OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Yep... instead of god being on our side, I think I'd
rather be on god's side. Besides, she's cute.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:41:06 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Joe the humanitarian....

I think the term they use these days is "compassionate conservative":)


.... some democrats that I see are.

K-mart wearin, Welfare cheese eating, Koolaid drinking, baby
murdering, Tax Rasing, Hanoi Jane lovin, UN controlled, Barbra S.
listening, prison populating, Al Sharpton Jessie & Micheal Jackson
worshiping, unemployable, beggin, welfare check cashing, food stamp
spending, VW, yugo driving, tree huggin, French smellin, gay
supporting, project or trailor living, crack addicted, flag burning,
un-educated, lazy good for nothing protestors that rather spit on a
sailor, that support him. Poopin babies out as fast as they can to
increase the welfare check so they can buy more crack.


Joe

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:07:07 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

It might seem like it, but it isn't or at least if it is, the
sour grapes are factual.

In fairness, we should consider the facts presented by Bush & Cheney
before drawing a conclusion.

Oh, wait. They reluctantly agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission
only if they could appear together, not under oath, in private with no
transcript or record of what they said. Now that inspires confidence.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

On 3 Aug 2004 15:54:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:39:35 GMT, felton said:


Thanks. As I suspected there were no facts there to back up your
claims. The Republicans *claim* his stories differed, the Democrats
say they don't, the Republicans don't want to declassify the reports
or charge him with perjury, but we are supposed to take their word for
it that it happened.

I've read that US reading skills have deteriorated badly, buy I would have
thought you went through the system earlier.

Which part of this first sentence of the AP report do you not understand:

I believe I understood the report quite well. Your charge that Clarke
told two different stories, both under oath, is supported by a *claim*
by Republicans Frist and Hastert. At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury. Democrats who attended both the public and the nonpublic
testimony of Clarke contend there was no substantive difference.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

"Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former
counterterrorism official Richard Clarke,..."

....so they say. Why don't they?


And which part of this are you having problems comprehending:

"Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want to make public
Clarke's classified testimony in July 2002 before a joint House-Senate
intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Ray Charles could have seen through that. If Clarke gave
substantially different testimony, on the record and under oath, then
we would have had something other than a Frist/Hastert press
conference. I am certain that this administration would love nothing
better than to discredit Clarke, but they haven't because they
can't....not because they have chosen not to.

I am surprised that you are so gullible.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

He's not gulible... he's just stoooopid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Aug 2004 15:54:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:39:35 GMT, felton said:


Thanks. As I suspected there were no facts there to back up your
claims. The Republicans *claim* his stories differed, the Democrats
say they don't, the Republicans don't want to declassify the reports
or charge him with perjury, but we are supposed to take their word for
it that it happened.

I've read that US reading skills have deteriorated badly, buy I would
have
thought you went through the system earlier.

Which part of this first sentence of the AP report do you not understand:

I believe I understood the report quite well. Your charge that Clarke
told two different stories, both under oath, is supported by a *claim*
by Republicans Frist and Hastert. At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury. Democrats who attended both the public and the nonpublic
testimony of Clarke contend there was no substantive difference.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

"Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former
counterterrorism official Richard Clarke,..."

...so they say. Why don't they?


And which part of this are you having problems comprehending:

"Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want to make public
Clarke's classified testimony in July 2002 before a joint House-Senate
intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Ray Charles could have seen through that. If Clarke gave
substantially different testimony, on the record and under oath, then
we would have had something other than a Frist/Hastert press
conference. I am certain that this administration would love nothing
better than to discredit Clarke, but they haven't because they
can't....not because they have chosen not to.

I am surprised that you are so gullible.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

So convenient that you didn't bother reading the rest of the
article... It was pretty balanced I thought....
To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or
contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week,"
said Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence
Committee, also wants to see more information disclosed. She said that
includes 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's report addressing the
involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers -
an item of dispute with the Bush administration.

"This is selective declassification, in my view, and it is all about
discrediting an administration critic," Harman said.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:09:42 GMT, felton said:

At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

Lessee:

"Goss [Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said he ...... plans
to
request the declassification in case a need for public hearings or other
disclosure arises."

and

"The allegations against him [Clark] could linger for weeks as the
declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure
sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most
protected
are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence."

