Thursday, August 19, 2004

The Bi-Partisan Dance Ends -An Open Letter to John Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry:

I consider myself a reasonable person (capable of reasoning). I know that it has been said that us ‘regular’ folks may have trouble gleaning the full meaning of your words as you are so much more nuanced than we are. As I watched your speech to the VFW, I realized that this may be true-- as I found myself searching for clarity in many of your statements…maybe you could help to clear a few things up.

First, I was surprised that you chose to speak in front of this group as you once referred to them as a “parliamentary, pro-war organization that is out of touch with young soldiers”, but we’ll put that aside for now.

You spent much of the beginning of your speech heralding the idea of supporting troops that are returning from war –giving them the respect they deserve. I believe your exact words were, “It is a sacred promise that we keep faith with those who have served.” Later in the speech you also said that in Vietnam the “Warriors were confused with the war”, that this was wrong and that we “should always say thank you”. Now Senator, I am an animal lover and don’t want to be accused of beating a dead horse, but was this an apology to the Vets of Foreign Wars? It would seem to me that you were an instigating cause of many of the things that you were preaching about. Wasn’t it you that confused the Warriors with the war? Wasn’t it you that helped give birth to the chants of ‘baby killer’ with your testimony? Wasn’t it your 1971 speech the VC read to Senator McCain as he sat in a cell in an effort to demoralize him further? Didn’t you just say in this speech that “The facts should never get distorted by politics”? So nuanced…the many layers do appear as flip-flops, but I am sure you will clarify.

Ok, I have to admit that there were parts of the speech that I didn’t get to hear (due to the constant yells and hecklers in the background –but I am sure I misunderstood and they were hollers of support from the vets because so many that I have met admire you so much). So, I apologize if I am leaving out key elements that already answered some of my questions.

You went on (astutely acting as if you didn’t hear the yells) to talk about veterans benefits—what Bush hasn’t done and what you would do…because, ya know, you have been known to do right by the vets. You said that it is “our duty to protect those that have risked their lives” which I agree with wholeheartedly. Unfortunately for you, so does President Bush. A military publication that I stumbled upon stated that in 2002 our troops were given the largest pay increase in twenty years (that’s how long you’ve been a Senator right?). The increase was an average of 6.8% which was higher than both inflation and the average 4.1% given in the private sector. 2002 also boasted the largest housing increase in 10 years. The President has also given the highest allowance for amputee patient care and research for new prosthetics. You stated that we need to “keep faith with vets” and note that thousands drop out of the system each year…um, Senator Kerry…I think that I heard somewhere that 1,400 WWII vets are dying each day –maybe it’s just me, but might that explain the people that are ‘dropping out of the system’? Just a thought.

You stayed away from the ‘inventing weapons that don’t kill thing’ (which was good as I think the number of Trekkies in that crowd was probably low) and you didn’t bring up the ‘sensitive war’ thing…but you did say that you would “never send [soldiers] into battle without a plan to win the peace”….Don’t kill, sensitive, peace….may I be so bold as to say that in a time of an increased incidence of the sacred Muslim practice of be-headings these words may not inspire the soldiers or comfort the folks…maybe it’s just me…wait, to be fair, you did go on to say that “there is a right and wrong way to be strong and it’s more than just tough words”…Hmmm. The President may have already coined this phrase when he decided to back up the ‘tough words’ of UN resolution 1441 with action…your party is anti-war so you may want to ush-hay on the ar-way…

You say that you will “wage war with the lessons that you learned in war”…if this means that you will cut off heads, ears, and that you will put radio wires on genitals, kill babies and burn down villages (which are the only things I’ve heard you say about your four month tour) we might have a small problem with the NYT. They ran 49 front page stories an Abu Gareab –so though you may get a bit more of the Republican vote –you’ll probably loose your base. You say that you will add $40,000 new troops, double the Army’s special forces and end stop-loss all while you strengthen homeland security –oh, and while getting rid of the deficit. Impressive –is this in conjunction with more funding for ‘No child left behind’ (the highest funded education program ever), providing college education and health care for all and personally checking all cargo ships yourself?). Cool. You said that we shouldn’t politicize the war, but then you said that “90% of the coffins returning are draped with the American flag.” Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that it was higher than 90% in the first Gulf War with the coalition you keep reminiscing about.

I won’t go into your speech on the importance of intelligence because I can look up your Senate record (or lack thereof) to clarify this for me. Lastly though I did want to talk a bit more about the ‘lack of allies’ we have in this coalition. Now we all know why France, Germany and Russia didn’t go in –and wouldn’t have for all the catsup in the world, but you bring up the Arab states. You said, “Arab countries have a stake in seeing that we do not fail in Iraq, yet they are not at the table”. I have done a bit a research on this too Senator and I would have to respectfully disagree. You know that peaceful book –the Qu’ran? Well, there is this sticky little teaching in there that says that a democracy is against Allah –as it also said that servants of Allah are commanded to commit terrorist acts. Maybe you too should read these quotes explaining the peaceful religion of Islam before you continue on the campaign trail:

“Whoever says that Islam is free from terrorism or

wants to differentiate between Islam and terrorism is committing Al Juhoud (sin) and that is Kufr Akbar (enemy) – and will take them out of the fold of Islam.

The one who says ‘we should fight against terrorism’, he is fighting against Islam. We know very well that USA meant no one else by the term ‘terrorists’ but Islam and Muslims and the one who wants to avoid terrorism, is avoiding Islam.

Whosoever denies that terrorism is part of Islam, he is kafir (dirty/unholy).

Voting for Democracy is pure baatil (falsehood) and has no place in Islam; unfortunately some so called Muslim organizations have been duped by the fancy packaging of democratic elections, and even rally behind kuffar (disbelievers in Allah and Islam) propagating this FALSE system. Organizations such as MCB (Mushrik Council of Britain) and Al-Muntada have even attempted to justifying voting as a religious duty. These groups have taken it upon their own shoulders to become the voices of Iblees (Shaytaan), they are fulfilling the pledge Shaytaan (the Devil) made to Allah; that is to take as many sons of Adam to the pits of Jahannam (hellfire) as possible, hence why Allah (swt) warned “O you who believe! Follow not the footsteps of Shaytaan. And whosoever follows the footsteps of Shaytaan, then, verily he commands Al-Fahshaa' [to commit indecency], & Al-Munkar [disbelief].” [EMQ 24:21)]”

http://www.muhajiroun.com/ (I can not guarantee that you will not be put on a terror-watch list for going to this site –after reading it I would hope that it is being watched).

Sincerely,

ALa71 –American, Wife, Mother, Daughter, Sister, Friend and Concerned Citizen.

81 comments:

Kat said...

Yeahh...I'm the first to post. Mostly because I am in CA and 3 hours behind you, so, still kind of early here.

I'll tell you what I hear this morning..watched it while I was getting ready for work.

I heard that he was confused and that he thought the rest of them were confused. Some clapped, but I can tell you, without bias, he did not get near as much applause as the president.

He said he would bring in our European allies and our Arab allies in Iraq to take the burden off our military. Problems:

1) When he says "Europe" he must be talking about France and Germany only...he forgets the other 30 some countries that make up the new EU of which, something like 19 are with us now. European allies?
2) France and Germany, the "Europe" he speaks of, stated categorically, after his original speech on the subject, that they will not, absolutely not, provide troops in Iraq. Spain withdrew already. You think they are going to send some troops back? Support? Are you talking monetarily? As in, forgive Iraqi debt from Saddam? All three have already stated that they WILL NOT forgive this debt as it would hurt their economy. Please define "support".
3) Arab trooops from surrounding nations in Iraq? Iraq has already declined. These Arab countries have no reason to support Iraqi freedom. All that would happen is that you would give them open range to place their influence over specific areas they have already targeted for themselves. You think these troops will be "unbiased"? You think they won't support their own little puppets in a barily concealed attempt to define Iraqi government to their liking?

Mr. Kerry has either been asleep for the last 2 months or is still naive.

How about the "hastily announced plan" for troop redeployment Mr. Kerry claims the President put out? This has been under planning for over 10 years. It's been in front of congress and in committee for 2 years.
Hasty? To damn slow if you ask me. We need troops in Germany to get Germany to help us in the war on terror? So they can deny use of base or fly over rights whenever they don't agree with out policy?

What about your committment to never allow another country veto over our security?

I know...you think that, once you are in office you will convince them that America is not a power they need to try to offset, when one of the stated purposes of the EU is to create a balancing power in the world, and I don't think they mean that just financially.

So...who is fooling who?

redleg said...

Ala71

as we like to say!


GET SOME!

or as Toby Keith would say:

How do you like me now?

Great letter.

Kat said...

Just listening to Condi Rice...I think she supports the redeployment of troops from Germany, but isn't quite as sure on the Korean peninsula. You could tell because she was really strong speaking when talking about Germany but reverted to "talking points" when speaking on Korea.

Possibly because she sees them still in their "cold war" light as a "communist" threat to a free democracy of South Korea, but she did make a strong point about moving the troops in S. Korea from bases near Seoul that are causing some issues with their population. Which kind of says to me that the S. Korean government may have asked us to stand down some of our troops and we aren't saying that. They, S. Korea, have been saying for many years now that they want to "reconcile" with their N. Korea brothers.

However, a really important document I found on the internet, and will look for the site again, was a proposal in 1994 from a national security advisory board to significantly reduce our troops in s. korea and take some pressure off N. Korea so they won't feel threatened and make some crazy move against s. korea. At the same time, the document was talking about the fact that n. korea, while having a large conscript army and some nukes, are actually incredibly weak (and this was 1994) because their economy sucked and they didn't have enough money and natural resources (read oil) to support a large scale army in the field of battle for any long term war, which is what it would take to make it into s. korea.

