navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Missing Explosives, anyone???
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Missing Explosives, anyone??? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2004-10-26 10:14 PM




Yesterday the front page of New York Times featured a flawed article asserting, "The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives — used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons — are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations. The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."

CBS News' "60 Minutes" admitted today they were saving the same story to air the Sunday before the election.

-------------------------------------------------------

Kerry slams Bush over missing Iraq explosives
AFP: 10/25/2004

DOVER, New Hampshire, Oct 25 (AFP) - Democratic hopeful John Kerry Monday branded President George W. Bush`s administration arrogant, blind, incompetent and guilty of "great blunders" after the disappearance of 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq.

Kerry pounced on reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency that the explosives that could be used in conventional or nuclear bombs had disappeared, as proof Bush had failed as US commander in chief.

"George W. Bush, who talks tough, talks tough, and brags about making America safer has once again failed to deliver," Kerry said.

"After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq this president failed to guard those stockpiles.

"Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings," Kerry said.

"Now we know our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics, this is one of the great blunders of Iraq one of the great blunders of this administration.

----------------------------------------------------

RACINE, Wis. - Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards lashed out at the Bush administration Monday over the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq.

At a rally in a park along Lake Michigan's shoreline, Edwards referred to a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency about nearly 380 tons of conventional explosives that were looted from a former Iraqi military facility.

Iraqi officials told the nuclear agency the materials were stolen and looted because of a lack of security.

"This is exactly what we've been worried about," Edwards told several hundred people at the rally. "This is incompetence. This is failure."

-----------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on the Bush Administration's failure to secure hundreds of tons of high-grade explosives in Iraq:

"President Bush's incompetence in failing to make certain that Iraqi stocks of high explosives and ammunition were secured has increased the risk to our troops in Iraq and to people around the world who might be the targets of terrorists.

"At a minimum, the Administration should have heeded warnings that it must secure these lethal explosives to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. By failing to do that, the President and his Administration have provided access to the most dangerous kinds of raw materials -- some 380 tons of explosives from one location alone -- to the insurgents, and to terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere.

"The chaotic security situation in Iraq today is a direct result of mistakes the President made before the invasion was launched -- by not planning adequately for the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein. The missing high explosives, nuclear equipment, and other materials unfortunately demonstrate that the world's security will be diminished by those mistakes for years to come."


Source: Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
----------------------------------------------------

NBC Proves "Exclusive" Reports Wrong  Posted by Ashley Obrey on Oct 26, 2004, 10:39



The story surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of explosives from a storage depot in Iraq takes a new turn with news from NBC. The network’s television news crew who traveled with American troops during the invasion of Iraq reported first-hand that the explosive material could not be found when the U.S. military first arrived, proving wrong reports by CBS NEWS and the New York Times.

An exclusive news broadcast updating the April 2003 report of missing explosives in Iraq was repackaged by CBS NEWS for air on 60 MINUTES to turn up the heat on the Bush Administration less than a day before elections. The report would claim military failure to secure the explosives from a storage depot in Iraq.

NBC, however, proves that the CBS report is false. While its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne division at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad, the troops found a large supply of conventional explosives, but there was no trace of HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing after Saddam Hussein’s government fell.

CBS NEWS “lost” the story, and it instead debuted in the New York Times on Tuesday. Although it is uncertain how the story fell out of CBS NEWS’ hands, according to the L.A. Times, the source on the story who approached 60 MINUTES on Oct. 20 also expressed interest in the New York Times

-----------------------------------------------------

Media Watchdog: 'October Surprise' Blows Up in Faces of NY Times, CBS News
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
October 26, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A media watchdog group Tuesday said "what amounted to an 'October surprise'" by the New York Times and CBS News blew up in their faces.

The Times was first to report Monday what it considered to be new information that 380 tons of explosives were missing from an Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under U.S. military control. But an NBC News report later noted the explosives were already gone before troops arrived at the Al-Qaqaa installation in April 2003.

CBS News' "60 Minutes" was planning to hold the story until Halloween, two days before Election Day, according to the Drudge Report Tuesday. "Our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..." Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday "60 Minutes," reportedly said in a statement.

"Both the New York Times and CBS have repeatedly shown they have chosen sides against President Bush in this election and, once again, they have been caught with Halloween eggs on their faces," said Media Research Center President Brent Bozell in a statement.

"Once again it's the Times, once again it's CBS, once again it's 60 Minutes, and once again they have proven that they cannot be believed when it comes to election coverage or anything else," Bozell said.

"The Times, CBS News, and 60 Minutes especially, have proven beyond all doubt that they are nothing more than extensions of the Democratic National Committee and they have no credibility whatsoever. In fact, episodes such as this and the Rathergate fiasco prove they may be even more partisan than the Democratic Party itself," he added.
----------------------------------------------------


In case anyone got confused following all of that, let me make it simple...

(1) The NY Times reported over 380 tons of dangerous explosives were missing and, without bothering to validate the facts, printed it.

(2) John Kerry, perusing headlines for anything he could use against Bush, jumped on it, also not bothering to verify it.

(3) John Edwards jumped on it

(4) Nancy Pelosi jumped on it, as did newspapers across the country.

(5) 60 Minutes was sitting on it to spring it the eve of the election to sway voters.

(6) NBC News proved it to be a false story.


Anyone out there still want to claim the media is not liberal? Attaboy, John. Keep shooting yourself in the foot....holler if you need more bullets. We love ya....


© Copyright 2004 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

1 posted 2004-10-26 10:30 PM


Get a grip Balladeer.  Did not you hear CBS was going to withhold the findings of the investigation of their use of forged documents to slam Bush because they did not want to unfairly effect the presidential election.  That proves their neutrality.

Everyone knows the ammo story was not scheduled as an October surprise to effect the election because the main stream media is not biased.

Shame on you.

It is just a strange coincidence that on the same day both the forged letter and the missing ammo stories broke, the Kerry campaign already had tv commercials taking advantage of the unbiased stories of the unbiased mainstream media.  

It just proves Kerry doesn't need to read the headlines.  The mainstream media certainly wouldn't work with a campaign which means Kerry truly is prescient.

You need to chill out and borrow some camo and get you one of those their hunting license and get some goose blood on your hands.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
2 posted 2004-10-26 10:37 PM


It's not a new story. But it's true.

So, you think Sinclair is a liberal?


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
3 posted 2004-10-26 10:43 PM


In other words, ad hominem tu quorque

Is that the right spelling?




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2004-10-26 10:45 PM


Actually, Tim, I think Kerry should bag another goose....because his is cooked.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
5 posted 2004-10-26 10:48 PM


Strange coincidence?  Geeze, there's been so many of those lately with the DNC and their housemates, I sure wish one of them could give me the winning Powerball numbers.  That many 'coincidences' could be my lucky break.  I mean, how often do these 'coincidences' occur without creating some sort of pattern of decisive intuitive thought to attempt to disembowel the opposition?

Kerry and his cohorts are definately full of intelligence, Machiavellian methods, determination, 'hope', and stuff normally left by cows in a field.

I'm just hoping like hell that he doesn't get the chance to hold onto his Senate seat if his campaign comes up short.  If Bush can work and campaign, then why not those two 'absent' Senators, who have missed so much work these past two years.  That's even more appalling for Edwards, who's still in his first Senatorial term.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2004-10-26 10:50 PM


No, Brad...there is no "r" in the last word....but I fail to see how it applies here.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2004-10-26 11:04 PM


No, Brad, I don't think Sinclair is trash like the New York Times or CBS but look at how his fellow news counterparts treat him...

"Sinclair's decision to pre-empt network programing less than two weeks before the Nov. 2 presidential election to run a program highly critical of Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry ignited an outcry that reached newspaper editorial pages, 24-hour news and even Wall Street as Sinclair's stock price took a beating. Its stock fell nine cents to $7.08 on the Nasdaq Monday, the same day that Moody's Investors Service revised the outlook on its debt rating to negative from stable in part because of revenue forecast concerns."

