Fox News
 

My remark:

Bush's supporters
will all agree that debating Kerry is "beneath" Bush, anyway, and applaud
the
refusal.

Was followed by:

Good idea, Chuck. I think Bush *would* be lowering himself to get on a stage
with Kerry.

Thanks for supporting my opinion, John. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
My remark:

Bush's supporters
will all agree that debating Kerry is "beneath" Bush, anyway, and applaud
the
refusal.

Was followed by:

Good idea, Chuck. I think Bush *would* be lowering himself to get on a
stage
with Kerry.

Thanks for supporting my opinion, John. :-)

Seems you came back from vacation with your shorts in a knot and a bruised
ego Chuck. Chill.

Do you think his statements accusing soldiers of widespread atrocities helped
the attitudes of the people at home?


Do you think that isolating a portion of a person's testimony, out of context,
and feigning blindness or indifference toward the balance helps you appreciate
the truth?

Gould 0738 wrote:

Do you think his statements accusing soldiers of widespread atrocities helped
the attitudes of the people at home?


Do you think that isolating a portion of a person's testimony, out of context,
and feigning blindness or indifference toward the balance helps you appreciate
the truth?


Speaking of the attitudes of people at home, it is important for
political and military leaders to speak the absolute truth to the people
on all matters, but especially on those of war, when their sons and
daughters might be sent to foreign lands to fight and die.

Too bad the Bush Administration has nothing in it but liars.

--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Do you think his statements accusing soldiers of widespread atrocities
helped
the attitudes of the people at home?


Do you think that isolating a portion of a person's testimony, out of
context,
and feigning blindness or indifference toward the balance helps you
appreciate
the truth?

How so? Here is the testimony:
----------------

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several
months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes
committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on
a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command.
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the
emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of
what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut
off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned
up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians,
razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs
for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of
South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and
very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this
country.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3875422

Gould,

Kerry was forced into going to Viet Nam like most of the people over there.
He did everything he could think of to get out of Viet Nam, like most of
those drafted. Unlike most draftee's, he succeeded in getting out in 4
months. More power to him, I would have done the same thing.

But don't ask for a deferment to go to Paris, file for 4 purple hearts after
receiving minor cuts and then claim to be a war hero. He was an average GI,
doing the best he could in a terrible war, when he came home, he was against
the war, stated their was wide spread atrocities and he was guilty of
committing them the atrocities. That is his right as an American citizen,
but considering these facts, he should run on his record of the past 20 yrs.
and not make his 4 month military record a center piece of his campaign.

Kerry bought this upon himself, when he tried to make himself out as a war
hero, which is a gross distortion of the facts.




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Do you think his statements accusing soldiers of widespread atrocities
helped
the attitudes of the people at home?


Do you think that isolating a portion of a person's testimony, out of
context,
and feigning blindness or indifference toward the balance helps you
appreciate
the truth?

Kerry was forced into going to Viet Nam like most of the people over there.
He did everything he could think of to get out of Viet Nam, like most of
those drafted.

Kerry volunteered.


Unlike most draftee's, he succeeded in getting out in 4
months.

He wasn't a draftee.
He served 16 months in Viet Nam. One 12-month tour and 4 months of a second
tour. How many people volunteered for a second tour or served any portion of
one?

Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believe them.



But don't ask for a deferment to go to Paris, file for 4 purple hearts after
receiving minor cuts and then claim to be a war hero.

Wasn't it three purple hearts? And a Bronze Star. And a Silver Star.

BTW, any soldier qualifies for the purple heart if he or she suffers any combat
related injury, (has to be caused directly by enemy action), if that combat
related injury requires medical attention. There doesn't even need to be a loss
of blood. Broken bones and contusions count. If you get nicked in the arm and
need two or three stitches to sew it up, that meets the
qualification for purple heart.

The only "heroism" attached to Kerry's record was fishing Rassman out of the
river.

Kerry bought this upon himself, when he tried to make himself out as a war
hero, which is a gross distortion of the facts.

Absolutely a critical campaign mistake.
It lets the Repubs shift the focus to arguing about things that happened 35
years ago rather than taking a hard look at what's going on today. *Exactly*
the break a failing administration needed.

