate how incompetant you are with respect to undertanding the military and the UCMJ. What basis in law do you have for alleging Bush "deserted" the National Guard? I'd love to see this, or is this just another hate based throw away line?

Also, let me add that you're out of line with the right on challenging Kerry's service.

Wrong again Mark. The Navy has already launched an investigation into Kerry's medals. Standard procedure. He is doing the same thing Admiral Boorda did, he wore a V for valor in combat on a medal on which that is specifically not allowed. Had it posted on his web site too. He now claims it was a clerical error. Maybe it was. However, you may not be aware of this but the FBI actually has an agent who specirfically handles these types of crimes. It is a Federal offense to wear medals you are not authorized to wear. Kerry's contradictory statements, his unearned purple heart, and other matters give legitimate cause to suspect something is wrong. Where there is fire.... By the way, when Boorda was confronted with his medals fraud Kerry denounced him in no uncertain terms and went so far as to call for his resignation. So your suggestion is patently hypocritical. Besides, Boorda did the honorable thing and put a gun in his mouth when he was caught.

Moveon hosted and, when discovered were immediately removed and condemned as inappropriate

A complete lie. Mark, moveon.org changed the url but kept the offensive video ad on it's web site for weeks after it was discovered to ensure maximum distribution. But you know that I'm sure.

Which people would that be? Don't get me wrong, I think the Democrats are nearly as arrogantly aggressive as the Republicans, I'm just curious who they, singularly, might have sacrificed.

Kerry's voting record in the Senate makes it clear he's willing to sacrifice you or me or any number of Americans Mark. He has voted against almost every single weapons system for upgrading / modernizing the American military to come up for a vote during his time in the Senate.

A few things strike me as utterly infantile about this thinking

Come off it Mark, you like the rest of the hard left wants nothing to do with the War on Terror. You folks are betting Kerry is lying when he says he'll continue the War. The Islamofascist war against civilization is driven by nothing from the outside, it is driven by it's own internal justifications and motivations. It incorrect to assume the US "caused" militant Islam, that hellish ideology has it's roots in 7th century theocratic totalitarianism.

Surrendering to the Islamofascists will not bring peace Mark, unless you are willing to suffer the fate of being a dhimmi. Are you?

[johnb]

By the way, here is the link to the story...moveon.org kept the "Bush is a Nazi" ad up for SIX MONTHS after the liars claimed to have removed it.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7mo.htm

Nice try Mark.

[johnb]

So there is one standard of conduct for John Kerry...and a separate standard of conduct for those people he doesn't like. Why is it okay to question Boorda's leadership and integrity when it isn't okay to question Kerry's for the same conduct?

Mark, it is obvious why you guys on the hard left hate Fox News. They run stories like this whereas the NY Times, CNN, et al, would cover up this matter on behalf of Kerry.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131319,00.html

Navy Probes Kerry Medal
Friday, September 03, 2004

NEW YORK — In what has been described by Navy officials as a routine process, the Pentagon's inspector general's office on Thursday referred to the secretary of the Navy a request to investigate medals won by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) during the Vietnam War.

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch (search) submitted the request for an investigation. Navy sources said the service will probe the medals, but added that most questions have arisen because of what appear to be errors in processing records.

Kerry received five medals during his four months in combat in Vietnam. Judicial Watch asked the Pentagon to investigate Kerry's receipt of the Silver Star with a "Combat V" designation (search), which stands for valor under fire.

Kerry's campaign Web site includes military records listing the Combat V citation. Navy procedures show that the Silver Star cannot carry a Combat V designation because part of the reason the medal is awarded is for valor under fire — the added designation would be redundant. The findings of the probe, therefore, will not change the record of Kerry's Vietnam service.

In a letter to Judicial Watch, the inspector general's office said: "Concerning our allegations of violations of Uniform Code of Military Justice (search), we have the responsibility to ... 'report suspected or alleged violations.' We have informed the secretary of the Navy of the allegations."

Kerry campaign adviser Michael Meehan released a statement to FOX News that criticized the attention being paid to the request.

"The facts are clear, the Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with a Combat V and three Purple Hearts. It is waste of taxpayer's dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime, to investigate a 35-year-old Navy clerical error," the statement reads.

The Navy has said that it's the responsibility of all personnel to correct errors in official records.

In 1996, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy Boorda committed suicide when he learned that a reporter was about to disclose he had wrongly worn two Combat V pins on a Bronze Star, a medal that does not denote valor under fire.

At the time, Kerry told the Boston Herald that wrongly wearing the medals is a severe error in judgment.

"Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes," he is quoted as saying.

Kerry also spoke to the Boston Globe about the matter.

"If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value, self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."

Judicial Watch representatives said the group also wants an investigation into Kerry's third citation for the same Silver Star. In 1986, Kerry received the third citation after requesting a copy of his original citations. This one carried the signature and some additional words of praise under the signature of then-Navy Secretary John Lehman (search).

In a statement to FOX News, Lehman, who served on the Sept. 11 commission that investigated pre-2001 terror attack intelligence failings, said he had no idea why Kerry received a third citation under his signature, and that Navy records should be "thoroughly researched and the facts established."

Meanwhile, in an exclusive interview with FOX News, former President George H.W. Bush said questions raised about Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War were legitimate, and he saw nothing wrong with airing a TV ad assailing Kerry's anti-war testimony by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search), a loosely regulated, independent political action group known as a 527.

"My view is the advertisement showing Senator Kerry as a young veteran coming back and using his own words to describe atrocities committed by his own soldiers, sailors, marines or whatever it is, is devastating," Bush said.

Bush 41 also said Kerry owes the nation and Vietnam veterans an apology.

"I think it is not enough to say, well, I made a youthful indiscretion, and I think Senator Kerry ought to apologize."

FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.

[Mark]

The findings of the probe, therefore, will not change the record of Kerry's Vietnam service.

Which happens to be the same thing I read last time you posted it.

And, my apologies for mischaracterizing the President's honorable and completely unsuspicious absence from his guard unit as desertion. Thanks for nailing me on that semantic point while letting the substantive portions of the post go.

Further, I had no idea that Moveon.org kept the video on their servers, nor do I have any evidence that anyone else outside the organization did either. The Drudge report doesn't indicate how he concluded that "Bush Haters worldwide are still watching..." based on the mere fact that the file was buried on the server somewhere. Moveon's employee payroll accounts are on the server too, but I haven't seen them recently. Don probably keeps some unused code and images uploaded for old or future pages, an activity to which I would not subscribe ill intent.

Anyway, I'll respond to your points, they generally follow paragraph for paragraph, for those following along.

You've taken many occasions to inform this board that you're associated with the armed services in some fashion. John Kerry served in Vietnam and was awarded medals. Yet you chide him for making note of the fact on his campaign website? He did make references to Vietnam, and still does, noting that he served his country, often hinting that others did not. Is that not something he earned? So far as I can tell, the Swift Vets have only anecdotal evidence to challenge one of Kerry's medals. Their own testimony has been unreliable - contradictions, undermined affidavits, etc. If Kerry's has been, and theirs has been, what have we left? That Kerry served, that the majority of his medals were received honorably, and that one is, at best, in doubt though without sufficient evidence to warrant changing it.

See above. Neither side has told the whole story. Insofar as Kerry has had less contradictions in fact, and the official record to back him up that remains the authority. O'Neil claimed to have been in Cambodia too. If Kerry is not lying than his chief critic is alone. If Kerry is lying, than his chief critic is as well. That does not bode well for O'Neil now does it. Why is anyone to believe the testimony of this man? I will rely on the official record, and not really care beyond that. The matter is not one of grave importance.

Again, see above for my clarification of writing "most of his awards were deserved." I was throwing you a bone there, suggesting more merit to the Swifts arguments than is actually there. There has not been any evidence provided sufficient enough to warrant a serious revaluation of Kerry's honors. Period. Based on that, whether there may be some contradictory testamony surrounding the circumstance of one or two in particular, we should conclude that the record stands as is.

Again, note my apology regarding the desertion comment. If you feel the best you have in the argument is expecting evey lay person to be familiar with the UCMJ than I suggest you've set your sights a bit low. Since I've checked up a bit, if Bush were in active duty training than desertion would be quite the fitting term. I do not think he was, however, and would thus be subject only to the State conventions on the subject and the ANG's conventions on the subject. The penalties of which, I am to understand, are actually none too dire - though that it is somewhat beside the point. O'Neil, and perhaps you, are suggesting that Kerry's biggest crime is the perfectly legal act of speaking out against the war - an act which you're claiming defames all vets. If it's a question of intent and consequences, and not legality, let me suggest that Bush's transgression probably were, illegal somewhere, and wonder aloud, why he let himself lapse from combat ready status, why he missed so many appointments, what he was doing at the time, why he didn't make them up, and why he can't explain much of this. Now that is demonstrable intent to shirk ones duty, and had, if you care about this sort of thing (and you are insisting that you do) an impact on the U.S. ability to fight the war. I suspect, however, that you don't really care - that Bush's failure to attend, whatever you will call it, and subsequent reduction in Vietnam preparedness, doesn't bother you. Better that he was out boozing, or worse, around Texas and Alabama than being imminently called to active duty and actually flying.

The Navy is now part of the conservative right? I was aware the Navy has an investigation into the matter. I'm also aware that it isn't going to change much. What I was referring to, about being out of step with the right, is that the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain are denouncing attacks on Kerry's wartime record while noting that his post-conflict activities are fair game. Bush too, has called Kerry's service honorable. Now, I know you don't get your marching orders from the right, you just happen to be in lockstep with them usually. So, I just wanted to warn you that good, non-unity-plank, republicans think the topic is passe.

I really don't think Kerry wants to sacrifice you, much less me, John. I am, after all, a campaign contributor. It's true Kerry did vote against many of the bills calling for funding of specific weapons systems. Note my wording there, it was deliberate. As any educated observer of politics knows, being against a bill for an issue and being against the issue are entirely different things. I wonder what he wanted to put that money towards, and whether it would have caused more or less suffering in the world. It's a hard question to judge, no doubt military prowess has saved lives, but what has been lost? Do really know that Kerry, or are you suggesting, that Kerry would be happy today with a U.S. military equipped with weaponry circa 1978? No, I doubt he would be. So, perhaps he opposed those specific programs at that specific time, but does anyone really believe he would halt military funding, roll back all weapons development and stagnate the armed forces? I doubt it. There is no way any President, except an elected Green or Socialist could do anything but support the armed services with the latest technology, if only for their protection. And, remember, defense contractors contribute to Dems too. The apple will not fall far from the tree.