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

Lessee here. You figure that because the votes are there they'll just vote
on the matter without any particular study of just what it is they're
releasing. And you find it outrageous that with the evidence still
classified Frist isn't yet ready to label one of Clark's two versions of
the
facts perjury. But with the evidence still classified you are in a
position
to conclude, on the basis of one Democrat's "best recollection," that
there
exists not a scintilla of evidence of a fib. I get it.

OT DAVE IS AN IDIOT
 

Gee, that was easy!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:37:41 GMT, felton said:

Well, it is a bit tiring when anyone strays from the party line we see
the same tactics time and again.

Yes. I've pointed this out several times in relation to certain of the
posts
here. Tactic 1: the gratuitous insult. Tactic 2: call the speaker names.
Tactic 3: try to change the subject.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

On 3 Aug 2004 16:32:16 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:09:42 GMT, felton said:

At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

Lessee:

"Goss [Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said he ...... plans to
request the declassification in case a need for public hearings or other
disclosure arises."

and

"The allegations against him [Clark] could linger for weeks as the
declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure
sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most protected
are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence."

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

Lessee here. You figure that because the votes are there they'll just vote
on the matter without any particular study of just what it is they're
releasing. And you find it outrageous that with the evidence still
classified Frist isn't yet ready to label one of Clark's two versions of the
facts perjury. But with the evidence still classified you are in a position
to conclude, on the basis of one Democrat's "best recollection," that there
exists not a scintilla of evidence of a fib. I get it.

I am just a bit surprised that without *any* evidence you have already
drawn your conclusion that the charges *alleged* by Frist and Hastert
are anything other than political damage control. You appear to find
it plausible that Clarke would commit perjury, on the record and under
oath in order to sell his book. That would seem to be the easiest
thing to prove, and yet there is NO proof.

So I guess it makes sense to you to just accept their charges as fact
and sit patiently by waiting for things to play out. How long do you
think that might take? Late November? I really have to shake my head
that people just accept what they are told with absolutely no support
offered.

Having read the book and listened to his sworn testimony, I'll accept
what he said over Frist and Hastert until proven otherwise. Let me
know when you have anything other than a smear campaign to back the
version you choose to believe.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:00:22 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

He's not gulible... he's just stoooopid.

I was being compassionate:)

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Perhaps the President and Vice President have
classified information they don't want on the
record. I can think of several things that if revealed
would compromise our intelligence gathering
capabilities.

Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical
of President Bush. Perhaps Clinton is aware of these
same factors.

"felton" wrote

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:07:07 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

It might seem like it, but it isn't or at least if it is, the
sour grapes are factual.

In fairness, we should consider the facts presented by Bush & Cheney
before drawing a conclusion.

Oh, wait. They reluctantly agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission
only if they could appear together, not under oath, in private with no
transcript or record of what they said. Now that inspires confidence.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

So, what you're saying is that you only listen to the Republican
point of view. This is pretty typical of a right-wing freakazoid.
Thanks for clarifying for us.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:02:00 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

So convenient that you didn't bother reading the rest of the
article...

I read it, but discounted the Dems' obvious efforts to put their spin on
the
facts.

Of course if I'd adopted your usual tactics I'd simply have yelled "Clark
lied."

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

And, Bush/Chumpy refused to testify under oath at all... gee, I wonder
why.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:06:02 GMT, felton said:

I'll accept
what he said over Frist and Hastert until proven otherwise.

How can you say that? Clark didn't pass the truth-telling test--he didn't
wag his finger when he testified. g At least not when he testified to
the
public version.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Yes, a liberal weakness... :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:00:22 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

He's not gulible... he's just stoooopid.

I was being compassionate:)

OT Dave is a poodle
 

Woof doggie.... SIT STAY!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
The subject says it all.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Please do not presume to compliment Clinton. You
are not qualified. Bush/Chumpy are terrified to testify
under oath...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Perhaps the President and Vice President have
classified information they don't want on the
record. I can think of several things that if revealed
would compromise our intelligence gathering
capabilities.

Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical
of President Bush. Perhaps Clinton is aware of these
same factors.

