PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time



nAz
10-11-2004, 09:26 AM
This is pretty fu@ked up to do at this time, they really should wait till after the election to show this Bullsh!t, or maybe to be fair they should show fahrenheit 9/11 the next day too.

web page (http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Nation's largest TV chain orders all 62 stations to show movie without commercials next week.
October 11, 2004: 11:52 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War, a newspaper reported Monday.

The network has ordered all 62 of its stations to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" without commercials in prime-time next week, the Washington Post said, just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Sinclair's television group, which includes affiliates of all the major networks, reaches nearly a quarter of all U.S. television households, according to the company's Web site. But the major television networks reach a larger percentage of U.S. homes because they are in the largest markets.

A dozen of Sinclair's stations are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.

The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."

Calls to Sinclair by CNN/Money were not immediately returned Monday.

Non-profit industry watchdog Media Matters for America has written a letter to Sinclair asking the company to cancel reported plans to air the film between now and the Nov. 2 election, the group said in a statement.
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.

Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
Manage alerts | What is this?


"Sinclair's plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes," Media Matters CEO David Brock said in the letter.

The letter warned Sinclair that its plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates, as well as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the group said.

Sinclair's top executives include members of the controlling Smith family, who have been strong financial supporters of Bush's campaign, the Post said in its report.

Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

According to the report, "Stolen Honor" focuses on Kerry's antiwar testimony to Congress in 1971 and its effect on American POWs in Vietnam, and was produced independently of Sinclair.

The anti-Kerry film states that the senator's testimony hurt the American war effort and undercut morale among the troops.

eg8r
10-11-2004, 09:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty .... up to do at this time, <hr /></blockquote> Why? This is election year, it is alright for F9/11 to be shown shouldn't it be equally fair to have this shown. Maybe you are just caught up with timing, well isn't that a strike against the Moore? He could have waited longer to release his movie.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-11-2004, 09:46 AM
Payback's a bitch isn't it.

BTW Moore is showing F 9/11 on PPV the night before the election, or so I have heard.

nAz
10-11-2004, 10:37 AM
Eg8r, Wally i figured the two of you would understand the differance between the two. Moores documentry was shown in theathers where one had to pay for it, average price $7 this fiction movie about Kerry is on Free Public Air Ways thats what makes it so wrong. if mores movie was put on TV like that you would probably have a titty attack.
i could careless if it was put out in 10k theathers nation wide, just not TV.

highsea
10-11-2004, 11:04 AM
Yeah, let's talk about Moore for a minute. Moore won't put his movie on tv because of $$$$$. That's the only reason.

But he certainly had no problems showing it in Iran, Syria, and to US troops in Iraq. That's an attempt to undermine the support of the military for the Commander-in-Chief in a war, and recruit enemies from terrorist states. Goebbels would be proud. Moore has stated publicly that he thinks the US deserves to lose the war. Real patriot there.

Back to Sinclair...

I don't see how Sinclair's decision to air the film is any different that CBS's decision to air the 60 Minutes show attacking Bush's guard service. Anyone who thinks that wasn't a coordinated attack between the DNC (Fortunate Son), CBS, and Texans for Truth, is being naive.

eg8r
10-11-2004, 12:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, Wally i figured the two of you would understand the differance between the two. Moores documentry was shown in theathers where one had to pay for it, average price $7 this fiction movie about Kerry is on Free Public Air Ways thats what makes it so wrong. if mores movie was put on TV like that you would probably have a titty attack.
i could careless if it was put out in 10k theathers nation wide, just not TV. <hr /></blockquote> I can gaurantee you, the only reason why Moore's was in the theaters is because he was only in it for the money. If he was willing to allow his "blockbuster" movie to be seen on TV stations for free, surely someone would jump on it. Just look at how fast Rather jumped on his info. Contrary to this, Wally is quoted as saying Moore will be offering it on PPV.

Whether or not you charge someone to see your movie has ZERO bearing on whether it should be played and when. As I see it, the anti-Kerry video seems to be thoughtful of the poor. Since they cannot afford the extravagant theater prices the TV station is bringing it right into their homes.

Another problem with your money issue is that there is NO gaurantee that a viewer will watch the move only because it is free. There are tons of other programming available during the same time so the users will have more than enough choices.

eg8r

PQQLK9
10-11-2004, 04:47 PM
TV NEWS

''Fahrenheit'' may be on TV election eve

Gary Susman

Michael Moore really, really, really wants you to see Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election, so much so that he's willing to give up his chances for a Best Documentary Oscar and some of his home video profits in order to schedule a pay-per-view airing of the film before voters go to the polls. Variety reports that a deal is imminent for the film to air on In Demand, America's biggest pay-per-view service, on Nov. 1, the night before the election. The film would be part of a three-hour special that would be bookended with fresh interviews with celebrities addressing the issues the movie raises and urging viewers to vote.
In Demand is already listing the event in the schedule posted on its website, but a Fahrenheit source says its not a done deal yet. Moore still has to get the approval of Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, which released the movie on home video on Tuesday, and which would prefer to have more than a four-week window before the movie appears on TV and cuts into potential sales. The distributor had already grumbled about Moore's decision not to seek a Best Documentary Oscar, a prize that would have boosted sales; he made that decision specifically in order to pursue a pay-per-view booking before the election. Films that air on TV within nine months of their theatrical release are ineligible for the documentary prize, though not for other Oscars, including Best Picture.

In Demand has agreed to a few concessions to appease Columbia TriStar. It won't advertise or market the broadcast before Oct. 24. And it's calling the event ''The Michael Moore Pre-election Special,'' rather than Fahrenheit 9/11, to further distinguish it from the video. In any case, Columbia TriStar needn't worry too much about sales; in its first day in release, the film moved 2 million units, making it already the most successful documentary in home video history.
10/08/2004 16:00

Fair_Play
10-11-2004, 06:36 PM
quote nAz
[ QUOTE ]
understand the differance between the two. Moores <font color="blue"> documentary </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> 9/11 a "Documentary"???? </font color>
By what stretch of the imagination?
AND, unless a film or program contains libel, whatever is the problem? Poor people can't think?? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
No matter how many lies the Republicans or Democrats tell, (there are lies on both sides) it all evens out in the end. Case in point, Dan Blather and the fakeroo debacle.

Bring it on!

Fair Play

Qtec
10-11-2004, 10:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Yeah, let's talk about Moore for a minute. Moore won't put his movie on tv because of $$$$$. That's the only reason. <font color="blue">So you agree MM,s motives are financial and not political. </font color>

But he certainly had no problems showing it in Iran, Syria, <font color="blue"> ..for free? </font color> and to US troops in Iraq. That's an attempt to undermine the support of the military for the Commander-in-Chief in a war, <font color="blue"> There is no war. The US never declared 'war'on Afghanistan or Iraq. Thats why you have 'enemy combatants' in Gitmo and not 'prisoners of war'. You cant have it both ways. </font color> and recruit enemies from terrorist states. <font color="blue"> Geez. If anything,9/11 is an anti-war film! Half the movie is about a family who lost their son in Iraq.</font color> Goebbels would be proud. Moore has stated publicly that he thinks the US deserves <font color="blue"> which is totally different than 'wants'. </font color> to lose the war. Real patriot there.