I think n. korea's generals still play in the fantasy world of large scale casualties as acceptable as long as enough live to make it to Seoul. What they forget is that the remaining forces, even if they made it to Seoul, would be destroyed because they would have a long supply line and limited resources and, of course, their force would be largely annhilated by the time they made it.

The truth is, N. Korea's nukes are the problem, not their standing army, and you can't fight nukes with ground troops.

There...my long winded analysis of why US troops on the nk and sk border don't make sense.

redleg said...

Speaking as one who has served in both Germany and Korea the redeployment of troops is long overdue. They are strategically frozen in Korea-- hostage to our lack of reassessment of what force is needed where. I don't need a Division frozen in Korea when I can use it better elsewhere. I am thankful that the administration has recognized the fact that S. Korea can defend itself and that our combat troops would not be adding much to 600k S. Koreans. If we need troops there, we have proved that we have the strategic airlift to get them there in time. And 37k (now 34K) troops would not do anything to protect us any better over there. What matters is infrastructure and the troops remaining and 11 billion in defense spending already programmed will take care of this.

This is long overdue by any stretch of the imagination. I applaud the long awaited realignment. This shows me again that the administration is committed to doing as it says it will do. We have been talking, reading and hearing about his for 2-3 years. Now it is finally time to get it done.

Because I do not want to do another tour in Korea (already done 3). Free up forces to fight terrorists should be our byword.

91ghost said...

Yeah, the realignment is necessary.

ALa said...

Two other things that I wanted to mention -but it was too long already was:
1) Kerry saying that "each attack will be met with a swift and certain response". EACH ATTACK..YIKES...

2) In the speech Kerry said that it was irresponsible that Bush would move troops from Korea with the 'real nuclear weapons present in North Korea", BUT in an interview less than two weeks ago -he said that he would bring troops home and mentioned S. Korea by name...hmmmmm.

Redleg_justrose has a very good friend (a huey pilot) who was on the DMZ for a year -and I think to Germany also...My sons just got a GI Joe Chinook complete with military Jeep in the rear hatch and they are in love. We live near an Air Force base -so i guess I will have to fight the mobs this year and take them to the air show...
Kat_ Thanks for the updates -I hadn't heard what the media was saying about the hecklers -Did you see the speech? They were really yelling through a lot of it --I actually felt a wee bit bad for the Senator...then I remembered that he has more money than God and hardly needs my sympathy...

~Jen~ said...

Have you guys seen CBFTW's blog today?!?!?!?!?

ALa said...

I know! I just called justrose to tell her about it...why would they close him down? I think he's a 100% positive asset for them!!!!!

Jason Mulgrew said...

Sing it sister!

Love,
Jason

leftyjones said...

Riveting Letter.
"A Masterpiece" said the New York Times.
"You've definitely changed my vote" said LeftyJones.....

NOT

I wonder if Dubya "wages war with the lessons he learned in the guard"...of course, you would have to show up for work to do that. Come to think of it, I guess he has used these skills as President.......

"Joshua Micah Marshall, in his April 9, 2004, Talking Points Memo, points to a "Washington Post story on the degenerating situation in Iraq ...


"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency. "

Just let the man go back to Texas. He obviously wants to be there and I hate to see a man doing work he doesn't want to do and doing it badly.

~Jen~ said...

I've calmed down a bit about CB, and was able to focus and read this letter.

Look up the definition of "Smack-Down" in the blogger's dictionary, and there is a fabulous picture of Ala71 taking a mallot to Kerry's unusually large head with this letter as the caption.

Fantastic work.

~Jen~ said...

Lefty, jealousy is indeed a green-eyed monster.

*impish grin*

Tom said...

Poor John's putting his foot in it again. See what the pro-Kerry media are headlining his "response" to SBVFT (what they call his "critics") allegations? Funny thing, but it's not a response to any specific SBVFT allegations, only an attempt to link the White House to the group.

Bad move. The more you attack the messenger or what you perceive to be the messenger's motives and don't attack the facts, the sillier you look. No doubt Kerry thinks the Clinton playbook is going to work in this regard, but he's missing the fact that he lacks the two crucial advantages Clinton had to offset his smarminess: He was already President and, more importantly, had a (ahem) good economy going for him - in other words the dot bomb hadn't exploded yet. They're under no obligation to look past Kerry's shortcomings in the truth department, and it's obvious that the need for the great man himself to start whining means that his surrogates are failing miserably at countering the anti-Kerry swiftees.

To tell you the truth, I gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt and thought he was playing rope-a-dope with SBVFT. When he did start swinging, he'd directly challenge his detractors and the facts they allege. Turning on the Bush White House, which his campaign lackeys and those in the press have already been doing, looks a little desperate.

You have to admit Clinton was a little better at this.

leftyjones said...

Jen,
I do have green eyes (thanks for noticing) but I don't feel particularly monster-like. Not today anyway. I'm not sure exactly who you were inferring I am jealous of but if the candidates were Dubya or Ala71 then please allow me to comment on both of them AND address Ala71's "Foot Fetish" article at the same time by quoting a little Steve Martin from Roxanne.....
" I really like your shoes....but I wouldn't necessarily want to be IN your shoes"

Liberation day is approaching Jen. Just a few short months. Enjoy the ride.

"impish grin right back at ya"

Tom said...

You know, I find it funny that a lib would sarcastically ask if Bush wages war according to what he learned in the Guard.

Contrast this with what, I wonder? If we accept the leftist view of history, then what John Kerry learned from service in Nam is how to lose a war.

But everyone knows that military service at all, let alone combat duty, is not a measure of one's effectiveness as Commander-in-Chief in wartime. See Lincoln, Abraham or Roosevelt, Franklin Delano.

Well, everyone with an IQ above room temp, that is.

leftyjones said...

Tom,
I keep the room pretty chilly over here so I feel that I can say with some authority that my IQ does in fact exceed the room temperature. I will keep monitoring the thermostat for you, just to be sure.
I do not disagree that military service is not a pre-requisite for commander-in-chief leadership. The men you listed were pretty good examples of that. Lincoln, as one of my favorite Presidents, often comes to mind when thinking in these terms. I'll check my facts as I cannot speak for Lincoln's attendence record while President but I will say that part of leadership and success is showing up for the job. It's hard to ask for the sacrifice and understanding of the people or the troops if the President himself doesn't seem very engaged.
I do find it interesting, not surprising, but interesting that come election season Dubya seems to have a lot of vim and vigor for the job. Suddenly no big vacations loom. I might have been more impressed if during the last 4 years he had shown the same enthusiasm for the job.
Many Conservatives I know hold Reagan in the highest esteem as the leader of the Conservative movement. many would also say that he was a leader to be emulated.
Whether people liked the man or not, no one would question his passion for the job or the fact that as a leader....he showed up. Here are his, and other modern presidents attendence records.

President Ronald Reagan (R) California:
335 days (over 2 terms - 8 years)

President George H. W. Bush (R) Texas:
543 days (over 1 term - 4 years)

President William J. Clinton (D) Arkansas:
152 days (over 2 terms - 8 years)

At the minimum, Dubya should be a little more like Ron and a little less like dad and he might have a shot at a second term. In the meantime, he might do well to shut up about Kerry's attendence record.

this we'll defend said...

ALa71: When Kerry said what he said about the VFW he was right. It didn't welcome young soldiers, it was pro-war, and he criticized it rightly. If it has changed it is because people changed it. So don't take statements from 30 years ago and infer that he was wrong because he doesn't say the same thing today. If I called the Dodgers a great baseball team in 1989 and call them crappy today have I "flip-flopped?"

I'll leave it to Lefty to keep up the rest of the good fight.

I agree about the realignment of the military and returning forces home. About f'ing time, too (wonder why Mr. Bush waited until just before the election, hmmmm?). We shouldn't have done it right after the end of the cold war but we can and should do it now. I disagree with the proposal to move some troops from Germany into Eastern Europe - it goes against all the reasons given for pulling out of Germany in the first place. Bring them home and work on fast sea-lift and heavy air-lift so that the Navy and Air Force can quickly deploy the Army's heavier forces anywhere in the world and support them. It makes more sense, serves our national security needs better, and is cheaper.

And Tom, you are still a partisan fanatic with no regard for the truth. Just so we're clear.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul G. said...

There are 25 actual members of the European Union(EU), not 30.
There are 5 pending, and one other 'applied'.
Of the actual 25 members of the EU 10 af them are part of the Iraq
Coalition, not 19 and adding all the pending and applied members would
only bring it to 16 not 19.
Adding Spain back into the list of 'the willing' would only make 17.
I ran the population numbers of the current EU the willing are
200,426,493 unwilling 255,859,346.
So the changes work out to less than half of the member states in the
coalition vs. your nearly two thirds and more than half of the
population of EU states.
But it goes deeper than simple numbers.
Who is Europe?
I'm not trying to disparage smaller countries but the facts of what
Europe is has to be evaluated.
The political and economic reality of Europe is not in the population
numbers or in the number of countries. Europe is (in order)
Germany/France, Italy, UK, Greece, Spain. The Scandanavian countries
are not a factor and all the smaller states are in one way or another
'clients' of the larger countries.
My breakdown is based on economic, political, military power (PMP).
Based on this PMP Europe is not behind the occupation of Iraq.
If your going to try and make a point using the Koran then please use
the Koran, and not the twisted words of some cleric.
What you have done is like trying to use a quote from David Koresh to
characterise the Bible.