"felton" wrote

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:07:07 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

It might seem like it, but it isn't or at least if it is, the
sour grapes are factual.

In fairness, we should consider the facts presented by Bush & Cheney
before drawing a conclusion.

Oh, wait. They reluctantly agreed to meet with the 9/11 Commission
only if they could appear together, not under oath, in private with no
transcript or record of what they said. Now that inspires confidence.

OT Dave is a poodle
 

Poodles are the second smartest breed of dog after the border collie....you
probably thought you were insulting him when in actuality you were calling
him a genius by doggie standards....now get back to your catnip and
yarn...meow....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:32:34 +0000, Bart Senior wrote:


Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical of President Bush.
Perhaps Clinton is aware of these same factors.

Clinton may not be "critical" of President Bush, but there are areas of
disagreement.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._el_pr/clinton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun19.html

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Bart Senior wrote:
Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical
of President Bush. Perhaps Clinton is aware of these
same factors.

Considering your opinion of Clinton, that should be a strike against Bush.

Anyway, you're back in the area of "maybes" and "possibles" and "we
don't know." When committing the nation to a major war, and killing tens
of thousands of people including 1,000 American servicemen & women
killed and over 10,000 maimed, I don't consider "maybe" to be good
enough. I am rather surprised that you do.

Are Bush & Cheney keeping a BIG secret that would endanger the nation?
IMHO it's likely that their big secret is that they are afraid they
don't stand a chance of getting reelected if they admit the truth.

DSK

OT Dave is a poodle
 

I know, I figured he deserves to be a genius in at least one category.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katysails" wrote in message
...
Poodles are the second smartest breed of dog after the border
collie....you
probably thought you were insulting him when in actuality you were calling
him a genius by doggie standards....now get back to your catnip and
yarn...meow....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

I can gurantee that many intelligence assets in
available to the presidents through the National
Command Authorities will never be revealed to
the public for the reason I mentioned. Because
it would compromise the source and render it
less effective in the future.

There is no maybe in this, except in your mind.
Just because I offered it as a suggestion doesn't
make it less valid.

"DSK" wrote

Bart Senior wrote:
Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical
of President Bush. Perhaps Clinton is aware of these
same factors.

Considering your opinion of Clinton, that should be a strike against Bush.

Anyway, you're back in the area of "maybes" and "possibles" and "we
don't know." When committing the nation to a major war, and killing tens
of thousands of people including 1,000 American servicemen & women
killed and over 10,000 maimed, I don't consider "maybe" to be good
enough. I am rather surprised that you do.

Are Bush & Cheney keeping a BIG secret that would endanger the nation?
IMHO it's likely that their big secret is that they are afraid they
don't stand a chance of getting reelected if they admit the truth.

DSK

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

Where were these guys during the primary?
Why is their group a 527 organization, a blatant partisan format?
If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Answer: this group is a shill for Bush, bought and paid for by pro-Bush
interests & contributors. It is exactly parallel to the wild insults &
accusations being flung at Howard Dean when *he* was the presumptive
Democrat nominee. For that matter, it's the same as the smear campaign
aimed at John McCain during the 2000 election.

For some people, hate sells. It's the one lesson Bush & Cheney (but
mostly Karl Rove) has learned well.

Looking over the Swift Vets web site, very few of the comments are about
Kerry's performance or character. They mostly focus on how outraged they
were at Kerry protesting the war.

DSK

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:43:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

Where were these guys during the primary?
Why is their group a 527 organization, a blatant partisan format?
If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Answer: this group is a shill for Bush, bought and paid for by pro-Bush
interests & contributors. It is exactly parallel to the wild insults &
accusations being flung at Howard Dean when *he* was the presumptive
Democrat nominee. For that matter, it's the same as the smear campaign
aimed at John McCain during the 2000 election.

For some people, hate sells. It's the one lesson Bush & Cheney (but
mostly Karl Rove) has learned well.

Looking over the Swift Vets web site, very few of the comments are about
Kerry's performance or character. They mostly focus on how outraged they
were at Kerry protesting the war.

DSK

Well said. I think the following link sheds a bit more light on the
subject...

http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504


The republican attack machine has been working overtime trying
everything they can to discredit Kerry on the issue of service. I
wonder why?:)

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Bart Senior wrote:
Keep in mind, President Clinton has not be critical
of President Bush. ....

