PDA

View Full Version : Kerry's first purple heart



highsea
09-03-2004, 03:35 PM
Well, well, wouldn't you know it. The Kerry camp is backing away from their claims about Kerry's first wound. What is behind this astonishing turnaround, you may ask? A sudden pang of conscience from the candidate? Well, not exactly.

It seems that Kerry's own journal contradicts the claim that Kerry was under fire on Dec. 2, 1968. [ QUOTE ]
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."

A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.

"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.<hr /></blockquote>
Naturally, the Kerry campaign was questioned about such an obvious contradiction.[ QUOTE ]
A Kerry campaign official, speaking on background, told The Washington Times yesterday that the "we" in the passage from Mr. Kerry's journal refers to "the crew on Kerry's first swift boat, operating as a crew" rather than Mr. Kerry himself.
"John Kerry didn't yet have his own boat or crew on December 2," according to the aide. "Other members of the crew had been in Vietnam for some time and had been shot at and Kerry knew that at the time. However, the crew had not yet been fired on while they served together on PCF 44 under Lieutenant Kerry."

Mr. Kerry's campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive enemy fire that day.<hr /></blockquote>
Ahhh. I had to read this a couple times, because the nuance escaped me at first. So the "feeling of invincibility" was because he was in a different boat. The first medal was from a patrol in a Boston Whaler, and Kerry's commander has refuted publicly the claim that they came under fire that day, or that Kerry was operating the boat independently, as Kerry also claimed.
[ QUOTE ]
The newly exhumed passages were first reported by Fox News Channel in a televised interview with John Hurley, national leader of Veterans for Kerry.

"Is it possible that Kerry's first Purple Heart was the result of an unintentionally self-inflicted wound?" asked reporter Major Garrett.

"Anything is possible," Mr. Hurley replied.<hr /></blockquote>
source (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040825-125217-7993r.htm)

I checked out Kerry's website for his navy records. Funny thing, the records for his 2nd and 3rd purple hearts are there, as well as the silver star and bronze star. Conspicuously absent are the Navy records for the first purple heart.

Is it possible the SBV's were telling the truth?

-CM

Qtec
09-03-2004, 07:11 PM
You want the truth?

Kerry went and put himself in the firing line. GW pulled every string he could to avoid going into the same situation.
Kerry= brave
GW= coward.

Easy, not complicated at all.

Q [ cant see how anybody could fall for the GOP BS]

highsea
09-03-2004, 09:10 PM
Here's a little more truth for you. Kerry was in Yale on a student deferrment. When he graduated, he wrote a letter to his draft board requesting another deferrment to study in Paris. His request was denied, and he was told it was very likely he would be drafted. He chose to enter the Navy instead.

His first tour was on the USS Gridley in the Gulf of Tonkin. That was about as safe as any post possible in Vietnam, as there were not really any naval engagements to my knowledge. If you were a naval aviator, like McCain, you had a very dangerous assignment. If you were a regular sailor, you were not likely to see much combat.

After Kerry's assignment on the Gridley, he had to go back to finish out his obligation as an officer. He volunteered for the Swift Boats. At the time, they were doing coastal patrols, not river patrols. When Kerry volunteered for the Swifties, they were a pretty safe place to be. Kerry knew this. It was 2 weeks after his return to Vietnam that the Swift Boats were re-tasked for river patrols.

So Kerry never asked for combat, and when he found himself there, he did everything he could to get out as quickly as possible.

I am not belittling the contribution of the Navy. My father and Grandfather both served in the Navy in WW2 and Korea. There were many Swifties who served complete tours, and fought with courage and valor. Many were wounded, I don't know how many were killed.

Kerry's accounts are so full of holes that it's hard to know where to start. His post war antics, band-aid purple hearts, a silver star that was re-issued three times, a false claim of a "V" citation that the Navy doesn't issue for that medal, exagerrated or just plain false spot reports, Christmas in Cambodia. I can keep going, but I won't bother.

Aside from all this, his hypocritical use of Vietnam as a campaign tool, his abyssmal record in the Senate on Defense and his flip-flopping on the war are all I need, to know he will not get my vote.

I know where Bush stands. With Kerry it all depends on who he happens to be talking to on any given day.