The liberal press sounded the war drums against him....the same ones that applauded Fahrenheit 9/11. You do the math...

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
8 posted 2004-10-26 11:28 PM


And Slate ran a piece on the missing explosives thing.

I don't fault Kerry for bringing it up. It's still one more example of Bush's incompetence.

You know, if you said the NY Times was liberal, how many would deny it?

But, no, instead you say the media. But come back to earth, Mike.

Fox news is liberal?

Sinclair owns more television station than any other single person.

The Washington Times is liberal?

The Wall Street Journal is liberal?

How many liberal radio talk shows are there?

What you are doing, gee, kind of like the wolves commercial, is fostering fear.

And then attack the other guy for doing what you do.

Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant strategy -- it simply confounds the rest of us.

But it's also untrue.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
9 posted 2004-10-27 12:04 PM


This is not about truth or fairness.  It’s about winning.

John


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
10 posted 2004-10-27 12:19 PM


I certainly don't believe it's a liberal media.

I have to get my news from Democracy Now!, provided by Indymedia and free Speech TV because basically all mainstream news outlets are more homogenized than ever before.

CNN is hardly liberal in any way. Until last week, Lou Dobbs was the only one I could trust on their whole programming line-up, but after pouncing on Teresa heinz Kerry for the innocent comments he made about Laura last week, comments which Laura even said there was no need apologizing for, I have boycotted him as well.

Sinclair Broadcasting is ultra-conservative. They went as far to say that "Stolen Honor" was "news". I'm STILL waiting to hear that vice-president Mark Hyman apologize for vice president of Sinclair apologize for saying "The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending these people (the POWs) don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."

97% of the campaign funds Sinclair offered went to the GOP. That should say a lot!

I find it laughable for those who consider this an intense liberal media especially with the fact that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watch group in New York, did this study in the week leading up to the war after Colin Powell made his call for action. They looked at the four major nightly newscasts (CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and of the 393 interviews done around war, only three were with anti-war representatives.

This came during a time when at least half the people in this country were either saying "no" to the invasion or were saying "at least give more time to diplomacy and inspections."

I can also say that this certainly is not a biased conservative media neither. It's neither. It's all just homogenized, generic instant oatmeal media nuked under a Fox Factor.

Of course, studies have shown if you are a regular viewer of Fox News, you are far more likely to believe there are WMD's in Iraq than those who don't watch Fox News. Thus explains much of the 75% of GOP supporters believing WMD's still exist.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2004-10-27 12:26 PM


You're right, Brad. When I said liberal press that was not meant to mean the ENTIRE press, only the majority. I should have been more clear. Interesting, though, how the non-liberal members of the press get gang-jumped when they do something the liberal side doesn't like....such as the example chown above.

I don't fault Kerry for bringing it up. It's still one more example of Bush's incompetence.

Bush is incompetent because Kerry brought up a false report to attack him on? I'll have to give that one a LOT of thought...

Yes, of course, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the WSJ Journal are liberal...that's no secret. CBS and 60 Minutes? They should be hired as Kerry's campaign managers...except they would have to stop using forged documents. Why aren't there more liberal rasio programs? Easy...they've tried. They're just not very good at it and don't have a message enough people want to hear.

The "attack the other guy" remark is lost on me. When Bush starts using forged documents and false reports, I'll understand it better.

Fostering fear? Kerry is busy telling mothers Bush will re-instate the draft, hoping they forget that the only bill introduced to do so was by a Democrat and the fact that it was defeated soundly, the only dissenting votes coming from Democrats. He is busy telling seniors Bush will take away 30-40% of their benefits, which is pure bull. He's busy telling blacks Bush will try to get all their votes nullified. He's busy telling the middle class how miserable their life really is, even if they don't realize it. Bush is telling people that thee are grave threats against the country in the future and the man who voted not to kick Hussein out of Kuwait is not the man who can handle it. Which sounds more like fostering fear in the American people?

Speaking of being confounded, you entire reply does that to me...except for the fact it's a lot of tap-dancing to change the subject from the original point of the thread which was the Times running a story proven to be untrue, 60 Minutes waiting in the background with the same story to spring it on the public right before the election, and John Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi and a cast of many jumping on it to blast Bush. You mention the wolf commercial and ignore the ostrich...Gregory Hines would be proud of you.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2004-10-27 12:38 PM


Fairness in reporting, Noah? Spare me. Find it laughable if you wish but please answer me this. Which news media questioned Kerry about saying he had fostered over 50 bills when the truth was less than a dozen? Which news media questioned Kerry about his senate record for the past 20 years? Which questioned him about his record of voting for tax raises for 20 years when he says he will lower taxes? Which questioned him about his war record or carried comments made by the swift boat veterans on the front pages?  Which ones spoke out about the plentiful inaccuracies founf in Fahrenheir 9/11? Which have questioned him about how he plans to form an alliance concering Iraq when his alleged alliance partners want nothing to do with one?

Point out the major newspapers or media giants that did and we'll talk....

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
13 posted 2004-10-27 12:45 PM


When John Kerry stood before the Democratic Convention
saluting and offering himself as a Vietnam War hero, he
opened up the issue of his subsequent anti-war activities,
particularly his testimony before the congressional committee
in 1971, for public review and discussion and yet I haven’t seen
any major media programs on the subject.  It’s as if it didn’t
occur except in the minds of a few veterans.  Why is that?

John

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2004-10-27 01:04 AM


Good question....and which major media made mentioned of the fact that he didn't throw his medals away....he forgot and left them at home?

HINT: The same ones that carried the comments of a secretary in the National Guard stating she thought Bush "got away with things" on the front pages in bold letters.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
15 posted 2004-10-27 03:23 AM


What major media are you talking about?

I've read about this stuff all over the place.

Are you sure you don't want those major media to confirm to tell you what you already know?

Oh, and WSJ is NOT liberal. The Washington Post is (Well, kind of), the Washington Times is not.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2004-10-27 09:02 AM


You've read about that stuff all over the place, Brad, from the major media? You are quite good a finding links. I'd love to see a few examples of where you have read them. I assure you I can find hundreds which deal with every possible imaginative derrogatory detail on Bush.

While you are looking, please find me something that deals with Edwards avoiding the question in the debate of how they are going to form an Iraq coalition with countries stating they will not do so under any circumstances. Also, when Kerry was asked in the debate about tort reform, he replied "Tort reform is neccessary and must be addressed....." and then changed the subject.  Find something that mentions the 9 times he had voted against tort reform and tries to pin him down on what exactly he would do about it. You know as well as I a Kerry/Edwards ticket woulf not touch tort reform. The press does, too. Do they ask him about it? Nope.

Edwards left himself wide open in his debate on the Iraq coalition, tort reform, his senatorial record and other points. What made the headlines the next day in the major newspapers and on the morning shows?...Cheney saying he hadn't met Edwards before when, in fact, they had been at a breakfast together....go figure.

SEA
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676
with you
17 posted 2004-10-27 10:05 AM


ROFLMAO
Not liberal media?!? Good grief, get your heads out of the sand, and that finger out of your nose that they are leading you around by...

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
18 posted 2004-10-27 10:27 AM


I'm a little confused, I guess. Do we want people in the media to not have opinions? Or do we just want theirs to always reflect our own?

Balanced reporting isn't about every reporter's or announcer's quest for an all-too-mythical unbiased truth. Rather, it's about being able to choose whose biases you want to hear today.

As to this particular incident, I agree Kerry was wrong and should face the consequences of being wrong. A judgment predicated on bad information is still a judgment, the yardstick against which all leaders must be held.

quote:
Why aren't there more liberal rasio programs? Easy...they've tried. They're just not very good at it and don't have a message enough people want to hear.

That would seem to not bode well for the liberals come November. If their message lacks popular support, maybe it's time they found a different message?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2004-10-27 02:37 PM


Of course people in the media can have opinions. That's what editorial pages are for. Front pages should be for unbiased representation of the facts. Yes, pure unbiased reporting may be a myth but it's like shooting 18 on the golf course....can't be done but it doesn't stop one from trying one's best to achieve it. When different sections of the newspaper appear to have been written by Elsworth Toohey concentrating on a singuar subconscious theme, they go too far.

As to this particular incident, I agree Kerry was wrong and should face the consequences of being wrong.

Here is Kerry "facing the consequences" today..

SIOUX CITY, IOWA - Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday of "dodging and bobbing and weaving" on explanations for nearly 400 tons of missing explosives in Iraq (news - web sites).  Kerry hit hard at this week's revelation that explosives had disappeared from an outpost in Iraq.

"The missing explosives could very likely be in the hands of terrorists and insurgents, who are actually attacking our forces now 80 times a day on average," Kerry said at a rally in Sioux City. "But now today we've learned even more. What we're seeing is a White House that is dodging and bobbing and weaving in their usual efforts to avoid responsibility, just as they've done every step of the way in our involvement in Iraq."

Bush did bring up the matter a few minutes later, in a speech in Lititz, Pa.

"Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'we do not know the facts.'" Bush said. "Think about that — the senator's denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts. Unfortunately, that's part of a pattern of saying almost anything to get elected."

It would appear that not even the truth is capable of altering Kerry's actions. He just ignores it and piles right on. Apparently he believes that if he tells the same lie enough times he can make it true or else he believes that the American public is too stupid to know the difference. Hopefully, they are not.

Yes, it is definitely time they found a different message but, to do so, they would have to change their entire philosophy. They would have to believe in less government control, lower taxes, fewer "crises" to generate for the purpose of convincing the public that only a democratic government can save them...I don't see that happening with the leaders they have in power now. The last democratic president to do that was JFK, who believed that lower taxes stimulated the economy, that one acted BEFORE a crisis took place (as in the Cuban blockade), a man who believed in individual rights for all citizens. They didn't call JFK's presidency Camelot for nothing....that was the way he made the American people feel about living here. One would think that the Democrats would continue that tradition since it had been so successful. JFK was the last one to do it. Now we have democratic "crisis" managers...and they create crises to manage. Americans would like to hear, I believe, some positivity about living in the US...then democrats offer gloom and doom (unless, they are quick to point out, they are in power). No, they won't change the message. It's too ingrained in them. Like wind-up dolls who have been programmed to say only certain phrases, so go the democratic leaders. Every four years, it is a "health care" crisis, then a "middle class" crisis, followed by a "social security" crisis and never forget the "educational" crisis - and every four years they promise to take care of these...and then, four or eight years later, they are promising the same things again. CLinton was elected on his "I will fix our health care system" promise. When asked after his presidency was over what his biggest disappointment was, he said it was not being able to come up with a good health care program. Now John Kerry will fix the health care system...the string is pulled on the wind-up doll and the same words come out. The biggest problem the Democrats have is that they believe Americans are basically stupid and they can treat them as such. They don't talk to the AMerican people - they talk down to them. They think they can just throw time-tested phrases up in the air and six-pack Joe will buy them....and they can't figure out why they keeps losing ground. Now we have two multi-millionaires (one by marrying it and one by taking nearly half the money from victims receiving compensation) and they are trying to act like your common, ordinary "I can relate to the middle class" joe. Look! I'm a goose hunter! They are both laughable in their efforts.

I've said many times I beleived Clinton to be an undesirable president but, to his credit, I have to say he was real. He disn't put on a lot of airs. He was a man you could imagine having a beer with in the local bar. The common man could relate to him. Sure, he was a buffoon but you knew what you got with him and could almost feel sorry for the guy when his weaknesses landed him in hot water. That's why he got elected twice - he was a man one could relate to. If the Democrats want another man in the big chair they had better come up with someone who can relate to the American people and appear to be real instead of speaking to them from high atop Mount Olympus. The closest thing they have is John Edwards...and the best thing Kerry has going for him is John Edwards. Unfortunately, instead of being his own man, Edwards is at this time Kerry's parrot...which I suppose is normal behavior for a running mate to have...

I've rambled enough...too much? Yep, probably

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
20 posted 2004-10-27 02:47 PM


While we're on the subject of media, let me point out some other points.

What about Clear Channel? I feel they couldn't possibly be any more partisan. They and Cumulus stations blacklisted the Dixie Chicks from their playlists because of an unfavorable Bush comment. They have put many Vietnam-era protest songs on a "black list" for singles they want to restrict from their playlists. They even tried to keep a billboard from being put up in Times Square in New York City which read "Democracy Is Best Taught By Example, Not By War".

What about the important stories the media virtually completely ignored this year? Bush's continuing harrassment of climatologists and science? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. blasted Bush for using "junk science" to prop up policies that benefit corporate polluters.

I think absolutely no one is talking about one the very first moves Bush made in the White House. He fired engineer Tony Oppegard, the leader of a federal team investigating a 300-million-gallon slurry spill at a coal-mining site in Kentucky which the Environmental Protection Agency dubbed "the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of the Eastern United States." Bush then appointed industry insiders to top EPA posts regulating mines.

In another case, a week after the EPA released a study to congressional staff about the toxic effects on groundwater of hydraulic fracturing--a process of injecting benzene into the ground to extract oil and gas--the agency revised its findings in response to "industry feedback" to indicate that the practice posed no threat after all. Among the companies using the practice: Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Where's all this news about that in our media?

What about John Ashcroft attacking The Alien Tort Claims Act, a 215-year-old law originally passed to prosecute pirates for crimes committed on the high seas, allows noncitizens to sue any individual or corporation present on U.S. soil? His agency even claimed in a brief last year that the law threatens "important foreign policy interests" associated with the war on terrorism.

What about that new litmus test established for federal judges? Bush is relying solely on the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 by radical conservatives law students at the University of Chicago. Bush Sr. has taken a radical step further to eliminating the role of the mainstream American Bar Association in the review of nominees. (Now, seven out of 12 circuit courts are anti-abortion, and seven of the nine Supreme Court justices are Republican appointees)

What about the Gulf War Syndrome and all the new cases of troops from Iraq of abnormal accelerated heart beats and malignant migraine? Where's all the news about uranium contamination in troops and civilians?

At the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Tokyo last December, a team of attorneys from Japan, the United States and Germany indicted Bush on a number of war-crimes charges--among them the use of depleted uranium in armor-piercing weapons. Leuren Moret, president of Scientists for Indigenous People, testified at the trial and later reported that a U.S. government study conducted on the babies of Gulf War veterans conceived after the soldiers returned home found that a full two-thirds suffered from serious birth defects or illnesses, including being born without eyes or ears, or with missing or malformed organs or limbs.

And guess what? Those are the images we NEVER see on the mainstream news networks!

What about stories of our natural resources being given away? Take, for example, how Congress has promised $3 billion in tax cuts to mining corporations to help them access natural gas embedded in underground coal deposits in Georgia's Powder River Basin. The Bureau of Land Management has calculated that miners will waste a full 700 million gallons of publicly owned water a year in the process--thereby sucking the region's underground aquifers dry and hurting local farms and wildlife.

Bill Clinton strived to work to protect the giant sequoias by creating a 327,000-acre national monument in the southern Sierra Nevada just four years ago. Under Bush, they are at risk for being logged at a rate of 10 million board-feet of lumber a year--a higher rate than allowed on surrounding National Forest lands--in the name of "forest management."

What about that widow of September 11th, Ellen Mariani, the wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when terrorists flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center's south tower? She had come to believe top American officials including Bush, Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and others had foreknowledge of the attacks, purposefully failed to prevent them, and had since taken pains to cover up the truth.

Her press conference was left in the dust.

I could go on and on here. Nuclear plants getting tax breaks, the gap between the rich and poor widening, the opening of the Tongass National Forest.

And when not even one single percent of interviews done right before the war began were from anti-war representatives, a war which a majority of Republicans support and a majority of Democrats oppose, it should say something deep.