That is simply untrue. In a TV interview, Clinton did a tongue-in-cheek
display of sympathy for Bush saying things like "I feel his pain (laughter).
I know how bad you can feel when your mistakes get fellow Americans killed."
But when asked if he could ever vote for Bush he replied "NO! He has ruined
the American Economy! .... etc"

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Doggie Dave is blind as well as stooopid....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:43:58 -0400, DSK said:

Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

So you have no evidence whatever for the claim. Just your own unsupported
speculation.

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

felton wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:41:06 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Joe the humanitarian....

I think the term they use these days is "compassionate conservative":)


There are some Republicans who are just as bad, but not as many and
nowhere near as loud-mouthed about it.

I do consider myself a "compassionate conservative".

I will help anyone that will put in the time and effort required to
succeed, if your a freeloader with no goals....... then I have better
things to do.

Some people will never change.

Joe









.... some democrats that I see are.

K-mart wearin, Welfare cheese eating, Koolaid drinking, baby
murdering, Tax Rasing, Hanoi Jane lovin, UN controlled, Barbra S.
listening, prison populating, Al Sharpton Jessie & Micheal Jackson
worshiping, unemployable, beggin, welfare check cashing, food stamp
spending, VW, yugo driving, tree huggin, French smellin, gay
supporting, project or trailor living, crack addicted, flag burning,
un-educated, lazy good for nothing protestors that rather spit on a
sailor, that support him. Poopin babies out as fast as they can to
increase the welfare check so they can buy more crack.


Joe

OT Bush Boozed while good men died
 

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a
former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry
(news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged
the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.


"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an
interview .....

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the
veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's
swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a
Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates
support the candidate and call him a hero.

OT Bush Boozed while good men died
 

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:41:23 -0400, "Vito" wrote:

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a
former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry
(news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged
the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.


"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an
interview .....

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the
veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's
swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a
Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates
support the candidate and call him a hero.


It is disgusting. As I mentioned in a previous post, these are the
same sorts of attacks that were unleashed on John McCain last time
around. I guess the only reason they do them is because they work
among the weak minded and unprincipled.

The Swiftboats attack group is the same guy that the Nixon Whitehouse
recruited for the task back in 1971 with the "Viet Nam Veterans for a
Just Peace." John O'Neill, the strawman for this ongoing smear group,
wasn't even in Viet Nam when Kerry was and didn't meet him until they
appeared on the Dick Cavett Show after the war.

Now they want us to disregard Kerry's fitness reports and the
experiences of those who actually served *with* him and put great
weight in the opinions of those who never met him. No thanks.

Kerry enlisted, volunteered and went. Enough said.

OT Bush Boozed while good men died
 

It is getting nasty and dirty!!!!

"Vito" wrote in message
...
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a
former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry
(news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and
urged
the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.


"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an
interview .....

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the
veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's
swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a
Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates
support the candidate and call him a hero.

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

"DSK" wrote
Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Bush didn't lie about his record. Bush didn't write himself up
for decoration he didn't deserve. Kerry did.

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus. Everyone gets outstanding
reports. If you don't it's a career killer. In the case
of junior officers, these are typical reports for everyone.
Chances are Kerry wrote his own fitness reports
because his supervisors didn't have the time, nor did
they likely feel such junior officer reports mattered.

"felton" wrote

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:43:58 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

Where were these guys during the primary?
Why is their group a 527 organization, a blatant partisan format?
If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Answer: this group is a shill for Bush, bought and paid for by pro-Bush
interests & contributors. It is exactly parallel to the wild insults &
accusations being flung at Howard Dean when *he* was the presumptive
Democrat nominee. For that matter, it's the same as the smear campaign
aimed at John McCain during the 2000 election.

For some people, hate sells. It's the one lesson Bush & Cheney (but
mostly Karl Rove) has learned well.

Looking over the Swift Vets web site, very few of the comments are about
Kerry's performance or character. They mostly focus on how outraged they
were at Kerry protesting the war.