As for pulling out of Europe, Korea and Japan.
This idea (Kerry supports it also) is the most short sighted global
military policy enacted by the US in 100 years.
It addresses the needs of today but fails to look at the needs of 20
years from now.
China is on the rise and requires that we remain actively engaged in
the region if we do not want a massive repeat of the problems that led
to the attack on Hawaii in 1941.
If we have any intention of keeping NATO as a stabilising influence in
the Balkans and eastern europe we must remain engaged and the bases
are the most visable means of remaining a partner.
If the US is only seen as a brand of soft drinks, fast foods and
movies we are not going to be seen as credible. Seeing a C-5's land
and take off and having an Air Craft carrier pull in several times a
year shows that we are a world power and that we are 'in the
neighborhood'.

As for candidate Kerry speaking to the VFW, at least he didn't avoid
them as his opponent has done with the NAACP.
The opporunity to speak to a group you disagree with is priceless and
gives them the chance to see and hear why you disagree with them, and
where you do agree.
Much more it gives them a chance to change if they are inclined.
There's a lot more to being a leader than the ability to give orders
and keep your zipper closed.

There's a duty called statesmanship that requires that you keep lines
of communication open even when you disagree, especially when you
disagree in the extreme.

Tom said...

TWD:

The more you keep whining about fanatics and lies, the more you convince me that you were insincere when you criticized Michael Moore and Ted Rall as "left-wing lunatics". You sound just like them.

You WERE criticizing them, weren't you?

But I'm curious, what did I lie about?

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom said...

lefty:

"I do not disagree that military service is not a pre-requisite for commander-in-chief leadership."

You take the long way round the barn, don't you? "Agree" would have saved us both some time ...

At any rate, I was only commenting on your silly Bush/Guard - Kerry/Viet Nam contrast. Now you're drawing an equally silly comparison between Bush/Attendance - Kerry/Attendance. Nothwithstanding the fact the executive doesn't have an attendance requirement, per se, your attempted analogy between Bush and Lincoln is almost as hilarious as TWD's analogy between a proposed missile defense system and the Maginot Line. Almost.

C'mon, lefty, you're really going to argue that a chief executive in the 21st century can't do his job effiently and effectively outside the White House in the 21st century with all of the technology he has at his disposal for remote communication?

I didn't think you were.

If you want to compare Bush's "attendance" record with Kerry's, calculate how many NSC/cabinet meetings/intelligence briefings the president missed as a result of his being away from the WH with the number of committee meetings/briefings/votes/floor debates Kerry missed as a result of his absenteeism.

By all means. check your "facts".

~Jen~ said...

***ducks flying projectiles***

Ala71 - did you see that CBFTW dropped the "Fear and loathing in Iraq" from his blog title, and that now he is writing from "Hell on Earth Iraq"?

What the heck does that mean?????

Sorry about this being off topic...ok boys, let the punched fly again....

***jennifer sneaks back to her observation tower***

ALa said...

Paul -no problem...One comment has been deleted for you. Thanks for stopping by 'debate world' --
I used the 'cleric' because he uses many Qu'ran verses to back up his teachings and this seemed to be the general consensus on all the sites (in various countries) that I looked through-along with various print articles I have read.
I have no solid opinion of military deployments as I have never been in the military and don't pretend to understand the geo-political ramifications of troop placement post-cold war and for the war on 'terror'...

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom said...

TWD:

In yet another of your facile analogies, you state:

"If I called the Dodgers a great baseball team in 1989 and call them crappy today have I 'flip-flopped?'"

Well, yes, you have, based on that simple-minded premise, because you have not established what exactly made them "great" in 1989 and how that has changed for the worse. Is it their pitching? Their in-field? Their bullpen? All of the above?

"If [the VFW] has changed, it is because people changed it."

The question at hand is, has it as an organization changed in Kerry's eyes? You always try to deflect what is specific to Kerry to some abstract generalization that has no bearing on the issue at hand. Hell, if the KKK or American Nazi Party has changed (for better or worse), it's because people changed them. What's that have to do with the price of rice in Hanoi?

Kerry signed on to VVATW's claim that the VFW was, to use the word from your analogy, "crappy" back in 1971. It was "crappy" because among its numerous "flaws" according to Kerry and his anti-American crowd, it waved the flag and supported the war in Viet Nam, two things they despised.

By the way, whether they "rejected" young veterans back then is irrelevant vis a vis VVATW's attacks since Kerry and his pals stated explicitly that they wanted nothing to do with the VFW, anyway. Though I suspect, like most of your assertions in your shallow defenses of Kerry, the VFW's outright rejection of young veterans as a matter of policy is as exaggerated as your candidate's claims about atrocities as a matter of policy in Viet Nam.

That said, we must ask ourselves whether Kerry deemed the organization "reformed" to his liking (and we will ignore for the moment Kerry's arrogance in that regard) or if he has retracted what he, through his anti-American organzation, said about the VFW 30+ years ago?

If the VFW supports Bush's wars in the same way it supported Johnson's and Nixon's and if it still "waves the flag" and believes in American supremacy, etc, then it would appear that they still meet Kerry's criteria for "crappy" 35+ years later, unless he admits his criteria are/were wrong.

I'm sorry, was this too complex, too - how you say - nuanced for you?

Tom said...

Hey, doll, looks like you have chop one of mine, too. Chop the first one.

Thanks.

leftyjones said...

Plucky Tom,
You can be quite the literalist when it suits you to be persnickety. I don't want to waste an opportunity to once again smack you down on a short incomplete answer due to the fact that I have to go be a family guy right now. I will sit down tonight and deal with you appropriately. Until then.

this we'll defend said...

Tom, you lied when you claimed Sen. Kerry lied to the Senate in 1971.

And, in case you missed it, I don't care what fanatics think of me. You are a partisan ass. To save time, every time you address me from now on (until you admit you were wrong about your charge of 1971 lying, which you have yet to do) I'll just abbreviate "Tom, you are a partisan ass" to TYAAPA.

ALa said...

TWD: Ya know I love ya, BUT in Tom's defense (or better in solidarity with Tom on this subject) I too believe 100% to my core that Kerry lied to the Senate in 1971. I am not saying that the 'cutting off heads and ears thing' was a lie because I don't know if he really believed that or not --but it was hearsay -inadmisable. BUT I read today that he said that as he sat on his secret mission in Cambodia listening to Richard Nixon say that we were not in Cambodia his whole outlook changed --he claimed that this event was SEARED into his memory and that it 'was a defining moment in his life and feelings about the govenment and the war'. He went on to talk about this in several interviews and in his book (that you too can read if you have $800 to buy it on Ebay). THIS was what prompted his 1971 testimony. This was a lie...and he now admits it. I know to you it doesn't, but to me that looks real, real bad.

On March 27, 1986, Kerry told his fellow senators: "I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia.

"I have that memory, which is seared - seared - in me."

"Kerry has staked his candidacy on Vietnam. His running mate has publicly invited the country to judge Kerry by listening to his comrades in arms. A lot of them, to Edwards' obvious chagrin, are saying that John Kerry is unfit for command.

"If it turns out he made up the story of Christmas in Cambodia, they could very well be right. " NYDN

Fox's Brian Kilmead asked Mr. Johnson whether Sen. Kerry would release the action report from January 20, 1969 regarding purported action in Cambodia.

Mr. Johnson said, "I believe you're referring to an incident that happened near Cambodia. Okay, well John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve, 1968, which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the record to say it was someplace on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My recollection, my understanding is he was not certain about that date.

Mr. Kilmead brought up Sen. Kerry's 1986 floor speech in the Senate where he talked about spending Christmas in Cambodia as being "seared---seared" in his memory.

Mr. Johnson replied, "I believe he's corrected the record to say it was someplace near Cambodia, but he is not certain whether it was actually in Cambodia but he is certain that there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia."

Mr. Johnson also repeated Sen. Kerry's canard that he left Yale in 1966 and turned down all options to further his education by choosing to serve his country. As was (barely) reported in March of this year, Sen. Kerry asked for and was denied a one year deferment to study in Paris."

this we'll defend said...

ALa71, I respect you so I will reply (but not to Tom, whom I don't respect because his vitriol and insults finally got to me after I did my best to discuss things with him in a civil manner).

I addressed the "Cambodia" thing on another post (he has not "admitted" to anything - please read my post). But let's not get sidetracked. My point about Tom is that he made a charge about the 1971 testimony and I asked him to show me where Kerry lied that day. I wanted to pin him down because I've noticed his tactic of repeatedly telling only part of a story, making a charge and moving on before a correction can be made, and then later repeating the same charges. He could not show me where Kerry lied in his Senate testimony, he merely made other charges. I corrected those and asked again "where did Kerry lie in his 1971 Senate testimony?" and he merely made more unsubstantiated charges. He never got back to me until much, much later, and then his "proof" of Kerry lying in 1971 was recycled and already-disproven canards. I'm not even saying Kerry was right in 1971. I'm simply saying he did not lie, and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our involvement in Vietnam he did not lie to the Senate in 1971. Perhaps Kerry lied every day, every single time he opened his mouth, both before and after that day. Maybe the only time he ever told the truth his entire life was that day in 1971. That wasn't the point. I was asking Tom to show me where Kerry lied in his 1971 Senate testimony and then we can move on to other charges, taking them one by one. Tom could not do so and yet has not said he was misinformed, mistaken, or exaggerated to make a point. He merely repeats the charge - shown to be false. That is dishonest. He appears so partisan that he thinks it is ok to lie in order to win an election - or so partisan that he simply thinks all "libs" as he calls me lie every time they speak. He is a fanatic.