I will reassert that your position is the uneducated one, espoused by people filled with fear, hate or both, unable to understand the nuance, balance, and humanity of, as you like to say, the real world. I do hope Kerry is lying if by "continue the War" you mean this fiasco Bush has gotten the world into. Force without reason won't win John. Among the things you teach those Boy Scouts of yours, asided from callling a spade a spade (which you so highly prize) isn't using your head one of them? Could we possibly kill every last one of "them"? Can such a strategy, without a plan to ease tension and treat the underlying causes a terrorism, poverty, and deprivation possibly succeed? I know it can't, and I'm not one that wants to watch poor people around the world die before those that choose this path figure that out.

So I hope about that he's lying, but I sincerely hope that he's not going to turn tail and let the world be. Because, if he lets those dangerous people who seek to do harm to this nation be, they certainly will and, more importantly, the causes that drove them to do so would still exist. And that would be the greatest tragedy. Of course the U.S. must attempt to identify and thwart terrorist threats abroad before they can hit home, but it can't be reckless, guns abalze, occupiers and it can't expect the level of cooperation that will be needed to defeat global terrorism without earnest foreign, and domestic, policy changes. It's a packaged deal, you need both, the war will not be won with fighter jets. A dozen guys with a bunch of guns taught us that this week, didn't they?

Islam will sort itself out. Judaism did, Christianity did, and, based on that record, Islam will too. The Christian crusades were only moderately successful, our hope should be then that Islam's crusades do not reach too far. We've been over this before, I still hold that there are more moderate manifestations of Islam in the world than you believe exist. No doubt, in some scripture, and in some interpretations emphasis is placed on the conquering aspect of Islam, and the exclusivity of Islam's "rightness" (though all religions share this). If the fundamentalist drive comes from inside the religion itself, so too will the moderation. We can help the moderation along, however. Not be killing and inciting the extreme factions. But by providing support (not guns, but opportunity, voice, and efficacy) to the moderate and progressive Muslims in the world. And there are many. That is a goal I hope, probably naively, that Kerry endorses. We shall, I hope, get to evaluate his record soon.

If so, I hope we can avoid deaths 1003 ad infinitum... I didn't think we'd get there so quickly.

[johnb]

And, my apologies for mischaracterizing the President's honorable and completely unsuspicious absence from his guard unit as desertion. Thanks for nailing me on that semantic point while letting the substantive portions of the post go.

I realize you were never in the military and you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to this issue Mark. The word desertion has a very specific and very negative meaning, as it should. Much like civilian legal terms such as homicide. You use a word loaded with negative connotations in a form that is clearly inappropriate and outrageous for a specific purpose, to denigrate and belittle Bush's service in the National Guard. Your use of that term is rooted in your hate of him, not in the facts of the situation. Like many lefitsts you allow your raw anger and hate of Bush to propel you to repeat a statement that can only be characterized as a lie. You repeat with no idea what you are talking about and I'm sure you'll continue to repeat in spite of the fact that you now know it to be a false charge. A few weeks or a month from now I'm sure we'll see you writing here on CaryPolitics that Bush "deserted" his National Guard unit.

Further, I had no idea that Moveon.org kept the video on their servers, nor do I have any evidence that anyone else outside the organization did either.

An organization whose sole reason for existance in 2004 is it's raw hatred of Geo Bush, let's consider 1-it was an honest mistake, 2-they lied and kept an ad they though hilarious and accurate on their web site. Which is the more plausible Mark? After the indignation and the press coverage that arose after it was discovered is it honestly plausible that that odious smear piece "accidently" survived on their web site? Considering the rest of the content on the moveon.org web site that is highly unlikely. Not terribly plausible at all, especially after an executive director of the organization took pains to insist it was removed from the site. There is no way you folks would ever give anyone but yourselves that kind of benfit of the doubt Mark. The standard moveon.org holds Bush/Cheney too is the same one that they should be held to, surely you leftists don't want to be hypocrits, right?

Is that not something he earned?

Good question. Did he "earn" the right to smear 2.5 million veterans as "war crimminals"? He claims his commanding officers established policies to promote and abet crimminal activity on the part of the men in their chain of command. He testified before the US Senate to that. Yet he failed to stop any of the men he claims to have observed from committing these alleged "war crimes" and he failed to report himself for committing these alleged "war crimes". That is a crimminal offense, one of ommission, on the part of a commissioned military officer. Lt Calley was court martialed and imprisoned for murder Mark. Others reported on him, why didn't Kerry follow standard military procedure and stop the men he saw from behaving, in his words, like "Genghis Khan"?

Let's consider the options....1-he lied and he committed no "war crimes" no did he observe others commiting these alleged "war crimes", 2- He did observe them. If 1, he is a despicable liar who smeared the reputation, integrity, and service of 2.5 million men with his foul charge. Or, 2, he didn't lie and he violated his oath by engaging in "war crimes" and failing to stop "war crimes" on the part of the men under him. On the one hand the Donkeys have nominated a repugnant liar to be their presidential nominee or on the other John Kerry is the first admitted "war crimminal" to run for president. Which is it?

That Kerry served, that the majority of his medals were received honorably...

But Mark, that is clearly inconsistant with the standard Kerry himself laid down. He said:

"Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes," he is quoted as saying.

"If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value, self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."

So "some" of his medals were deserved. Okay, fine, KERRY HIMSELF LAID DOWN THE STANDARD TO BE USED TO JUDGE PEOPLE WHO WEAR MEDALS THEY DIDN'T EARN. Let's not be hypocrits Mark. Kerry passed judgement on Admiral Boorda for doing the same thing he, Kerry, did. Why can we not question Kerry's "leadership"? Why can we not assume Kerry is less than what he is pretending to be?

The matter is not one of grave importance.

That's not what John Kerry said when passing judgement on others Mark.

I was throwing you a bone there, suggesting more merit to the Swifts arguments than is actually there. There has not been any evidence provided sufficient enough to warrant a serious revaluation of Kerry's honors.

Actually, yes there is. You see, one of his purple hearts was unmerited since it was not caused by enemy fire and he claimed a decoration for Valor the Navy specifically disallowed. It may be that his staffers are as incompetant as leftists generally in terms of understanding the military or it may have been a clerical error. Either way, it needs to be corrected, Senator Kerry himself threw down a pretty tough standard on the matter. If he hadn't been so harsh in judging others, there might not be cause to judge him just as harshly. After all, Senator Kerry can't be a hypocrit, the standard he beat Admiral Boorda over the head with must be good enough for him too. The Navy has already opened an investigation into the mess because medals fraud is a serious matter. We have a Naval officer in jail right now for a recent conviction for wearing medals he hadn't been awarded.

Again, note my apology regarding the desertion comment. If you feel the best you have in the argument is expecting evey lay person to be familiar with the UCMJ than I suggest you've set your sights a bit low.

You have that backwards Mark. If you are going to accuse someone of a capital crime YOU had better raise your standards. Desertion in war time is punishable by imprisonment and up to execution via the UCMJ. Hate based accusations like that say far more about the accuser than the accused.

The penalties of which, I am to understand, are actually none too dire - though that it is somewhat beside the point.

Nice retreat, accuse first and see if anyone catches you on it then worry about the facts.

O'Neil, and perhaps you, are suggesting that Kerry's biggest crime is the perfectly legal act of speaking out against the war - an act which you're claiming defames all vets.

Again Mark, you are missing the most important details in the matter. Kerry was still an officer in the Naval Reserves when he met with North Vietnamese Communist government officials over a negotiating table. That is patently illegal for a military officer (or enlisted). What is legal for civilians and what is legal for military members are not necessarily the same thing. John Kerry was an officer in the Naval Reserves when he, as a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, was present at a meeting in Kansas City where the group members conspired over the possibility of assasinating 6 US Senators as a means to end the war. It was patently illegal for a military officer (or enlisted) to be a member of an organization which seeks to overthrow or destabilize the US government. I would assume you understand that you cannot be a party to the planning of a capital crime and NOT report it to law enforcement without legal penalty right? If you hear people conspiring to kill/rape someone you have a legal obligation to report that to law enforcement. That is not a joke. What it is is a severe laspse in judgement. For a Naval officer to to have that knowledge and keep it secret is beyond contempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War

During a meeting in Kansas City in mid November 1971, a proposal to assassinate several senators was put forth according to Randy Barnes, current head of Missouri Veterans for Kerry. Scott Camil a radical key leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War proposed the assassination of the most conservative members of Congress, as well as any other powerful opponents of the antiwar movement.

According to interviews with VVAW members who were present at the Kansas City meeting, Camil organized something he called “The Phoenix Project.” The original Phoenix Project during the Vietnam War was an attempt to destroy the Viet Cong leadership by targeted assassination. Mr. Camil’s Phoenix Project planned to execute the Southern senatorial leadership that was backing the war including John Tower, Strom Thurmond, and John Stennis. The assignations were to be executed during the Senate Christmas recess.

The plan was voted down, although the closeness of the vote is debated. Although John Kerry claims he had resigned from the organization prior to the Kansas City meeting, one account indicates Kerry was present for the vote, voted against it, and simultaneously resigned from the organization in disgust.

I think we could agree Kerry probably would never have taken part in any such scheme. He probably did vote against it and maybe that was the catalyst to cause him to quit the organization. However, the damage was already done by then. Why did he not contact the FBI? Leftwing political terrorism was quite common place back then, what would prevent this lunatics from acting?

...let me suggest that Bush's transgression probably were, illegal somewhere...

Free form versification Mark? What the hell are you hypothosizing? If you have something spit it out....let's stop with these hate-based, fact free "Bush did something somewhere" smear jobs.

By the way, you do realize that Bush was trained and certified to fly an interceptor don't you? You do understand what those were and what their mission was don't you?

The Navy is now part of the conservative right?

Well, no actually. There is no "vast right wing conspiracy". The Navy is professional and non-partisan. However, Kerrys shenanigans after he left Vietnam have galvanized the troops against his candidacy. Clinton never did galvanize the military this way, he never wore the uniform so he couldn't shame it nor humiliate us. Kerry did wear it, he did shame it and saluting him would be humiliating.

I really don't think Kerry wants to sacrifice you, much less me, John.

Actively wanting to sacrifice us? No, would he do so through willful neglect of our ability to defend ourselves and project military power? Yes. He has already demonstrated that through 20 years of votes Mark.

It's true Kerry did vote against many of the bills calling for funding of specific weapons systems. Note my wording there, it was deliberate. As any educated observer of politics knows, being against a bill for an issue and being against the issue are entirely different things.

You are partially correct. However, when one establishes a 20 year track record of votes against one program after another in unceasing and tireless repetition it sets what we can call a trend or a pattern Mark. If he voted against the F-15 and then voted for the F-18 the pattern would have been broken. But while in the Senate he voted against numerous weapons platforms with no break in the pattern I can see. At the time Reagan was pushing for non-violent confrontation with the Soviets to end the Cold War Kerry was pushing the failed policy of appeasement. Think he'll ever admit he was wrong? LOL

Do really know that Kerry, or are you suggesting, that Kerry would be happy today with a U.S. military equipped with weaponry circa 1978?