Back to Sinclair...

I don't see how Sinclair's decision to air the film is any different that CBS's decision to air the 60 Minutes show attacking Bush's guard service. <font color="blue"> Cant argue with that. </font color> Anyone who thinks that wasn't a coordinated attack between the DNC (Fortunate Son), CBS, and Texans for Truth, is being naive. <font color="blue"> Oh please! Another one of your conspiracy theories? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Q

nhp
10-12-2004, 12:29 AM
Damn the liberal media! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I hope we can all agree now that the media is not all liberal.

highsea
10-12-2004, 01:14 PM
Can Kerry's lawyers be far behind? [ QUOTE ]
Democrats Seek Probe of Anti-Kerry Broadcast
Reuters
Tuesday, October 12, 2004; 3:56 AM


By Brooks Boliek

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - The Democratic Party and 18 senators are seeking a pair of federal investigations into Sinclair Broadcast Group's plans to preempt network primetime programing on its 62 TV stations nationwide later this month to air a documentary critical of Sen. John Kerry's antiwar activities.

The Democratic National Committee plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that alleges that the documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" is an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign. Many of the stations the Baltimore-based company owns are in critical "battleground states."<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25928-2004Oct12.html

Gee, what a surprise. Why didn't they file a complaint on CBS's improper use of the airwaves? 60 Minutes is a prime time show that airs on about 200 stations nationwide.

nAz
10-12-2004, 02:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I can gaurantee you, the only reason why Moore's was in the theaters is because he was only in it for the money. If he was willing to allow his "blockbuster" movie to be seen on TV stations for free, surely someone would jump on it. Just look at how fast Rather jumped on his info.<font color="red"> It was not that easy I thought Disney did a fine job trying to keep the movie from being distributed for a so long. </font color> Contrary to this, Wally is quoted as saying Moore will be offering it on PPV.<font color="red">Once again you have to pay for it, it is not on the free public airwaves </font color>

Whether or not you charge someone to see your movie has ZERO bearing on whether it should be played and when. As I see it, the anti-Kerry video seems to be thoughtful of the poor. Since they cannot afford the extravagant theater prices the TV station is bringing it right into their homes.<font color="red">Moore should ask them to show his movie for free, that would be fair</font color>

Another problem with your money issue is that there is NO gaurantee that a viewer will watch the move only because it is free. There are tons of other programming available during the same time so the users will have more than enough choices. well I will be watching somethong a lot more intresting... Yanks beating up on the Blowsoxs

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

nAz
10-12-2004, 02:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> quote nAz
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
understand the differance between the two. Moores <font color="blue"> documentary </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> 9/11 a "Documentary"???? </font color>
By what stretch of the imagination?
Fair Play
<hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Fair_Play
10-12-2004, 02:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can Kerry's lawyers be far behind? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> LIBEL??? </font color> <font color="red"> LIBEL???? </font color>

Stinkin lousy rotten lying SOB old fart

<font color="blue"> POW'S </font color>!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif ( Republican dupes!! )

anyways..

Not to worry, America, John Fonda Kerry has been invited**
to speak to the crummy POW's and give them a piece of his
mind! Heero John don't need no stinkin shysters, heck
HE IS ONE!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fair Play

**(go ahead, hold yer breath - I dares ya!)

nAz
10-12-2004, 02:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Gee, what a surprise. Why didn't they file a complaint on CBS's improper use of the airwaves? 60 Minutes is a prime time show that airs on about 200 stations nationwide.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ya but for what ever dumbass reason they thought it was a real document deserving to be on the news, this movie is nothing but bull from a bunch of people who were not even on the same boat with him. even W admitts that his war record (kerry) should not be a factor becuase if it was then Bush should loose the election by a long mile. I rather see Kerry attack on his voting record then his war record but then again the probably hard to do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

BTW check out front line tonight on Kerry and Bush's past.

Fair_Play
10-12-2004, 04:12 PM
nAz,

wow, what a different point of view from mine! Perception is reality, so there you are.

as for me? I would vote for a draft dodger (Clinton, for instance) before I would vote for Kerry - but, heck, I am probably prejudiced, as a military guy. Bush? Just my opinion, not too many seem to agree, he served honorably. Kerry? another matter. I don't think he would know 'honorable' if it sunk its teeth into his rear.

Why people seem to think that experiences that happened in the past cannot be revealing as to character, I do not know. AND,IMO, Bush was being more than charitable as regards Kerry's record, He (Bush) isn't as dumb as SidVicious thinks!

Take Care,

Fair Play

eg8r
10-13-2004, 06:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
this movie is nothing but bull from a bunch of people who were not even on the same boat with him. <hr /></blockquote> This means absolutely nothing. Just because they were not on the same boat does not mean a single thing.

eg8r

SpiderMan
10-13-2004, 07:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> I rather see Kerry attack on his voting record then his war record but then again the probably hard to do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

No, Kerry's voting record is public information, that's exactly what they should do. I'm actually voting in this election, against Kerry, because of his voting record.

Unfortunately, many people are fooled by his re-inventing himself over the past year, rather than looking at his 30-year track record of behavior.

SpiderMan

Fair_Play
10-13-2004, 09:21 AM
SpiderMan [ QUOTE ]
I'm actually voting in this election, against Kerry, because of his voting record.
<hr /></blockquote>Thanks to Kerry the pharase <font color="red">'firm convictions' </font color>is a 'sneer phrase' as if firm conviction only lead to a single course of action in ANY given situation. This is absurd on it's very face.

Kerry DOES have firm convictions, and those convictions ARE reflected in his voting record, pure and simple.

Our battalion has had 5 KIA in Iraq. We hate war (whether it is called a war or not matters little to those who have fallen). Our guys feel strongly that what we are doing in Iraq is necessary to protect our nation. The Army Times poll is simply a reflection of the majority, who do not trust Kerry to have our best interests at heart.

It seems to me that the mans behavior, his entire life anti-war in college, dubious VN service (how many servicemen become a pariah to 90% of their comrades in arms?) anti-war post service in the military, his voting record itself, all validates the swifties allegations.

POW's and atrocities: It is inconceivable to me that the 'average' VN soldier or unit committed atrocities on a regular basis. Anyone who has had military service would, and truthfully, reject that out of hand. Whether Bush is as smart as Kerry, whether he has made wrong choices or not, he does not have the Kerry trait of being everything to everyone on any given day. Kerry was dove, then hawk, then dove, now hawk and dove. He is Catholic for abortion or against abortion but he votes for abortion because he 'cannot impose his beliefs on others', meaning he needs the votes. Bush may not be up to the job intellectually, not on Kerry's level at least, yet morally he seems to me to have a clear edge.