I don't expect you to understand "hearsay" the same way that Tom, apparently an attorney, does. What Kerry testified to was hearsay - and it was totally "admissible" before the Senate. Kerry, as I pointed out, made sure to inform the Senate that he was recounting what others had said, not that he was recounting firsthand what he himself had done. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I engaged in hearsay myself just now when I told you what Kerry had said, just as you did when you recount the "seared in his memory" language. That doesn't make you or me a liar or even disreputable. Tom was playing fast and loose with the truth when he implied that Kerry's "hearsay" was subterfuge, especially when he quoted Kerry but left out the "here is what I heard others say" language that Kerry opened his testimony with.

Some veterans feel betrayed by what Kerry told the Senate. Others don't. Those that feel betrayed are welcome to their opinion. They can feel that way without having to conclude that the man lied. He stated his opinion, gave information he thought was true (and which I have shown was in fact true) and said that we should pull out of South Vietnam now rather than wasting more US lives in a pointless charade. We did pull out eventually but thousands more US soldiers died. Agree or disagree with him as you will, but the man didn't lie in his Senate testimony, and Tom said he did. I know people who think Kerry was totally wrong, stupid, misled, and that we were right in Vietnam. I disagree with them but I don't think they are liars. I don't think they are dishonest. I don't even say they are misinformed. And I don't consider them my enemy. If you think we were right in Vietnam, that Kerry was both stupid and wrong, fine. Both you and Mr. Kerry can hold those opinions without either one of you lying.

So Tom: TYAAPA.

Bigandmean said...

TWD calling someone a partisan ass. Irony can be so ironic.

this we'll defend said...

B&M - I'm partisan as hell, but I'm not an ass. And I do think I strive more for the truth than for "my side" to look good. If I didn't think my side's truth looked good it wouldn't be my side. And I think you can support your side without lying - I haven't seen you do it yet, not at all.

You and I can agree, I think, that Alanis Morrisette needs a dictionary.

ALa said...

TWD: Can we agree -at least- on the fact that Kerry shouldn't be running on his VN record. I know that medals were given out much more readily to keep morale high in that war and he was only there for four months. Whether you think he was a bun or a hero should be irrelevant to his becoming President 36 years later --and he has no one to blame but himself.

this we'll defend said...

I don't think there is anything wrong with it, especially since national security is Bush's biggest lead area. I also don't think there is anything wrong with Bush running on his "war presidency" or on the "lessons of 9/11." It is ordinary politics to play to your strengths and attack your opponent's weaknesses. That is how it should be. For those that it turns off, he loses a vote. For those that think veteran's status says something about leadership and patriotism, especially if it occurred while others sought personal safety in Canada, or in the Guard, he gains a vote.

But attacking your opponent with dishonesty is, well, dishonest.

Which is why I hate it when dems claim W was AWOL. He was never AWOL - if he had been he would have been charged. He wasn't, so anybody that says that is simply wrong.

ALa said...

TWD: Once again we will have to agree to disagree...
Bush's 'War Presidency' happened IN THIS DECADE...
Here's the scenario--
30 Years from now I decide to run for UN President. I don't mention what I have done from 27-63 years old but base my candidacy on the fact that in 1996 I studied abroad for a year and know all about 'the world' and 'world opinion'...But I went to France, Scotland, The Netherlands, Ireland, England....
That and a real resume might get me the job ...(and I was there for a whole year).
Do you see my point at all...Run on your Senate record not four months of something controversial that happened before VCRs!

this we'll defend said...

Here is what we can agree on: a LOT of people served in Vietnam, and they can't all be qualified to be president. I don't think Kerry is qualified because he served - I think he is qualified and he can, however, counteract Bush's tendency to be Mr. Macho (with other people's lives) and portray any opponent as weak and lily-livered by pointing out his valor in combat and contrast that with the battle of El Paso.

But no, Vietnam alone doesn't mean he should be president. I voted for Clinton over Dole in '96, and Dole was another genuine world war II hero - I revere him. I just didn't agree with his policies. Even though he was infantry and he and I wore the same 10th Mountain Division patch. So you are right, the fact that Kerry served doesn't mean anybody should vote for him at all. But it sure as hell doesn't mean they should vote against him, and the incredibly dishonest efforts to discredit Kerry's record shows that he was, in fact, wise to highlight his service. Voters care about such things this election, and it works to his advantage.

In my opinion Johnson's "flower-girl" commercial started the downhill slide. Goldwater was labeled a pro-war freak after that even though Johnson had no plan to withdraw from Vietnam either. Then there was Nixon's "secret plan" to withdraw from Vietnam that didn't actually exist.

We do have good and fair elections more often than people think. Ford v Carter was a good one. Ford didn't slander Carter and vice versa. Carter v Reagan was a good one as well. Reagan kicked Carter's butt without lying. His "are you better off now than you were four years ago" can't possibly be considered dishonest - you either were or you weren't and most people felt they weren't. His "morning in America" was anything but underhanded. Watch those commercials now and you will still feel good and positive about America and Carter isn't even mentioned. Reagan's campaign against Mondale was also above-board. Mondale didn't slander Reagan, Reagan didn't slander Mondale, and the voters spoke for Reagan. No problem. I don't like Reagan, I didn't then, but I respect him and admire him for his campaigning above-board. The later Iran-Contra scandal (much worse than anything Clinton ever did) doesn't change the fact that he was elected by the People through positive, non-mud slinging elections. The man was a gentleman. A statesman, even.

Then Bush Sr. and the Willy Horton ad and we are into a new era of political lowlife. The tank ad that called Dukakis weak on defense (untrue and repeated by the current Bush in his false charges that Kerry is "wrong on defense" despite facts showing the opposite.) Bush Sr. v. Clinton was a one-way slime machine, but Clinton didn't respond in kind and won. Dole was a gentleman through and through. Then Bush jr. and his goring of Gore, and now his underhanded and dishonest attacks on Kerry. Much like the Johnson "flower-girl" commercial, but much much worse.

Frater Bovious said...

Gack. I hesitate to enter into this. BUT, Kerry's Vietnam record is not playing out to anyone's favor at this point. It has become a huge distraction, and pulled useful debating braincells away from things that matter.

Frankly, I think he made a mistake trying to package his war service into this. (Let's not pretend it wasn't on purpose: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!") His handlers evidently thought Bush was vulnerable in the area of military service, and that Kerry's service would establish credibility and support his intent to be Commander in Chief.

It was a misfire.

And instead of clearing the chamber, it seems he keeps trying to pull the trigger.

riceburner147 said...

I didnt know there were Viet Cong Republicans.

ALa said...

If you think that the Clinton/ Bush Sr. campaign was a one way dirty campaign we have more problems than I thought...and you need to read "All's Fair: Love, War and Running for President" by James Carville and Mary Matalin. GREAT book by the way- a MUST READ. Each incident/campaign happening presented from both sides and shows what a truly good person Bush Sr. was and what a cad Clinton was from the begining -also very interesting insights into Perot. You get an inside glimpse into Dick Morris, James Carville and George Stephanopolis' shady politics... No one can say it isn't 'Fair & Balanced' as Carville is Clinton's biggest cheerleader.

Bigandmean said...

TWD, Lefty and Tom,
The name calling and insults remind me of recess when I was in the 6th grade. All the pubesant boys would hurl challenges, insults and the vilest names they knew at each other. I never said much. I just waited until somebody hurled one of those at me and then I beat the crap out of them.

Frater Bovious said...

Hah. Bigandmean, you crack me up. I guess actions do speak louder than words!!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD, funny you should mention Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam, when today we have Kerry showering us with his plan to end the Iraq conflict in a way which MUST be secret, because the paucity of elements he's disclosed has thus far made no sense whatsoever, and is so void of substance as to be considered either illusory or, well... secret.

He says he will bring "Europe" into Iraq. Well, as mentioned by this article we're commenting on, that could only mean either France or Germany, or to drag Spain back in. And none of the nations have admitted any willingness whatsoever to budge in their refusal to participate in freeing Iraq from its present state, beset by terrorists and Iranian insurgent elements. So, does Kerry have a SECRET PLAN for bringing France and Germany, and possibly Spain, (back) into Iraq?

In June he claimed he would never have turned Iraq back over to the Iraqis the way Bush "foolishly" did on June 28th. So is there, in his mind, some way of ending an unpopular occupation without taking any steps whatsoever toward returning sovereignty to the Iraqis? Would this mysterious plan be, dare we say, "SECRET"?

Since Kerry apparently loves to slur details of his own service with those gleaned from the film "Apocalypse Now" (claiming to have gone into Cambodia on the orders of Richard Nixon who wasn't even President at the time he claimed to have gone there), perhaps he is drawing upon the wisdom of another film, "Blackhawk Down", for ideas on how to get the U.S. military out of the bogged down situation they're in today: just call in the U.N. tanks and everything's gonna be alright.

Well, your U.N. tanks aren't exactly sitting at the airport raring to go. They are nowhere, in fact. Unless, that is, Kerry's privy to some secret units thereof.

Maybe he keeps that secret plan in the same briefcase in which he keeps his magic CIA hat.

redleg said...

Wow, such vitriol...