Bush=Strong America
Kerry=??? Who really knows?

-CM

cheesemouse
09-03-2004, 10:08 PM
Kerry servered, Kerry showed up, Kerry wounded in action= American patriot.

bush was a no show, no flight crewman can remember him ever being there= American coward

highsea
09-03-2004, 10:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>bush was a no show, no flight crewman can remember him ever being there= American coward <hr /></blockquote>
You and Q must get your information from the same place.
[ QUOTE ]
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."

On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

Bush=released all military records
Kerry=well, some of them

-CM

Ross
09-04-2004, 01:12 AM
I think this argument is silly. I don't believe the way to select a President is by tearing down the opponent by trying to infer things that happened decades ago.

But just to keep it from getting too one-sided I will note:

1. The article is from the the National Review which is a media publication that is so partisan that it has NEVER ONCE published ANY facts that challenge the conservative viewpoint.

2. Which is probably why it conveniently leaves out the fact that Bush was suspended from flying and mysteriously vanished for a year and that Bush now has "released all his records" even though for that period no one has seen:

<ul type="square">
Any pages from Bush's flight log
Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
[/list]

So, doing the old smear thing like the Republicans are doing, Bush obviously didn't care enough about his country to even finish his 6 year NONCOMBAT service, obviously had problems enough to be suspended from flying, is obviously a liar since his account of that year don't match the evidence, and obviously had strings pulled that regular soldiers could not reach. SO HOW CAN WE TRUST OUR COUNTRY TO A GUY THAT WEASELS OUT OF HIS COMMITMENTS AND LIES ABOUT HIS SERVICE AND USES HIS DADDY'S INFLUENCE TO AVOID GOING TO WAR. AND WHY DID THOSE DOCUMENTS DISAPPEAR? AND WHAT IS BUSH HIDING? WHY WON'T HE TELL US THE TRUTH NOW ABOUT WHERE HE WAS THAT YEAR? HOW CAN A PERSON ON ACTIVE DUTY, GETTING PAID BY THE US GOVERNMENT, MISS A WHOLE YEAR WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHERE IT WENT?

By the way, I think the all caps accusations I just made are speculative and such old news as to be not that relevant, but they have just as much substance as the Kerry BS. I'll be honest with you - if Kerry was 2 miles away from Cambodia or two feet over into it Cambodia, if his Purple Heart injuries were minor or major, and if Bush hung out with his girlfriend and his booze for a year when he got bored with the Air Force at age 20 or so, well, it just doesn't matter that much at this point. What they've done in the past decade might be a better indicator of what they are about now, IMO.

highsea
09-04-2004, 03:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I think this argument is silly. I don't believe the way to select a President is by tearing down the opponent by trying to infer things that happened decades ago. ... What they've done in the past decade might be a better indicator of what they are about now, IMO. <hr /></blockquote>Ross, I agree with you. Too bad Kerry doesn't. How much time did he devote to his Senate record in his acceptance speech? Something like 3 sentences?

Every appearance he makes, he bashes Cheney or someone else in the administration for his deferrments, or he makes some remark about "showing up for duty". So as far as I'm concerned, he is bringing this criticism on himself by choosing to campaign on Vietnam.

Cheney criticizes Kerry for waffling on Iraq, Kerry calls him a draft dodger. First Kerry is for the war, then he's the anti-war candidate, next thing you know, he says he would still have voted for it. When I go back and read some of the things Kerry said when it was Clinton running against Bush Sr. or Dole, and compare it to what he says today, I just laugh.

Anyway, my vote will not be determined by Kerry's or Bush's military record of 30 years ago. My decision is based solely on Kerry's Senate record, Bush's first term as President, and the threats to America today. Like I said before, I know where Bush stands. The most important thing America faces today is the war on terrorism. I simply cannot trust Kerry to prosecute that war with the same vigor that Bush is doing.