<font color="blue"> I do believe that Kerry has one strong firm and resolute conviction, and that conviction is that he should be president because he deserves to be president... he is smarter, and more devious than the public. This shows in his every utterance, which can be contradicted easily by his own words. Go Figure. <font color="blue">

POW's?? <font color="blue"> John Fonda Fonda Kerry applauded these words spoken by his heroine Hanoi Jane </font color>[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law." </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Incredibl. Hanoi Jane's buddy, who has never apologized for his insults to our POW's.
This is the guy who feels he is entitled to be our Commander in Chief?? The quote from Fonda dovetails nicely with Kerry's Senate speech, and it gives firm and direct indications of why John Kerry has not and will never apologize to POW's - after all these years, the man is incapable of changing his core convictions. Hyper Anti-War lHyper Liberal, ALL for Kerry - who is the rigid one betwen Bush/Kerry? </font color>

All the Best,

Fair Play

SpiderMan
10-13-2004, 10:34 AM
That's Fair /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
10-13-2004, 11:16 AM
They know the difference. They just don't want to hear it.
I hate to start getting personal but sometimes I
wonder what planet these Bush people are from and
if they really believe what they are saying.

Fair_Play
10-13-2004, 11:23 AM
Hello Hondo,

what planet? - well, shucks, hope it is this one.

Just a difference of opinion. I really do believe that the different sides each have passion, conviction and reason for their choices..

in my case, I am not nearly as much for Bush as I am
anti-Kerry..

I suppose that we are on different sides of the fence, looking at each other, and shaking our heads.. it would be nice if there were some way not to have the divide that exists.

All the Best,

Fair?

hondo
10-13-2004, 12:27 PM
I apologize. I am as anti-Bush as you are anti- Kerry
and some of the comments are starting to DRIVE ME
NUTS.

Fair_Play
10-13-2004, 12:45 PM
Hey Hondo,

Darn, if this ain't a b*tch - with all of the anti-Kerry acid comments I make on a regular basis, it is <font color="blue"> I </font color> who should be apologizing, not you. IMO.

This is puzzling the heck out of me.. our feelings seem to be pretty much the same, except for the differences!

Should Senator Kerry be the winner, it would be nice if both you and I were pleased with the results, and the same goes for GW should he remain... now, that would be nice indeed.

Best regards to you,

Fair Play

nhp
10-13-2004, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> SpiderMan &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I'm actually voting in this election, against Kerry, because of his voting record.
<hr /></blockquote>Thanks to Kerry the pharase <font color="red">'firm convictions' </font color>is a 'sneer phrase' as if firm conviction only lead to a single course of action in ANY given situation. This is absurd on it's very face.

Kerry DOES have firm convictions, and those convictions ARE reflected in his voting record, pure and simple.

Our battalion has had 5 KIA in Iraq. We hate war (whether it is called a war or not matters little to those who have fallen). Our guys feel strongly that what we are doing in Iraq is necessary to protect our nation. The Army Times poll is simply a reflection of the majority, who do not trust Kerry to have our best interests at heart.

It seems to me that the mans behavior, his entire life anti-war in college, dubious VN service (how many servicemen become a pariah to 90% of their comrades in arms?) anti-war post service in the military, his voting record itself, all validates the swifties allegations.

POW's and atrocities: It is inconceivable to me that the 'average' VN soldier or unit committed atrocities on a regular basis. Anyone who has had military service would, and truthfully, reject that out of hand. Whether Bush is as smart as Kerry, whether he has made wrong choices or not, he does not have the Kerry trait of being everything to everyone on any given day. Kerry was dove, then hawk, then dove, now hawk and dove. He is Catholic for abortion or against abortion but he votes for abortion because he 'cannot impose his beliefs on others', meaning he needs the votes. Bush may not be up to the job intellectually, not on Kerry's level at least, yet morally he seems to me to have a clear edge.

<font color="blue"> I do believe that Kerry has one strong firm and resolute conviction, and that conviction is that he should be president because he deserves to be president... he is smarter, and more devious than the public. This shows in his every utterance, which can be contradicted easily by his own words. Go Figure. <font color="blue">

POW's?? <font color="blue"> John Fonda Fonda Kerry applauded these words spoken by his heroine Hanoi Jane </font color>&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<font color="red"> when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law." </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Incredibl. Hanoi Jane's buddy, who has never apologized for his insults to our POW's.
This is the guy who feels he is entitled to be our Commander in Chief?? The quote from Fonda dovetails nicely with Kerry's Senate speech, and it gives firm and direct indications of why John Kerry has not and will never apologize to POW's - after all these years, the man is incapable of changing his core convictions. Hyper Anti-War lHyper Liberal, ALL for Kerry - who is the rigid one betwen Bush/Kerry? </font color>

All the Best,

Fair Play
<hr /></blockquote>

Sorry pal, but you disgust me. Why don't you go and get your facts straight about Kerry's vietnam service, and what he did after the war to help veterans. Why don't you go and do some research on the atrocities committed by BOTH our soldiers and the vietnamese during the war. Of course you won't, you don't give a crap about the truth, you just love it whenever you hear some more lies about Kerry. Here we have a man who served his country, was COMPASSIONATE about our young men dying and GOING CRAZY, COMMITTING ATROCITIES, so he went AGAINST THE WAR, TO PUT AN END TO IT. And you sit here and spit on him. You sit here and say that the swift boat veterans don't tell lies, hey did you know that the leader of the swift boat veterans was recruited by Nixon to smear Kerry when he was protesting the war, telling the man that it would be a "service to his country"? Did you know that Kerry debated that man on live national television, and destroyed him with facts? Did you know that? Of course not. You don't give a crap. Good for you, but change your name, because you don't give a dog [censored] about "fair play".

highsea
10-13-2004, 04:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>...this movie is nothing but bull from a bunch of people who were not even on the same boat with him.<hr /></blockquote>nAz, Kerry has 13 veterans that served on Swift Boats in the Mekong Delta on his side. 7 or 8 of these guys served on his crew at one time or another.

Let's forget about the 254 other SBV's who question his fitness to be Commander-in-Chief for a moment.

Of the 23 OIC's (Officers in Command) that were his peers in Coastal Division 11, 3 support him. 19 do not. Not a single member of his chain of command (his superiors) supports him.

PCF's worked in groups, and these guys were often in a better position to rate Kerry than the guys on his own boat. They basically describe Kerry as a "loose cannon", who would go off on his own, causing the other boats to abort their mission to go provide fire support for Kerry.

Afterwards, he would come back with his 8mm and re-enact his exploits for the camera. He has footage of him trudging around in Army kit, even though he was in the Navy...doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

I don't think this film is going to change anyone's mind, but I see know reason why these guys should not be heard. As far as I'm concerned, they earned that right.

Fair_Play
10-13-2004, 05:09 PM
Hello nhp,

I could not disagree more, nor could you.

Food for thought.

All the best to you and to yours,

Fair Play

p.s. wow, what an incedible different set of deductions from the same set of facts!

nhp, you are obviously a caring and concerned person. I say that because I believe that what is operating here is known as 'selective perception'. Using my life experience in the military, and my value system, I make judgements. You also use your life experience and and value system to make judgements.

We seem to have come to more than slightly different conclusions...