I have read Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971. And TWD is right, he did not lie to Congress. He also did not tell the whole truth. Perhaps that was not his job, it was Congress' job to get to the truth. No issues there. But when I take Kerry on the whole I see a man who has said and will say anything a particular audience wishes to hear in order to get what he wants. Hence the numerous flip-flops. When you lie to yourself so often, when does it stop being a lie? I think he believes what he says which is very scary to me. I take the Bush Administration and listen to what they say and on the whole they do it. They said in 2002 that they would remove Saddam Hussein by January 2005 because they could not trust another Administration to do it. They did it. They liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq and made the world a better place. TWD doesn't believe so, but I do. I have seen the good we do, the media simply doesn't report the good news. Call this a lie, but the news media is either not willing or unable to report on the news the US Military is doing. There are setbacks and violence everyday, but you never get to hear the good news. I have seen this for a fact. Again, my informed opinion.

What I ask is for everyone to register to vote and examine your candidates carefully and vote on their merits to you, your family, your community and your country. I don't care who you vote for, but lets stop tearing ourselves apart when we should be focusing on how to take the enemy down.. and that enemy is fundamentalist Islamic Extremists in terror organizations that mean all of us harm...

"We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by deemanding redress of political grievances, but it's hostility towards us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluaralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral Damage (intalics in original) is not in its lexicon."
xvi, 9/11 Commission report

vote on that, stop voting on Vietnam.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom said...

redleg said:

"I have read Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971. And TWD is right, he did not lie to Congress. He also did not tell the whole truth."

Oh, yes, he did tell the "whole truth", unfortunately it was his falsified version of it.

I understand everyone's desire to humor TWD's Clintonian nonsense about what constitutes a lie and what is the truth because no one wants to be responsible for his going off the deep end. But I would like for all of the married guys out there to imagine a scenario where their wives come home very late one night after being out with their friends.

"So, where'd you go?" you ask.

Your wife responds with the name of some club or another.

"Oh, did you have a good time?"

"Yeah."

And all is right with the world.

Until you find out through some slip up or another that she met some guy at that club she named in answer to your question and went to his apartment.

Just remember, she didn't "lie" to you. She just didn't tell "the whole truth."

Sheesh. You can thank lawyers for this bullshit.

Tom said...

ALa71:

I think it's the self delusion that makes liberals so dangerous.

TWD actually believes he " addressed the 'Cambodia' thing on another post' and demonstrated conclusively that Kerry "has not 'admitted' to anything." Anything, presumably means that Kerry was not in Cambodia on Chirstma Eve 1968 or any other time under any circumstances. What slips TWD's mind is that Kerry does not have to "admit" to having made it up. It's pretty well been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt until Kerry provides the evidence he was there. Even two of the Viet Nam buddies he's exploiting in the campaign trail contradict his stories in this regard.

But TWD once once again convinces himself that he's made something untrue true.

One can hear the steel balls clacking in TWD's hand: "Ahh, but the strawberries, that's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist. And I'd a produced that key if they hadn't pulled the Caine out of action. I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer..."

Of course he doesn't want to get "sidetracked" here and run the risk of someone else destroying his nonseniscal sohpistry.

Now, we're back to Kerry's fradulent charges (i.e., lies) under oath in 1971.

"My point about Tom is that he made a charge about the 1971 testimony and I asked him to show me where Kerry lied that day."

Wrong. I made the charge that he "lied" AND paraphrased the specific lie.

"I wanted to pin him down..."

Which there was no need to do because I had already stated the charge: Kerry falsey claimed that atrocities were committed by the US military in Viet Nam as a matter of policy. In the original paraphrase, I said that he claimed "as a rule" atrocities were committed.

"I've noticed his tactic of repeatedly telling only part of a story, making a charge and moving on before a correction can be made, and then later repeating the same charges."

If there's anything anyone has noticed, it's that you can't read.

"He could not show me where Kerry lied in his Senate testimony, he merely made other charges.'

Wrong. Once I realized you were so literal minded - any other idiot already knows that the biggest lie Kerry told as mouthpiece for VVATW was that atrocities were general among the military and a matter of policy -I found the exact quotes.

"He never got back to me until much, much later, and then his 'proof' of Kerry lying in 1971 was recycled and already-disproven canards."

Wrong again. Neither you nor anyone else has disproven them, which is why Kerry now backpedals from them himself, as evidenced by the April 18th 2004 Meet The Press interview where he could not say, "Tim, I stand behind every charge I made that day and every other day I protested the war."

"I'm not even saying Kerry was right in 1971. I'm simply saying he did not lie..."

Yes, he did. He told you himself in the quoted interview, you moron.

Follow this along:

He testified under oath in 1971. Every oath asks you sewar that the testimony you are about to give is the "whole" truth, you ass (did you get your law degree or the internet, or what?). Some thirty-five years later, Kerry says on national television that not everything he swore was true was true. He therefore lied.

"...regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our involvement in Vietnam he did not lie to the Senate in 1971."

Yes he did, particularly about atrocities as a matter of policy, which I demonstrated.

"Perhaps Kerry lied every day, every single time he opened his mouth, both before and after that day. Maybe the only time he ever told the truth his entire life was that day in 1971. That wasn't the point."

You're right (for once), that isn't the point, and no one ever raised such a point.

"I was asking Tom to show me where Kerry lied in his 1971 Senate testimony..."

I did.

"...and then we can move on to other charges, taking them one by one."

You couldn't even handle that one.

"Tom could not do so and yet has not said he was misinformed, mistaken, or exaggerated to make a point."

Because I wasn't and didn't.

"He merely repeats the charge - shown to be false."

Not by you and certainly not by Kerry himself.

"That is dishonest."

But testifying under oath that atrocities were the rule, not the exception, in Viet Nam, using hearsay provided by "witnesses" who lie about ever having served in combat or even in Nam, then testifying without any proof whatsoever that any and all atrocities were committed with the full knowledge and approval of the entire chain of command is "honesty" and telling the "truth". And you wonder why you and other liberals are a laughing stock among thinking persons.

"... appears so partisan that he thinks it is ok to lie in order to win an election - or so partisan that he simply thinks all 'libs as he calls me lie every time they speak."

No, I don't think you're a liar. Stupid? Definitely. Not a liar.

"I don't expect you to understand 'hearsay' the same way that Tom, apparently an attorney, does. What Kerry testified to was hearsay - and it was totally 'admissible' before the Senate ... [Kerry] made sure to inform the Senate that he was recounting what others had said, not that he was recounting firsthand what he himself had done. There is nothing wrong with that at all."

You really are an idiot, and what's worse, you're a pedantic one. Now you want to engage in the classic Clintonian hairsplitting between "perjury", "lying under oath" and "lying". And please spare us what you learned in Evidence class. No one was claiming that BECAUSE it was hearsay, Kerry lied. Much of the hearsay was lies - that's been proven. He admitted it himself in the Meet The Press Interview. But it's not the individual incidents that Kerry is accused of lying about, fool,it's the sweeping accusation that those individual incidents were REPRESENTATIVE of the general conduct of the entire US militatry in Viet Nam and that the conduct was condoned throughout the chain of command. He did not know this for a fact, had no evidence of this, yet testified to it under oath as a self-appointed spokesperson for this group.

Tell you what, moron, tell the cops that so and so is a child molester, he told you himself, but he did it with the full knowledge and approval of the victim's parents. They're arrested and tried. The story, for which you were the source, hits the newspapers and TV. It goes national. They're acquitted. They sue you for slander/libel.

Their attorney will make you look like an ass (which wouldn't be difficult, anyway) when you try to clam as a defense:

"Well, so-and-so told me and I believed him."

"But you did not KNOW for a fact it was true when you spread the story, did you?"

"Well, no."

"You did not make any attempt to verify the truth of the matter before you made the accusation publicly, did you?"

"Well, no."

"Thank you, Mr. Idiot, would you like to settle the case now?"

So, doofus, it doesn't matter if Kerry says he is "repeating" what others told him. He was complicit in making spurious public accusations against the entire military and its chain of command. No one is talking about the individuals who lied about committing the particular atrocities he recounted; the fact he repeated those without verifying that the men telling them had ever served merely shows how stupid he is (though most everyone suspects, probably rightly, that he did know and didn't care). But he publicly indicts others on the basis of that hearsay when he had no independent or firsthand knowledge of what "everyone" in the military did. That my friend, is a reckless disregard for the truth. I call a reckless disregard for the truth a "lie". Kerry's a lying son of a bitch who publicly besmirched the reputations of honorable servicemen with no evidence whatsoever.

You don't like my use of the word 'lie' as shorthand for reckless disregard for the truth? Up yours. Find the evidence of that Kerry testified truthfully - that atrocities were the rule in Viet Nam and condoned by the entire chain of command.

Then go back to law school. Or get your money back, because you got screwed, pal.

Tom said...

Guess leftyjones's party ran late. Or he's a two-finger typist.

Tom said...

Frater Bovious:

You're absolutely correct. No one is disputing that the Viet Nam 'thang' is occupying an inordinate amount of time. But Kerry's only partly to blame. The real fault lies with Clinton/McAuliffe and the DNC. They're the ones who thought they could exploit Bush's non-Viet Nam service in a headlong rush to co-opt the national security issue from Republicans, figuring his runnng mate (it turned out to be Edwards, but could have been anyone) and other Democrat mouthpieces would handle the domestic issues that play so well with the dumb asses that make up the party's base. Kerry, who's never had a single original idea in his own life, only followed their lead. But what the hell else could he do? His Senate record is nothing to brag about and having been Michael Dukakis's Lt. governor doesn't bolster his resume.

this we'll defend said...