-CM

cheesemouse
09-04-2004, 05:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ross, I agree with you<hr /></blockquote>

I also agree I was just being narrow minded and nasty like Val Miller; a page from his speech at the convention.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, my vote will not be determined by Kerry's or Bush's military record of 30 years ago. My decision is based solely on Kerry's Senate record, Bush's first term as President<hr /></blockquote>

Isn't it funny how two people can concider the same information and come to different conclusions? Our votes cancel each other. Not being satified with breaking even I have take it upon myself to convert four first time voters who I work with so I can cancel Ed and Wally plus a couple spares...LOL

Wally_in_Cincy
09-04-2004, 08:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I think this argument is silly. I don't believe the way to select a President is by tearing down the opponent by trying to infer things that happened decades ago. ..... <hr /></blockquote>

But Ross, Kerry has based his entire campaign on his service in Viet Nam. Do you think it should not be scrutinized? There is blatant evidence that he lied to get a Purple Heart for crying out loud. That's pretty lame.

IMO

He can't get elected on his "most liberal Senator" voting record (see Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern) so he chose the Viet Nam angle and it has backfired on him.

dg-in-centralpa
09-04-2004, 08:49 AM
Who in their right mind wouldn't use their parents influence to stay out of war. Especially Viet Nam. I would have. I would have wanted to stay state side if possible. World War 2 is different, we were attacked. I don't want to go fight a losing battle and take a chance on getting shot if we can't win the war.
As for GW and Iraq, I havwe a friend whose daughter is in Baghdad for 6 months with another 12 to go. Here are some things she told us, everyday Iraqi people thank the soldiers for getting rid of Sadam, they have opened several hundred hospitals and schools. We are training their doctors, they now have 12 hours of electric a day as compared to 4 under Sadam. The soldiers feel they are doing the right thing for a people who were under such fear from Sadam. These people are now feeling a sense of self worth. Tell me Q, how did your people feel when Germany came into your country in WW2, and your people didn't even fire a shot to defend yourself? Kind of like the Iraqis? You needed someone to bail you out.

DG - talked with this woman last week and am proud of her for serving her country

Ross
09-04-2004, 10:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dg-in-centralpa:</font><hr> Who in their right mind wouldn't use their parents influence to stay out of war. Especially Viet Nam.

<font color="blue">I agree DG. Vietnam was a hell hole and it wasn't clear we should be there. I understand why Bush used his parents to get out, why Clinton used his brains to get out, and why Kerry may have tried to make his stay there as short as possible. In my small home town, the few who wanted to go to Vietnam were the yahoos that liked to get drunk and get in fights on the weekend. Of course some went to Vietnam because they believed in the war and were being patriotic as well. Different people coming to different conclusions on the basis of conflicting information about whether we should have been there. </font color>

I would have. I would have wanted to stay state side if possible. World War 2 is different, we were attacked. I don't want to go fight a losing battle and take a chance on getting shot if we can't win the war.
As for GW and Iraq, I havwe a friend whose daughter is in Baghdad for 6 months with another 12 to go. Here are some things she told us, everyday Iraqi people thank the soldiers for getting rid of Sadam, they have opened several hundred hospitals and schools. We are training their doctors, they now have 12 hours of electric a day as compared to 4 under Sadam. The soldiers feel they are doing the right thing for a people who were under such fear from Sadam. These people are now feeling a sense of self worth.

<font color="blue">Well, that is part of the story but certainly not the whole story. It is true there is some progress being made and that is the good news. At the same time, living conditions there are still horrible and in many ways are currently worse than under Saddam. So some Iraqi's are glad about us being there, most aren't because they are angry about the poor living conditions, the daily bombings and killings and so on. The average citizen of every country tends to make judgements based on a short-term view - how am I doing right now? That is why incumbents get re-elected in the US if the economy is doing decently in the months before the election.

Security is still horrible in Iraq and for the average citizen much worse than it was under Saddam. You are right that they are training their doctors (good news), but at the same time doctors are also being kidnapped almost daily and their life savings being demanded from from them for ransom (bad news). In fact dozens if not hundreds of doctors have fled Iraq because of the danger of kidnapping for anyone who has money.

In terms of electicity in Bagdad your facts are off. Bagdad is still quite a bit worse off than before the war when it had electicity an average of 20 - 24 hours/day. Now they are getting about 12 hours per day on average (3 or 4 hours on then 3 or 4 hours off), some days only 1. The heat is pretty unbearable for a city that was used to having electricity. It is like Houston, TX losing it's airconditioning for 1/2 of each day, except hotter.