We both would likely both be willing to bet our lives on these conclusions.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

highsea
10-13-2004, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Did you know that Kerry debated that man on live national television, and destroyed him with facts? Did you know that? Of course not. <hr /></blockquote>Here is a transcript of the Cavett interview. I can't really say either one "destroyed" the other, but it's here to read if anyone wants to.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Fair_Play
10-13-2004, 06:30 PM
Crushed? O'Neill crushed by Kerry??? Heck, it simply looked to me suspiciously like Kerry's familiar brand of obfuscation.

Now, here is one Kerry missed [ QUOTE ]
The reporters found that an Army investigation had found substantial evidence that 18 soldiers had committed war crimes by killing unarmed and unresisting Vietnamese civilians, but the Nixon and Ford administrations failed to prosecute anyone. <hr /></blockquote>http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pul-a07.shtml

The above is from a Pulitzer prize winning report. Add Lieutenant Calley, lets see, thats 19... and the Swift Boat Veterans (including Kerry) that is 1019.. got a way to go to get to 2,000,000

Soldiers fight and die so that we can have free speech. There are always the bad apples - Kerry has stated that it is 100% of servicemen who are rapists, torturers, mutilators, murderers of women and children, and is willing to testify to the senate that it is 100% - he also does not want to name names... how odd.

Fair Play

ps - nhp isn't the only one who is <font color="red"> angry </font color>: <font color="blue"> Kerry is "angry with his staff." Apparently the poll numbers that worry them the most are W's approval ratings which are now solidly over 50%, and the fact that Kery went from a sizeable post-DNC advantage to a sizeable deficit on who would make the better commander-in-chief.
</font color> poor baby!

nhp
10-13-2004, 10:20 PM
Ok, since you did not fight in the Vietnam war, how would you like for me to get two friends who fought in the war and witnessed countless atrocities committed by our soldiers to contact you thru e-mail and give you their personal accounts to what they have witnessed, and stories they have heard from fellow soldiers?

So do you think protesting the Vietnam War was wrong? Do you think it was a war we should have fought? Do you think that demanding an end to the war, to save lives, and prevent atrocities was wrong? Please tell me where your criticism stems from.

Fair_Play
10-13-2004, 10:56 PM
Hello nhp,

my criticism of Kerry stems from my experience and my judgement - the fact that John Fonda Kerry refuses to sign SF 180 tells me all that I care to know about the guy.

My issue is not in fighting the VN war again, but honor, loyalty, truthfulness. You judge Kerry to be truthful, I do not. To use one of his wife's words, IMO he is a phony (censored) through and through.

Your buddies, the ones that 'committed atrocities', and the stories they hear from others who 'committed atrocities'.. no, nhp, I have no interest in hearing from or about them. May they rest in peace.

In March of 1965, as a PFC in HHB 5th Bnm 81st Airborne Artillery I received a General Court Martial, for "Assault with a deadly weapon resulting in grievous bodily harm." I was advised to plead Not Guilty, Self Defense..

It was my good fortune that the 'pal' made it out of intensive care, and did not die. When he finally got out of the hospital (concussion, grave loss of blood, 19 stitches to close a scalp wound) I testified for him at his summary court martial (because of that, he got off). Me? I plead guilty, because I was guilty.. probably because of that my sentence was only reduction to the lowest enlisted grade (E-1), and forfeiture of 2/3 of all pay and allowances for six months. I did not spend any time in confinement at all, which is why I am allowed to be on active duty now, and will be retiring in a few months.

So, let me get this straight - these 'pals' of yours, the ones who committed atrocities, and know of many others who committed atrocities (they have their "stories"), it was not their fault, it was the army's fault, or their leaders fault, or the governments fault that they committed atrocities, right? And, they did not report any atrocities to anyone, because they were ALL dirty, right? On top of that, "you don't understand how bad it was" they say, "I was outa my mind"... "I bought some bad [censored] from Slickie Boy in the Ville.."

What is the measure of a man? Is it being fearless? Not at all. The measure of a man is what he does when he is scared sh^tless. A man of character will do the right thing. A coward? A coward will do the wrong thing, and then deny responsibility, and blame others.

You have your views, I have mine. I am pleased with mine.

There is no doubt that you are pleased with yours.

Fair Play /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<font color="red"> NUKE 'EM 'TIL THEY GLOW, THEN HUNT 'EM DOWN AT NIGHT!! </font color>

nhp
10-14-2004, 03:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My issue is not in fighting the VN war again, but honor, loyalty, truthfulness. <hr /></blockquote>

Those are good virtues, but in some cases, compassion for human life must override those. I view Kerry (during his Vietnam service) cared about human life, which was why he protested the war. There were thousands of other vietnam vets who protested the war after coming back. Are they cowards and liars too, or just Kerry?

[ QUOTE ]
Your buddies, the ones that 'committed atrocities', and the stories they hear from others who 'committed atrocities'.. no, nhp, I have no interest in hearing from or about them. May they rest in peace.
<hr /></blockquote>

NEVER did I say my friends committed any atrocities. If they did, they did not tell me about it. They told me that they witnessed it and heard many stories.

[ QUOTE ]
it was not their fault, it was the army's fault, or their leaders fault, or the governments fault that they committed atrocities, right? <hr /></blockquote>

Have you ever been in combat? The stress it can put on the human mind can cause people to go crazy. My father saw the worst of the worst fighting in Europe, he led a platoon through the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-1945. He had 36 men under his command, and when they were captured, only himself and 11 other men were alive. He saw one of his closest friends literally cut in half from German machine gun fire. He saw young kids, 18 or 19 years old get their faces torn off by shrapnel. To top it all off, he spent 5 months in a German prison camp, sick and starving. My father suffers from post tramautic stress disorder. My father told me of accounts where after seeing so much blood and gore, he and his men became immune to it. When they would kill an enemy, they didn't care anymore, it didn't shock them. They had no regard for human life at the time. When my father came back from the war, he voluntarily checked himself into a mental institution, he told me because seeing so much battle made him want to kill someone, anyone, if they just looked at him funny. I hope you are starting to get the picture now. I can give you more examples if you'd like, and these are just from my father alone.

[ QUOTE ]
A coward? A coward will do the wrong thing, and then deny responsibility, and blame others.
<hr /></blockquote>

I find it hard to believe that a man who has seen combat is a coward and yet nobody mentions anything about Bush during Vietnam, who was drinking heavily and snorting coke on his daddy's couch.

Fair_Play
10-14-2004, 07:22 AM
Hello nhp,

Your point of view is a valid one, no doubt.

Yes, I protested the war. I protested a government that did not support the military, that cut and run when we were a whisker away from victory after Tet.

Yes, there are bad things in peace and in war. If one were to calculate the percentage of the population who commit rape, murder, and heinous crimes one would find that there is and always will be people who victimize and commit crimes against others. In peacetime. This is societies fault? The stress of peace?

I am not going to post any additional anti-Kerry diatribes from this time forward. To me it is patently obvious that John Kerry is a self-serving three dollar bill, without a shred of loyalty except to himself and to his ambitions. On the other hand, GW has been up front. "John Kerry NEVER falls down!!" is a telling phrase in more ways than one. Research that, nhp.

IMO Kerry is a base coward, he is afraid to let the truth be known about his military service. He is not hiding his record because of modesty or humility. To me he is a whining sniveling wannabe, and always has been. What is he afraid of?