We can only judge him by his record. Not by his promises. According to his record that answer is a resounding yes.

No, I doubt he would be.

Based on what? What do you base that doubt on? He has opposed virtually every significant project to upgrade/modernize our military capabilities since he has been in the Senate. You cannot be basing your statement on his record Mark. His record contradicts your assertion. This is hilarious, we're supposed to judge him on his record, unless his record is bad. So what do we judge him on? His word? This guy is a self-confessed "war crimminal", what is his word worth?

So, perhaps he opposed those specific programs at that specific time, but does anyone really believe he would halt military funding, roll back all weapons development and stagnate the armed forces?

Great hypothetical Mark, who knows? You don't. His record isn't very good on the topic of national security since he wanted to trash the budgets for the intelligence services too. Funny how he opposed funding increases for them prior to 9/11 and now criticizes their failures. It's almost as if he cannot connect the dots.

I will reassert that your position is the uneducated one, espoused by people filled with fear, hate or both, unable to understand the nuance, balance, and humanity of, as you like to say, the real world.

Coming from a Socialist who thinks stocks are "financial extraction tools", used by the wealthy to oppress the poor this is almost comical. Mark, my position is based on the fact that Kerry's record is weak on national defence, his conduct in the Senate has been atrocious on matters of national security, his smear campaign against Vietnam vets after his departure from Vietnam, and the mean as hell character assasination he and his allies on the extreme left have been engaged in against Bush for the past two years. Yes Mark, I do live in the real world, not some leftwing utopian fever swamp. The US has very real threats to it's existance and it's people that must be dealt with. That job cannot be entrusted to leftists or others who deal in fantasies or conspiracies. Sorry.

I do hope Kerry is lying if by "continue the War"

Exactly. You folks accuse Bush of "lying" on the reasons for our involvement in Iraq and that's supposed to be a bad thing yet you hope like hell Kerry is lying when he commits to 4 more years of our military involvement in Iraq. Too bad you folks don't see the hypocrisy of your stance. And you have the audacity to accuse non-lefties of advocating unethical or uneducated policies. You are the model Kerry voter Mark.

Among the things you teach those Boy Scouts of yours, asided from callling a spade a spade (which you so highly prize) isn't using your head one of them?

Yes it is Mark and an integral part of that is making judgements based on facts and sound reasoning. This is why you would have a problem. See, it isn't possible to negotiate with ideologies determined to exterminate their enemies. How would you "negotiate" with Klansmen Mark? Or Nazis? There comes a point where aggressive, violent ideologies must be confronted and defeated. This is the prime difference between leftists and realists. In the real world we know that totalitarian ideologies exist and that some will be militarily aggressive. Such is the case with the Islamofascists.

Could we possibly kill every last one of "them"?

How many kamikazee pilots survived WWII ? First off, we needn't be concerned with killing every single Islamofascist. They need to be made aware, as the German people were made aware by May of 1945, that they have been defeated, that further violence on their part would be completely futile, and that their "civilization" itself is threatened with extinction if they don't cease their aggressive actions. Pacifism in the face of these Islamofacists will not beget peace. That track record is proven.

So I hope he's lying that, but I sincerely hope that he's not going to turn tail and let the world be. Because, if he lets those dangerous people who seek to do harm to this nation be, they certainly will and, more importantly, the causes that drove them to do so would still exist.

Nice words Mark. Minus the will and ability to actually take action they are empty however. The left generally and Kerry specifically has fought to deny the US the ability to act and generally lacks the will. You all still infect yourselves with the "Vietnam" syndrome with the chief side effect being indecisiveness in the face of danger and paralysis instead of action.

Islam will sort itself out. Judaism did, Christianity did, and, based on that record, Islam will too.

More fantasy I see. On what basis do you make this incredible claim? The Islamofascists justify their actions on passages straight from both the "holy" Koran and the haddiths. They are not "misinterpreting" anything. Mohammed's personal example was one emulated in Beslan, in NYC, in Kashmir, in Israel, and all the other bloody borders of Islam. How do you propose anyone "sort out" the infalliable word of their moon god, al Ilah, when he tells them to slaughter the infidel or the word of Mohammed telling them they must impose the slave tax, the jizyah, on non-Muslims? Unlike the OT tale of the wars of the Jews against the Canaanites or Philistines Mohammed's commands to his followers were not limited in time or space. They are unreformable and timeless. This would be akin to the Pope announcing he had made an erroneous infalliable declaration of Roman Catholic dogma.

No doubt, in some scripture, and in some interpretations emphasis is placed on the conquering aspect of Islam, and the exclusivity of Islam's "rightness" (though all religions share this).

Actually, it's there in all four primary school of Islamic jurisprudence Mark. Islam is the only major religion which codifies as the unreformable word of it's god the commands to conquer, enslave, and repress non-believers. In the Christian gospel Christ died on the Cross, Mohammed found that a groteque sign of weakness. Islam was a religion made by and for war my friend. There is a reason it is as aggressive as it is from Indonesia to the Sudan to Chechenya to Bosnia and all it's bloody borders.

This is where we part company, as a realist I believe in dealing with Islam as it is, not as I wish it were. I wish the hellish ideology had never be created, much like Naziism it is a testament to man's capacity for murder, repression, and raw evil. However, that is not the real world. I also cannot make myself believe that all will be well if we just let them do as they wish. Kumbayah around the campfire is not in the cards. Sorry.

[johnb]

Hey holly,

It will get worse, one Donkeycrat operative is already calling for and throwing out the next round of smears....you gotta love how she throws baseless accusations about Republican "attacks" then launches some pretty noxious smears at the GOP'ers.....so if Bush 1 had no knowlege of a specific attack on Dukakis and says he didn't know about he's guilty anyway according to her.....and that is her justification for engaging in character assasination herself....gotta love folks so convinced of their own self-righteousness they feel free to do exactly what they claim to be so obnoxious in others.....especially when there actually is no proof to their claims about their opponents (ie Bush 1 orchestrating these outlandish character attacks on Dukakis)......the left really does believe in conspiracies...big time...

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=ses

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2004, AND THEREAFTER

My Democratic friends are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.

They are worried, having watched as another August smear campaign, full of lies and half-truths, takes its toll in the polls.

They are frustrated, mostly at the Kerry campaign, for naively believing that just because all the newspapers and news organizations that investigated the charges of the Swift Boat assassins found them to be full of lies and half-truths, they wouldn't take their toll. The word on the street is that Kerry himself was ready to fire back the day the story broke, but that his campaign, believing the charges would blow over if they ignored them, counseled restraint.

But most of all, activists Democrats are angry. As one who lived through an August like this, 16 years ago -- replete with rumors that were lies, which the Bush campaign claimed they had nothing to do with and later admitted they had planted -- I'm angry, too. I've been to this movie. I know how it works. Lies move numbers.

Remember the one about Dukakis suffering from depression after he lost the governorship? (Dukakis not crazy, more at 11.) We lost six points over that lie, planted by George W.'s close friend and colleague in the 1988 campaign, Lee Atwater. Or how about the one about Kitty Dukakis burning a flag at an antiwar demonstration, another out-and-out lie, which the Bush campaign denied having anything to do with, except that it turned out to have come from a United States senator via the Republican National Committee? Lee Atwater later apologized to me for that, too, on his deathbed. Did I mention that Lee's wife is connected to the woman running the Swift Boat campaign?

Never again, we said then.

Not again, Democrats are saying now.

What do you do, Democrats keep asking each other.

The answer is not pretty, but everyone knows what it is.

In 1988, in the days before the so-called independent groups, the candidate called the shots. To Michael Dukakis' credit, depending on how you look at it, he absolutely refused to get into the gutter, even to answer the charges. His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work -- that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.

You can't just answer the charges. You can't just say it ain't so.

You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

I'm not promising pretty.

What will it be?

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush's Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?)

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.

It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard. I'm sure there are some mothers out there who are still mourning their sons, and never made that connection. It wouldn't be so hard to find them.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. So far, all W. can do is come up with dental records to prove that he met his obligations. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

Or could it be George Bush's Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened?

Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. That's why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently.

The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.

To find out more about Susan Estrich, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Wednesday September 1, 2004

[dhyatt]

Mark/John,
This is one helluva a good thread and should be required reading for every two-bit political pundit out there. I happen to agree mostly with John but I will concede Mark one point: Islam will eventually sort itself out as Mark stated, just as Judasim and Christianity did. However, in each those two cases, it took a few hundred years of off and on again wars. More importantly, chemical, biological, & nuclear weapons hadn't been invented yet. Because of those societal advances :roll: , we don't have the luxury of waiting until Islam sorts itself out on its own.

We probably can't kill all the extremists but having them attracted like flies to Iraq seems to be helping :-). I think we can, and certainly will, make it clear that terrorism won't help them convert the west. It will only help them become martyrs faster. Unofrtunately, that seems to be what many of them want anyway - and its that particular tenant, rooted deeply in Islamic ideology, that makes the problem more difficult - and more urgent.

[johnb]

Gotta love the donkeys for this one:

What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

It's amazing to me that they just don't get it. "Democrats aren't mean enough." Whadda crock....this is the party that created Jim Crow....they're mean as hell!

[hollyL]

Mark,

I fear you and I have once again succumbed to the brilliant right wing conspiracy :grin: during this election to focus us all on what JK did or didn’t do 40 years ago as opposed to focusing on what little GWB has done for us domestically and what a big mess he has made of Iraq and foreign policy in the last 4 years.

[johnb]

What happened to Kerry's 20 year record in the Senate? Is that too now some "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"? Is it an attack on his "patriotism" now to look at his Senate record to judge his leadership capabilities? And what of that record of his activities when he came home from the war? He never disavowed his actions....is that off limits because it's embarassing to candidate Kerry? Why?

There is no conspiracy holly, what there is is a man with a very questionable record in the Senate and a pattern of conduct while in the military that leads reasonable people to question his judgement.

Period.

[hollyL]

OK…I agree that JK’s record in the senate is relevant. I think it is also relevant to talk about GWB's record over the last 4 years (course you could blame congress too since his party is in power there too):

1. Has not found bin laden - mastermind of terror attacks (hard to remember this with all of the focus on Iraq)
2. Failed to stop terror attacks after getting (and apparently ignoring) PDB Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
3. Attacked and occupied Iraq without provocation or cause or relevance to attacks on the US
4. Pissed off 1/2 of Europe and numerous other alias
5. Failed to assist in any type of peace agreement in the Middle East
6. More Americans without healthcare than before he was in office
7. Created a HUGE deficit
8. Failed to secure our borders to keep terrorists out (can drive small army of tanks into the US through the Canadian border)
…I’m sure there is a lot more but The Daily Show is on now

Now we can talk about whether John Kerry has a gun that he voted against, twist his vote on the war or funding for it or whether he said this or that 30 years ago but I don't think you can come up with anything close to the chaos GWB has caused.