DSK

Well said. I think the following link sheds a bit more light on the
subject...

http://www.mattgunn.com/#swiftboat50504


The republican attack machine has been working overtime trying
everything they can to discredit Kerry on the issue of service. I
wonder why?:)

OT Kerry lied while good men died
 

Yeah right... like Carl Rove? Like Ashcroft who annointed
himself with oil? Like Wolfy and Pearl? A compassionate
conservative racist... now there's a concept.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
felton wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:41:06 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Joe the humanitarian....

I think the term they use these days is "compassionate conservative":)


There are some Republicans who are just as bad, but not as many and
nowhere near as loud-mouthed about it.

I do consider myself a "compassionate conservative".

I will help anyone that will put in the time and effort required to
succeed, if your a freeloader with no goals....... then I have better
things to do.

Some people will never change.

Joe









.... some democrats that I see are.

K-mart wearin, Welfare cheese eating, Koolaid drinking, baby
murdering, Tax Rasing, Hanoi Jane lovin, UN controlled, Barbra S.
listening, prison populating, Al Sharpton Jessie & Micheal Jackson
worshiping, unemployable, beggin, welfare check cashing, food stamp
spending, VW, yugo driving, tree huggin, French smellin, gay
supporting, project or trailor living, crack addicted, flag burning,
un-educated, lazy good for nothing protestors that rather spit on a
sailor, that support him. Poopin babies out as fast as they can to
increase the welfare check so they can buy more crack.


Joe

OT Bush Boozed while good men died
 

Attacks from GWB on McCain... let's not forget that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:41:23 -0400, "Vito" wrote:

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a
former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry
(news - web sites)'s military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and
urged
the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.


"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an
interview .....

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the
veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's
swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a
Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates
support the candidate and call him a hero.


It is disgusting. As I mentioned in a previous post, these are the
same sorts of attacks that were unleashed on John McCain last time
around. I guess the only reason they do them is because they work
among the weak minded and unprincipled.

The Swiftboats attack group is the same guy that the Nixon Whitehouse
recruited for the task back in 1971 with the "Viet Nam Veterans for a
Just Peace." John O'Neill, the strawman for this ongoing smear group,
wasn't even in Viet Nam when Kerry was and didn't meet him until they
appeared on the Dick Cavett Show after the war.

Now they want us to disregard Kerry's fitness reports and the
experiences of those who actually served *with* him and put great
weight in the opinions of those who never met him. No thanks.

Kerry enlisted, volunteered and went. Enough said.

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

He did and has lied about his record. He's done that
by omission. He has never yet said why he didn't show
for his physical. Cheney didn't lie about his lack of
military experience though. He said he had other priorities.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
et...

"DSK" wrote
Dave wrote:
I still await an answer.

So am I.

If they are so interested in being "fair and balanced" then why are they
not looking into President Bush's military record?

Bush didn't lie about his record. Bush didn't write himself up
for decoration he didn't deserve. Kerry did.

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Bart Senior wrote:
Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus.

That's mostly true. Officers fitreps especially tend to be overblown. My
Navy evals would lead one to believe that I could leap tall buildings
and walk on water.

However, it doesn't change the fact that these guys are changing their
story. If Kerry was unfit for command, then he could have gotten 3.5
evals and no commendable remarks. Instead he got very high marks and
some definite statements about his performance. Now they are changing
the story.

Either the Swift Vets were lying about Kerry then, or lying now. Either
way they are liars.

Oh wait, that would make them liberals, right??

DSK

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Doug,

Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

First. Who are they? Some are superior officers in his
chain of command. They may have been writing about
his potential, not his abilty. And we allready discussed
the inflated performance reporting system. You must
realize that the way to get promoted to high rank is by
impressing your superiors, not strictly by your performance
report. There are code words used in performance
reports to convey the persons real ability.

I'd be willing to bet that most performance reports were
firewalled, for any officer, during that period. So his
performance reports were meaningless. And, as I said
before, he probably wrote them himself.

One clue on an officer real performance would be who
signed the endorsements, particularly the final endorsement
on his performance reports.

I haven't check that yet. I'm not sure what performance
reports looked like in those days. Perhaps someone who
was an officer during Vietnam can clue us in. It will be
interesting to see who signed them. If Kerry really did walk
on water, there would be 0-6 endorsements or perhaps even
O-7's (rear Admirals) as final endorser's.