Again, your views are your views, and they are right for you. With that I have no problem whatsoever.

Best Regards to you and to yours,

with respect,

Fair Play

eg8r
10-14-2004, 07:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry pal, but you disgust me. Why don't you go and get your facts straight about Kerry's vietnam service, and what he did after the war to help veterans. <hr /></blockquote> Remind us again what he did to help them? I do remember reports of him slandering the veterans, but maybe you remember something different.

eg8r

eg8r
10-14-2004, 08:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I view Kerry (during his Vietnam service) cared about human life, which was why he protested the war. <hr /></blockquote> You can't have it both ways, this same person during the same time was also not very caring of life when he was "committing atrocities".

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that a man who has seen combat is a coward and yet nobody mentions anything about Bush during Vietnam, <hr /></blockquote> I don't think you are bothering to take the time to read his clearly defined term of coward. He is saying that if you do something wrong, then don't stand up and take responsiblity for your actions, then you are a coward. Based on the definition he gave, this would have nothing to do with Bush. As far as the subject is concerned, Bush did not do anything to fit the definition.

eg8r

Fair_Play
10-14-2004, 08:36 AM
nhp [ QUOTE ]
Oh, but Kerry betrayed them all, right? I am not surprised that nobody from the RNC has mentioned that Kerry was the only person in the senate along with John McCain to do a long, extensive investigation about the speculation that thousands of our GI's were being held captive in Vietnam many years after the war. Kerry in fact visited Vietnam 5 times during that investigation, he himself questioned thousands of former vietnamese soldiers and officers about the whereabouts of the POW MIA's. This is what sparked the friendship between Kerry and McCain.

One more zinger- Did you know that the head of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth was a man who was recruited by Richard Nixon to do a smear campaign against John Kerry? Kerry and this man had a live debate on national television on this matter, about Kerry's opposition to the war, and Kerry destroyed him with facts. It's no surprise that nobody from the RNC mentions this. Why am I going on so long about Kerry's war record? Because my father being a 100% disabled veteran, and him being a former POW, it absoloutely DISGUSTS me to see people making a smear campaign about someone's SERVICE FOR HIS COUNTRY in a war, and a man's efforts to end the war when he came back.
<hr /></blockquote>

Given the same facts, different people can easily reach different conclusions.

Motive? What was to gain for Kerry? Politically?

Combat does not grant nobility, it does not suspend right and wrong. What courage does it take to see atrocities, not to take steps to stop them, not to report them, and then to hold them inside to share with others later.

From the Caett show - a classic example of a guy who does not want to "name names". Where is truth and courage in that? [ QUOTE ]
MR. KERRY: We – the Vietnam Veterans Against the War – and I can't even pretend to speak for all the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, let alone speak for all the men who served in Vietnam, and neither in fact can anybody else pretend to speak for a majority. That's entirely in the impossible range. But what we're saying is – <font color="blue"> and the reason that some of these men have not signed depositions is very, very simple </font color> , and it's up to each individual. One reason is that specifically they are not looking to implicate other people. <font color="red">(or themnselves?) </font color> They haven't cited names of individuals involved because they don't want more Calleys. They don't want men to enter double jeopardy, to have to come back to the United States of America and be penalized for those things that they did that were the result of the mistakes and the bad decisions of their leaders <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">(again, the mistakes and bad decisions of their leaders drove them to commit atrocities?????) AND they could not tell the truth about it, or about others who had committed atrocities, because, gosh golly, it was NOT their fault!!) </font color> <font color="blue"> These words are from the same guy who takes great pride in having put people in jail for life when he was a prosecutor. See, it is OK to commit atrocities in peacetime, and to be named. But, in noble combat it is perfectly OK to commit all the atrocities you want, whenever you want?? </font color>

Again, perception is reality. Selective perception is reality filtered by ones experiences and value system.

It bcomes clear that you care deeply for your dad.

That is not a bad thing, nhp.

Your conclusions fit your judgement and your experience, and they make you feel comfortable.

Ah well, so do mine. My father survived WWII by 2 1/2 years.

Again, all the best to you and to yours,

Fair Play

Qtec
10-14-2004, 08:44 AM
Sure, GW is man enough to admit his own mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

BUSH: I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big.

And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions, because I think they're right.

BUSH: That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the answer is, "Absolutely not." It was the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program. And the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history. <font color="blue"> HaHa. </font color>

Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV. <font color="blue"> Gasp! </font color>

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.




<hr /></blockquote>

ie,"I dont think I have made ANY mistakes. Any mistakes made were somebody else,s fault."


[ QUOTE ]
Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Kerry got his information from an article we posted Sept. 23 stating that Bush on his 2001 federal income-tax returns "reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." We should clarify: the $84 in Schedule C income was from Bush's Lone Star Trust, which is actually described on the 2001 income-tax returns as an "oil and gas production" business. The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question. So we should have described the $84 as coming from an "oil and gas" business in 2001, and will amend that in our earlier article.

<hr /></blockquote>

Is this GW,s first mistake?

Q

Qtec
10-14-2004, 08:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
my criticism of Kerry stems from my experience and my judgement - the fact that John Fonda Kerry refuses to sign SF 180 tells me all that I care to know about the guy <hr /></blockquote>

GW has NEVER signed a SF-180. Does that tell you all you want to know about him?

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
10-14-2004, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

<hr /></blockquote>

What the hell did they expect him to say? GW believes he did the right thing. You make a decision and stand by it. What's wrong with that?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

...The Lone Star Trust now owns 50% of the tree-growing company, but didn't get into that business until two years after the $84 in question.<hr /></blockquote>

Usually when someone is elected to national office they put their assets in a blind trust to be administered by someone else. That is in order to avoid conflict of interest. I'm pretty sure he does not know what he owns right now.

Qtec
10-14-2004, 09:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Osama bin Laden

Mr. Bush incorrectly denied saying last year that he was no longer concerned about finding Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Kerry, criticizing the president as shifting his attention from that search to the Iraq war, said: "Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, 'Where's Osama bin Laden?' He said: 'I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.' "

Mr. Bush denied making the remark. "Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden," he said in the debate. "That's kind of one of those exaggerations." <font color="blue"> No it isnt Mr P! </font color>

But at a news conference on March 13, 2003, Mr. Bush said just that when asked why he rarely mentioned Mr. bin Laden any more. "I don't know where he is," Mr. Bush replied. "I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you."

He added at the time: "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

<hr /></blockquote>

Did he forget?

Q

Ross
10-14-2004, 10:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Not a single member of his chain of command (his superiors) supports him.
<hr /></blockquote>
"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryviet5jul05,1,6498671.story?coll=la-center-elect2004

highsea
10-14-2004, 11:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> GW has NEVER signed a SF-180. Does that tell you all you want to know about him?

Q <hr /></blockquote>There is debate about the mechanism GW used to release his records, but there is simply <font color="red">NO WAY YOU CAN MAKE THIS STATEMENT WITH AUTHORITY,</font color> because you do not know this. Do you have a letter or a statement from the President that backs up your statement?