If you really want to know what life is for Iraqi's there are several great blogs where the writers describe their day-to-day life in a pretty non-political way. One of the best is http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ . Another blog is http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ (although this writer is angrier and less objective).

These blogs aren't filtered through the lens of conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican viewpoints.

Things are SLOWLY getting better in Iraq. Most posters here probably don't remember, but I supported the war in Iraq on these boards before we went in for these very humanitarian reasons. I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of the Republicans who, in recent decades, ridiculed the idea of nation building for humanitarian reasons ("We aren't the world's policemen! We will not use US troops for nation building."), but now pretend that this is really important to them. Note these same Republicans ignore the same type, but even larger and more brutal, dictatorships in Africa.

So first it was WMD's and imminent danger to the US, but no significant WMD's were found (I know, I know, eg8r). Then it was fighting terrorism and Al Qaida, but it turned out Iraq was a mosquito on this front, as Bush's own advisors told him. So when those didn't pan out, we claim we are just freedom-fighters concerned about the poor Iraqi's. That's BS, flip-flopping, changing your story, or whatever other pejorative term the Repubs like to throw around about others.

If Bush had started out saying (and believing) "I want to liberate Iraq and other countries under brutal dictatorships because everyone deserves basic human rights" I would be here singing his praises and even voting for him. But to get all pious about it now like he gave a damn about anyone but the US is a little nauseating.

Kudo's though to the Republican party for selling this "reframe" of the war. You are kicking the Dems butt in the marketing department.
</font color>

Tell me Q, how did your people feel when Germany came into your country in WW2, and your people didn't even fire a shot to defend yourself? Kind of like the Iraqis? You needed someone to bail you out.

DG - talked with this woman last week and am proud of her for serving her country <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
09-04-2004, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> ...I agree DG. Vietnam was a hell hole and it wasn't clear we should be there. I understand why Bush used his parents to get out, why Clinton used his brains to get out, and why Kerry may have tried to make his stay there as short as possible. In my small home town, the few who wanted to go to Vietnam were the yahoos that liked to get drunk and get in fights on the weekend. Of course some went to Vietnam because they believed in the war and were being patriotic as well....<hr /></blockquote>

The guys that went to Nam were somewhat older than me so I only knew a few. I can't recall anybody volunteering. The ones that ended up there were all drafted. Many guys I knew volunteered for the Air Force or Navy to avoid the Army. Or they volunteered for the Army with the understanding they would be sent to Germany or Korea.

Or they went to college, until the deferments were eliminated.

"draft-dodging" was a common, actually acceptable practice in 1969, to be perfectly honest about it.

highsea
09-04-2004, 11:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>In terms of electicity in Bagdad your facts are off. Bagdad is still quite a bit worse off than before the war when it had electicity an average of 20 - 24 hours/day. Now they are getting about 12 hours per day on average (3 or 4 hours on then 3 or 4 hours off), some days only 1. The heat is pretty unbearable for a city that was used to having electricity. It is like Houston, TX losing it's airconditioning for 1/2 of each day, except hotter.
<hr /></blockquote>Ross, iirc, Civilians in Baghdad had electricity for about 12 on and 12 off before the war, and that was on a good day. The outlying areas had almost none. Here's a recent press brief from CENTCOM. (8/30/04)
[ QUOTE ]
BAGHDAD – An electricity generator that had fallen into disrepair after two decades of neglect and war is back on line this morning in northern Iraq, producing enough electricity to service 51,000 Iraqi homes.

The 17-Megawatt generator at the Mullah Abdullah Power Station in the Tameem Governorate is the sixth generator that Iraqi and U.S. engineers have brought on line this month.

“This is very good news,” said Raad Shalal, a senior Iraq Ministry of Electricity official. “This will help to reduce the shortage of electricity across the country.”

Iraq and U.S. engineers have reduced the shortage this month, adding 169 Megawatts to the national grid bringing the national total to more than 5,300 Megawatts – enough to service 15.6 million Iraqi homes, which far exceeds the pre-war electricity level of 4,400 Megawatts.