Gould,
Kerry enlisted in the Navy to get out of being drafted into the army. He
requested a 2S deferment, was denied and chose the Navy as a better
alternative to the army.

I do appreciate the correction concerning this first term of duty, I was not
aware of that. The question I have is if he spent 12 months in VN, he knew
we were burning villages, raping the population, killing innocent people,
and committing extreme atrocities and war crimes, why did he volunteer for a
term of duty?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Kerry was forced into going to Viet Nam like most of the people over
there.
He did everything he could think of to get out of Viet Nam, like most of
those drafted.

Kerry volunteered.


Unlike most draftee's, he succeeded in getting out in 4
months.

He wasn't a draftee.
He served 16 months in Viet Nam. One 12-month tour and 4 months of a
second
tour. How many people volunteered for a second tour or served any portion
of
one?

Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and
over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believe them.



But don't ask for a deferment to go to Paris, file for 4 purple hearts
after
receiving minor cuts and then claim to be a war hero.

Wasn't it three purple hearts? And a Bronze Star. And a Silver Star.

BTW, any soldier qualifies for the purple heart if he or she suffers any
combat
related injury, (has to be caused directly by enemy action), if that
combat
related injury requires medical attention. There doesn't even need to be a
loss
of blood. Broken bones and contusions count. If you get nicked in the arm
and
need two or three stitches to sew it up, that meets the
qualification for purple heart.

The only "heroism" attached to Kerry's record was fishing Rassman out of
the
river.

Kerry bought this upon himself, when he tried to make himself out as a war
hero, which is a gross distortion of the facts.

Absolutely a critical campaign mistake.
It lets the Repubs shift the focus to arguing about things that happened
35
years ago rather than taking a hard look at what's going on today.
*Exactly*
the break a failing administration needed.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Kerry was forced into going to Viet Nam like most of the people over
there.
He did everything he could think of to get out of Viet Nam, like most of
those drafted.

Kerry volunteered.


Unlike most draftee's, he succeeded in getting out in 4
months.

He wasn't a draftee.
He served 16 months in Viet Nam. One 12-month tour and 4 months of a
second
tour. How many people volunteered for a second tour or served any portion
of
one?

The log book of the USS Gridely has been checked and it was in SEA for five
weeks during Kerry's 12 month tour on the ship. So, Kerry did not serve 16
monts in country.


Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and
over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believethem.

It appears that you are falling into the repeating of lies.



But don't ask for a deferment to go to Paris, file for 4 purple hearts
after
receiving minor cuts and then claim to be a war hero.

Wasn't it three purple hearts? And a Bronze Star. And a Silver Star.

For scratches and wounds due to Kerry's own incompetence.

BTW, any soldier qualifies for the purple heart if he or she suffers any
combat
related injury, (has to be caused directly by enemy action), if that
combat
related injury requires medical attention. There doesn't even need to be a
loss
of blood. Broken bones and contusions count. If you get nicked in the arm
and
need two or three stitches to sew it up, that meets the
qualification for purple heart.

You are correct. But, Kerry should be ashamed for asking for purple hearts
for scratches.

The only "heroism" attached to Kerry's record was fishing Rassman out of
the
river.

Kerry bought this upon himself, when he tried to make himself out as a
war
hero, which is a gross distortion of the facts.

Absolutely a critical campaign mistake.
It lets the Repubs shift the focus to arguing about things that happened
35
years ago rather than taking a hard look at what's going on today.
*Exactly*
the break a failing administration needed.

Maybe if Kerry had done more in the Senate he could run on that record.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:09:46 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


You are correct. But, Kerry should be ashamed for asking for purple hearts
for scratches.


As it is a two man race, it seems to me we should be comparing the two
candidates military records. I have found a site that does just that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/21/19216/5237

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:09:46 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


You are correct. But, Kerry should be ashamed for asking for purple
hearts
for scratches.


As it is a two man race, it seems to me we should be comparing the two
candidates military records. I have found a site that does just that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/21/19216/5237

Ok, lets compare accomplishments:

Pres. Bush was governor of Texas, elected and re-elected. And, Pres. Bush
was elected to be President of the US.