Whether he used an executive order, or SF 180 is a moot point. All the Government needs is the authorization to release records. The President, as C-in-C, can do this with an executive order. SF 180 is just a simple one page form to make it easier for people to file FOIA requests for records. In fact, it has to be filed with EACH request. Kerry does not have the authority to issue an executive order, so he could post a signed SF 180 on his website, and it would accomplish the same thing that Bush did with his EO.

The proof is simple. A FOIA request will allow anyone to gain access to the Presidents service records. Remember the AP suit? If the President had not authorized the release of his records, the AP could NOT have filed that suit.

The point is, it does not matter what mechanism the President used. The fact is that in February 2004, he ordered the records to be released to anyone filing a FOIA request. Kerry has not done this, he just posts those parts of his records that makes him look good on his website. There is a big difference.

highsea
10-14-2004, 11:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer." <hr /></blockquote>That's as close as you will find to an endorsement from his Chain of Command. Here is another quote from Captain Lonsdale:[ QUOTE ]
"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units.

Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."

-- Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)<hr /></blockquote> link (http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes)

hondo
10-14-2004, 11:16 AM
I'll tell you what, FP. If you drink we ought to
get together sometime and have a few, shoot pool,
and talk about ANYTHING but politics. Maybe we
can get landshark to go with us.

eg8r
10-14-2004, 11:30 AM
The truth about the timber company...<blockquote><font class="small">Quote factcheck.org:</font><hr> President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)
(Oct 9; CORRECTION: What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." <font color="red"> So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such. </font color>)

<hr /></blockquote> Link (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265)

eg8r

Fair_Play
10-14-2004, 11:40 AM
Hello Hondo,

Hey, that would be swell, thanks! Landshark too. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yeah, politics, guess I am getting out of that business for awhile... if I can.

<font color="blue"> I am sure that with our system of government, whoever sits in the oval office will do a workmanlike job. </font color>

I do believe that the guys on this board are good people, all of them. They have to be, or they simply would not survive in a poolroom!

All the very best to you and to yours, Hondo,

Thanks again,
Fair Play

highsea
10-14-2004, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr>Yeah, politics, guess I am getting out of that business for awhile... if I can. <hr /></blockquote>FP, This is your choice, of course. As a career serviceman and a US citizen, you have every right to voice your opinions on this election and the candidates. More so than some others, imo, given your years of service.

Anyway, I have enjoyed your commentary and humor, so thank you for that and your service to our country. As you would say,

All the best to you and yours.

-CM

Fair_Play
10-14-2004, 02:00 PM
Hello HighSea,

Thank you for the nice words, I will try to live up to them.

Now, as for pool ".....if I can." (just leavin myself an out, trying not to block the next shot...) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hey, life is good. I have noticed that some days are better than others.

Me? I'll stick around for awhile, this is a swell place to drop in. Now if I can only learn a trick or two!

Regards, HighSea,

Fair Play

SPetty
10-14-2004, 02:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fair_Play:</font><hr> Now, as for pool ".....if I can." (just leavin myself an out, trying not to block the next shot...) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>Hello Fair_Play,

It might interest you to know that there is an entirely pool related forum here. No politics or religion allowed over there, but it's all about pool and pool-related stuff. You might like it if you give it a chance.

It's called the Cue Chalk Board. Just go to the Main Index and select it instead of the Non Pool Related forum.

Hope that helps. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
10-14-2004, 03:10 PM
Make your point.

Q

Qtec
10-14-2004, 03:30 PM
Dont you think this post is just a LITTLE hypocritical???

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

highsea
10-14-2004, 03:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dont you think this post is just a LITTLE hypocritical???

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Lately, Q, I think all your posts are a little hypocritical.

BTW, I don't appreciate you labeling the President of the United States as a "brainless idiot".
[ QUOTE ]
Registration as a User implies acceptance of the following terms and conditions:
- Participants shall not post any material likely to cause offence, that is protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right - without the express permission of the owner of such copyright - or that contains personal phone numbers or addresses.
- Participants may not use the Forums to post or transmit advertisements or commercial solicitations of any kind.
- The appropriate Forum Moderator has the right to edit, censor, delete or otherwise modify any posted message.
- This web site does not verify or guarantee the accuracy of the material posted to the Forums or bear any responsibility for any loss, damage, or other liabilities caused by any posted message. <hr /></blockquote>
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/faq_english.php?Cat=#rules

<font color="red">Give Respect To Get Respect.</font color>

Fair_Play
10-14-2004, 03:50 PM
Hello SPetty!

Aw shucks, thanky!! [ QUOTE ]
It might interest you to know that there is an entirely pool related forum here. No politics or religion allowed over there, but it's all about pool and pool-related stuff. You might like it if you give it a chance.....Hope that helps. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

Here I am, blindsided by a pro! NO, I don't want to play for money! LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Take Care, SPetty!!

Fair Play

Qtec
10-14-2004, 04:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
FP, This is your choice, of course. As a career serviceman and a US citizen, you have every right to voice your opinions on this election and the candidates. More so than some others, imo, given your years of service <hr /></blockquote>

How do you know that FP is the genuine article and not a figment of somebody,s imagination?
The guy has done NOTHING but make CHILDISH attacks on Kerry and NEVER backed up any of his claims with any sort of EVIDENCE.

FP comes on to the board, <font color="blue"> Fair Play- what a joke. then again he has admitted his bias! [ Hi FP /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif] </font color> and because he is in the Army, he has more credibility than the rest of us civilians.


It might intrest you to know that at least 31,000 troops who are on ACTIVE duty[ ie liable to stop a bullet] are not even US citizens!! They are called the Green Card Troops. Check it oout]
If one of these guys came on the board,would you tell them to keep quiet because they are not Americans?

You have lost ALL objectivity.

Everything I say I can back up with evidence.

Q

Fair_Play
10-14-2004, 04:26 PM
Hello again, Q

Q, you are a blind man who is convinced he sees the light. Unfortunately for you, the only light you are seeing is caused by your insistance on running into brick walls. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

I think you are having visual hallucinations again, Q. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

We are all concerned for you, Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

We all know that I AM a figment of your imagination... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Hey, do you know SGT Scott? We joke with him quite a bit, he is Canadian, you see. Pretty sharp guy. He is getting his citizenship pretty soon.. then he won't even be Canadian, any more.

Good luck with the hallucinations, Q

Be real careful, next you will start with spatial disorientation, and think you are in the U.S.!!

Take Care,

Fair Play /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea
10-14-2004, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> How do you know that FP is the genuine article and not a figment of somebody,s imagination?
The guy has done NOTHING but make CHILDISH attacks on Kerry and NEVER backed up any of his claims with any sort of EVIDENCE.<hr /></blockquote>For one thing, I recognize the Military abbreviations and language that FP has used, which non-military people are not likely to know. I have no reason to think he's making anything up regarding his service to America.