“We know how important electricity is to the safety and security of the Iraqi people, and we continue to work on their behalf with the Ministry to bring the country additional electricity,” said Lt. Col Jeffery Ogden, the director of the Corp’s Restore Iraqi Electricity Directorate. “We continue to work in partnership with the Ministry of Electricity and the Iraqi people to bring more electricity to the country.”

Despite the addition of power to the country’s national grid, the demand for electricity in Iraq continues to grow, according to a fact sheet published by the Iraq Ministry of Electricity.

“With more than half a million new jobs created, new industries and new factories coming on line and with the sale of thousands of home appliances such as washing machines and air conditioners, Iraq has experienced a rapid increase in electricity demand,” the fact sheet reads. “The increase in demand is a good sign of a thriving economy emerging from three decades of isolation.”

Since beginning its work in the country nearly a year ago, the Corps has added an additional 1,541 Megawatts to the Iraqi national grid.[/i]

http://www.centcom.mil/CentcomNews/Stories/08_04/11.htm

-CM

Chris Cass
09-04-2004, 12:47 PM
Whoa Q,

You just can't call GW a coward. I've seen many of my frioends escape Nam by moving to Canada. I've also had many that were lost after it was over. Also a few that were never the same. That was a war we weren't allowed to win.

Kerry, may use his service record for his election campain but a Purple Heart's only reqiurement is for someone to get wounded in any way shape or form in a huge grid reguardless of how as long as it's concidered a combat zone. Many soldiers today carry patches from soldiers that have been in a comabt zone. That don't make them heros but it does make them honored by the ones that were.

I dislike the word coward so much. That particular war nobody wanted. Those boys that had no choice had to feel scared every minute in the jungles of Vietnam. They had no choice, no pull and had much to lose. I'm sure many had fear having to kill someone you've never met and might have the same to lose as them. Anyone of them would rather stay home than to go. They just didn't have a choice. That itself doesn't make GW a coward. It just makes him fortunate.

Regards,

C.C.

Ross
09-04-2004, 01:18 PM
Highsea, your quote doesn't say anything about hours per day of electricity. Everything I can find says 16-24 or 20-24 hours per day for pre-war Bagdad.

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-28-anger-usat_x.htm <ul type="square">

"Before the war, Baghdad consumed 40% of electricity resources, even though its population represents 20% of the 24 million people. Gibson says Baghdad was receiving 20 to 24 hours of electricity a day while other cities got 8 to 15 hours a day."
[/list]

From http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_electricity_031102.html

<ul type="square">
Hours of Electricity Per Day in Baghdad:
Current: &lt;12
Prewar: 18-24
(Source: CPA)
[/list]

And finally, http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2003/07/30/news/nation/6407216.htm

<ul type="square">
Before the war, Baghdad could depend on 16 to 24 hours of electricity a day, while Basra and other cities in the south received far less.
[/list]

My point isn't to be argumentative. I was just pointing out that 1 1/2 years after the invasion, some living and working conditions are still worse than they were prewar. That doesn't make the war wrong - it does however account for some of the anger of the people living there.

highsea
09-04-2004, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>Isn't it funny how two people can concider the same information and come to different conclusions? Our votes cancel each other.<hr /></blockquote>Hey Cheese, your vote doesn't cancel mine, it cancels eg8r's. Ross's cancels Wally's, and Crawdaddio's cancels mine. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Since Q can't vote, pooltchr leaves us one ahead, But Sid cancels him. Mred will probably go with GW (reluctantly), But I think 9BG may go for Kerry, so there's another wash. nAz is definitely a Kerry man, but Fair_Play has us covered there.

nhp says he isn't going to vote, so that leaves us with Bluewolf, who is undecided.

Conclusion: if the CCB was to pick the next President, my money would be on Nader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

-CM

highsea
09-04-2004, 01:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Highsea, your quote doesn't say anything about hours per day of electricity. Everything I can find says 16-24 or 20-24 hours per day for pre-war Bagdad.
... I was just pointing out that 1 1/2 years after the invasion, some living and working conditions are still worse than they were prewar. That doesn't make the war wrong - it does however account for some of the anger of the people living there. <hr /></blockquote>I may have been thinking of Basra, I didn't look up anything on the hours on/off before I posted. What I was pointing out is that the demand is much higher today than it was pre-war, and growing. Also that outlying areas are also receiving attention from the coalition and the Iraqi Energy Ministry, not just Baghdad.