Hey Tom: TYAAPA.

For those not TOM: You can disagree with Kerry about Vietnam and think he was wrong in the conclusions he drew in 1971, but read it for yourselves because Tom's an ass.

this we'll defend said...

Oh, and the "quoted interview on Meet the PRess you Moron" where Kerry "admitted" lying again reveals Tom's lack of respect for the truth. C'mon, Tom, no "Clintonesque" out for you - show us where Kerry admitted he lied, as opposed to saying he was proud of what he said but would have chosen his words more carefully (big differenc, don't you think? Oh, you don't think.)

My next challenge to TYAAPA: show me where Kerry "admitted" lying on Meet the Press. You are 0 for 1 so far, guy, so maybe you can even it up. Good luck with that. Readers will be interested to see you take his quotes out of context and put a "clintonesque" spin on it, and see me put them back in context and give them their plain meaning - like I did with Kerry's 1971 testimony. And you say I'm "clintonesque." Haha.

As for those republicans who disagree with Kerry such as Bigandmean and ALa71, it is interesting to me that you can do so without LYING like Tom. He weakens your party's case just like nutbags like Ted Rall weaken the left's case. I don't group you with TYAAPA, I simply think you disagree with me and that you have valid reasons for doing so. I don't need to make you out a liar to disagree with you. The right is not my enemy and I can admit to good things coming out of both parties. Tom, of course, can not. Cause TYAAPA!

this we'll defend said...

"It's pretty well been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt until Kerry provides the evidence he was there."

Wow, I missed this before. And this is from a LAWYER. And he asks me what law school I went to? Well, a pretty damn good one if national rankings mean anything. But I know lawyers who are BRILLIANT that went to unranked schools, so it shouldn't really matter where I went to school but instead what should matter is the content of my message and my analytical reasoning ability. Perhaps in your country-club world you judge people by what school they went to or who their parents are, or how much money they have, but I'm a lefty lib, remember? Equality and all that?

Is this the way our system works, that the accused are proven guilty unless they can prove innocence? That whenever charges are made by a partisan group that a lack of proof convicts?

Hey Tom, you were in Cambodia with Kerry on a secret mission and you defected and secretly collaborated with the communists. Prove me wrong. You can't? You must have done it then, commie.

This is fun. I hope those who see me taking the "low road" with Tom realize it is just personal between us. I respect those who don't appear to be fanatically blind. I should just ignore Tom but this is fun. I hope he's enraged.

redleg said...

TWD and Tom

I read the testimony of Kerry testifying in 1971. It isn't lying if he believed this to be true. He obviously does. I know he didn't say anything that wasn't immediately available in most of the press and public perception. If I'm ignorant or have another opinion it does not mean I am lying. Again, I believe Kerry will tell you anything you wish to hear as long as it gets him what he wants. I think his actions after leaving Vietnam impeach his credibility, as well as many other actions. But he didn't lie. Cambodia may be another story. Again, I think he believes it be true. Neither is relevant except as to how it shapes my opinion of his character.

TWD- I believe your viewpoints are valid and you hold them dearly and defend them well. I also think you are completely wrong about your candidate. But that is your decision to make as a American. As you have done through your career and I mine, I continue to stand by your right to do so and will die if necessary to protect them (though I would prefer not to if given the choice).

Tom-- man, give me a break. I am beginning to believe what TWD is saying about you.

Tom said...

TWD:

It has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Kerry was not in Cambodia. You haven't refuted that, your irrelevant rambling about law school notwithstanding.

"Is this the way our system works, that the accused are proven guilty unless they can prove innocence?"

No. He's claimed he was Cambodia. He's been asked to prove he was in Cambodia. Where does guilt or innocence in a criminal sense come in?

I'm beginning to doubt you went to law school at all.

"That whenever charges are made by a partisan group that a lack of proof convicts?"

Again, you're idiotically conflating politics with criminal law.

"Hey Tom, you were in Cambodia with Kerry on a secret mission and you defected and secretly collaborated with the communists. Prove me wrong. You can't? You must have done it then, commie."

What an asshole. Now you're confusing an accusation against someone else with a first-person assertion. No one has "accused" Kerry of going into Cambodia; he has asserted he went there under a certain set of circumstances. No one is asking Kerry to prove he "wasn't" there, but that he was there.

It must really be getting to you that you're out of your league here, friend. You're really getting sloppy.


"This is fun."

I'm certainly glad about that. I'd hate to think you were embarassing yourself for nothing.

"I should just ignore Tom but this is fun."

Methinks the lady doth protest too much about that.

"I hope he's enraged."

Uh, yeah. Sure.

Now that you got that off your chest, demonstrate what was true about Kerry's 1971 accusations against the US military.

redleg said...

TWD and Tom

I read the testimony of Kerry testifying in 1971. It isn't lying if he believed this to be true. He obviously does. I know he didn't say anything that wasn't immediately available in most of the press and public perception. If I'm ignorant or have another opinion it does not mean I am lying. Again, I believe Kerry will tell you anything you wish to hear as long as it gets him what he wants. I think his actions after leaving Vietnam impeach his credibility, as well as many other actions. But he didn't lie. Cambodia may be another story. Again, I think he believes it be true. Neither is relevant except as to how it shapes my opinion of his character.

TWD- I believe your viewpoints are valid and you hold them dearly and defend them well. I also think you are completely wrong about your candidate. But that is your decision to make as a American. As you have done through your career and I mine, I continue to stand by your right to do so and will die if necessary to protect them (though I would prefer not to if given the choice).

Tom-- man, give me a break. I am beginning to believe what TWD is saying about you.

MrMalcolm said...

Ok, you two need to be spanked. I think you should spank each other and let the rest of us watch. I read parts of this to Rowena and he (yes he) gagged. He was turned off by the name calling and insults but told me, in his special kitty language, that he might be interested in getting spanked.

Tom said...

Oh, since TWD raised the issue yet again, from the April 18th interview with the Conqueror of Southeast Asia on Meet the Press ...

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the Winter Soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY: Actually, A LOT OF THEM have been documented.

[Let's pause here. Note in his testimony before Congress, he purports to be telling the "whole" truth. Now he's saying that back in 1971, a portion was true.
Let's move on ...]

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: A LOT of those stories have been documented....

[Emphasis added. Same note as above. And does he say, "Yes, I stand by that." Let's see...]

SEN Kerry: Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim.

["Sure I didn't tell the whole truth, Tim. I went before the Senate and threw all of the shit against the wall I could and hoped some of it stuck." Notice we're not told which stories WERE documented, primarily because NONE of the so-called soldiers was willing to testify personally or swear out an affidavit under penalty of perjury. Quite differerent from the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, don't you think? But I digress. Does he stand by it? Let's continue ...]

SEN KERRY: The problem is that's not where the focus should have been.

[Oh, really? You go before the senate to testify about atrocities in Viet Nam, but the focus should not have been on atrocities? Or perhaps you're saying that the focus should not be on whether what you said in 1971 was true. Then we're to presume you do not stand by your statementsback then. Let's continue ...]

SEN KERRY: And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--

[Of not what, Senator, telling the whole truth? Let's continue, shall we ...]

SEN KERRY: I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently.

[A is angry with B and, based on what C tells him, publicly accuses B of a crime. It is subsequently demonstrated that C lied, B did not commit the crime. A exonnerates himself by saying, "Well, I was angry. Maybe I should have framed some of that differently." Of course TWD, being the literal minded liberal nincompoop he is, can't understand that Kerry is telling him here: that he knowingly went half-cocked into the Senate in 1971, not armed with knowledge of the facts, but with blind anger. Has he told us yet he stands by eveything he testified to? Let's continue ...]

SEN KERRY: Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up.

[I'm sorry, but his posture wasn't really part of the question was it? I mean, when you go into court to testify to the facts of a crime, no one is really concerned with your feelings for the criminal justice system. Kerry is asked if he stands by the facts he testified to before the Senate. He says he's proud he stood up, presumably against the war. Was that the question? I don't think so.]

SEN KERRY: I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.

[Uh, Senator, we are talking about a specific time, when you testified ... Oh, never mind.

In other words, Senator, you do not stand behind everything you testified to in 1971. As amatter of fact, only part of your testimony before the Senate was true. You were more motivated by anger than a grasp of the facts. And you knew that at the time. And you didn't care at the time. You lied, but the ends justified the means.

We've been through this with the morally bankrupt left before. Tedious, isn't it?]

leftyjones said...

Plucky Tom,
It's nice to see you were waiting for me this morning. How thoughtful. If I didn't know better, I'd begin to speculate that you have a crush on me....or at least I would have until I saw your "If I argue nonsensibly with everything TWD says maybe it will cover the fact that I have a deep abiding love for him"
TWD...all he's really trying to say through all of this is.....You Complete Him.

Anyway, I didn't want to leave you hanging so here are the answers you've been pacing around waiting for.

1. I only made a Bush/guard- Kerry/Vietnam reference in the first place to respond to Ala71's wacky comment: "You say that you will “wage war with the lessons that you learned in war”…if this means that you will cut off heads, ears, and that you will put radio wires on genitals, kill babies and burn down villages..."
My response was to play around with the idea that Bush would wage war with the lessons he learned in the guard....take a lot of vactions. And he has.

2.A. I can make any comparison I want between Bush and Kerry's attendance record. He's the President of the United States. He better damn well have a more impressive attendance record than one individual Senator. You may have forgotten that there are 535 legislators and one executive. So Execute.

B. Don't be stupid. I'm well aware that Bush in his day has the advantage of technology over Lincoln in his. That's got nothing to do with being at work. Am I supposed to feel like we're getting his full attention because somewhere nearby he has a laptop he can e-mail from? Of course Bush also has the ability to be notified of danger to America in a moments notice.....in which case he can jump on a plane and nervously run from Airbase to Airbase. Lincoln wasn't so lucky, he had an actual army camped across the river and yet he stayed in Washington. That is, when he wasn't visiting with his generals on the front lines.
You're right...it is kinda silly comparing the two men.
Bush just suffers from shrinkage.
However, if you'd like to argue that Bush can and does govern effectively with all of his technology, might I suggest that he give up campaigning personally as well. He can just use e-mail and media. Or even in this day and age is there something to be said for being there??

3. You said, "If you want to compare Bush's "attendance" record with Kerry's, calculate how many NSC/cabinet meetings/intelligence briefings the president missed as a result of his being away from the WH with the number of committee meetings/briefings/votes/floor debates Kerry missed as a result of his absenteeism."

This is even dumber. Let's assume Bush never missed a briefing. Maybe we should calculate the cost of the all of the collective members of the ranking official entourage that are required to travel with Mr. I just like the title of President....not the job.

Let's assume that Kerry showed up for 50% of his meetings in the last ten years. If true, this would mean that Massachusettes residents lost representation on those specific votes and those specific issues.

If the President is home watching cartoons, 100% of the American people lose their executive representation for every minute of his loafing around. Again, I have no problem with time off but if you want to take a third or more of the year off, don't insult the people by being an aggressive everyday campaigner. Practice that "moral conviction" you claim to have.....and quit your day job.

this we'll defend said...

MrMalcolm - LOL.

Redleg- you are a gentleman. I have good friends voting for Mr. Bush, and good friends voting for Sen. Kerry. Those voting for Bush have good reasons to do so (don't want taxes increased, want less govt regulation, hate the UN, etc.). Those voting for Kerry have good reasons for doing so (would rather raise taxes and pay off the national debt instead of billing our children, think govt oversight has turned into a corporate free-for-all, like international cooperation over unilateralism, etc.) Who is right? It is a matter of opinion, not truth. I think they are all honorable and truthful people.

Now that Tom has been discredited, let's be fair to the right. There are accusations against Bush that are simply unjust.

One is that he was AWOL from the National Guard. Again, no proof is offered, just that he can't prove otherwise. It is just as wrong against Mr. Bush as against Sen. Kerry. Here is the story: George W. was assigned temporarily to the Alabama Guard so that he could work on a political campaign there (again showing he wasn't a shiftless layabout but instead was always involved in politics). He can't provide "proof" that he made all his weekend drills. That is enough for some on the right to charge "AWOL." And that is dishonest. AWOL is a criminal charge, and it is undisputed that he was never charged with such an offense. Today if a Guardsman misses a drill there are consequences. If the case was different and it was okay to miss drills back then and others did so frequently, why claim Bush was doing something "illegal" or "deserting" when the Guard itself didn't care or charge him with an offense, or even ask him to make up his "lost time?" Because again some people are so partisan that they will do anything to discredit their opponent, even twist the truth. So even if W missed some drills the Guard never charged him with anything and thus by definition he was not guilty of AWOL.

AND - he can provide evidence of his drilling with the TX guard before his temporary duty in Alabama. His attendance was above average there. If we view his guard service as a whole it appears he attended at least as often as Guardsmen did, even if we assume he never drilled in Alabama.

George W. Bush was not AWOL from the Guard. It is a false charge and everybody should say so. I'm not voting Bush, but I don't need to accuse him of AWOL to convince others to vote Kerry.

leftyjones said...

Oh....Bigandmean,
Was I really just scolded and compared to a sixth grader and a pubescent by a man who just the day before was making fun of my wife???
I was going to kick down some Matthew 7:3 at you but we all know it would hurt my standing as a lefty....THE Lefty if I smote you with scripture.

this we'll defend said...

How Clintonesque of you Tom.

If some of the accounts Kerry based his testimony to the Senate upon, that he said were the words of other people, turn out to not be true (and not all of them, since many were well-documented) then Kerry is a liar - even though his testimony wouldn't have to change even after the false accounts are removed from the equation because enough of the accounts were "well-documented" to support his assertions.

And he admits that some of the accounts were discredited, but not all of them. And that makes him a liar. Unusual logic don't you think?

Are you sure you went to law school, or are you pulling our leg? You commie.

TYAAPA.

Tom said...

redleg:

"I read the testimony of Kerry testifying in 1971. It isn't lying if he believed this to be true."

The point is, unless he was certifiably nuts at the time, he couldn't "believe" that the stories of a handful of soldiers told during the bogus Winter Soldiers investigation indicated that atrocities were a matter of military policy to the extent that he could publicly make such an accusation. And when it comes to lying under oath, by the way, the defense, "Well, I believed it at the time" is not enough; you have to have a reasonable basis to believe what you believed.
No one as yet can demonstrate what reasonable basis Kerry relied on to accuse the military of committing atrocities as a rule in Viet Nam. He had no evidence.

I haven't said he committed legal perjury, which TWD is trying to use as a fallback position. He lied in that he publicly accused (under oath just makes it worse, as it did with Clinton) the military of commiting atrocities in Viet Nam as a general policy when he knew at the time he had no evidence to support such an accusation. And his convoluted, evasive response to the direct question put to him by Russert in regard to everything he said back then demonstrates that he knew at the time he was playing politics and not interested in the facts.

Tom said...

TWD:

"If some of the accounts Kerry based his testimony to the Senate upon, that he said were the words of other people, turn out to not be true (and not all of them, since many were well-documented) then Kerry is a liar - even though his testimony wouldn't have to change even after the false accounts are removed from the equation because enough of the accounts were "well-documented" to support his assertions. And he admits that some of the accounts were discredited, but not all of them. And that makes him a liar. Unusual logic don't you think?"

Is English your fifth language? Are you quoting some doctrine?

Oh, well ...

It would appear that you have absolutely no grasp of what your responsibilities are when it comes to giving truthful testimony. I'll pay Kerry one compliment: He knows now, and he knew it then, which is why he gave Russert that convoluted answer to a direct question.

Kerry, as self-appointed spokesperson for VVATW and the bogus winter soldiers didn't purport to tell the Senate and the American people only that it was true that he was relating hearsay. What dope would want to stand behind that? He was claiming that everything they told him was true. All of it. He took it upon himself to speak for someone else, as their surrogate. He was advocating to the Senate and the American people the truth of what those soldiers told him. That means it was incumbent upon him to test the veracity of what they had told him. He knowingly entered that chamber and related as true numerous stories that he himself did not know to be true.

Where in his Senate testimony did he offer the disclaimer that some, most or all of what he was telling everyone "might not be true"? THAT would have faciliated his anti-American group fulfilling its objectives.

In representing that all of what he was testifying to was true, the revelation of any part of it to be untrue makes him a liar.

You like conflating what is legal with what is moral or ethical. Perhaps in your law school correspondence courses you came across the false in one false in all doctrine, which states that when a witness is found to have lied in any material part of his testimony, then all of his testimony can be discounted as untrustworthy?

Congratulations on your hat trick, TWD, you are intellectually, legally AND ethically challenged.

Tom said...

leftyjones:

1. My response to your response still holds. She was correct, not wacky. Kerry set the terms of the argument. Something you can't seem to grasp.

2. "I can make any comparison I want between Bush and Kerry's attendance record."

You can be as wrong as you want to be and draw silly anlogies as often as you like. Who said you can't?

"He's the President of the United States. He better damn well have a more impressive attendance record than one individual Senator. You may have forgotten that there are 535 legislators and one executive. So Execute."

No, I haven't forgotten. I just don't make a habit out of stating irrelevancies as "arguments". The issue is has the executive in question been able to "execute" from anywhere, particularly with modern technology? The answer is yes. Has the legislator in question been able to legislate outside of the legislature? Doesn't look that way.

What are we up to? Oh ...

3. "Don't be stupid. I'm well aware that Bush in his day has the advantage of technology over Lincoln in his."

Hey, you brung it up.

"That's got nothing to do with being at work."

No, it's not supposed to. It has to do with "performing" the job. In the executive branch, is it inextricably tied to physical presence in the White House? If it is, that means the President isn't working when he travels overseas to visit with his foreign counterparts. Clinton did this more than many modern Presidents. Guess he was "absent" from his job a lot of the time?

Give up yet?

"Am I supposed to feel like we're getting his full attention because somewhere nearby he has a laptop he can e-mail from? Of course Bush also has the ability to be notified of danger to America in a moments notice.....in which case he can jump on a plane and nervously run from Airbase to Airbase. Lincoln wasn't so lucky, he had an actual army camped across the river and yet he stayed in Washington. That is, when he wasn't visiting with his generals on the front lines.
You're right...it is kinda silly comparing the two men.
Bush just suffers from shrinkage."

I'm sorry, but are all of these non sequitors leading somewhere?

"However, if you'd like to argue that Bush can and does govern effectively with all of his technology, might I suggest that he give up campaigning personally as well. He can just use e-mail and media. Or even in this day and age is there something to be said for being there??"

Now, you really sound ridiculous. Campaigning is an entirely different dynamic. But since you brought this silliness up as well ... The executive can still do what he has to do from the campaign trail. Can the legislator?

3. I said , "If you want to compare Bush's "attendance" record with Kerry's, calculate how many NSC/cabinet meetings/intelligence briefings the president missed as a result of his being away from the WH with the number of committee meetings/briefings/votes/floor debates Kerry missed as a result of his absenteeism."

You said, "This is even dumber. Let's assume Bush never missed a briefing. Maybe we should calculate the cost of the all of the collective members of the ranking official entourage that are required to travel with Mr. I just like the title of President....not the job."

Oh. Nothing like switching the terms of your own losing argument. We're no longer talking about effectiveness vis a vis physically sitting in the White House, but the cost of not sitting in the WH.

"Let's assume that Kerry showed up for 50% of his meetings in the last ten years."

No, let's say you show me where Kerry did his job AWAY from the legislature vs. Bush doing his job away from the White house.

The rest of what you say in that paragraph doesn't even work as a good hypothetical.

"Again, I have no problem with time off ..."

Show where Bush's time away from the WH was "time off" comparable to Kerry's time away from capitol in so far as Bush did not perform executive duties.

A little hint for your next attempt at arguing a position:

Start with a premise.

Between you and TWD, this like swatting flies.

Tom said...

this we'll defend said:

"I don't think there is anything wrong with [Kerry runningo on his Viet Nam Record], especially since national security is Bush's biggest lead area. I also don't think there is anything wrong with Bush running on his '"war presidency' or on the 'lessons of 9/11.' It is ordinary politics to play to your strengths and attack your opponent's weaknesses."

So, if Kerry's perceived weakness is his Viet Nam record, which includes his anti-American/anti-war activities, it's okay? Obviously, because you go on to say ....

"That is how it should be. For those that it turns off, he loses a vote. For those that think veteran's status says something about leadership and patriotism, especially if it occurred while others sought personal safety in Canada, or in the Guard, he gains a vote."

In other words, if the Democrats can try to paint Bush as a coward ("others sought personal safety in ... the Guard") then the Republicans can try to paint Kerry as an anti-American.

"But attacking your opponent with dishonesty is, well, dishonest."

And who arbitrates what is dishonest and what is honest? You.

"Which is why I hate it when dems claim W was AWOL."

Sure, especially when claiming he was a coward seeking "personal safety in the Guard" should do the trick.

Tell us, though, without the name calling: Who decides what his "honest" and what is "dishonest"? We're really curious about that.

leftyjones said...

Plucky Tom,
I understand now. You didn't mention that you live in a world where everything that you cannot answer is chalked up as "irrelevancy and silliness". Had you done so, I wouldn't have wasted my arguing with you. I would have been more sympathetic. I would have suggested you get more sleep and remember to take your meds.
In high school I had to do a service project in a home where a number of people had lost their grip on reality. They would think I was their long lost son, they would pet cats that weren't there, argue in a completely unintelligible style and giggle with glee when they thought they had won. Some were just angry....angry at everyone, all the time. There was even one man who spent the better part of the day swatting at flies that weren't there......but he was sure he got them. I felt bad for them. I tried to be more compassionate. If it took pretending I was their son, I didn't argue and sometimes it seemed to make them happier. There was not much else I could do but listen and sometimes listening soothed some anger and seemed to help in some small way. It wasn't the most pleasant of jobs but I learned a great deal from it and I definitely learned some valuable lessons about dealing with people who weren't able to be rational.
You just do the best you can to be encouraging and you hope that each day is better than the last.
And so, I'd like to wish the same for you Tom and when you have a clearer day, we can talk some more.

Have a great weekend Tom, you sure have swatted a lot of flies today......but then, you swat a lot of flies every day, don't you?

Tom said...

Ah, those pesky facts, facts, facts:

"The story of his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia is one that Kerry has told on many occasions over the years. He invoked the story in 1979 in the course of his review of the movie "Apocalypse Now" for the Boston Herald. Most recently, Kerry told the story -- with remarkable embellishments involving a CIA man who gave him his favorite hat -- last year on separate occasions to reporters Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post and Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe.

"Certain elements of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story were incredible on their face. Kerry attributed responsibility for his illegal 1968 mission to Richard Nixon, despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was president at the time. The Khmer Rouge who allegedly shot at Kerry during his "secret" mission did not take the field until 1972.

"Moreover, there is no record that Swift boats -- the kind of boat under Kerry's command -- were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. Their size and noise make them unlikely candidates for such missions. Indeed, the authorized biographer of Kerry's Vietnam service -- historian Douglas Brinkley -- omits from his book, 'Tour of Duty,' any mention of a covert cross-border mission to Cambodia during Kerry's service.

"Over the past few weeks, the Christmas in Cambodia tale, a keystone of John Kerry's Vietnam autobiography, has been revealed to be fraudulent. On Christmas 1968, Kerry was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia, in an area from which the Cambodian border was inaccessible.

"Last week, after the falsity of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia account became public, the Kerry campaign issued a statement 'correcting' the story. According to the Kerry campaign, the mission referred to took place in January 1969, when Kerry 'inadvertently or responsibly' crossed the border into Cambodia. However, three of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates have denied entering Cambodia at any time, and no one has corroborated Kerry's claim.

"The suggestion that Kerry may have 'inadvertently' strayed into Cambodia -- leaving aside whether that was even possible -- constitutes a complete retreat from the point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the president lied about having sent American troops into Cambodia. And, of course, it contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man to Cambodia."

Note that Kerry himself didn't say he lied. His campaign office did. TWD can vote for him in good conscience.

Tom said...

leftyjones:

And a good weekend to you, too. You can let me know what your premise is whenever it's convenient.

Tom said...

Lefty:

I feel bad. I have to help you out.

You originally stated that George Bush should not criticize John Kerry's absenteeism from the Senate when he himself has spent a lot of time in Crawford (and presumably Camp David) on "vacation". It's pretty well understood (again, by anyone with an IQ above room temperature) that "vacation" is this case means away from the White House and Washington, DC.

Okay. From your perspective, you know that, "Tsk, darn it, there's just something wrong with Bush being away from the White House so frequently. There's, tsk, gosh darn it, something similar to Kerry's absenteeism in that. Tsk, darn it, what is it?"

Now the bulb goes off over your head:

"Wait! If Bush has no right criticizing Kerry, I have to show that Bush is not performing as chief executive when he is out of the WH to an extent similar to Kerry not performing as senator when he is away from the capitol. How can I do that, I wonder? Compare Bush with Abe Licoln? Nah. I know, obfuscate by asking what if Kerry was doing his job at least half the time and Bush was watching cartoons. Nah, that doesn't make any sense. How do I do it?"

You're on your own from here, guy.

this we'll defend said...

Tom, you really should take your meds as Lefty advised. You are descending into madness.

You say:
"No one as yet can demonstrate what reasonable basis Kerry relied on to accuse the military of committing atrocities as a rule in Viet Nam. He had no evidence."

Except he did, as I've pointed out. You "conveniently" ignore the citations, non-partisan websites, and Army records I discussed. You conclude that "much evidence" is equal to "no evidence." Take your meds, man. They'll help you.

this we'll defend said...

This is a gem:

Tom said "I think it's the self delusion that makes liberals so dangerous."

Hmmm....

redleg said...

All right. I admit it, I can't get anyone to stop talking about Vietnam. Can we talk about his record in 1982 or something? Please?

If I believed something to be true in 1971 and testified in Congress to what I knew for whatever purpose and then found out that some of my facts were wrong later (or much later) does that mean I lied to Congress in 1971. I don't think so. I don't like his motives but continuing to insist he lied when he didn't paints you as much a partisan ass as the dems who continue to insist President Bush lied to get us into war in Iraq. It just ain't true. I already know Kerry flip flops on issues and inconvienant facts. Give me more recent examples than 36 years ago rather than old war stories.

ALa said...

My dog peed on my rug while I was out today...It is 93 degrees and about 100% humidity in Philly and THIS has to be the day that she has an accident...I must go steam clean...oh, this wasn't what we were talking about?
Phew...is that the pee or the testosterone....

redleg said...

Thank You Ala71, returning some civility to your blog!

redleg said...

I just posted MG Brady's commentary on my blog so I suggest we read that too and let Ala71 get some rest. Sounds like the boys had a good play-date...

this we'll defend said...

Redleg, to show you how mature I am - Tom started it.

:)

ALa said...

TWD - I love it when that humor sneaks through!

Frater Bovious said...

I would like to irrationally extract from all the above the issue of the vacationing Bush and make this comment:

I submit that the office of the president is largely wherever the president happens to be. As noted above by TWC, there is one executive, and 535 legislatures. The president doesn't have to convene in any particular place. Wherever he is, he is convened. That is part of holding the position of authority, duty, etc., that is the "office of the president".

The issue of Lincoln and Bush, and who stayed where is of course totally apples and oranges, as TWD more or less said. But, Lincoln staying in the White House may have been safer than trying to travel under the conditions of the day, especially since the Confederacy lacked any 767s to fly into the White House.

this we'll defend said...

Frater, I've said before that a vacation week of a president (any president) would be more work than most people ever ever do in a normal work week. It is a false issue accusing Bush of laying down on the job with no basis. We should'nt judge a president by how much time he spends in the office but by how effective he is. It isn't an hourly wage job. It is salaried. When you have a salaried employee they should set their own hours and be held responsible for results - if they work 1/10th as much as the next guy, but get better results, then they deserve praise and who cares how much time they spent?

Of course I think Bush's results are the worst of any president in history, but his work ethic is not to be doubted.

redleg said...

TWD...well argued as always..... Wrong, as always but no one can say you didn't try. And I think Tom is trying to bait someone into a debate.

Frater Bovious said...

Tom... Bait... Debate? No way!