[hollyL]

Oh yeah and now this today...
"U.S. military deaths in the Iraq campaign passed the 1,000 milestone Tuesday"

Not the mention "...conservative estimates by private groups place the Iraqi toll at at least 10,000"

"The Bush administration has long linked the Iraq conflict to the war on terrorism. The Sept. 11 Commission (search), however, concluded that Iraq and al-Qaida did not have a "collaborative relationship" before the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington..."

FOXNEWS:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,131713,00.html

No WMD and no terrorist connection. Pretty hard to explain that one to 1000 people's friends and families. It's blood for oil my friend...blood for oil.

[dhyatt]

1. Has not found bin laden - mastermind of terror attacks (hard to remember this with all of the focus on Iraq)
Irrelevant. We couldn't find Eric Rudolph in our own mountains for 4 years and he didn't have any help hiding. I can't believe you label this as a shortcoming of the Bush administration. You're brighter than that.


2. Failed to stop terror attacks after getting (and apparently ignoring) PDB Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
Did you actually read the report (at least the overview) or are you just spouting DNC talking points? I have news for you - Bin Laden is still determined to strike the U.S.

Think for a moment what the public reaction would have been even if we had specific information (which we didn't) and then acted on it by shutting/clamping down air travel - based on incomplete intelligence - intelligence that was compromised by the Clinton administration.


3. Attacked and occupied Iraq without provocation or cause or relevance to attacks on the US
I feel there was more than adequate justification and relevance. I imagine we'll just have to disagree on this.


4. Pissed off 1/2 of Europe and numerous other allies

Convenient how the libs only focus on the 1/2 of Europe that's "pissed off". This is the same 1/2 that was assiting Iraq in violating U.N. sanctions while lining their pockets with oil for food money. What about the other 1/2 of Europe that has assisted us and sacrificed lives in the process? It seems to me Kerry is doing a **** good job of "pissing off" that 1/2 by diminishing at every opportunity their participation and their sacrifice.


5. Failed to assist in any type of peace agreement in the Middle East

Simply not true. Here's one example: http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/2002/9018.htm


6. More Americans without healthcare than before he was in office

True, although you should point the finger at John Edwards and not George Bush. Do you know BTW that the 44m uninsured that the Dems love to rail about is a totally bogus #? It includes anyone that was uninsured for even 1 day over the course of a year. It includes Sr's and poor that are eligible for Medicare & Medicaid but haven't signed up. It includes those in their 20's & 30's who have access to health insurance through their employers but have declined to save a few bucks. By the time you factor all that in, there are roughly 4-5 million truly working poor uninsured people in this country. About 10% of what the Dems actually claim. Bush has pledged $90B over 10 years to help them. You really need to ignore the Dem's spin on this stuff and take a look at the facts.


7. Created a HUGE deficit

True - fighting terror ain't cheap.


8. Failed to secure our borders to keep terrorists out (can drive small army of tanks into the US through the Canadian border)

Not true - no attacks since 9/11 is pretty convincing in my book (knock on wood)

[johnb]

Don,

The sickness of the charge about Bin Laden is that if remains uncaught til election day that is somehow "proof" Bush is incompetant but if he is caught it will be "proof" Bush masterminded the affair for an electoral boost.

You cannot win with these people, they are blinded by raw anger that long ago translated into a perverse hatred so profound as to prevent the True Believers from giving Bush the benefit of any doubt or credit for his accomplishments.

Kerry was nominated in spite of his glaring weaknesses as a candidate and a leader because he had that one line item on his resume the Donkeys thought they could use to beat Bush over the head with: "combat veteran". Sadly, that combat veteran turned and attacked the other 2.5 million combat veterans who served in Vietnam in way so profoundly dishonest and mean spirited as to shock the senses of rational people.

John Kerry should be compared to Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie refused to make the WWII a partisan issue in his Presidential race against Roosevelt. He once said he'd rather have as an epitaph on his tombstone that he helped preserve liberty rather than that he was President. He refused to compromise national security just to win a political race and he refused to weaken American foreign policy or stab the troops in the back in the middle of a war just to win a few votes. Wilkie lost the election of course, but he kept something far more precious: his integrity and the respect of the nation.

The Donkeys have taken a different path this year. From Algor screaming like a lunatic that Bush is an ignorant liar to Howard Dean's hate mongering conspiracy theories to DNC's tacit alliance with Michael Moore and the "Bush knew about.." or even masterminded the 9/11 attacks crowd is an aggregation of extremists coagulating only because of their shared hate. Sadly, they've already set themselves up for their own fall. If you pay attention to what they're saying, they're already claiming that if Bush wins that will be "proof" the election was somehow "stolen" and that the rule of law was abrogated. They cheapen the electoral process and unchallenged rule in American politics for 200 years. When the votes are counted the winner takes office and the looser goes quietly about his or her business. It didn't happen in 2000 and it won't happen in 2004. The Donkeys tried mightily to disenfranchise military voters in Florida in order to steal an election in 2000 and went bezerk when they were prevented from doing that. Expect more of the same this year.

[Wuptdo]

Quoted:


hollyL wrote:

6. More Americans without healthcare than before he was in office


True, although you should point the finger at John Edwards and not George Bush.


From overhead in Business Class

In 1999, Tort Cost in the U.S. was 2% of GDP ($165 Billion Dollars)
Average salary for a U.S. Tort Lawyer - $337,000
Best State for Tort lawsuits: Alabama
####

Read more about it:

http://www.atlanet.org/

What single group is the largest donator to the DNC?

Wuptdo B-)

[hollyL]

Irrelevant. We couldn't find Eric Rudolph in our own mountains for 4 years and he didn't have any help hiding. I can't believe you label this as a shortcoming of the Bush administration. You're brighter than that.

Irrelevant???? He's the attacker - he's behind the attacks – he’s the evildoer! During the RNC there were more police guarding the convention than there were looking for the person responsible for the death of thousands of Americans. What about rooting them out in their caves?



Did you actually read the report (at least the overview) or are you just spouting DNC talking points? I have news for you - Bin Laden is still determined to strike the U.S.

Think for a moment what the public reaction would have been even if we had specific information (which we didn't) and then acted on it by shutting/clamping down air travel - based on incomplete intelligence - intelligence that was compromised by the Clinton administration.


How much more specific do you need than “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/politics/11ITEX.html?ex=1094702400&en=3ae24718a5f270e6&ei=5070



I feel there was more than adequate justification and relevance. I imagine we'll just have to disagree on this.

As long as we can agree it doesn’t have to do with the attack on the US on 9/11.



Convenient how the libs only focus on the 1/2 of Europe that's "pissed off". This is the same 1/2 that was assiting Iraq in violating U.N. sanctions while lining their pockets with oil for food money. What about the other 1/2 of Europe that has assisted us and sacrificed lives in the process? It seems to me Kerry is doing a **** good job of "pissing off" that 1/2 by diminishing at every opportunity their participation and their sacrifice.

Actually I was wrong about this…countries sending troops and/or supporting the war is much less than ½ of the countries.



Failed to assist in any type of peace agreement in the Middle East
Simply not true. Here's one example: http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/2002/9018.htm

That’s Powell’s travel schedule and remarks. There isn’t anything in there about a peace deal.



True, although you should point the finger at John Edwards and not George Bush. Do you know BTW that the 44m uninsured that the Dems love to rail about is a totally bogus #? It includes anyone that was uninsured for even 1 day over the course of a year. It includes Sr's and poor that are eligible for Medicare & Medicaid but haven't signed up. It includes those in their 20's & 30's who have access to health insurance through their employers but have declined to save a few bucks. By the time you factor all that in, there are roughly 4-5 million truly working poor uninsured people in this country. About 10% of what the Dems actually claim. Bush has pledged $90B over 10 years to help them. You really need to ignore the Dem's spin on this stuff and take a look at the facts.

Ahhh…the republicans are in power in the house, senate, presidency and a stacked supreme court how could this possibly be John Edwards fault…talk about spin!



7. Created a HUGE deficit
True - fighting terror ain't cheap.

We aren’t fighting terror in iraq.
Fighting a BS war isn’t cheap.



Not true - no attacks since 9/11 is pretty convincing in my book (knock on wood)
And there were none on US soil (except the white, Christian guy) before Bush was in office. No foreign terrorist attack on US soil except for when Bush was in office; that’s pretty convincing to me.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[hollyL]

Really enjoy you and JohnB "sparring." :lol:
Wuptdo B-)

Wuptdo,

I'll speak for John and myself when I say that I'm glad we can entertain you.

It may be a surprise to you that we are both completely insane. Not the - eat your own hand, throw your own feces type of crazy - but the kind where one continues to repeat the same behavior and expects different results. I am no more going to convince John (or anyone else on this board for that matter) that my point is right than the moon turning to cheese. He isn't going to change my mind. If we were smart we would go out and try to convince people who may actually have their vote swayed by our propaganda.

Or we could just put on some boxing gloves and duke it out; however this probably wouldn't be too fair because I assume (based on no real knowledge) that John outweighs me by somewhere around 100lbs. The people on this board would probably get a hoot out of John blackening the evil liberal's eye and it would probably just save us both time. Or maybe I could challenge him to a duel!

But what matters in the end is that we are all friends :-D

[dhyatt]

Not true - no attacks since 9/11 is pretty convincing in my book (knock on wood)
And there were none on US soil (except the white, Christian guy) before Bush was in office. No foreign terrorist attack on US soil except for when Bush was in office; that’s pretty convincing to me.


What about the 1993 attack on the WTC? Remember??? What about bombing of U.S. interests around the globe? Geez.....

Here's a small reminder: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

[Mark]

There's been much written in the past couple posts about healthcare costs, tort, and lawyers. Please, allow me to offer some perspective here. Trial lawyers are not blameless with respect to rising health costs, however they scarcely begin to account for the huge increases in healthcare costs we've been seeing recently - and their share of the increase is far, far less than that of managed care providers or Pharma, generally.

Total tort costs in 2002 were $233 billion, or 2.2% of GDP, roughly. However, the portion of that directly associated with malpractice (typically cited as the portion driving up costs, which the lawyers control) amounted to merely $24.6 billion. Roughly 10%. Of that 10%, the portion directly represented by lawyers fees was 19%. So, attorneys fees extracted about $5 billion dollars from the tort system in 2002, which, for the sake of argument (though this is not entirely true) added $5 billion to the cost of healthcare if and only if insurance companies raised doctors premiums, the costs of which were then passed on to consumers.