Anyway, I agree that the infrastructure is in serious trouble. Sewage, potable water, electricity, schools, hospitals, etc. If those guys would stop shooting at us, we could get on with the reconstruction. Things would be better for everybody.

-CM

highsea
09-04-2004, 01:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Before the war, Baghdad could depend on 16 to 24 hours of electricity a day, while Basra and other cities in the south received far less.
<hr /></blockquote>The articles you list are from 2003, so there has been some improvement anyway. Today most of Baghdad is on a 4 on 2 off schedule. (16 hours/day)
[ QUOTE ]
Increase in electricity supply in Baghdad except for four areas
Baghdad, Al-Sabah, 15

Iraq's Ministry of Electricity has commenced to put into effect the new program of regular cutoffs (four hours of power connection and two-hour cutoffs) in Baghdad through entering new electrical units. An authorized source in the ministry said that this little bit improvement in electricity led to increase in the supply areas indicating that two areas, from the Karkh side, and two other areas , from Risafa side, will remain adopting the previous program ( three hours of electricity and three hours of cuts).The ministry called upon the people to decrease the amounts of power consumption in order to increase the areas that have power supply.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.alsabaah.com/20040715/english.htm

-CM

dg-in-centralpa
09-04-2004, 07:43 PM
My info came directly from the woman soldier. I can't discredit her because I'm not there and she is. The soldiers are doing much more for the Iraqi people than we are being made aware of. Most journalists, to me, seem like Dems. They never report the good things, only the bad about the war.Anything to make the Prez look bad. I know, I know, he's doing a good job by himself.

DG

Qtec
09-04-2004, 09:11 PM
Tap.Tap.Tap
Excellent,

Q [ wish I could write like that /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif]

Qtec
09-04-2004, 09:14 PM
You are correct CC, my choice of word was inapropriate and I take it back. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

Strike coward and replace with hypocrite. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif.
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Qtec
09-04-2004, 09:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Since Q can't vote, <hr /></blockquote>

Hey, how come i dont get to vote!? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifLOL
What happened to freedom and Democracy? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Chris Cass
09-04-2004, 10:29 PM
Thanks Q,

That's so much better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,

C.C.

Chris Cass
09-04-2004, 10:36 PM
Hi Highseas,

You didn't know about me? I know Bush will win. Also, was proven that the one with the most money in there campaine after a certain time usually wins. GW has all the money.

Regards,

C.C.~~used to be a Democrat but has been a Republican for awhile now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

highsea
09-04-2004, 11:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chris Cass:</font><hr>C.C.~~used to be a Democrat but has been a Republican for awhile now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>Woohoo! That put's over the top!

4 more years! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

-CM

Ross
09-04-2004, 11:25 PM
Chris, we need to talk. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Don't forget Rich R. so we're back to a tie, I think.

eg8r
09-06-2004, 08:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I can't discredit her because I'm not there and she is. The soldiers are doing much more for the Iraqi people than we are being made aware of. Most journalists, to me, seem like Dems. They never report the good things, only the bad about the war.Anything to make the Prez look bad. I know, I know, he's doing a good job by himself.
<hr /></blockquote> Ross' posts seem to follow the same template...if it looks good for the Conservatives, hide it and show the bad.

eg8r

Ross
09-06-2004, 10:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote> Ross' posts seem to follow the same template...if it looks good for the Conservatives, hide it and show the bad.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I'm don't understand your logic eg8r. DG said that Bagdad now has 12hrs of electricity a day where they had 4 hrs before, based on what he was told. That contradicted everything I had read so I did a little research and found out that the claim was completely false. Availability of electricity in Bagdad is still worse than it was before the invasion.

Does that mean "I am hiding anything that is going well in Iraq?" No. If you read my post in an unbiased manner you will see that I say that things are getting better, but very slowly. Four steps forward, three steps back. Repeat. That just happens to be the truth. So shoot me for saying it. I also gave links where you can find out for yourself exactly what is going on over there - the good, the bad, and the ugly- without the spin of the conservatives or the liberals.