FP's comments about Kerry, while obviously critical are at least interspersed with humor, and he is quick to point out his bias. He also treats others here with respect, whether they agree with him or not. The comments he makes are directed mainly to Kerry's post war Senate speeches and VVAW appearances, which are well documented. Occasionally he will throw in a remark about something Kerry said to a reporter, like his snowboarding or windsurfing comments, or something from the debates. Big deal. Also well documented events.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> FP comes on to the board, <font color="blue"> Fair Play- what a joke. then again he has admitted his bias! [ Hi FP /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif] </font color> and because he is in the Army, he has more credibility than the rest of us civilians.<hr /></blockquote>Not necessarily credibility, Q, but he does have the right to speak his opinions. Credibility has to be judged by the reader. I'm not here to defend FP, he is perfectly capable of that himself. I said IMO, he has as much right (or more) to speak his mind as anyone else. I was expressing a personal opinion.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>It might intrest you to know that at least 31,000 troops who are on ACTIVE duty[ ie liable to stop a bullet] are not even US citizens!! They are called the Green Card Troops. Check it oout]
If one of these guys came on the board,would you tell them to keep quiet because they are not Americans?<hr /></blockquote>Not at all. I don't tell you to keep quiet either. I asked you to respect the Office of President of the United States, or accept the fact that you will be challenged. Most of the people here live in the US. If you want to insult the President without being challenged, you should go to a European Forum. Notice I said insult, not criticise.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Everything I say I can back up with evidence.

Q <hr /></blockquote>Fine. Please back up your "brainless idiot" comment. An X-ray of the President's head and a certified IQ test will do fine.

nhp
10-15-2004, 03:49 AM
Snopes.com does some investigating about John Kerry's service in Vietnam:

Myth: John Kerry's medals were earned under "fishy" circumstances in Vietnam.
FALSE
...........................
In

Vietnam, Lieutenant John Kerry served aboard 50-foot aluminum boats known as PCFs (from "patrol craft fast") or "Swift boats" (supposedly an acronym for "Shallow Water Inshore Fast Tactical Craft"). Despite the implications contained in the piece quoted above ("that duty wasn't the worst you could draw"), Swift boat duty was plenty dangerous:

. . two weeks after [Kerry] arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed — and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.

Originally designed to ferry oil workers to ocean rigs, swift boats offered flimsy protection. Because bullets could easily penetrate the hull, sailors hung flak jackets over the sides. The boat's loud engine invited ambushes. Speed was its saving grace — but that wasn't always an option in narrow, heavily mined canals.

The swift boat crew typically consisted of a college-educated skipper, such as Kerry, and five blue-collar sailors averaging 19 years old. The most vulnerable sailor sat in the "tub" — a squat nest that rose above the pilot house — and operated a pair of .50-caliber machine guns. Another gunner was in the rear. Kerry's mission was to wait until hidden Viet Cong guerrillas started shooting, then order his men to return fire.


It was not at all unusual that a Swift boat crew member might be wounded more than once in a relatively short period of time, or that injuries meriting the award of a Purple Heart might not be serious enough to require time off from duty. According to a Boston Globe overview of John Kerry's Vietnam experience:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.

"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."


And according to Douglas Brinkley's history of John Kerry and the Vietnam War:

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.

John Kerry was wounded in his first significant combat action, when he volunteered for a special mission on 2 December 1968:

"It was a half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat, but it was my first, and that made it very exciting," [Kerry said]. "Three of us, two enlisted men and myself, had stayed up all night in a Boston Whaler [a foam-filled-fiberglass boat] patrolling the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh . . . Most of the night had been spent being scared shitless by fisherman whom we would suddenly creep up on in the darkness. Once, one of the sailors was so startled by two men who surprised us as we came around a corner ten yards from the shore that he actually pulled the trigger on his machine gun. Fortunately for the two men, he had forgotten to switch off the safety . . ."

As it turned out, the two men really were just a pair of innocent fisherman who didn't know where one zone began and the other ended. Their papers were perfectly in order, if their night's fishing over. The fear was that they were VC. Allowing them to continue might have compromised the mission. For the next four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought boatloads of fisherman they found in sampans, all operating in a curfew zone, back to the Swift. It was tiring work. "We deposited them with the Swift boat that remained out in the deep water to give us cover," Kerry continued. "Then, very early in the morning, around 2:00 or 3:00, while it was still dark, we proceeded up the tiny inlet between the island and the peninsula to the point designated as our objective. The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband."

With its motor turned off, Kerry paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet into the beginning of the bay. Simultaneously the Vietnamese pulled their sampans up onto the beach and began to unload something; he couldn't tell what, so he decided to illuminate the proceedings with a flare. The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles Kerry had once seen on TV's Wild Kingdom. "We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

"We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate ourselves at that point," Kerry explained. "In the dead of night, without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot off. We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition, we didn't have cover, we just weren't prepared for that . . . So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed." Then their cover boat warned of a possible VC ambush in the small channel they had to exit through, and Kerry and company departed the area.

nhp
10-15-2004, 03:53 AM
The "stinging piece of heat" Kerry felt in his arm had been caused by a piece of shrapnel, a wound for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. The injury was not serious — Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm, and the Boston Globe quoted William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral, as recalling that "It was not a very serious wound at all."

Kerry earned his second Purple Heart while returning from a PCF mission up the Bo De River on 20 February 1969:

One of the mission's support helicopters had been hit by small-arms fire during the trip up the Bo De and the rest had returned with it to their base to refuel and get the damage inspected. While there the pilots found that they wouldn't be able to return to the Swifts for several more hours. "We therefore had a choice: to wait for what was not a confirmed return by the helos [and] give any snipers more time to set up an ambush for our exit or we could take a chance and exit immediately without any cover," Kerry recorded in his notebook. "We chose the latter."

Just as they moved out onto the Cua Lon, at a junction known for unfriendliness in the past, kaboom! PCF-94 had taken a rocket-propelled grenade round off the port side, fired at them from the far left bank. Kerry felt a piece of hot shrapnel bore into his left leg. With blood running down the deck, the Swift managed to make an otherwise uneventful exit into the Gulf of Thailand, where they rendezvoused with a Coast Guard cutter. The injury Kerry suffered in that action earned his his second Purple Heart.

Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty."

Kerry earned his Silver Star on 28 February 1969, when he beached his craft and jumped off it with an M-16 rifle in hand to chase and shoot a guerrilla who was running into position to launch a B-40 rocket at Kerry's boat. Contrary to the account quoted above, Kerry did not shoot a "Charlie" who had "fired at the boat and missed," whose "rocket launcher was empty," and who was "already dead or dying" after being "knocked down with a .50 caliber round." Kerry's boat had been hit by a rocket fired by someone else — the guerrilla in question was still armed with a live B-40 and had only been clipped in the leg; when the guerrilla got up to run, Kerry assumed he was getting into position to launch a rocket and shot him:

On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, [Tommy] Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). [Michael] Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for . . . I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."


<font color="blue"> Another member of the crew confirmed Kerry's account for the Boston Globe and expressed no doubt that Kerry's action had saved both the boat and its crew: </font color>

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.

Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it . . . It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."

Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, 'How the hell did we get out of that alive?'" Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing."

Although Kerry's superiors were somewhat concerned about the issue of his leaving his boat unattended, they nonetheless found his actions courageous and worthy of commendation:

When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,'" Elliott recalled in an interview.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy — my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."

Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.

"I don't think they were exactly ready to court-martial him," said Wade Sanders, who commanded a swift boat that sometimes accompanied Kerry's vessel, and who later became deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. "I can only say from the certainty borne of experience that there must have been some rumbling about, 'What are we going to do with this guy, he turned his boat,' and I can hear the words, 'He endangered his crew.' But from our position, the tactic to take is whatever action is best designed to eliminate the enemy threat, which is what he did."

Indeed, the Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's performance on that day was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy . . . The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."


Kerry was injured yet again on 13 March 1969, in an action for which he was awarded both a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. According to Kerry's Bronze Star citation (signed by Admiral Zumwalt himself):

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


According to the Boston Globe, this was the only one of Kerry's three Purple Heart injuries that caused him to miss any days of service:

Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.

Back in 1969, Navy regulations specified that any soldier wounded in combat three times be automatically reassigned away from a combat zone to an assignment of his choosing (unless the thrice-wounded soldier specifically requested to stay). Four days after Kerry took his third hit of shrapnel, Commodore Charles F. Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which Kerry served, forwarded a request on Kerry's behalf to the Navy Bureau of Personnel asking that Kerry be reassigned to "duty as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C." Soon afterwards Kerry was transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to await further orders, and within a month he had been reassigned as a personal aide and flag lieutenant to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr. with the Military Sea Transportation Service based in Brooklyn, New York.

Kerry served with Admiral Schlech until the end of 1969, when he requested an early discharge from the Navy in order to run for a Massachusetts congressional seat. Admiral Schlech approved the request, and on 3 January 1970 Kerry received an honorable discharge, six months early.

I hope that clears everything up for you all.

highsea
10-15-2004, 04:20 AM
I know I'm sold, how 'bout you FP?

Rodger Dodger, Over and Out...Don't buy a cow in the moonlight... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

j/k Nat, easy does it, tiger...

eg8r
10-15-2004, 05:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
FP comes on to the board, Fair Play- what a joke. then again he has admitted his bias! [ Hi FP ] and because he is in the Army, he has more credibility than the rest of us civilians.
<hr /></blockquote> Q, credibility? You never let that stop you before? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Fair_Play
10-15-2004, 07:12 AM
Hey nhp,

have a good day, that was a sincere post!

(darn, you do know there is disagreement here... with just about everything..)

trust those who do not hide behind patriotism.

IMO? The senator has a lot to hide.

I could not go to my dad's funeral, nhp.

In the past four months I have been to two buddies funerals, both VN vets... there records were not hidden, they were not hiding, then or now.

Take care, and all the best to you and to yours,

FP

Fair_Play
10-15-2004, 05:47 PM
Hello Hi C

your question reference Kerry's medals: "I know I'm sold, how 'bout you FP?"

In my career I have reached a position where I do awards and decorations paperwork on a regular basis, along with fitness reports etc. etc.

John Kerry was in the habit of writing what we in the army call after action reports (AAR's), he had a typewriter, and was willing to do the job where most of his shipmates had no interest in that at all. Armed with a typewriter and an 8mm camera <font color="blue"> I </font color> could easily manufacture any sort of reality you might like. John Kerry is not stupid, some call him highly intelligent. The term that I believe fits best is <font color="blue"> "cunning" </font color>

The man who controls the paperwork controls reality.. there are, for me, far too many procedural irregularities with the whole body of Kerry's service.

HighSea, you know my perpetual rant, SF 180.. there are far too many 'odd' circumstances surrounding Kerry's awards and decorations, from the 1st Purple heart and those oddities do not stop there. Some of the missing items from Kerry's records, and that are part of a serviceman's jacket, are the narratives for medals - these are, to a military guy familiar with personnel records, glaringly absent from the senator's web site.. as is any reasonable path or explanation as to how he came to have a purple heart awarded completely and patently far removed from normal channels - the military, as you well know, is very conservative and traditional in it's handling of paperwork, normal channel, procedural niceties observed..

So here we have a navy guy with a typewriter and an 8mm camera, strolling along through the jungle in Viet Nam doing his best impression of a grunt, mugging for his own camera....

And, here we have a guy who 'heroically' volunteers to be a "Swiftie"... well, not exactly heroically, because if you take just a little time to look into it, you find that when John Fonda Kerry volunteered for Swift Boats, well, they were a safe harbor, geedunk duty.. it was only AFTER he volunteered that they were reassigned as a group to hazardous duty... And then miraculously, within THREE (3) months of that change, with his trusty typewriter, his 8mm camera, he.. well, shucks,he was on his way out of harm's way, out of country, and into clover with a bag full of 'proof' of his sterling character, his devotion to duty, and his often mentioned (by himself!!!) heroism. I do have the feeling the Johnny Heinz somehow didn't have any Cambodian souvenirs in his sea bag... he didn't show the senate any when he testified, but he DID show just who he really was, and there was not one shred of honor in him by so doing.. if he was not cunningly and viciously political at that point, he could only have been a lying dupe to his own ambitions. More pathetic one cannot be, and more dangerous as well, with eloquence, diction, and all of that 8mm film. Even his 'accent' was phony.

HighSea, you know there is a term faintly heard any more, obsolete and in disuse, and that term is "Honor"... my discernment and Kerry's actions do not observe much of gentlemanly conduct in John Kerry's deeds. To the contrary.
Kerry demonstrates a consistent lack of honorable behavior
that is incomprehensible, it makes no sense.. unless one starts to ponder his motives. While the guy was a teenager and attending St. Paul's boarding school he was highly unpopular. he had a nickname.. that nickname was "Just For Kerry". Kerry developed a driving obsession with succeeding, and told everyone around him who would listen (not many would because he was, again, highly unpopular) that he was going to be President. The guy was a 'have not' in that environment, a poor poor boy. He was determined to succeed, and it looks obvious to me that he did not care what he had to do to succeed, honorable or not, truthful or not, loyal or not. His reputation in the senate is of a cold fish who is always calculating, and coldly calculating at that. A paradign of 'The ends justify the means."

A minor point to some, a major point to me is sifting through all of the conflicting information, and then connecting the dots. My duties also include Line of Duty Investigations. These require sworn statements as to what did or didn't happen. In many instances there are attempts to cover up what actually occured, or to present statements of things that did not occur. Cross checking, weighing the situation, and the known veracity (or lack of same) of the witnesses can give a very precise view of what actually happened. To me it is not a coincidence that the preponderance of the statements made about Kerry do not support his statements. As to the odd one or two personnel who support Kerry? When one weights the entirety, there is no change, simply because interpersonal judgements come into play, and 'You owe me' is powerful. I have seen officers do a 'I will recommend you for this if you will recommend me for that' on more than one occasion. Overall, the conclusin one must draw is one that is not flattering to John 8mm Kerry.

IMO the man is deathly afraid to release all of his records, and I firmly believe that there has to be very good reason for that fact. The ends justify the means for Kerry, but only if he continues to get away with it.

Take Care of youself, and
All the very best to you and to yours!

p.s. Alki beach during a storm in winter
in the spring as well
the lighthouse, and windsuring the sound!! Glorious! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif