http://www.thedailybrew.com/

extract

It is 1969. You are a 21 year old kid in the Navy, serving on a Swift
boat in Vietnam. You might have joined the National Guard, but some
Congressman’s kid jumped ahead of you in line, grabbing the last spot
available.

Right now you are on patrol in the Mekong Delta, and you have run into
an ambush. A mine goes off under your boat, throwing you in the water
and injuring your skipper. Weighed down by guns, grenades, and
ammunition, you sink to the bottom while five more boats pass overhead.
You shed your gear and surface. As the boats disappear down the river,
you are taking machine gun and small arms fire from both banks of the
river. You can’t swim to either side without getting shot, and even if
you did, getting captured means getting killed. You have one, and only
one chance, to get out alive. You have to hope that your skipper turns
his boat around, heads back into the crossfire over the mine infested
water, reaches down with his bloody arm, and drags you back up on the boat.

Now for the quiz.

Who would you rather have as your skipper, George Bush or John Kerry?

Jim Rassmann is alive and well living on the Oregon coast because when
it happened to him, his skipper was John Kerry. I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be found. He was busy flying around the
country, eventually landing his plane in Nebraska. It was Rudy Giuliani,
not George Bush who stepped in front of the cameras in New York City and
let America know that while we were down, we weren’t out, and no made
for T.V. fictional account of history changes that fact.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:42:48 -0500, Jim wrote:

http://www.thedailybrew.com/

extract

It is 1969. You are a 21 year old kid in the Navy, serving on a Swift
boat in Vietnam. You might have joined the National Guard, but some
Congressman’s kid jumped ahead of you in line, grabbing the last spot
available.

Right now you are on patrol in the Mekong Delta, and you have run into
an ambush. A mine goes off under your boat, throwing you in the water
and injuring your skipper. Weighed down by guns, grenades, and
ammunition, you sink to the bottom while five more boats pass overhead.
You shed your gear and surface. As the boats disappear down the river,
you are taking machine gun and small arms fire from both banks of the
river. You can’t swim to either side without getting shot, and even if
you did, getting captured means getting killed. You have one, and only
one chance, to get out alive. You have to hope that your skipper turns
his boat around, heads back into the crossfire over the mine infested
water, reaches down with his bloody arm, and drags you back up on the boat.

Now for the quiz.

Who would you rather have as your skipper, George Bush or John Kerry?

Jim Rassmann is alive and well living on the Oregon coast because when
it happened to him, his skipper was John Kerry. I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be found. He was busy flying around the
country, eventually landing his plane in Nebraska. It was Rudy Giuliani,
not George Bush who stepped in front of the cameras in New York City and
let America know that while we were down, we weren’t out, and no made
for T.V. fictional account of history changes that fact.

Once Kerry realized he had a sailor in the water, alive, he had no
choice but to turn around or be called a coward the rest of his life.
What would you have done?

I can't imagine *anyone* who would have run under the circumstances.

John H

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

"Jim" wrote in message
...

Jim Rassmann is alive and well living on the Oregon coast because when
it happened to him, his skipper was John Kerry.

You pose the question as if Mr. Kerry had a choice in the matter, which of
course he did not. He did his duty, as was expected of him, and no one can
ever take that away.

The more salient points are twofold, however, if you want to compare Mr.
Kerry to Pres. Bush on that basis. The first is that no comparison is
possible. Nothing in Mr. Kerry's life up to that point could indicate that
he would have reacted with courage under fire. Combat veterans will tell
you that there *are* no valid indicators. More interestingly, nothing in
his life *since* that time has indicated the likelihood of such a reaction,
either. In point of fact, you could make a case for the opposite. The only
facts extant are that Mr. Kerry and Pres. Bush were not in circumstances
that allow comparison.

The second point is that even the attempt to construct such a comparison is
invalid, rendered so by policy and action of the Democrat National Committee
and the respective campaign committees of Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996.


I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be
found.

As to this last offering, it is strictly sixth grade stuff, and betrays a
quaint disingenuousness as to how the Executive Branch, the National
Security Council and Advisor, and the Secret Service interact. My
presumption is that you know better, since you appear literate.

You pose the question as if Mr. Kerry had a choice in the matter, which of
course he did not.

Excuse me? Of course he had a choice.... the choice of running away and
leaving his crewman is not a what we'd think of as a good call, but
other commanders on the battlefield have done it (or the equivalent). In
fact, every single day there is a driver of an automobile that makes the
same choice... you may be familiar with the term "hit & run."


... He did his duty, as was expected of him, and no one can
ever take that away.

Ironic, since you are indeed trying to.


The more salient points are twofold, however, if you want to compare Mr.
Kerry to Pres. Bush on that basis. The first is that no comparison is
possible. Nothing in Mr. Kerry's life up to that point could indicate that
he would have reacted with courage under fire. Combat veterans will tell
you that there *are* no valid indicators. More interestingly, nothing in
his life *since* that time has indicated the likelihood of such a reaction,
either. In point of fact, you could make a case for the opposite. The only
facts extant are that Mr. Kerry and Pres. Bush were not in circumstances
that allow comparison.