The U.S. currently spends in the range of 14-16% of its GDP on healthcare costs, just north of $1.5 trillion dollars. The costs have been increasing in the 10% range for the past few years. Which means costs are increasing something like $150 billion dollars a year. Trial Lawyers took $5, at most, as a result of insurance company and doctor billing decisions. Now, you can argue against the current tort system for being inefficient about compensating for damages, but you can't blame it for raising healtcare costs. Prescription drugs alone account for the largest increases. The problem doesn't lay so much in courtrooms as it does the labs and boardrooms in RTP or the legislative chambers of Washington.

[johnb]

Irrelevant???? He's the attacker - he's behind the attacks – he’s the evildoer! During the RNC there were more police guarding the convention than there were looking for the person responsible for the death of thousands of Americans. What about rooting them out in their caves?

That depends Holly. If you believe this is a law enforcement issue it is a big deal, in fact it should be all that matters. If, however, you are a realist and understand that this truly is a war, it is irrelevant. In a war what matters is protecting your population and nation from annihilation first, then preventing attacks on the home soil/people, that is followed up by going after the bad guy and taking the fight to his home turf. In WWII for instance the US deployed huge numbers of assets in CONUS to defend against a minimal German threat on the east coast and a diminishing Japanese capability to project power on the west coast. What we deployed in defense dwarfed what they could deploy for aggression. We then began pushing overwhelming forces overseas to move the battle to their home territories. This is no different. Whether Tojo or Hitler was disposed of during of after the conclusion of the fighting was irrelevant. In both cases the individual was guarantteed to be dead. Look at the war in Iraq right now, Islamofascist terrorists who could have moved against our homeland are now in their own neighborhood fighting against our troops and dying in mass quantities. While you leftists would rather have the FBI chasing them around NYC, Washington, and other US cities, I'd prefer to have the Marines and the 7th Cav slaughtering them between the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is not important or even good that we capture them. The want to die for their hellish ideology, our troops are accomodating that request. Every dead Islamofascist is one homicide bomber that won't be able to incinerate a busload of Jews in Haifa or an office building in Manhattan.

After Beslan, I would not be surprised to see Russian troops in Iraq threatening to move against Iran or Syria once they finish butchering their way through Chechnya.

[johnb]

So, attorneys fees extracted about $5 billion dollars from the tort system in 2002, which, for the sake of argument (though this is not entirely true) added $5 billion to the cost of healthcare if and only if insurance companies raised doctors premiums, the costs of which were then passed on to consumers.

I would say that that's a deceitful statement, but after realizing the severe intellectual limitations you are burdened with I would have to believe it is merely simplistic.

The costs associated by lawsuits are not restricted to the amount of cash the individual pharmacuetical companies, hospitals, doctors, or other victims are ordered to cough up. The costs include unnecessary and redundant tests and procedures used to attempt to prevent lawsuits Mark. The practice of medicine is being altered substantially by the corrupting influence of hysterically emotional lawsuits. Johnny Edwards was a master of that....cashing in for millions against ob/gyn's over the false charge of medical malpractice causing cerebral palsy. His lawsuits and others like it make it cause more babies to be born via C-sections, thereby raising the costs and complications in what should be normal births. The sad thing is, it does NOTHING to reduce the incidence of cerebral palsy since the cause is NOT asphyxia as little Johnny Edwards alleges.

But what the hell is a few billion here and a few billion there across America when a trial lawyer like Edwards gets to rob a doctor of a million and a half over a false charge of medical malpractice?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C2004 01%5CPOL20040120a.html

[johnb]

He isn't going to change my mind.

It is unfortunate you've shut your mind off to the potential to grow on an intellectual basis by embracing the real world and deploying logic and reason as the tools to construct a fact based world view Holly.

The world is as it is in spite of whatever utopian fantasies may emerge from the leftist fever swamps my friend.

Communism failed because it was predicated on notions contradictory to human nature and reality. In American history there have been similar (in that they are utopian, believing man can create some type of heaven on earth ) movements (the Shakers) which failed for the same reason. Reality may not be as pretty, but it makes for a much more solid foundation upon which to construct an intellectual framework from which one may view the world.

This is the essential difference between leftists and realists. Leftists seem to believe man is perfectable whereas realists accept that human beings are corruptable and immune to perfection.

[johnb]

What about the 1993 attack on the WTC? Remember??? What about bombing of U.S. interests around the globe? Geez.....

Since when did truth get in the way of a good Bush bashing Don?

Odd isn't it that the increasing tempo, WTC1, US Embassies in east Africa, the USS Cole, went unanswered by the Clintonistas and the planning for the 9/11 began during the Clinton regime and was executed 8 months into the Bush administration and now is "Bush's fault".

Simultaneously the recession which began under Clinton is also "Bush's fault". It's funny how leftist "logic" works, totally independent of facts, of that exalted "nuance", and void of reason.

[hollyL]

I think I'll just stick to posting about my signs. Since I ain't accomplishing anything with this discussion and it's turning a bit unfun.

Turn off Foxnews and Limbaugh for a while and you might learn something.

[johnb]

Holly,

Can you not see the problem?

Questions come up about Kerry's voting record and his post war activities and you folks either won't address them or you claim they're "attacks" on Kerry's "patriotism".

You have me at a loss Holly. We don't have to rely on Fox News nor on Limbaugh, we have Kerry's voting record and his own words on the medals issue, his own word before the Senate condeming the 2.5 millions GI's in Vietnam, and his flipfloping on every side of many issues- or is that "nuance"? How can you support a candidate when you close your eyes to his record, won't examine his voting pattern in the Senate, and hope like hell he is lying about his intention to remain committed to the war in Iraq? That defies logic...yet you seem to have hoped to convince others to join you in that delusion? Wow.

You folks can claim this is all some "vast right wing conspiracy" if you wish, who knows, maybe you'll be able to convince yourselves after election day that the Rosicrucians, the Jews, the CFR, Fox News, and that shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas all conspired to bring Kerry down. Frankly, I'll remain sober. His voting record in the Senate speaks volumnes about his judgement and his actions after leaving Vietnam destroys any credible claim to his being a leader of men.

The established facts are far more destructive to the Kerry campaign than any alleged attacks on his person.

[Mark]

The costs associated by lawsuits are not restricted to the amount of cash the individual pharmacuetical companies, hospitals, doctors, or other victims are ordered to cough up. The costs include unnecessary and redundant tests and procedures used to attempt to prevent lawsuits Mark.

So it's the cost of tests that's accounting for the remaining one hundred and fifty billion dollars? That's a lot of blood work. I find your suggestion preposterous John, I come from a family of medicine - in PA, a particular hard hit state with insurance premiums and doctor flight - and have lots of experience with frivolous lawsuits. That doctors, hospitals and other providers get sued is simply a way of being, the steps they take to protect themselves and their assets are small in comparison to the billions of dollars of cost increases a year. The biggest problem I have with the tort system is simply the upward pressure it puts on physician's insurance premiums. That truly is a big problem, but that's not the same thing as healthcare costs. Most people, and I think you, mix the two in their minds. The demand for most healthcare is fairly elastic, doctors can't, and don't, pass on every cost increase they endure. What happens is reality is that they see a reduction in their incomes until such time when it becomes unprofitable to be in business, then they close their practice. And their patients get care somewhere else.

The patients ultimately bear the cost, not in rising out of pocket health costs, but rather diminished access and quality.

Let me suggest that jury awards and lawyers fees aren't really that high compared to what insurance companies take in from health care practioners. Perhaps if insurance cos weren't trying to maximize profit for investors, and instead concerned themselves with public health, we might all be better of for it. Yes, you guessed it, U.S. style capitalism, with its protection of proft generating business, is again harming the public's health and well being.


The practice of medicine is being altered substantially by the corrupting influence of hysterically emotional lawsuits.

Backing up that statement? Any figures on the costs of all those extra tests? How many hysterically emotional lawsuits are there out there, and how big are the awards?

What do pharmaceutical companies spend on direct to consumer advertising, a practice reviled in most other civilized parts of the world? Hint, I don't know, but I suspect the answer is bigger than the numbers you'll come up with above.



Edwards gets to rob a doctor of a million and a half over a false charge of medical malpractice?

Edwards has never robbed any doctor. It's not as if the doctor would somehow see the money that Edwards would charge, if only he won. If it costs the doctor that is the fault of potentially three parties - the jury, which could have rendered a bad judgment - the doctor, for rendering bad service - and the insurance company, for finding the doctor to be an increased liability. Which, they will only do if either the doctor or jury, or both, has had bad judgment. A system not without flaws, but you'll have to do better. And, you'll have to find 100+ billion dollars somewhere else in the system.

[dhyatt]

[snip]
Let me suggest that jury awards and lawyers fees aren't really that high compared to what insurance companies take in from health care practioners. Perhaps if insurance cos weren't trying to maximize profit for investors, and instead concerned themselves with public health, we might all be better of for it. Yes, you guessed it, U.S. style capitalism, with its protection of proft generating business, is again harming the public's health and well being.
[snip]

Unfortunately, your argument doesn't hold up and even begin to explain why costs among even non-profit insurers like the BlueCross BlueShield Association have skyrocketed. Part of it may be due to higher drug costs, but not (as you said) $100B worth. You have to accept the fact that lawsuits drive up costs everywhere along the healthcare road!. I'm willing to bet (thought I admit I don't know how to prove) that the road is long enough to account for your $100B.

[dhyatt]

OK - I'll play nice. BCBS and the tax subsidies they receive are a large part of the problem but even they point a finger at malpractice costs -> http://bcbshealthissues.com/relatives/20365.pdf

An interesting excerpt from the Detroit News:

*****
There are two main reasons behind Michigan's cost increases, according to Gail Jensen, a professor of gerontology and economics at Wayne State University: Unions and a medical insurance industry that is dominated by one health care underwriter -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan.
* Unions. They protect the medical benefits of workers (although often at the price of diminishing job growth and reducing wages). In addition, Jensen points out, unions use their collective bargaining power to extract more generous benefits from their employers.
Such union-negotiated benefits become the standard for all Michigan employers who want to attract high-quality workers. Thus, in Michigan, unions effectively substitute their mandates for state mandates, something that inevitably drives up health care premiums for everyone.
* Blue Cross. Even though Michigan lawmakers have refrained from burdening health care underwriters with too many demands, they have inflated the cost of health insurance by creating the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
Blue Cross gets a $60 million annual tax subsidy from the state. In exchange, it has to make coverage available to everyone, regardless of health, age or risk.
But this tax subsidy to the Blues has allowed it to artificially depress its premiums and inflate the demand for its coverage. At the same time, the subsidy has made it hard for other health care underwriters to compete with the Blues, allowing Blue Cross to capture 50 to 70 percent of the insurance market.
But having achieved dominance in the market, Blue Cross has more freedom to raise prices. In the last few years, it has raised health insurance premiums on some small businesses by 40 percent, which has contributed to Michigan's overall premium increases.
These national trends and local factors have helped create Michigan's large appetite for health care. More than 13 percent of Michigan's gross state product (the total output of its goods and services) is consumed by personal health care spending (which includes spending on such services as hospital care, physician services, nursing home care and prescription drugs). This is a whole percentage point higher than the comparable national figure.
But is the health of Michigan residents appreciably better because of this extra spending?
Michigan's infant mortality rate, at 8.1 deaths per 1,000 births, is one point higher than the national average. So is the state's rate of mortality. The higher death rate is especially significant given that Michigan's median age is lower than the national median, suggesting that Michigan's higher death rate is not caused by having an older population.
But if higher health care spending is not necessarily improving the health of Michigan residents, then it seems that this money could be better spent on other things -- homes, children's education, a comfortable retirement -- all of which would contribute to a more robust economic future for the state and its people.
Not all of Michigan's health care problems can be fixed locally. Many will take reforms at the national level. But state politicians will have to confront powerful interests such as the unions and Blue Cross if spiralling health care costs are not to become an impediment to economic opportunities for Michiganians.
*****

[johnb]

Yes, you guessed it, U.S. style capitalism, with its protection of proft generating business, is again harming the public's health and well being.