If they were endorsed by an O-4 or O-5, Lt Cmdr, or
Commander that would signify he was not a golden boy, and
the performance report was average.

Also, I'd guess, but I don't know for certain, that anyone
serving in a war zone would get glowing performance reports
for a moral builder for the person endorsed. It seems the
least you can do for a person in harms way is to give them
a good rating.

Second, most of the people who wrote negative things about
Kerry were enlisted men, or not in his chain of command,
like the doctor that treated him. You can't say they lied
then, because there is nothing to back that up. The doctor
in particular is a credible source since he is not registered
with either political party. I'd take his testimony as significant.

What all these people say now, is more likely true than false.
Some could be lying, some could be angry at what Kerry did
after he got out. Perhaps they are coming forward now
because they did not know until recently that he only served
four months over there. That would anger many veterans. It
****ed me off when I heard it.

You have to admit that serving four months and bugging out
is not the act of a hero. It is the act of a self-serving coward.

I know many Vietnam vets. I wrote about my friend Bill who
still carries a bullet in his spine picked up in his second tour of
duty. I wrote about Col Jim Flemming, a medal of honor
winner who discounts his heroism and instead talks about the
four tour of service man he rescued. These men are real heros.

John F. Kerry might have set a record for least time served in
Vietnam. It seems clear this among other things angered many
Vietnam Vets.


"DSK" wrote

Bart Senior wrote:
Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus.

That's mostly true. Officers fitreps especially tend to be overblown. My
Navy evals would lead one to believe that I could leap tall buildings
and walk on water.

However, it doesn't change the fact that these guys are changing their
story. If Kerry was unfit for command, then he could have gotten 3.5
evals and no commendable remarks. Instead he got very high marks and
some definite statements about his performance. Now they are changing
the story.

Either the Swift Vets were lying about Kerry then, or lying now. Either
way they are liars.

Oh wait, that would make them liberals, right??

DSK

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Right, but everyone new about Gore. Bush claimed lots
of stuff, but still hasn't told us why he didn't show up for
his physical.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:27:43 GMT, "Bart Senior"
said:

John F. Kerry might have set a record for least time served in
Vietnam.

I dunno about that. If I remember right that cushy job Gore's father
arranged for him, sitting in Saigon and writing stories under the
protective
wing of a general, was of about that same length before Gore pulled out
and
came home.

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Bart Senior wrote:
Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

No, it is a tautology.

The same men say two opposite things. There is a 30 year interval, sure,
but that does not change the nature of their statements. Either they
were lying then, or lying now.

They *must* be liberals, Bart!

DSK

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Read it again Doug, only some of the men wrote his
performance reports. And you admited yourself the
performance reporting system was inflated.

"DSK" wrote
Bart Senior wrote:
Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

No, it is a tautology.

The same men say two opposite things. There is a 30 year interval, sure,
but that does not change the nature of their statements. Either they
were lying then, or lying now.

They *must* be liberals, Bart!

DSK

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

He *must* be a liberal or the homosexuals got to him.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:27:43 GMT, "Bart Senior"
wrote:

Doug,

Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

First. Who are they? Some are superior officers in his
chain of command.

You mean like Kerry's C.O., Lieutenant George Elliot?


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...cism_of_kerry/

An excerpt:

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former
commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant
Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a
''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did
not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the
book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry
group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in
Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was
never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in
the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong
soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of
events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry
critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's
crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the
affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It
was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with
those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

Bart Senior wrote:
Read it again Doug, only some of the men wrote his
performance reports.

Ok, some of them were lying then, or lying now.

... And you admited yourself the
performance reporting system was inflated.

Yes it was, and probably still is. However there is a HUGE difference, a
fundamental difference, between inflated reports and what they are now
saying about Kerry. A difference so monumental that they were either
lying then, or lying now.

In short: lies , more lies, and more liars. If Bush & Cheney are so
great, then why does their support rest on such a foundation of falsehood?

DSK

A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets.
--Arthur C. Clarke

Hey Doug, where's the beef?
 

I could say the same about Kerry and F-911.

"DSK" wrote

In short: lies , more lies, and more liars. If Bush & Cheney are so
great, then why does their support rest on such a foundation of falsehood?