Kerry's executive management of large governmental organizations is what?

Gould,
Kerry enlisted in the Navy to get out of being drafted into the army. He
requested a 2S deferment, was denied and chose the Navy as a better
alternative to the army.

And therefore he was not a draftee.

One whole bunch of people opted to join the Coast Guard, the Navy, the Texas
Air National Guard, or etc to avoid trudging through tropical forests while
lugging heavy weapons.

One who volunteers, regardless of the motivation, is not a draftee.

I do appreciate the correction concerning this first term of duty, I was not
aware of that. The question I have is if he spent 12 months in VN, he knew
we were burning villages, raping the population, killing innocent people,
and committing extreme atrocities and war crimes, why did he volunteer for a
term of duty?

Who knows?

In December of 1968, we had 535,000 troops in Viet Nam.

Take any city of 1/2 million people. There are going to be a lot of bad actors.
If 98% of the troops observed the Geneva conventions, and 2% did not, that
means we had about 10,000 jerkoffs in country
who could very conceivably commit atrocities.

Did all, or most, of the guys in Viet Nam commit atrocities? Heck no, unless
you count war itself as an atrocity. Did some guys do every one of the things
that the Winter Soldiers testified about? Certainly.

Without getting bogged down in detail, one of the most lethal forces we had in
Viet Nam was the CIA.

We ran a program called "Phoenix" in Viet Nam, the Viet Namese called if Phung
Hoang. The Phung Hoang, like the Phoenix, was also a giant bird. The Phung
Hoang of legend would snatch people out of their beds at night, just like the
CIA.

"Phoenix" involved methods not in the least approved the Geneva conventions.
Our enlisted fround forces were often used as "muscle" by the CIA, with full
cooperation from the highest levels of command
..
Here's an excerpt from a book by a very highly decorated VN veteran. His
experience was not typical, but it does
add some credibility to stories about cutting off ears, etc.

"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like
you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go
into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half
the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team
would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he
could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him
through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.'
Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April
Fool, mother****er.' Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they
were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members.
Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."
-- Vincent Okamoto, combat officer (Lieutenant) in Vietnam in 1968, and
recipient of Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest award conferred by
the U.S. Army. Wounded 3 times. He was also an intelligence liaison officer for
the Phoenix Program for 2 months in 1968. Quote is from page 361 of the
hardback 2003 first edition of the book "Patriots: the Vietnam War remembered
from all sides."

The log book of the USS Gridely has been checked and it was in SEA for five
weeks during Kerry's 12 month tour on the ship. So, Kerry did not serve 16
monts in country.

Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and
over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believethem.

It appears that you are falling into the repeating of lies.

Excuse me!

The ship was at sea for five weeks out of a 52-week year. So he was five weeks
short of 16 months.

So, let's test truth here. Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and the rest of your
cheerleaders all keep repeating "four months in Viet Nam!"

I said 16 months, as he was on duty on a ship that was patrolling the coast of
Viet Nam for (most of) 12-months.

Right Wing Hate Radio Version: "Four months in Viet Nam"

Gould's Version: Sixteen months.

If we pick nits and subtract the five weeks the ship was at sea, we are still
left with
14 months, 3 weeks.

Who is making a better effort to be accurate?

Why should we be comparing their military records?

John H

Because you guys claim Kerry's makes him unqualified to hold office. That's
why.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The log book of the USS Gridely has been checked and it was in SEA for
five
weeks during Kerry's 12 month tour on the ship. So, Kerry did not serve 16
monts in country.

Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and
over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believethem.

It appears that you are falling into the repeating of lies.

Excuse me!

The ship was at sea for five weeks out of a 52-week year. So he was five
weeks
short of 16 months.

So, let's test truth here. Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and the rest of
your
cheerleaders all keep repeating "four months in Viet Nam!"

I said 16 months, as he was on duty on a ship that was patrolling the
coast of
Viet Nam for (most of) 12-months.

Right Wing Hate Radio Version: "Four months in Viet Nam"

Gould's Version: Sixteen months.

If we pick nits and subtract the five weeks the ship was at sea, we are
still
left with
14 months, 3 weeks.

Who is making a better effort to be accurate?



4 months, 14 months 24 months....who cares. What does it have to do with
Kerry being fit to be POTUS?

How about his 240 months in the senate? Why is this not more important?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The log book of the USS Gridely has been checked and it was in SEA for
five
weeks during Kerry's 12 month tour on the ship. So, Kerry did not serve
16
monts in country.

Just goes to prove that if enough people repeat the same lies over and
over,
pretty soon a great number of folks begin to believethem.

It appears that you are falling into the repeating of lies.

Excuse me!

I see that you don't know the difference between SEA and sea. SEA is South
East Asia and sea is water.

The ship was at sea for five weeks out of a 52-week year. So he was five
weeks
short of 16 months.

No, the ship was in SEA for five weeks of Kerry's 52 week tour.

So, let's test truth here. Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and the rest of
your
cheerleaders all keep repeating "four months in Viet Nam!"

You need to refer to Kerry's military history posted on Kerry's website.

I said 16 months, as he was on duty on a ship that was patrolling the
coast of
Viet Nam for (most of) 12-months.

Ships in that era did not patrol off the coast of anything for 12 mounts.
They usual tour of duty was 6 months or 9 months. With a six month crusie
the ship would leave port in May and return in November. It takes a while to
get from Hawaii or San Diego to SEA and there are ports of call and other
activities that you are involved in which limited your time on station off
the coast of North and South Vietnam.

Right Wing Hate Radio Version: "Four months in Viet Nam"

Gould's Version: Sixteen months.

If we pick nits and subtract the five weeks the ship was at sea, we are
still
left with
14 months, 3 weeks.

Your ignorance is showing.


Who is making a better effort to be accurate?

Not you. You have are picking and choosing the informaiton you want to
present.

4 months, 14 months 24 months....who cares. What does it have to do with
Kerry being fit to be POTUS?

How about his 240 months in the senate? Why is this not more important?

Ask your strategists. They chose, at the highest levels, (I did hear that
Bush's attorney had to step down due to conflict of interest when he was
serving as legal advisor to the Swift Boat crew), to attack Kerry' record in
Viet Nam moreso than his record in the Senate.

We said military service made Kerry unfit? No. He's a liar. Has nothing to do
with how he served.


There's a difference between somebody *claiming* you're a liar and being one.

If he were a liar, that would make him particularly qualified to be POTUS,
based on the last few examples- the last two in particular.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
4 months, 14 months 24 months....who cares. What does it have to do with
Kerry being fit to be POTUS?

How about his 240 months in the senate? Why is this not more important?

Ask your strategists.

*My* strategists?

They chose, at the highest levels, (I did hear that
Bush's attorney had to step down due to conflict of interest when he was
serving as legal advisor to the Swift Boat crew), to attack Kerry' record
in
Viet Nam moreso than his record in the Senate.

Kerry's strategists chose to make it the center of his campaign. The
opposition therefore has a right to question him on his claims.

You did not answer the question Gould. Why did Kerry choose not to focus on
his 240 months in the Senate? Certainly more relevant....wouldn't you
agree?

Gould,

You are missing the point, if Kerry endorses making his war hero record a
center point of his campaign he has to expect the opposition to take pot
shots at his record.

Kerry has not made his congressional record a center piece of his campaign,
because he does not believe the majority of American's would endorse his
voting record.

I have no problem with anything Kerry did in VN, but I do not believe he is
a war hero, he was a kid who took advantage of a loop hole (3 purple hearts)
to get out of VN. No big deal.




"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
4 months, 14 months 24 months....who cares. What does it have to do with
Kerry being fit to be POTUS?

How about his 240 months in the senate? Why is this not more important?

Ask your strategists. They chose, at the highest levels, (I did hear that
Bush's attorney had to step down due to conflict of interest when he was
serving as legal advisor to the Swift Boat crew), to attack Kerry' record
in
Viet Nam moreso than his record in the Senate.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:02:36 -0400, something compelled JohnH
, to say:

On 05 Sep 2004 08:00:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Why should we be comparing their military records?

John H

Because you guys claim Kerry's makes him unqualified to hold office. That's
why.

We said military service made Kerry unfit? No. He's a liar. Has nothing to do
with how he served.

*Kerry* said his military experience (all sixteen weeks of it)
made him fit for office. Upon inspection, that experience seems
to be largely manufactured, exaggerated, and false.

What has he done in the last ten years that shows he could handle
the job of president?
--

Remember that the First Amendment does not protect people from
being offended by your speech. In fact, it was written to protect
speech that is offensive.

Mike Adams - 27 Aug 04

Not knowing the history, I'm wondering if Kerry didn't jump on McCain's band
wagon knowing a good, safe, thing when he saw it.

John H

Learn the history. It won't affect your vote in November, but you will have a
better understanding of just who you're voting against. As you are a Viet Nam
veteran, I'm slightly surprised you weren't aware of the Kerry/McCain efforts
to get a more thorough accounting of our POW's. There's a lot more to John
Kerry than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh want you to know about.

None of us should ever fear the discovery of truth, even when it challenges
some of our preconceptions.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Not knowing the history, I'm wondering if Kerry didn't jump on McCain's
band
wagon knowing a good, safe, thing when he saw it.

John H

Learn the history. It won't affect your vote in November, but you will
have a
better understanding of just who you're voting against. As you are a Viet
Nam
veteran, I'm slightly surprised you weren't aware of the Kerry/McCain
efforts
to get a more thorough accounting of our POW's. There's a lot more to John
Kerry than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh want you to know about.

If was all a whitewash, to put the issue behind us. There are numerous vets
that feel the McCain and Kerry sold us out.

None of us should ever fear the discovery of truth, even when it
challenges
some of our preconceptions.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, again.

JohnH wrote:

On 05 Sep 2004 23:30:40 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Not knowing the history, I'm wondering if Kerry didn't jump on McCain's band
wagon knowing a good, safe, thing when he saw it.

John H

Learn the history. It won't affect your vote in November, but you will have a
better understanding of just who you're voting against. As you are a Viet Nam
veteran, I'm slightly surprised you weren't aware of the Kerry/McCain efforts
to get a more thorough accounting of our POW's. There's a lot more to John
Kerry than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh want you to know about.

None of us should ever fear the discovery of truth, even when it challenges
some of our preconceptions.


Well, I did come across this article. Does it portray the facts as you know
them?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why McCain defends Kerry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Why would John McCain characterize the SWIFT Boat vets commercial about John
Kerry as "dishonest and dishonorable"?

Why would he ask President Bush to denounce it?

Why would he say something similar was "pulled" on him when he seeking the
Republican presidential nomination in 2000?

Americans are supposed to respect Sen. John McCain because he is a war hero. But
is he? And why is he so determined to defend John Kerry's dishonorable
activities during and after the Vietnam War?

Now let me begin by saying McCain suffered greatly during his five years of
captivity in the "Hanoi Hilton." But his horrific experiences do not entitle him
to stretch the truth about his captivity at the hands of North Vietnamese
Communists, nor to deceive Americans about his bravery and heroism.

When the Navy pilot was shot down over a lake near Hanoi, his captors did not
know who he was – John McCain, son of the admiral in charge of the Pacific
fleet. McCain was seriously injured in his ejection and in need of medical
attention. In exchange for what passes as first-class care in Vietnam, McCain
talked. He told the North Vietnamese about his father. He told them about the
chain of command. He described himself as one of the "very best pilots" in the
Navy.

Such behavior by a POW is strictly frowned upon in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and the military code of conduct.

"OK," you say, "McCain should be given a pass for this because he was badly
hurt. Wasn't his behavior at the Hanoi Hilton honorable after he recovered from
his wounds?"

No, not exactly. While serving as a POW, McCain was one of the captives who
agreed to be used for propaganda purposes by the enemy. In fact, some argue that
an interview he gave to a communist publication – detailing an accident aboard
his ship, problems with low morale among U.S. servicemen, the chain of command
in the U.S. Navy and other pertinent information – went far beyond mere
propaganda and crossed the line into disclosing military intelligence secrets.

On June 5, 1969, the Washington Post carried a story titled, "Reds Say PW
Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral." The article states that, "Hanoi has aired a
broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm.
John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North
Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken
prisoner."

Worse yet, many years later, when both John McCain and John Kerry were serving
in the U.S. Senate, they teamed up to betray the families of the POWs and MIAs
in favor of sucking up to the murderous Communist Vietnamese regime.

More than any other two men in America, McCain and Kerry orchestrated the
cover-up of what became of our Vietnam POWs and MIAs.

As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW-MIA Affairs, Kerry gave Hanoi
a clean bill of health with regard to credible claims Vietnam was still holding
U.S. prisoners of war. Kerry ensured the committee voted that no U.S. servicemen
remained there, angering many families of missing servicemen.

McCain served along with Kerry on that committee. According to Ted Samply,
writing in the January 1997 issue of U.S. Veteran Dispatch, McCain enjoyed
dismal relations with many POW-MIA families and activists. McCain said some
harsh words about those who accused the U.S. government of knowingly leaving
POWs behind. In fact, he called such people "the most craven, most cynical and
most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." McCain's presence on the
committee and his willingness to go along with Kerry ensured that the final
report would be politically bulletproof.

Kerry got his reward. A year later, Hanoi announced it was awarding Colliers
International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop
its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the chief
executive officer of Colliers, was Kerry's cousin.

One wonders what McCain's reward might be? What was in the cover-up for him? Why
has he become an apologist for John Kerry's despicable and dishonorable record
in Vietnam and, worse, his actions afterward?

Maybe it's just something about the character of John McCain. Maybe birds of a
feather just flock together. Maybe this is why you should take anything McCain
says about Kerry with a grain of salt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Herring has a hard-on for McCain because deep in his heart, McCain knows
Bush is a worthless turd.

--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

On 05 Sep 2004 23:30:40 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Not knowing the history, I'm wondering if Kerry didn't jump on McCain's
band
wagon knowing a good, safe, thing when he saw it.

John H

Learn the history. It won't affect your vote in November, but you will
have a
better understanding of just who you're voting against. As you are a
Viet Nam
veteran, I'm slightly surprised you weren't aware of the Kerry/McCain
efforts
to get a more thorough accounting of our POW's. There's a lot more to
John
Kerry than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh want you to know about.

None of us should ever fear the discovery of truth, even when it
challenges
some of our preconceptions.


Well, I did come across this article. Does it portray the facts as you
know
them?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Why McCain defends Kerry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Posted: August 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Why would John McCain characterize the SWIFT Boat vets commercial about
John
Kerry as "dishonest and dishonorable"?

Why would he ask President Bush to denounce it?

Why would he say something similar was "pulled" on him when he seeking
the
Republican presidential nomination in 2000?

Americans are supposed to respect Sen. John McCain because he is a war
hero. But
is he? And why is he so determined to defend John Kerry's dishonorable
activities during and after the Vietnam War?

Now let me begin by saying McCain suffered greatly during his five years
of
captivity in the "Hanoi Hilton." But his horrific experiences do not
entitle him
to stretch the truth about his captivity at the hands of North
Vietnamese
Communists, nor to deceive Americans about his bravery and heroism.

When the Navy pilot was shot down over a lake near Hanoi, his captors
did not
know who he was – John McCain, son of the admiral in charge of the
Pacific
fleet. McCain was seriously injured in his ejection and in need of
medical
attention. In exchange for what passes as first-class care in Vietnam,
McCain
talked. He told the North Vietnamese about his father. He told them
about the
chain of command. He described himself as one of the "very best pilots"
in the
Navy.

Such behavior by a POW is strictly frowned upon in the Uniform Code of
Military
Justice and the military code of conduct.

"OK," you say, "McCain should be given a pass for this because he was
badly
hurt. Wasn't his behavior at the Hanoi Hilton honorable after he
recovered from
his wounds?"

No, not exactly. While serving as a POW, McCain was one of the captives
who
agreed to be used for propaganda purposes by the enemy. In fact, some
argue that
an interview he gave to a communist publication – detailing an accident
aboard
his ship, problems with low morale among U.S. servicemen, the chain of
command
in the U.S. Navy and other pertinent information – went far beyond mere
propaganda and crossed the line into disclosing military intelligence
secrets.

On June 5, 1969, the Washington Post carried a story titled, "Reds Say
PW
Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral." The article states that, "Hanoi has
aired a
broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the
Pacific, Adm.
John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in
North
Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken
prisoner."

Worse yet, many years later, when both John McCain and John Kerry were
serving
in the U.S. Senate, they teamed up to betray the families of the POWs
and MIAs
in favor of sucking up to the murderous Communist Vietnamese regime.

More than any other two men in America, McCain and Kerry orchestrated
the
cover-up of what became of our Vietnam POWs and MIAs.

As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW-MIA Affairs, Kerry
gave Hanoi
a clean bill of health with regard to credible claims Vietnam was still
holding
U.S. prisoners of war. Kerry ensured the committee voted that no U.S.
servicemen
remained there, angering many families of missing servicemen.

McCain served along with Kerry on that committee. According to Ted
Samply,
writing in the January 1997 issue of U.S. Veteran Dispatch, McCain
enjoyed
dismal relations with many POW-MIA families and activists. McCain said
some
harsh words about those who accused the U.S. government of knowingly
leaving
POWs behind. In fact, he called such people "the most craven, most
cynical and
most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." McCain's presence on
the
committee and his willingness to go along with Kerry ensured that the
final
report would be politically bulletproof.

Kerry got his reward. A year later, Hanoi announced it was awarding
Colliers
International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to
develop
its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes,
the chief
executive officer of Colliers, was Kerry's cousin.

One wonders what McCain's reward might be? What was in the cover-up for
him? Why
has he become an apologist for John Kerry's despicable and dishonorable
record
in Vietnam and, worse, his actions afterward?

Maybe it's just something about the character of John McCain. Maybe
birds of a
feather just flock together. Maybe this is why you should take anything
McCain
says about Kerry with a grain of salt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Herring has a hard-on for McCain because deep in his heart, McCain knows
Bush is a worthless turd.

McCain is a whiner as is his buddy and co-conspirator Kerry. Neither of them
is fit to be president of this country.

Well, I did come across this article. Does it portray the facts as you know
them?

Good lord John. Do you sit and read hateful crap all day?

That "article" is a classic propaganda piece, and strictly an editorial. It has
distorted a group of selected factoids to express the writer's fu'd rage and
lead the reader to false conclusions.

********

Funny to watch how you process data.
First, you admit to being unfamiliar with Kerry's role in the POW/MIA affair,
and then you sort through everything you can find to discover the most
inflammatory item available to promote your main agenda- *despite* you
admitted lack of information on the topic.

There's almost no chance you'd care to read anything that isn't frothing with
anti-Kerry emotions and actually attempts to deal with fact, but just in
case........


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 06 Sep 2004 05:12:03 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Used to have a saying back on the farm, "Worthless as tits on a boar
hog."
Ring
any bells?

Yep. Sounds kinda lika edge-you-kationally challenged upbringin', if ya
asks
me.

People should not be encouraged to think in sound bytes, homilies, and
stereotypes.

Did you apply that to the post by Harry to which my comment was directed?
Or do
you actually approve of Harry's posts?

John, I am suprised that you haven't caught onto Chuckies MO yet. Chuckie
will not condem a fellow liberal/progressive, period. Chuckie will verbally
squirm, wiggle and turn to deflect the issue.

JohnH wrote:



Used to have a saying back on the farm, "Worthless as tits on a boar hog." Ring
any bells?

John H


Nope. I'm a city boy. Does it mean that back on your farm, you had sex
with hogs and its teats were too far away for you to reach around?

Did you have to get liquored up before fornicating with the hogs?


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

John, I am suprised that you haven't caught onto Chuckies MO yet. Chuckie
will not condem a fellow liberal/progressive, period. Chuckie will verbally
squirm, wiggle and turn to deflect the issue.


Chuckie makes a valid effort to stick to issues, nor personalities. Not 100%
successful all the time, but always trying.

I don't argue with Harry very often, because we are on the same side of many,
but not all, issues. Last time I blasted Harry was earlier today when he called
you guys "scumbags", and prior to that might have been when he was so gleeful
about the Michael Moore film's release.