Your hatred of capitalism is showing again Mark. Canada has a more Markian style health care industry. The results are quite sad. Canada has no pharmaceutical industry. It cannot be sustained. The Canadian system survives because it is small compared to the US system and is bascially a parasite on ours. US consumers pay increased drug costs to sustain research and development, price caps in Canada make it profitable to sell the drugs there but fail to return the profits necessary to sustain the R&D effort needed to create new medicines. In effect, our higher costs are subsidizing Canadians. When the day comes that US companies refuse to sell medicines to Canadian outlets at their artificially low prices they will be in for a rude awakening.

The content of your post is not based on anything that can be confused with logic Mark, it is more of the same emotion based rant that reveals an individual with a deep misunderstanding of basic economics and capitalism. Doctors may absorb some of the increased costs of insurance, they do not, however, ride their practices into bankruptcy. They are faced with increased premiums to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits filed by ambulance chasers like little Johnny Edwards but also at or below cost reimbursements from government health care programs. Medicaid and Medicare do not pay standard costs. Those of us with private insurance are again subsidizing socialized medicine. We can complain about soaring costs, but until you are willing to admit the sources / causes of those costs it will be a fruitless discussion. Insurance companies, even non-profits, have to take measures to remain solvent. Eliminating punitive damages in medical malpractice lawsuits would help but not solve the problem. Government is a huge component of the problem.

[johnb]

It's interesting how the Kerry supporters have stopped even trying to address the matters of his senate votes, his denunciations of the GI's in Vietnam, his participation/membership in the Marxist Vietnam Veterans against the War, and other substantive issues relating to Senator Kerry's public record.

If we cannot judge him based on his record and his supporters don't want to see or understand his record, upon what are we to judge him? The only thing left appears to be his supporters unrelenting hatred of Bush.

Is that a reason to vote for Kerry?

[Cathy]

About Sen. Miller's speech (didn't see the Mathews thing): Today in Comm Class we reviewed his speech. The biggest problem with the speech was the audience. Sen. Miller speaking style is considered a very "Southen" manner of addressing the public; almost like preaching (tent revivals). Someone should of gone out in the floor and tell people not to cheer and appauld, but to say "Amen." This would of helped the cadance of the speech and given it a more dramatic appeal.

Be that as it may, the class consensus, was that this speech was from the heart (or soul). His tone, body language, and direct style all added to the strength of his speech. Next we viewed formal Pres. Clinton's "I did not have sex with that women" speech. Big difference.

Anyway, Holly, glad you came aboard. Really enjoy you and JohnB "sparring." :lol:

Wuptdo B-)

I watched the Zell Miller speech, and I thought that his demeanor reminded me of General Patton, (and it was very Southern in delivery style). He was clearly upset with where the Democratic Party has gone.

I think that many people would have a hard time finding fault with WHAT he said if they just read the text and did not see, or hear about, HOW he said it.

Cathy

[johnb]

Not gonna happen Cathy....the Donkeys don't want to address the content of his speech. What they need to do is reframe it...call him names ("mean", "hateful", etc...) because the content of his speech is irrefutable, it is based on Kerry's Senatorial voting record. That's public information. What are they gonna say? He didn't mean all those votes?

By the way, why has it been one month since John F'ing Kerry gave a press conference and took questions from reporters?

[Mark]

By the way, why has it been one month since John F'ing Kerry gave a press conference and took questions from reporters?

Not a bad question to ask, (I think they're not bothering to say or spend much in the period of RNC glow - why blow the 75 million early when it will be less effective? Also, there is a bit of campaign staff shakeup) but, in the spirit of equal time I'd like to note that Bush has held the fewest press conferences of any President, ever. 12 or 13 until August, this year. Or, one every 100 days of so of his Presidency. 13 chances for reporters to formally ask aboout a terrorist attack, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, a global war on terror, a series of the largest modern corporate scandals, a recession, a breakdown of some diplomatic ties with old allies, a few natural disastors, some domestic terrorism, homeland security issues, the assault of science, the 9/11 commission, and more.

If you think Kerry's relative quiet the past few weeks is an indication of trouble in house, than the Bush administration's silence must be the deafening emptiness of failure after failure.

[johnb]

Your points are irrelevant Mark. You see, one of the two men had promised to hold a press conference every month...the other didn't. One tried to make political hay out of a minor issue, the other remained silent on it.

Bush has no reason to talk to CNN, NBC, the NY Times, et al, they're Kerry boosters, not journalists. Much like he attended the Urban League convention but not the NAACP convention, avoid the DNC front groups and speak directly to the voters. It's a strategy to marginalize and minimalize hostile, partisan apparatchniks. Just going by memory, I don't ever recall Bush promising to talk to the press at any interval, if at all. Kerry did. But then again, there I am being mean again judging Kerry by his own words and deeds. ;)

All that's needed here is for looney leftist to jump up and call me a "basher" for that. ;)

[Wuptdo]

Interesting read.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0904/090904-rather.htm

Dan Rather (60 Minutes), I wonder who signs his paycheck (CBS or DNC)?

JohnB - Mr. Kerry did do an interview in July with Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" (Comedy Central). However, I haven't seen any soundbites from that interview. :roll:

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Isn't one a front group for the other?

I think this episode puts the icing on the cake Dan baked when he declared on air some years back to the Clintons that "they" were "pulling for them".

[Mark]

I was thinking more about this healthcare situation when today I ran across this quote from a Bush campaign stop in Missouri. Bush said

But let me tell you what else we need to do. We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business. (Applause.) We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Now, the quote was highlighted for its, shall we say interesting, last line, but the larger issue is one we've been discussing here. He went on to say

See, I don't think you can be pro-doctor and pro-patient and pro-hospital and pro-trial lawyer at the same time. (Applause.) I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. (Applause.) I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now. (Applause.) In all we do to improve health care, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

Which got me thinking about what Bush would need to do to actually defend his statements. He's formulating a loose argument here, the rough conclusion of which is health care costs solely rise because lawyers are solely responsible for trivial lawauits.

To adequately convince anyone of the fact it seems that there would be a burden to show the following. What lawsuits are actually frivolous, i.e. what percentage of all malpractice suits are "frivolous" and by what criteria do we determine the same? What is the cost of frivolous lawsuits to the insurance companies most usually effected by them. By what mechanism, and to what degree, do jury award payouts from insurance companies get passed to hospitals and practioners, and then to patients. What percentage of patients, along with wanting reduced health care costs overall, want to retain the right to sue for damages doctors, hospitals, and HMOs (The answer to this casts doubt on Bush's claim that one can't be pro-patient and pro-lawyer at the same time). What role do attorneys have in encouraging pursuit of action against doctors. How insurance companies determine what level of premiums (both doctors and individuals) to charge, what level of profit to keep, and, generally, their role in promoting the increased end cost to consumers. How managed care providers determine what level of compensation to make to doctors for what services, and, generally, their role in promoting the increased end cost to consumers. Do operating cost for hospitals, HMOs and doctors rise each year? What percentage of that rise is associated with rising insurance premiums for doctors and individuals. What percentage is associated with other factors, say, cost of medication, supplies, or rents?

As a personal aside, I can attest to knowing several, 4 or 5 alone in a fairly small county in Pennsylvania, doctors who, since about 1998 have been forced to undergo one of the following measures. Take early retirement, closing the practice and getting out of medicine altogether. Closing a private practice and continuing only on staff at a hospital, where some great insurance protection is available. And, in one case, moving to Virginia to continue practing in a more hospitable environment.

Now, like I mentioned before, I am aware that doctors are leaving because insurance costs are prohibitive. I am also aware that, at least in Pennsylvania, the prevailing wisdom is that premiums are high due to climate of litigiousness and high jury awards. Two things about that are clear. First, that climate is inhospitable to practicing physician's bottom lines, surely, but it is NOT necessarily so for the healthcare purchasing public. I may have mentioned before, the demand for most medical services is fairly elastic and resistant to price change, especially in an era where managed care and insurance pay a relatively fixed amount for services. Second, it is not at all clear that the only remedy insurance companies have to having to pay out large awards is to increase premiums - which people always assume is what is driving up cost. The connection is simply not that concrete.

The largest insurance companies and HMOs extract from consumers, and add to costs, billions of dollars a year. Pharmaceuticals, due largely to DTC advertisting and high priced designer drugs, add billions of dollars to cost. Attorneys add some, but pennies on the dollar comparatively. That doesn't mean we should be against tort reform in theory, but it does suggest that we should focus most of our attention elsewhere.

And, finally, a quick note regarding Canadian pharmaceutical research. Why should Canada have a drug making industry? They have no comparative advantage for it, they are late to the game, as it were, and, with government support, have fine access to quality medication. Your point about price caps failing to return R&D profits is enlightening, but perhaps not in the way you think. Should Canada wish, for whatever reason, to develop its pharma industry could it not simply do as the U.S. did, and still does, do? That is, pump huge amounts of money in the research sector. Yes, though Pharma doesn't like to admit it, the U.S. taxpayer provides massive amounts of support for research that the industry claims it needs high prices to support. People in medical research suggest that this is a sham, that funds that could be spent better to support public health instead goes to the corporate developers of drugs based on public research grants. That isn't a partisan issue either, Democrats are only slightly less guilty of it that Republicans (though the Dem medicare bill was far better in that regard).

So, there will be no rude awakening. It's not as if Canada lacks the funds to develop their industry should it want, or need, to do so. It's slightly more than a matter of diverting funds from consumer price subsidy to business production subsidy, but that is certainly most of it. And, consider India, which, though a relatively poor country, has a huge pharmaceutical industry. Granted, it is 80% generic, so too with Brazil, but they have phenomenal capacity for research and production. For essential drugs, it is somewhat easy to simply steal patents and produce generics for populations in need. Now, I'm not implying that Canada will, or would want, to follow that route, as India has, but it serves to illuminate the fact that drug makers only do well in countries with tons of government support and even better in countries with lax advertising standards. Most developed or developing countries could produce, they simply, as yet, have no need.

[johnb]

Mark,

You are missing the point...the Canadian system can exist only because it is a parasite on the US system. Period. Because of their dimunitive size, their much lower family income, and their proximity to our health care resources they can be a leach. The fact that Canada doesn't have a pharmacuetical industry is not in and of itself a bad thing. The bad thing is Canada can't have one, the economic policies of their government prevent it. There is no reason to form a Canadian pharmacuetical firm when other nations offer more hospitable climates.

Making our system a copy of the Canadian system will serve only to delay the creation and introduction of new drugs thereby costing lives.

This would probably be a good point to take the medical discussion to a new, separate thread.

[johnb]

Anyone think that *maybe* these forged documents might have orginated with the DNC / Kerry camp? This whole Bush/Naitonal Guard story is a joke. The ex-lieutenant Governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, is a crook who lost his position after he and a buddy looted and destroyed an S&L in Texas back in the 1970's and has remained an important money man for the DNC and now Kerry specifically. The DNC needed a stooge to pull a political hit to put them back on the offense. So far it's looking pretty shabby and ham handed. The speed with which this attempted political character assasination has unravelled is making CBS look like the DNC's lackey. Kerry needed a ho....and CBS was willing. When will Dan Rather apologize? My bet is by Monday, 9/13.

This is off the spectator.org web site....it's down now due to huge traffic surges... ;)...you can also get it on www.powerlineblog.com.

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.
The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign.

[Cathy]

When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp ####

1) Despite acknowledging the possibility that the Texas Air
National Guard memos, which CBS News on Wednesday reported were
written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, were
actually forgeries, on Thursday night ABC, CNN, FNC and NBC
displayed no reticence about plowing forward and repeating CBS's
loaded charges that they proved President Bush received
preferential treatment and disobeyed an order to complete a
physical. MSNBC's Hardball and the CBS Evening News pretended
there was no question over the memos. ABC's Terry Moran spent more
than a minute on World New Tonight reciting quotes from the memos
put out by CBS before he noted that "several document experts
contacted by ABC News have raised serious questions about the
authenticity of these new documents." Andrea Mitchell also took a
full minute on the NBC Nightly News to quote what Killian
reportedly wrote before she asked: "Are the new documents real?"
Mitchell then vaguely referred to how "one computer Web site says
the type style is too modern to have been used more than 30 years
ago."

[Cathy]

More on hypocrits:


Unsafe worldview?

Swift Boat veterans are criticizing John Kerry for undermining American prisoners of war during the early 1970s, but California Democrats created their own controversy early in July when they blocked a GOP plan to celebrate Independence Day by honoring Admiral Jeremiah Denton on the chamber floor.

Adm. Denton, a medal-draped Vietnam war hero and former U.S. senator who spent more than seven years as a Vietnam POW, was "too controversial," Assembly Democrats said. So on the day Republicans wanted to honor the admiral, the Assembly instead honored a Los Angeles Times reporter.

But that was before the Democratic National Convention, when the Democratic presidential candidate posted himself at the podium, snapped a salute, and reported for duty as a candidate running on his own record in the Vietnam War. Are California Democrats now looking a little tone deaf?

"Absolutely not," said Nick Velasquez, spokesman for California Assembly speaker Fabian Nunez (D). "The refusal had nothing to do with Adm. Denton's service as a veteran." Mr. Velasquez said Mr. Denton is too "controversial" to be honored by the Assembly because of his views concerning separation of church and state: He wants to restore the "One Nation under God" concept as a fundamental national principle.

Also, Mr. Velasquez said, Adm. Denton while a senator once made what Democrats considered a sexist remark to People magazine. Furthermore, the Boston Globe called Adm. Denton's private foundation "an umbrella organization for fundamentalist Christian groups." (Mr. Denton is Roman Catholic.)

Mr. Velasquez said that Republicans in June had opposed an honoree suggested by the Democrat-led Asian-American caucus. That honoree was Wen Ho Lee, the Chinese-American scientist who pleaded guilty in September 2000 to downloading the equivalent of 400,000 pages in nuclear secrets (70 percent of which are still missing), then using his computer expertise to sweep away his digital tracks. The California Assembly's Asian-American Caucus wanted to honor Mr. Lee for showing "tremendous courage" during his year-long prosecution.

When California state legislator John Campbell publicized the turndown of Mr. Denton, protest e-mails and calls arrived daily by the hundreds. More have come since the Democratic convention, Rep. Campbell told WORLD: "Now people are writing and calling to say thank you for showing us what Democrats do when the cameras aren't rolling, the lights aren't on, and they think people aren't paying attention."

Republicans publicized the contrast: Assembly Democrats were ready to highlight a felon while at the same time disqualifying Adm. Denton, who led American POWs through the now-infamous terrors of enemy prison camps, suffered four years of solitary confinement, and endured a propaganda television interview orchestrated by the North Vietnamese inquisitors. In it he feigned light sensitivity and blinked his eyes in Morse Code, repeatedly spelling out a message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E."

"I'm not comparing the two individuals," Mr. Velasquez said. "I'm comparing the situations." GOP Assemblyman Ray Haynes called either comparison "absurd." He said, "Democrats rejected a certified war hero. We rejected a convicted felon. I sort of think that says it all." — Lynn Vincent —•

http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9618

[hollyL]

When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp ####

1) Despite acknowledging the possibility that the Texas Air
National Guard memos, which CBS News on Wednesday reported were
written by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, were
actually forgeries, on Thursday night ABC, CNN, FNC and NBC
displayed no reticence about plowing forward and repeating CBS's
loaded charges that they proved President Bush received
preferential treatment and disobeyed an order to complete a
physical. MSNBC's Hardball and the CBS Evening News pretended
there was no question over the memos. ABC's Terry Moran spent more
than a minute on World New Tonight reciting quotes from the memos
put out by CBS before he noted that "several document experts
contacted by ABC News have raised serious questions about the
authenticity of these new documents." Andrea Mitchell also took a
full minute on the NBC Nightly News to quote what Killian
reportedly wrote before she asked: "Are the new documents real?"
Mitchell then vaguely referred to how "one computer Web site says
the type style is too modern to have been used more than 30 years
ago."

I read last night that it seemed to be someone from the Bush camp that forged them but that makes no sense. Have you read where these came from?

[Wuptdo]

Now my understanding is not only did the Democrats place forth a nominee for President, they also "adopted" a campaign platform for which all democrats are expected to adhere to. This platform is their "mantle" for the next four years. It is as follows:

http://www.democrats.org/platform/index.html

It is only 43 pages long (snore zzzzz).

However, what I found real interesting, is this view of the DNC platform.
Enjoy!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ham20040907.shtml

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

I read last night that it seemed to be someone from the Bush camp that forged them but that makes no sense. Have you read where these came from?

You are correct Holly, the accusation the Donkeys are making now in defense of their blown forgery, that the GOP planted it to make them look bad, makes absolutely no sense.

Someone at the DNC/Kerry campaign created the forgery on their PC using MS Word and fooled CBS, although I'm sure that took little effort.

There have been numerous military officers writing in to powerlineblog.com to critique the memo. It's rather scathing. It was clearly written by someone unfamiliar with then current military writing styles. Abbreviations punctuated incorrectly, terms that the military abbreviated are not, unit name abbreviations are incorrect, and the paper size reveals it was not an original military memo, the lack of letterhead, the mismatch on signatures, the misplaced signature block (right justified instead of left justified), and so on and so forth. That memo would have had to have been written by someone with little firsthand familiarity with the military but happened to use a current military originated memo as a guide and that was even botched.

[Wuptdo]

JohnB - Can you add the website to your last post. I would like to see for myself. Nine years active duty in the Navy as a CT (Combat Typist) with tri-service qualifications; I would know what to look for as well.

Thanks,

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Wupster,

If you go to www.powerlineblog.com you will find the latest updates and lots of links. They've got commentary lined from forensics experts in this field stating the docs were created in MS Word and that there is no way a typewriter, circa 1972, could have done it.

The latest is the "y"....on this forgery the bottom of the "y"s curls under the letter in front of it...there is no way a a plain electric typewriter could have done that....each letter had it's own space where on MS Word the spaces are sized to fit the word and the words sized to fit the line. Evidently this was a VERY amatuerish and hamhanded forgery....only a political hack as low brow as Dan Rather would fall for it...

by the way, Ben Barnes' daughter has evidently stated her father is not telling the truth...that for years he has always, vocally maintained that the Bushes asked for and got no special treatment directly or indirectly...she said he's doing it only to hype sales of his forthcoming book...

The plot thickens....

Anyone see Jimmy Carter's former pollster's comments? Stating to the effect that if it is a forgery, "the elections over".

Kerry wasn't going to win anyway...when this document is proven to be a forgery and CBS has to retract/apologize for their attempted politcal hit on Bush the Donkeys are gonna loose badly....

[Mark]

I'll grant that the type looks very fishy to me, indicating that the documents are likely forgeries. My question is threefold. Is there strong reason to believe, and evidence of the fact, that CBS ran the story out of any reason other than to get the scoop on a potentially hot story. Is there any evidence that CBS ran the story having anything greater than suspicion about their authenticity, that is, did they know they were likely forgeries. Did CBS know from where they were produced. Is there any early evidence that suggests, more than any other source, the DNC or, more likely, people loosely associated with the party, had a hand in the matter. And, finally, that the campaign itself knew or was more directly involved.

I guess we won't know about it most of that for some time. It will surely go beyond egg on the face, rightly so, if it turns out the party had a hand. Conspiracy theorists, think the liberal media will kill the story after acknowledging the fakes, and not pursuing the source?

[hollyL]

If they are fake and the Bush camp didn't know about the forgery then why didn't they speak up right away? I would assume that GWB would know right away that they were fake.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

Friday afternoon, CBS News addressed one of the authenticity issues raised, whether typewriters in the 1960s had the "th" superscript key. "CBS News states with absolute certainty that the ability to produce the "th" superscript mentioned in reports about the documents did exist on typewriters as early as 1968, and in fact is in President Bush's official military records released by the White House, CBS said in a statement. The issue will be addressed in Friday's Evening News broadcast, 6:30 p.m. ET.