I just absolutely find it absurd how this could be considered a "liberal media". It's NOT. Period.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
21 posted 2004-10-27 03:03 PM


What about that widow of September 11th, Ellen Mariani, the wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when terrorists flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center's south tower? She had come to believe top American officials including Bush, Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and others had foreknowledge of the attacks, purposefully failed to prevent them, and had since taken pains to cover up the truth.

Her press conference was left in the dust.


The dust sounds like about the right place for such ridiuclous accusations, Noah.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
22 posted 2004-10-27 03:26 PM


It's true.

In her federal lawsuit, she used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, this law created originally to go after the Mafia, to charge the nation's leaders with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death.

Her lawyer, Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, filed this 62-page complaint that included 40 pages of evidence. He wrote in this press release sent to 3,000 print and broadcast journalists announcing the lawsuit and a press conference on the court steps that day, "Compelling evidence...will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court, and testimony at trial,"

Indeed saying that the administration allowed the attacks so Bush and company could launch their "war on terror" does sound like a conspiracy, no one could argue that. However, that case has the potential to uncover and publicize critical documents and testimony about the Bush administration's handling of the al-Qaeda threat and its aftermath.

Her press conference was left in the dust...period. Only Fox News showed up, and they ran nothing on this topic.

Balladeer, I can understand why you may think I am making "ridiculous accusations" here. After all, the media completely ignored this story, so I certainly can't blame anyone for not knowing about this. I just happened to have learned of this from research and Democracy Now!, who ignore the 63% of recycled news that covers the media every day from the Scott Peterson to Kobe Bryant cases, etc. and get solely to stories on war and peace.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton



"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286
United States
23 posted 2004-10-27 03:54 PM


Noah,
It got ignored because it's not a story...

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
24 posted 2004-10-27 04:01 PM


And the Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson cases are?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
25 posted 2004-10-27 10:09 PM


But no one has answered my question yet.

What major media?

Tell me where I'm supposed to look and not find anything and I'll look.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
26 posted 2004-10-27 10:15 PM


http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=196807

Okay, maybe I'm just missing something, but why is this a hoax?


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
27 posted 2004-10-27 10:46 PM


http://www.republicansforkerry.org/

quote:
Swiftboat Vets, Iraq Vets:
John Kerry Was and Is Your Best Friend



In discussing Ronald Reagan, a line from one of his movies is
sometimes used:



"Where's the rest of me?!" --as Drake McHugh in the 1942 film,
King's Row.



Swiftboat Vets ought to give the same kind of consideration to John
Kerry. Because what he stood for – particularly in the rest of his
testimony before Congress in 1971, gives a real clue to the meaning of
his post-war activities, which have become the source of so much
bitterness this election season.



Let's parse his words. First of all, Kerry's testimony was for the
purpose of calling the leadership of that era to account for having
entered into that war in the first place:



And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing
has to end.



We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently,
where are the leaders of our country? Where is the
leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow,
Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now
that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned?
These are the commanders who have deserted their troops.
And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The
Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say
they never even leave their dead. These men have left all
the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of
public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations
bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....



So the real ire of Citizen Kerry here is not "the many highly
decorated veterans" who, in telling their own stories, "testified
to war crimes." Kerry asks, "Where is the leadership?" Where are
Johnson and McNamara and Bundy, who started, and
accelerated that war?



What is he really asking?



We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own
memories of that service as easily as this administration has
wiped away their memories of us.



Which veteran wants to relish his memories of the hardships of war?
The last I read, Robert McNamara is getting married again at age 88.



And on whose behalf is Kerry asking these things?



But all that they [Johnson, McNamara, etc.] have done and all
that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever
our own determination to undertake one last mission - to
search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to
pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have
driven this country these last ten years and more. And more.
And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down
the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and
small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and
not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but
mean instead where America finally turned and where
soldiers like us helped it in the turning.



And so, Vietnam Veterans, John Kerry, in 1971, was looking toward
your future. In 1971, Kerry wanted the small children of 2001 to look
back at the Vietnam era, as a time when certain soldiers worked to
"conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten
years and more."



Who, again, wants to relive the "glories" of the Vietnam war? In a
reminder of Augustine's words here, Kerry wanted to bring it to an
end:



I know the objection that a good ruler will wage wars only if
they are just. But, surely, if he will only remember that he is a
man, he will begin by bewailing the necessity he is under of
waging even just wars. A good man would be under compulsion
to wage no wars at all, if there were not such things as just
wars. A just war, moreover, is justified only by the injustice of
an aggressor; and that injustice ought to be a source of grief to
any good man, because it is human injustice. It would be
deplorable in itself, apart from being a source of conflict.



Any man who will consider sorrowfully evils so great, such
horrors and such savagery (of war), will admit his human
misery. And if there is any man who can endure such
calamities, or even contemplate them without feeling
grief, his condition is all the more wretched for that.
(Augustine, "City of God.")



Augustine was a third and fourth century Christian philosopher and
theologian who first articulated the idea that there might be "just
wars."



For the evangelical Christians among us, (and I am one), we must not
forget the words of Jesus, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take
["live by"] the sword will perish by the sword." I am pretty sure the
Savior, in using the word "all," was articulating a general principle. He
spoke about that kind of thing elsewhere: "Blessed are the
peacemakers." See also 1 Peter 3:11: "seek peace and pursue it,"
which is a quotation from Psalm 34, and also Paul, "God has called us
to peace." Admittedly, Paul is speaking of peace in family situations,
but he extends it outward as well," If it is possible, as much as
depends on you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18). He
says this very near the same place where he says, "Let every soul be
subject to the governing authorities."


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
28 posted 2004-10-27 11:51 PM


New York Times

quote:
But Mr. Bush on Thursday did not address a critical issue raised by the discovery of the missed explosives: why American forces were not alerted to the existence of a huge cache of explosives, even though the atomic energy agency and American officials had publicly discussed the threat it posed, and knew its exact location.

The commander of the troops that went into the Al Qaqaa facility on the way to Baghdad in early April, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, has said he was never told the site was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began.


Can someone show me where any of this has been disproved?

[Edited to fix long URL - Ron]


[This message has been edited by Ron (10-28-2004 01:07 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
29 posted 2004-10-28 12:44 PM



Noah,

"What about that widow of September 11th, Ellen Mariani, the wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when terrorists flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center's south tower? She had come to believe top American officials including Bush, Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and others had foreknowledge of the attacks, purposefully failed to prevent them, and had since taken pains to cover up the truth."


And let’s not forget all those millions
in the Moslem world convinced it was a
Jewish plot.  Millions!  Millions can’t be wrong,
can they!

John

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
30 posted 2004-10-28 01:28 AM


Brad,


"Attitude of South Vietnamese Army and People Toward Withdrawal

Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America”


http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp


“the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America”

That and comments like it are what have the vets angry.  Vets, the vast majority
of whom had nothing to do with the atrocities John Kerry characterized them with.

John

PS: It is commonly estimated that three quarters of a million Vietnamese
died in their attempts to escape after the fall/liberation  of Saigon.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
31 posted 2004-10-28 03:49 AM


CNSNews.com) - NBC News reported Monday night that 380 tons of missing explosives were already gone when U.S. troops arrived at the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation in April 2003 - one day after Saddam's government was toppled.

NBC should know. It had a reporter embedded with the U.S. troops when they arrived at Al-Qaqaa in April 2003.

While the Kerry campaign blasted the Bush administration for "stunning incompetence" on Monday, many Bush supporters questioned the timing of Monday's New York Times report about the missing explosives -- coming as it did just eight days before the presidential election.

NBC News Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski suggested a political motive as well: In his report on the missing explosives Monday night, he quoted one official as saying, "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."

According to the New York Times, the IAEA said it had warned the Bush administration about the need to secure the Al-Qaqaa facility both before and after the war.

In a follow-up report on Tuesday, the New York Times did not mention the fact that NBC had an embedded reporter on the scene when the missing explosives were discovered -- the day after Baghdad fell.