Also, if you read my post you will see I supported the invasion of Iraq. I hope it gets much better for the people there. I don't want to see it go bad.

I'm just weird in that I am a fan of the truth, whichever direction it points. My theory is garbage in, garbage out. So I think correcting misconceptions, including my own, is important.

For example recently we had a discussion of the reports of increasing poverty in the US. I think it was highsea, but it may have been Wally, posted something that pointed out that there were some major problems in the posted stats. One was that the stats did not include income from social programs like food stamps - that is a MAJOR problem and makes the stats almost worthless. Another issue is that the bottom 20% vs richest 20% stats were based on households, and it turns out that the top 20% have larger households (who would have predicted that?), and so there is a much larger number of individuals in that group. So comparing income between the two groups can be misleading unless you take that into account. It turns out the true poverty rate is much lower than the 14% reported. I am GLAD about that - that is good news. I didn't know that before.

It doesn't distress me just because it doesn't fit my prior understanding. Unlike some, my goal isn't to just find facts to support my point of view. To me that is ass-backwards.

To only hear one side of the story is to be a brainwashed fool, IMO.

Fair_Play
09-16-2004, 09:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry went and put himself in the firing line. GW pulled every string he could to avoid going into the same situation.
Kerry= brave
GW= coward.
<hr /></blockquote>
GWB seems not to have lied about his service, and while John Kerry Heinz may or may not have lied, he does have great trouble sticking to any particular version of what 'actually happened. GWB has released ALL of his records to public scrutiny, while John Kerry Heinz just doesn't see how releasing ALL of his records (Evaluations, After Action Reviews, Award Citations and recommendations, his itsy bitsy teeny weeny First Purple Heart..) simply because they are not needed because he is such an upright, honest, virtuous Heero above ALL Heeros.. just ask him, and besides, the actual records just might befuddle and "confuse" the great unwashed masses. "At least Kerry served in Viet Nam" - no comparison intended, but did not Hitler serve in WWII? The simple fact is that he was there, in a combat zone for 3 months 12 days, and he does not seem at all willing to let the public look at his complete record. Mystifying, no? I guess it was spending so freaking much time committing atrocities in Cambodia that did it.
Fair Play

nhp
09-17-2004, 03:24 AM
Hitler didn't serve in WWII, he caused it. Unless you're talking about WWI, then yes, Hitler served in WWI.

SpiderMan
09-17-2004, 08:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Kerry went and put himself in the firing line. GW pulled every string he could to avoid going into the same situation.
Kerry= brave
GW= coward.
<hr /></blockquote>
GWB seems not to have lied about his service, and while John Kerry Heinz may or may not have lied, he does have great trouble sticking to any particular version of what 'actually happened. GWB has released ALL of his records to public scrutiny, while John Kerry Heinz just doesn't see how releasing ALL of his records (Evaluations, After Action Reviews, Award Citations and recommendations, his itsy bitsy teeny weeny First Purple Heart..) simply because they are not needed because he is such an upright, honest, virtuous Heero above ALL Heeros.. just ask him, and besides, the actual records just might befuddle and "confuse" the great unwashed masses. "At least Kerry served in Viet Nam" - no comparison intended, but did not Hitler serve in WWII? The simple fact is that he was there, in a combat zone for 3 months 12 days, and he does not seem at all willing to let the public look at his complete record. Mystifying, no? I guess it was spending so freaking much time committing atrocities in Cambodia that did it.
Fair Play <hr /></blockquote>

Good point. There are probably a lot of former Cambodians here who would like to see what Kerry "did" over there. Probably they vote, and influence more votes.

SpiderMan

Fair_Play
09-17-2004, 01:11 PM
Good point on WWI vs WWII (Hitler). But then FDR did not serve in WWII, AND he did not tour the front lines, or wear a military uniform, as did der Adolph - the point was missed perhaps, that simply because a man serves in a War Zone, he is not nor should be be automatically sainted. You do see that I am vitriolically opposed to Kerry, and I know that there are perhaps just as many overall who feel the same way about GWB - go figure!
Best Regards,
Fair Play