[Wuptdo]

I would actually have to see the "docs" in question (internet copies lack defination) to be sure. However, I trained on an old "Ollie" manual typewriter and one thing for sure - certain keys or letters would be slightly bolder than others, plus the typewriter ribbons were also inconsisent. This one doc on line is way to clean, especially coming from a National Guard unit, a probably a copy from micofiche. If the original docs are still around they would be yellow faded, "flimsy", and curling in the corner. Remember, almost everything in the military is provided by the "Lowest Bid Contractor" (LBC). Also, many Guard units got their equipment "used" from active duty units.

Other items of interest:

Date - 18 August 1973 (informal Doc) should be: 18 AUG 73
Subject line: "SUBJECT:" should be "Subj:"
Use of "CYA" (Cover your a$$) on a semi-formal doc: no way, not even in the National Guard (Us "Radars" have our standards). However, if the LtCol typed this himself maybe, but I have never known a senior officer in any service to "type" their own stuff, including "Fitness Reports" and "Officer Evaluations."

CBS news is on - let us see what Dan Rather says tonight!

Wuptdo B-)

[editor_andy]

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=deshanews&static=257990


:D Not much more needs to be said about that.

[Wuptdo]

He was Clinton's number one smear man.
Some say he is "crazy like a fox."
Hardcore Democrats praise him like FDR, LBJ, and Clinton.
He is the man who used new-age media to really "dirty-up" American politics.
Who is this demi-god of the Democrates?

We welcome back James Carville back into presidential politics. Let the sludge fights begin!

http://www.carville.info/

Food for thought: If Kerry is the party nominee, doesn't he now run the "party?" Why is Terry McAlfie (Clintons/Gores boy) still head of the DNC? Did Clinton release Carville to the Kerry Campaign to help Kerry win or to set up Hillary in 2008? If I was sitting at the DNC, I would be thinking that Kerry is a lost cause (it's 1972/1988 all over again). Therefore, I would be focusing where we can make a real difference - Congress! Stop funding the Kerry campaign and focus all the resources on trying to win back Congress. 8O

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Wup,

How often have you ever seen a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine write their rank as such:

Sgt.
Lt.
Cpt.
P.O.1C

Even if the officer himself typed it, don't you think he would know the proper abbreviation for his own rank? And since when did unit abbreviations get puncutated with periods? I would hope that an admin officer knows the proper names of the unit(s) he deals with.

[kellyc]

Excuse my ignorance John, but which one of those is wrong?

[johnb]

They're all wrong. The officer whom CBS's forgery was attributed to abbreviated his rank with a period after the "Lt" that was one of the glaring and very obvious errors that tipped off that the doc was forged. Military people would never abbreviate Lt as Lt. it isn't done that way. It's a minor thing, but the change of style along with the preponderance fo the evidence accumulated from the numerous errors in style, syntax, and content it identifies the author as non-military and the document as a forgery.

[johnb]

By the way.....another indication the memo is a blatant fake, one that doesn't appear to be getting much attention, is this:

When you get an annual physical in the military it is in your birth month. The memo in question "ordered" Bush to get his physical in May. Bush's birth month is July. There is no requirement or reason for a commander to order someone directly with a written directive to get an annual physical. That is an administrative function that the CO would become aware of for an individual GI *IF* that GI refused to get it done. It would be much like any number of administrative functions GI's have to do when checking in or clearing out of a base....the unit CO doesn't personally type up orders commanding a GI to go to supply, medical, dental, base housing, etc.... and check in/out. I spent over 6 years on active duty in the Army and never had a CO give me a written order for any of these admin requirements from urinalysis tests to physicals to showing up for PT. Things would never get done if everything operated the way CBS seems to think they operate in the military.

The paranoid conspiracy lunatics will of course change their rant from championing CBS hit piece to claiming it was placed with CBS by GOP'ers in order to tarnish Kerry.

When evaluating Bush's record from 72 going forward in the TexANG remember one thing.....at the time the Vietnam War was winding down. The military began a draw down, which means that the draft was ending and people were being discharged in huge numbers, before their ETS. The military had to get rid of troops and quickly in order to comply with the limits on authorized force strength. They've done this several times. Several times in the 90's. People are discharged early quite often. It is NOT an indictment on them. If the Army is authorized "x" number of infantry and you are one of those counted above and beyond "x" you're either going to be converted to another mos/rate or discharged. When we left Vietnam we no longer had the requirement for 500,000 troops there any longer. That's a lot of bodies to draw down. By late 73 the military was on a fast escalator down in terms of troop strength. Claims that Bush somehow cheated the system and got out early need to be evaluated in terms of the context of the time. It wasn't his fault the Air Force and ANG had to reduce strenght and shed people. That was a decision made far above his pay grade.

Since he was trained to fly the F102 he was a likely candidate to be discharged since that plane was being obsoleted and retired. What was the point of a flight physical for a pilot certified to fly a plane that was being retired??? Of course, logical questions based on factual events in the historical record have little place in the current Bush bashing hysteria the left is engaged in, however, those of you not slobberingly rabid can draw the reasonable/adult conclusion.

I say that because a similar thing happened to me in December of 1989.

My 5 year renewal of my security clearance was due in that month. I was getting out of the Army in the second week of January 1990. The prospect of filling out a pile of paperwork that would extend my clearance, which was set to expire after my ETS, was one I felt little obligation to assume. I threw the paperwork away and got out. There was no point to it. The trick here is to not be some irrational kook looking for a conspiracy behind ever action or a shooter on every grassy knoll, like Dan Rather.

[johnb]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0914/p09s01-coop.html

Campaign panic in perfect Times Roman

By Michael Caputo

MIAMI, FL. – If I hear one more Vietnam war story out of either presidential campaign I might just sit out this election. But the documents "60 Minutes" recently revealed as proof of President Bush's dereliction of military duty made me want to send my old Army sergeant out to Dan Rather's office. He had a way to deal with misguided trainees - he'd whack us with his "Ugly Stick."
After high school I enlisted in the US Army, the only clear alternative for a teen without college plans in the late 1970s. I had two options: a rifleman posting or an administrative position. As a Grateful Dead democrat, I chose typewriter keys as my weapon. After basic training, I was sent to clerk school at Fort Jackson, S.C. There, in concert with thousands of push-ups and hundreds of grueling force-marched miles, I learned how to type in 1980.

And nearly a decade after the dubious "60 Minutes" documents were allegedly created, military-issue typewriters were still unable to produce such memoranda.

The clerk's Bible at Jackson typist training was Army Regulation 340-15, "Preparation and Management of Military Correspondence." Our Moses: Staff Sgt. Phillips, a tall, balding Vietnam veteran whose starched fatigues belied his smoke-stained teeth and eye-burning breath. He was quick with quips in his thick Southern drawl and just as fast to anger. Speed was our only goal as we tapped out "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" on our Olivetti manuals. Too slow? Do it again. Errors were acceptable, but only a few. And no backspacing or correction fluid was allowed; that was considered cheating and we always got caught.

If a trainee stepped out of line, he got the Ugly Stick. Sarge brandished the remnants of a golf club with its head broken off in what was surely a fit of rage at the nearby Ft. Jackson Country Club. He spun it, Chaplin-esque, as he wandered the classroom rows of sweating trainees.

Normally, Phillips would bring the club shaft down on an errant GI's desk with a crack that stopped all typing. Sometimes, he might clip you with the sharp end.

More important, we had to quote AR340-15, chapter and verse. Don't remember the salutation for a Congressman? You get the Ugly Stick. Can't recall the margins on an official memorandum? Ugly Stick. Get a signature block wrong? Duck, and fast.

After training, I was shipped off to the 25th Infantry Division in Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. At the division public affairs office, I suffered one recurring error: In the final signature block, after carefully typing through paragraphs and pages, I couldn't seem to add the "TH" after the "25" without fouling up the entire document. When my new sergeant caught the first such error, he made me fetch AR340-15 and recite the relevant guideline aloud. By the time my enlistment was up, that page in the manual was dog-eared and brown with fingerprints.

I have one clear memory of my Army enlistment in the early 1980s. We clerks cursed every day that our well-supplied, active duty infantry division headquarters had no word processors and not enough electric typewriters. Those electric typewriters we had did not shrink and raise the TH to a superscript like one "60 Minutes" memo allegedly typed to file in 1973 by Bush's National Guard squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

Our apostrophes weren't curlicues like in the CBS memo where Killian supposedly wrote about pressure on him from "upstairs" to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance report. Military documents of that era had erratic character spacing; every hunt-and-peck letter was a dash different shade of black ink.

But not in these "blockbuster" documents impugning the president - they were perfectly uniform Times Roman word processing.

Mr. Rather's documents are too perfect, too much like Microsoft Word. In fact, the closer you look the more this looks like a con. The authenticity was incredibly easy to check, but the perpetrators of the possible forgery and the legendary newsman were too eager to tarnish the president.

They missed the obvious. But they also missed a vital rule in campaign politics that I learned as a marginal communications staffer in the 1992 Bush/Quayle reelection campaign. The imperative: don't panic.

In the last days of that doomed 1992 Bush reelection effort, we knew we were losing. James Baker and other close Bush friends and family moved in to keep a close eye on all our work. In particular, they were looking for mistakes that would embarrass the family. At the time, dubious documents about the Arkansas governor's alleged "zipper problem" were floating temptingly around campaign headquarters. Wrong-headed whispers among junior staff about "saving the campaign" could be heard if you listened closely.

Finally, we were called into a meeting and given a simple instruction: Anyone caught trafficking in this information would be summarily fired. The Bush family did not want to "win this way." Because we were almost sure to lose anyway, they made a further promise that violators would never work in Washington again. Any doubts were laid to rest when we were told who sent this message: the president's son, George W. Bush.

It was an important campaign lesson: Don't act in haste and anger. Always check and recheck all information, especially when your candidate is dreadfully stalled. Only smart politics and hard work can recover a campaign in disarray.

Somehow, John Kerry's allies forgot this rule. So did Dan Rather. He, especially, gets the Ugly Stick.

• Michael R. Caputo, a Miami-based writer, was a 1992 reelection aide to President George Bush and served in the US Army's 25th Infantry Division from 1980 to 1983.

[johnb]

While Kerry runs around claiming Bush is "diverted" from the War on Terror in Iraq and we're never going to find Osama his wife is running her mouth off claiming he'll probably be caught before election day, all planned by Bush of course:


http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/09/20/daily58.html

In regard to the hunt for terror leader Osama Bin Laden, Heinz Kerry said she could see the al-Qaida chief being caught before the November election.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month," said Heinz Kerry, alluding to a possible capture by United States and allied forces before election day.

So if Osama is caught, it would be a conspiracy on the part of Bush, Cheney and probably Halliburton and if he isn't caught it's incompetance on the part of Bush, Cheney, and probably Halliburton. It's not possible to win with these kooks, Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

They're running on nothing but raw hate.