Wait a minute here.... you're saying that Kerry, because he *has*
reacted bravely under fire, can't be relied on to do so? And Bush,
because he *has* run away when danger threatened, can't be compared?

You have a rather odd sense of logic.


The second point is that even the attempt to construct such a comparison is
invalid, rendered so by policy and action of the Democrat National Committee
and the respective campaign committees of Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

That makes perfect sense... NOT!

"Because it's from a Democrat, it is automatically suspicious.... and
because of CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON"




I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be
found.


As to this last offering, it is strictly sixth grade stuff, and betrays a
quaint disingenuousness as to how the Executive Branch, the National
Security Council and Advisor, and the Secret Service interact. My
presumption is that you know better, since you appear literate.

It's not 'disingenuous' at all. It's the truth. Bush reacted badly on
Sept 11th. At first, he didn't react at all. He continued reading to
schoolkids. Then he ran in panic.

Basically, he did what he was told by his handlers, who were in some
disagreement. Is this "leadership"? Not by my definition.

You need to make yourself a short list of facts, and see if you can
actually make some sense of it all. And keep reminding yourself, that
not all Republican campaign propaganda is gospel truth, and Clinton has
been out of office for over three years now.

DSK

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:38:33 -0500, DSK wrote:

You pose the question as if Mr. Kerry had a choice in the matter, which of
course he did not.

Excuse me? Of course he had a choice.... the choice of running away and
leaving his crewman is not a what we'd think of as a good call, but
other commanders on the battlefield have done it (or the equivalent). In
fact, every single day there is a driver of an automobile that makes the
same choice... you may be familiar with the term "hit & run."


... He did his duty, as was expected of him, and no one can
ever take that away.

Ironic, since you are indeed trying to.


The more salient points are twofold, however, if you want to compare Mr.
Kerry to Pres. Bush on that basis. The first is that no comparison is
possible. Nothing in Mr. Kerry's life up to that point could indicate that
he would have reacted with courage under fire. Combat veterans will tell
you that there *are* no valid indicators. More interestingly, nothing in
his life *since* that time has indicated the likelihood of such a reaction,
either. In point of fact, you could make a case for the opposite. The only
facts extant are that Mr. Kerry and Pres. Bush were not in circumstances
that allow comparison.

Wait a minute here.... you're saying that Kerry, because he *has*
reacted bravely under fire, can't be relied on to do so? And Bush,
because he *has* run away when danger threatened, can't be compared?

You have a rather odd sense of logic.


The second point is that even the attempt to construct such a comparison is
invalid, rendered so by policy and action of the Democrat National Committee
and the respective campaign committees of Mr. Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

That makes perfect sense... NOT!

"Because it's from a Democrat, it is automatically suspicious.... and
because of CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON"




I don’t know what George
Bush would have done if he had been skipper that day, but I do know that
on September 11 when he was commander in chief and this nation was under
attack, he was nowhere to be
found.


As to this last offering, it is strictly sixth grade stuff, and betrays a
quaint disingenuousness as to how the Executive Branch, the National
Security Council and Advisor, and the Secret Service interact. My
presumption is that you know better, since you appear literate.

It's not 'disingenuous' at all. It's the truth. Bush reacted badly on
Sept 11th. At first, he didn't react at all. He continued reading to
schoolkids. Then he ran in panic.

Basically, he did what he was told by his handlers, who were in some
disagreement. Is this "leadership"? Not by my definition.

You need to make yourself a short list of facts, and see if you can
actually make some sense of it all. And keep reminding yourself, that
not all Republican campaign propaganda is gospel truth, and Clinton has
been out of office for over three years now.

DSK


Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

John H

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

John H wrote:
Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

Not really. What do *you* call it when a person leaves one place at high
speed, in secrecy, avoiding making contacts that he might normally be
expected to, does not allow any public announcement about his
whereabouts, and claims that there is a plot to kill him, when in fact
thousands of other people are suffering death and hardship (and he does
nothing to help them)?

Oh wait, you already answered that.... *you* call it "showing leadership."

DSK

We shall henceforth have to refer to you as "Stretch".

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:59:33 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

Not really. What do *you* call it when a person leaves one place at high
speed, in secrecy, avoiding making contacts that he might normally be
expected to, does not allow any public announcement about his
whereabouts, and claims that there is a plot to kill him, when in fact
thousands of other people are suffering death and hardship (and he does
nothing to help them)?

Oh wait, you already answered that.... *you* call it "showing leadership."

DSK

His job.

John H

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

John H wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 15:59:33 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Wow. "Ran in panic." Now that's a line the DNC hasn't even started
using yet. You're not going off the deep end here, are you?

Not really. What do *you* call it when a person leaves one place at high
speed, in secrecy, avoiding making contacts that he might normally be
expected to, does not allow any public announcement about his
whereabouts, and claims that there is a plot to kill him, when in fact
thousands of other people are suffering death and hardship (and he does
nothing to help them)?

Oh wait, you already answered that.... *you* call it "showing leadership."

DSK

His job.

John H

It's Bush's job to run like a chicken?