Tuesday's New York Times report -- entitled "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign" -- covers how the Bush administration "sought to explain the disappearance of 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq that American forces were supposed to secure."

Bush's aides, the Tuesday article said, "tried to explain why American forces had ignored warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the vulnerability of the huge stockpile of high explosives, whose disappearance was first reported on Monday by CBS and The New York Times."

The New York Times report portrayed the Bush administration as being on the defensive -- trying to "minimize the importance of the loss" of the military explosives.

The report noted that President Bush "never mentioned the disappearance of the high explosives during a long campaign speech in Greeley, Colo., about battling terrorism."

"There are certainly some questions about when the explosives were missing," Kerry campaign adviser Howard Wolfson admitted on Fox & Friends early Tuesday morning. But the Kerry campaign is not expected to let the matter drop.


No, Kerry will not let the matter drop even though the Times and CBS are doing damage control, changing the tone of their story and now claiming no one knows when the disappearance actually occured, something I call CYA.

Kerry will not let the matter drop because he has seen that bad news from Iraq results in a rise for him in the polls therefore he will continue to paint it in the blackest  possible. He will blast the administration and even the troops over there at every opportunity for a percentage point rise. Denigrating the troops on the ground is nothing new for this man who claims to have such respect for the military. He did it 30 years ago and continues to do it today if he feels it will help his political standing. If his words, at a time we have troops on the groung fighting, make their jobs tougher and gives aid to the enemy, he does not care. I have no problem considering the man's actions those of a traitor....and all for the sake of a few votes. Is it any wonder that the polls of the Army, Navy Air Force and Marine Times give Kerry a 65-75% disapproval rating? You want to see some real voting manipulation? Just wait to see what Kerry comes up with to try to disallow the absentee votes of the military at the last minute in much the same way Gore tried it 4 years ago. The military wants little to do with this decorated hero of Viet Nam....and he knows it.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
32 posted 2004-10-28 09:08 AM


Brad:

Disproved?  Maybe not.  Explained ... probably.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

Jim

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
33 posted 2004-10-28 10:18 AM


Gee, what a surprise. John, do you want to redo your numbers there? Or do you want me to correct them for you.

Kerry was right then, and he's right now.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
34 posted 2004-10-28 10:24 AM


Sorry Jim,

I read that article and more confused now than before. The Russians did it, maybe, but it was impossible to move them out without being detected?

Are they saying that GPS wasn't watching Iraq before the war,only after?

It seems to me that so far we've got a bunch of maybe's but they were there before, they aren't now.

Does that sound about right?

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
35 posted 2004-10-28 11:01 AM


Brad:

We do know they were there before.  We do know they are not there now.  Consider what we don't know:

1. Who moved them?
2. When were they moved?
3. How were they moved?
4. Why didn't we detect their movement?
5. Who is responsible for their loss?

Unless we know the answers to 1, 2, 3 and 4, we will have great difficulty answering 5.  Perhaps Kerry is prescient ... dunno.  I know I am not.  Conclusions require credible support.

What bugs me most, I think (and this is my strong belief in due process shining through), is Kerry's wreckless assignment of blame on the President for the missing explosives.  If you and I don't have enough facts to draw a reasoned conclusion, how is Kerry drawing such a specific conclusion from the same facts?  And one wonders why "rhetoric" has come to be such a pejorative term.

Jim

P.S.  And yet more questions: http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
36 posted 2004-10-28 11:42 AM


Jim, I agree those are all important questions to ask, but I also think you forgot one.

6. Where does the buck stop?

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
37 posted 2004-10-28 12:20 PM


Ron:

Maybe there is a 6, but I see that as an application of the facts, not a material fact in and of itself.  Depending on how 1-4 and 5 shape out, 6 could be the U.N., maybe Syria for allowing the arms to cross their border with Iraq, maybe Russia for assisting in their removal, and maybe the U.S. Military (and by correlation, the Commander-in-Chief).

But if the 377 tons is really 3 tons (roughly equal to 21 Michael Moores - sans his head ... ), then I think the loss, given the circumstances of war, is a trivial one.

Jim

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
38 posted 2004-10-28 02:58 PM


"Kerry will not let the matter drop because he has seen that bad news from Iraq results in a rise for him in the polls therefore he will continue to paint it in the blackest  possible. He will blast the administration and even the troops over there at every opportunity for a percentage point rise. Denigrating the troops on the ground is nothing new for this man who claims to have such respect for the military. He did it 30 years ago and continues to do it today if he feels it will help his political standing. If his words, at a time we have troops on the groung fighting, make their jobs tougher and gives aid to the enemy, he does not care. I have no problem considering the man's actions those of a traitor....and all for the sake of a few votes. Is it any wonder that the polls of the Army, Navy Air Force and Marine Times give Kerry a 65-75% disapproval rating? You want to see some real voting manipulation? Just wait to see what Kerry comes up with to try to disallow the absentee votes of the military at the last minute in much the same way Gore tried it 4 years ago. The military wants little to do with this decorated hero of Viet Nam....and he knows it."

I have heard the 1971 Winter Soldier hearing testimony. I seriously don't believe he is denigrating the troops then and he is certainly not doing it now either.

All that talk of "...raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan..." was referring to a group of about 150 honorably discharged and decorated veterans who testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia in Detroit in January of 1971.

He wasn't denigrating the troops or this nation. He was doing the nation a favor. In his own words about why this was called the Winter Soldier hearing (a play on words from Thomas Paine)

Thomas did what he did because he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

No one can possibly argue Vietnam was rough. He felt we had to be "winter soldiers". He said, "We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out."

His feelings he had thirty-three years ago are just the same types of raw emotion I feel now about Iraq. I believe there still is a "monster" here, a psychological monster that fuels young Americans minds with obsession of violence and militarization. The war in Vietnam was senseless, as is this war in Iraq, and a stark comparison is that under both Administrations our young men and women have been used.

Time and time again, I hear stories of young soldiers aged 18-25. Before I moved to Portland, you know I lived in Colorado, and Colorado is home to Fort Carson, one of the largest bases for military recruits in the nation. My friend Randy Meador joined the National Guard so he could get money for college. He tells me on and on how too many here only joined so they could get money for college or for something to build a resume so they could lead a good career in the near future. I visited there myself multiple times, same scenario.

What Kerry said thirty-three years ago took courage. Back then, what he did was quite an unpopular stand, and I find what he did remarkable.

Again, he wasn't spitting on our troops. He was speaking out against the leaders who betrayed us. LBJ, Nixon, Agnew, etc. He said, "Where where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership?" Indeed he mentioned the names of McNamara, Rostow, Bundy and Gilpatric, who were commanders. He said, "Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded."

Bashing a few commanders doesn't mean automatically dissing the entire military. All these young troops with John Kerry were our young boys over thirty years ago, after all. Kerry was speaking for them all. He felt they, along with him, were abandoned by their Administration, by these particular commanders, by some Marine officers who retreated, contradicting the cornerstone ethic of the Marines that they "never leave even their dead"

He said in 1971 to imagine "30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."

Well, it's just over 30 years later now, and this obscene memory seems to have duplicated itself, sadly to say, with a new name known as Iraq.

If anything, I actually wish Kerry would do MORE in speaking out against this war, take an anti-war stance like he did in 1971 and do now just as he did then. It saddens me a bit to see he's not exactly playing the whole anti-war card or saying in each of his stump speeches, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq?"

Kerry has great admiration for our young men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan, for he understands also these young men and women in uniform are the same young men and women that are our sons and daughters of America, and as an American we should have the ability to believe in our president, believe in our government, and far more importantly, our government should believe in us and never leave us behind or abandon us.

Kerry has at least taken the courage to come out and say this war was wrong, that this administration has left millions behind, and he has made it clear if elected he'll strive to correct this mess Bush has left in Iraq and begin bringing our young men and women home six months into his term and have them all out by the end of his first term. Nowhere do I ever hear Bush talk about how he'll clean up this mess, and he doesn't seem to care when our sons and daughters will return home. He cares most of all about winning this war most know we cannot win.

As for those polls, Balladeer, disapproval ratings for Kerry were considerably higher among the military last April and May. In April 2004, I heard Bush's approval rating among the military was at 87%. Now, it has weakened a bit.

Anyway, who can blame them? I've heard on many of the grounds down there in Iraq, Fox News is the only provided news network. A network which doesn't talk about 235,000 veterans losing their health insurance under this administration. A network which won't talk aout the Bush Administration announcing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing and medical facility funding for active duty military. A network that won't treat the over half of 691,000 Gulf War I veterans who are ill, have requested disability for "mysterious illnesses," yet have not received treatment from either the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs as a serious major news story.

I certainly hope all the U.S military get their ballots and they return to be counted without any interference, just as I hope those 58,000 absentee ballots missing from Broward County are found and those 1,900 names and addresses of voters in the predominantly black and Democratic areas of Jacksonville that have been put on a "caging list" by the Republican Party in Florida get to vote and not be disenfranchised like they were in 2000.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton




"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
39 posted 2004-10-28 07:28 PM


Well, after Senator Kerry's attempted apology of going a little 'over the top' during that 1971 Senate hearing, I guess we'll get the same when his myriad unsubstantiated allegations blow up in his face.  Just a bit 'over the top'.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
40 posted 2004-10-28 07:38 PM



Brad,

?

John

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
41 posted 2004-10-28 07:47 PM


Can someone show me where any of this has been disproved? - Brad.

Sure, Brad....right here..

ABC News...

Oct. 27, 2004 — Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.

The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.

But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.

The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
42 posted 2004-10-28 10:02 PM




All I have to say is, no matter what the number is, Rudy Giuliani, let me give you a hand for a job well done in keeping this controversy alive! You're certainly not helping your buddy in his re-election bid! LOL!
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/302/politics/Iraq_mom_riled_by_Giuliani_rem:.shtml

*****************************************

Iraq mom riled by Giuliani remark
By Associated Press, 10/28/2004 17:07

BEDFORD, N.H. (AP) Rudolph Giuliani stumped for President Bush in New Hampshire on Thursday, but the former New York mayor riled some residents even before arriving.

In a morning television appearance, Giuliani criticized Democrat John Kerry for blaming President Bush for the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq.

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?" he said on NBC's "Today" show.

That rankled Eleanor Kjellman of Henniker, an Air Force veteran whose son Kurt is an Army reservist in the Mideast.

"That was such a demoralizing, destructive statement for Rudolph Giuliani to make. Once again they (the troops) are scapegoats for the administration's failures," she said at a Democratic protest before a planned appearance by Giuliani in Bedford.

As Kjellman was speaking out, Giuliani was at a GOP event in Gilford. There, he said that in blaming Bush for the missing explosives, Kerry himself was implicitly blaming the troops.

Giuliani said the country must "continue on the offense" against terrorists and "stop them before they kill more of us."


***************************************


Rudy, keep up the good work!  

Isn't that what the GOP has been using this whole time as a smokescreen defense to this war? Patriotism? Supporting our troops? Every day since the invasion began?

Leave it to Rudy himself, someone who happened to be a keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention, to pinhole that screen and put the blame on our young men and women down there.

Shameful for him to demoralize our young men and women like that.



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2004-10-28 11:01 PM


Ah, Noah, you need to stop that selective reading. Kerry is also blaming the troops for incompetence and failure. This is nothing new for him since it's the same man who reported that the majority of soldiers in Nam were looting, murdering, raping, you name it...and that he participated in these acts with them. You feeling good about supporting the self-confessed murderer and rapist? John Kerry is no friend of the soldier...he is only a friend of John Kerry.

As far as the troops giving overwhelming support to the president, are you saying they are so stupid that they can have their minds altered by Fox news? Are you criticizing the troops, too? These are the men whose lives are on the line, the men who don't know if they'll see tomorrow every day. These men know George Bush sent them there...and yet they support him by an overwhelming majority. Why do you think that is, Noah? Is it possible that they can see things we can't...like Iraq, for example? All we see are headlines and video clips. They are there among the people. They see the reality because they are living it. Possibly, just possibly, they may see that they are making a difference, that something very worthwhile is being done and they take pride in being part of it. Who knows? People like you and I and all and all of the other quarterbacks posting here are doing it out of speculation....they are the ones who know - and they are the ones supporting George Bush or at least feel that John Kerry would be worse. It's not Fox news doing it to them, Noah....it's what they believe.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
44 posted 2004-10-29 12:07 PM


Talk about selective reading. Kerry has specifically said that the troops are doing a great job. He has condemned the stategy of the Bush administration for putting too little troops in the field.

Get a grip.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
45 posted 2004-10-29 12:10 PM


The number of Vietnamese who died during the war is 1 million. The number that died after is anywhere from 65,000 to 250,000 over the course of eight years.

Kerry was right. Though I admit it's not something one should brag about.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
46 posted 2004-10-29 12:41 PM


Get a grip, Brad? Such harsh words from you!   

Actually the generals in charge confirmed that Bush gave them the exact number they asked for to supposedly do the job....in which case Kerry is playing monday morning quarterback and condemning them.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
47 posted 2004-10-29 12:48 PM


Yeah, I guess you're right. Everything is just hunky dory in Iraq these days.

There wasn't a plan for what's happening now.

Doesn't that bother you at least a little bit?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2004-10-29 01:47 AM


Actually, Brad, it bothers me a lot. When I saw the looting after the initial assault, I cringed. I have stated before that I fault Bush for not having had better plans for what to do after the takeover and I still feel that way. The fact is, though, that it was done and that's the way it stands. It has nothing at all to do with the election. Electing Kerry won't undo anything. Yes, you could punish Bush for not having better planning by electing Kerry but then what? DO you think Kerry has a better plan? He doesn't have any plan at all. He only keeps referring to the mysterious "coalition" he will form with nations who are stating emphatically they will have nothing to do with him. He speaks about how he will hunt down our enemies and kill them - how? Where? He will not let anyone have a veto over US security but will not act without a consensus - what's that mean? He will act in accordance with the UN - who are in up to their eyeballs in cover-ups. The man doesn't even keep track of what he says from day to day. He's simply winging it with no plan whatsoever. If he's elected Iraq is still in the same situation it is in now. Can he make it better? Maybe John Edwards can file a lawsuit against the insurgents or throw his briefcase at them?

No, I'm not happy seeing what I see about Iraq but there are a couple of things to consider. First, we only see the worst, thanks to our wonderful media. Time and time again people have come back from Iraq speaking about all the positives that are happening there. You don't see those positives on the evening news. Second, there was a news documentary a few weeks ago shot in Iraq dwelling on, of course, the negative side of life there. They interviewed one Iraqui who spoke of how people were afraid, how it was not safe to go outside, etc etc. When asked by the reporter if he wished the war had not happened and Hussein were still in power, he answered emphatically "NO!" He would take it the way it is right now. So there you have it...vote for who you feel will handle the current situation best.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
49 posted 2004-10-29 01:58 AM


Brad,


“The number of Vietnamese who died during the war is 1 million. The number that died after is anywhere from 65,000 to 250,000 over the course of eight years.

Kerry was right. Though I admit it's not something one should brag about”


So you’re saying Kerry was right; that the Vietnamese
were “murdered” by the United States?

John

PS As an aside, in no year during the Vietnam War,
      did American casualties exceed those of South Vietnam’s
      armed forces, and in the year after American withdrawal
      South Vietnam’s armed forces suffered more killed in action
      than the United States did during the entire war.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
50 posted 2004-10-29 02:00 AM


quote:
So there you have it...vote for who you feel will handle the current situation best.

Personally, I'm a little more concerned about the next situation. Should rumors start circulating that Colon has WMD, I'd just as soon not become another mistake.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
51 posted 2004-10-29 02:05 AM


quote:
So you’re saying Kerry was right; that the Vietnamese were “murdered” by the United States?

Would you prefer a more polite euphemism, John? I can pretty much assure you, those who died won't care what you call it. Dead is dead.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
52 posted 2004-10-29 02:14 AM


Ron,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you’re saying Kerry was right; that the Vietnamese were “murdered” by the United States?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Would you prefer a more polite euphemism, John? I can pretty much assure you, those who died won't care what you call it. Dead is dead."

It makes a big difference to the living vets
who would then be characterized as murderers,
or do you think they should be?

John

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
53 posted 2004-10-29 07:01 AM


To be honest, Mike, that was actually a lucid response. I don't buy the conclusion, of course, but then neither does this Republican:
http://anotherrepublicanforkerry.com/new/index.html


quote:
With Election Day fast approaching, it's time to get serious and start asking that important quadrennial question: Are we better off than we were four years ago?

Let's see. Our country is providing 90 percent of the troops in a tragic military operation in Iraq. Two more Americans have just been beheaded, and more than 1,050 U.S. soldiers have been killed. The CIA says the situation will remain just as bad and will likely get much worse as the next 12 months unfold.

In my home state of Ohio, the economy is killing jobs. More than 237,000 Ohioans have been put out of work during the past three years -- enough to fill two Ohio State University stadiums. Last month alone, another 11,800 Ohioans lost their jobs, for an average of 381 Ohio layoffs each and every day. The job cuts are happening at once-thriving companies like Longaberger (784 manufacturing layoffs and 215 administrative layoffs) and Techneglas (358 layoffs).

Some numbers are increasing. The deficit is at a Treasury-busting $422 billion. Poverty has worsened by nearly 14% -- up to 36 million Americans. And family health coverage premiums have gone up $2,600 a year.

But why worry? Thanks to our Ohio House and Senate, we can now carry concealed handguns. And thanks to President Bush's lack of leadership, the Brady Bill has been allowed to lapse, so we can freely buy our very own assault rifles.


But, really, your argument that Kerry won't do any better is simply misguided. I really do think Kerry will do a better job because, well, I'm not sure it can any worse. We have a screw up in the office now. Get rid of him and if Kerry screws up, let's vote him out in four years.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
54 posted 2004-10-29 08:23 AM


Well, I would be careful if I were you, Ron. Should Colon use wmd's to gas a few hundred thousand of it citizens, attempt to invade Ohio, refuse to let the UN conduct a full and unhampered inspection of its borders looking for those wmd's that they had already used, be recognized by two presidents (one democrat, one republican) as the most dangerous threat to the rest of the US....I think it's possible a Colonoscophy would not be out of the question

The only wmd's I see there are the Lions - and most of them seem to be duds.
Euphamisms? Sure, how about dispatched? Then we could rewrite the history books to claim that Al Capone and his gang dispatched quite a few citizens in his day. To say that killing is killing no matter if it is in wartime or shooting the milkman stretches it a little, I think. Kerry said the troops "murdered".....I don't even know why he's not in jail, confessing to committing the same actions. Is there a statue of limitations on murder?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
55 posted 2004-10-29 08:55 AM


I really do think Kerry will do a better job because, well, I'm not sure it can any worse.

Brad, it can ALWAYS get worse! How many people in the US have died in terrorist attacks in the past 3 years? You saying that couldn't have been worse?

As far as the figures are concerned, first many of their "results" come from before 9/11 until now, completely ignoring the fact that it could have had any detrimental effect on the economy. Second, you can scour for negative figures on ANY president in office and find what you want by the way you portray it. Are you saying that, if not for Bush, health care would have not increased? You wanna buy a bridge? You don't think people like John Edwards contribute to that increase? One of the major causes of the problem is claiming they will fix it - but in such a way that their method of being a major cause is not changed - sure. Or do you feel they will intruduce tort reform? You want some swampland with that bridge?

There will always be unemployment. There will always be people who don't want to work, too. There will always be sectors of the economy that will fall on hard times as others rise...it's the natural order. All I can say is that my belief from what I see is that middle class America is not dissatisfied with their lives. They earn, or have the opportunity to earn, a good living, they are not afraid to leave their house in the morning and they feel reasonably safe. Their biggest moments of anguish come from PTA meetings and rap music. If they didn't read the headlines or listen to the Democrats they would not even know that their lives were so miserable. Yes, you can go out and find the exceptions and hard luck stories and portray them as the norm, but they are not. You can also sit over there and read the news and come up with the conclusion that the streets of the US are war zones, everyone is starving, gestapo come knocking on doors on the hour and paint any picture you like. The reality is it ain't so. The democrats like to paint the blackest picture they can and convince the average american life is intolerable if they are not in power - and they wonder why they can't make headway.

Here are a couple of comments from the lips of the man with all the answers..

In an interview Thursday with "NBC Nightly News," Kerry said that if he'd been president then, "we might have gone to war," but he would have done so in a way that ensured "the American people weren't carrying the burden and the entire world understood."

Of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s fate, Kerry said: "It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied (with U.N. demands), we might have had to go to war."


...and let's not forget this one..

Kerry, also speaking with USA Today on Thursday, said he believes the outcome will be known Tuesday night, "just like I believed the Red Sox would win the World Series.

(under his breath I can hear him muttering " in the ninth inning of the last game with two outs)
___

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
56 posted 2004-10-29 10:40 AM


I do think we can make this a better place to live even if there will always be poor people, always be crime, always be people who are angry . . . .

I'm far more interested in little steps in the right direction than no hope at all.

Kerry seems to be that kind of guy.

Bush does not.

I'm not sure I understand why you are upset with those Kerry quotes. They make sense to me. I know you have time problems but if possible, can you tell me more clearly what bugs you?

I'm not being fascicous, I promise.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
57 posted 2004-10-29 10:45 AM


I want to be clear, however. If Kerry screws up, in four years, I'll be on your side.

But we already have a screw up, why let him screw up more?


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
58 posted 2004-10-29 12:30 PM


quote:
Well, I would be careful if I were you, Ron. Should Colon use wmd's to gas a few hundred thousand of it citizens, attempt to invade Ohio, refuse to let the UN conduct a full and unhampered inspection of its borders looking for those wmd's that they had already used, be recognized by two presidents (one democrat, one republican) as the most dangerous threat to the rest of the US....I think it's possible a Colonoscophy would not be out of the question

Mike, I don't remember anyone in government suggesting we should go kick some ass because of the Kurds or Kuwait?

Frankly, an unwarranted colostomy would definitely be time for a new doctor, Mike. I certainly wouldn't keep the same one if he performed a potentially dangerous operation and then felt compelled to find new justifications after the fact. "Well, we didn't find the cancer we expected, Mr. Carnell, but you needed the operation any way so you could lose weight. Once you get past the terrible pain and pay all those hospital bills, I'm confident you'll be the better man for it."

Sorry, but a man who can't see his own mistakes is doomed to keep repeating them. But not on my, uh, village.  

quote:
To say that killing is killing no matter if it is in wartime or shooting the milkman stretches it a little, I think.

Wartime, Mike? That term seems to be getting a little muddy these days. We have a war on poverty, a war on drugs, and of course, a war on terrorism, none of which seem to have gone particularly well by the way, but no one ever quite got around to declaring war on Vietnam.

Which, of course, doesn't mean it wasn't one. War, very much like murder, seems to be best defined by context. When you're at the wrong end of an M16, it doesn't seem to matter whether you're a villager or a milkman, the results are certainly the same. There's a little hole going in, a great big hole coming out, accompanied by a gnawing sense of injustice that no one should ever have to die like that.

Scratch that. It doesn't really matter which end of the M16 you're holding, except maybe that one end gives you a little longer to consider that sense of injustice.

Anyone who thinks all who died in Vietnam were carrying weapons or posed an immediate threat clearly wasn't there in the late-Sixties. Innocents died every day, often for no other reason than they looked a whole lot like the enemy, and sometime just because it was expedient and safe. Take three parts fear, two parts anger, mix liberally with gunpowder, and the recipe probably isn't going to produce an American apple pie.

Do I blame the troops for the injustices I know happened in Vietnam?

One of my best friends, Steve, was with the 47th Scout Dogs, 101st ABN. The animals he worked with were extremely well trained and usually extremely vicious. They were as likely to bite someone they shouldn't as they were to stop their handler from walking into a hidden booby trap. Were they bad dogs when they snapped at a friend? Or animals just trying to survive after being thrust into a world not real conducive to survival?

The decisions we make, in war as in life, are our own responsibility and can't be blamed on others. I think the veterans who stood up against the injustices of Vietnam recognized and were responding to their own sense of responsibility. We might cringe at their allegations, might think they exaggerate or are wholly wrong, but we have to respect their intent. They know they can't change the choices they made, or perhaps saw others make, but they hope they can keep others from being thrust into a world where those choices have to be made. They just want injustice to take a holiday for a while.

Murder? That's a word that gets defined, and often redefined, by the survivors. The euphemism you want, guys, is collateral damage.

It's what we call it when innocent people get in the way of warriors trying to survive another day. There was a lot of collateral damage in Vietnam, as I suspect happens any time the battle lines are blurred and the difference between friend and foe is defined by the split-second reflex of an index finger. Some will contend that collateral damage is an inevitable consequence of war, something we just need to accept.

In my opinion, it's the acceptance that makes it murder.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
59 posted 2004-10-29 07:53 PM


Ron,

So the soldiers were murderers, yes or no?

John

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
60 posted 2004-10-29 09:27 PM


John, have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?

(... or, why do you think I spent an hour on an answer you would have me boil down to two seconds? In hopes, perhaps, someone would read and understand it? Sorry, mate, but life doesn't always come with Cliff Notes.)

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
61 posted 2004-10-29 09:57 PM


Ron,

"Murder? That's a word that gets defined, and often redefined, by the survivors. The euphemism you want, guys, is collateral damage."


“So the soldiers were murderers, yes or no?”

“John, have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?”

They are not the same kind of questions,
and to me, (perhaps to vets), you spent a lot of time
dancing around a direct answer.

Try again:

So the soldiers were murderers, yes or no?

John


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
62 posted 2004-10-29 10:14 PM


I've been waiting to say this for a long time.

John,

Do you mean that the fate of the greatest country the world has ever seen rests on semantics?

Vote for Kerry. We have more important things to worry about.


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
63 posted 2004-10-29 10:30 PM


LOL, gotta laugh at Brad's reply.
Right on

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
64 posted 2004-10-29 11:52 PM


Vote for Kerry. We have more important things to worry about.

I think that would be a more accurate statement if it read "Vote for Kerry and THEN we'll have more important things to worry about."

I don't disagree with the "Let's give the other guy a chance and kick him out if he doesn't perform" mentality....in any other point in time....but not in this world.

As far as Kerry's comments, to be truthful we have written so much here that I'm not sure which ones you are referring to. Point me in the right direction and I'll do my best to answer....honest.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
65 posted 2004-10-30 12:10 PM


They were as likely to bite someone they shouldn't as they were to stop their handler from walking into a hidden booby trap. Were they bad dogs when they snapped at a friend? Or animals just trying to survive after being thrust into a world not real conducive to survival?

So you are saying the soldier's mentality was the same as the dogs, Ron? I assume you must since you are using them as an example. I know they are called dogfaces but I'd like to think the similarity ends there!

The decisions we make, in war as in life, are our own responsibility and can't be blamed on others.

How does this thought pattern fit into the dog example?


I think the veterans who stood up against the injustices of Vietnam recognized and were responding to their own sense of responsibility. We might cringe at their allegations, might think they exaggerate or are wholly wrong, but we have to respect their intent.

Think they exaggerate? Just because Kerry compared them to the hordes of Ghengis Khan? No kidding. He referred to murder - not collateral damage. He referred to running amok. I know that, in isolated incidents, that did indeed happen. Kerry portrayed it as if every soldier over there was doing just that. Well, almost. When his swift boat comrades asked him how he could say that, he responded "Oh, I wasn't referring to YOU - just the others". I have an excellent idea of Kerry's intent and it is nothing worthy of respect.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
66 posted 2004-10-30 12:29 PM


Brad/Ron/Midnitesun

Over two million served in uniform in Vietnam.
Apart from those on the wall, most are still alive.
To them, (and perhaps their families), whether
or not they are considered as murderers still has some
importance.  It’s not semantics; I know the difference.

Now again:

So the soldiers were murderers, yes or no?

John

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
67 posted 2004-10-30 12:35 PM


quote:
They are not the same kind of questions, and to me, (perhaps to vets), you spent a lot of time dancing around a direct answer.

They are exactly the same kind of questions, John. Both are questions specifically phrased to confirm assumptions regardless of any answer given. Or do you, perhaps, contend that no soldier has ever murdered a human being?

My earlier and longer response wasn't a dance around your question, which I prefer to ignore as naïve, but rather was directed to the more important question of why someone who fought in Vietnam has the right, and perhaps even an obligation, to speak out against injustices encountered there. Kerry's characterization of his personal experiences in country are exactly that, making them neither right nor wrong, just very personal. Short of being fabrications, which I don't believe they are, and apart from being ill expressed, which I think they often were, Kerry's protests don't detract from his honor, but rather add to it. At the time, he had little to gain, a lot to lose, and yet chose to do what he felt was right and necessary.

Arguing results is not the same thing as arguing intent. Even Kerry, I suspect, is probably less than pleased with the results of his actions, just as I'm sure Bush very much wishes he could have his share of do-overs. I, personally, think Kerry was right to protest one war and Bush was wrong to start another, but I also believe both men chose bumpy roads over smoother ones because they felt compelled to do what they thought, at the time, was right. I can argue results, vehemently so at times, without the need to impugn intent.

I believe we each have a greater obligation to truth than to patriotism, and any nation that can't stand in the light doesn't deserve to long hide in the dark. When protest becomes treason, I think every American needs to stand up and be called traitor.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
68 posted 2004-10-30 01:16 AM


"Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.

The facts are:

91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served...

74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome...

There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study)...

Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers."

http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm


As its dominant tactic in their battle against the war, the antiwar movement successfully demonized Vietnam veterans by calling a series of "tribunals" or hearings into war crimes. But... they were packed with pretenders and liars -- historian Guenter Lewy, writing in "America in Vietnam"

“Another consensus also gradually emerged. At first, rather than giving returning veterans of the war welcoming parades, Americans seemed to shun, if not denigrate, the 2 million-plus Americans who went to Vietnam, the 1.6 million who served in combat, the 300,000 physically wounded, the many more who bore psychological scars, the 2,387 listed as "missing in action," and the more than 58,000 who died. Virtually nothing was done to aid veterans and their loved ones who needed assistance in adjusting. Then a torrent of fiction, films, and television programs depicted Vietnam vets as drug-crazed psychotic killers, as vicious executioners in Vietnam and equally vicious menaces at home. Not until after the 1982 dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., did American culture acknowledge their sacrifice and suffering, and concede that most had been good soldiers in a bad war.”

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/postwar.htm


I'm sure there's more, just as I'm sure
it makes no difference.

John

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
69 posted 2004-10-30 02:23 PM



As far as the explosives are concerned, there were more than just one or two locations that had stockpiles of 'something suspicious,' and some of those materials were apparently detonated/destroyed/some stolen/some "missing"? who knows what and how much? I really don't find it at all surprising that the troops didn't find everything, that they didn't have enough time to take an accurate semi-annual Inventory account, they have been spread far too thinly in that hell hole and dodging bullets and bombs. Oh, and this 'after the quick victory.' Some victory

But BOO HOO HOO! the commander-in-chief is having to dodge some word flack!
Others are taking the deadly flack...bullets and bombs, then going home in giant zip lock bags.
I doubt in the long run we'll ever account for all of what was once there. After all, some of it may have already been put to use.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
70 posted 2004-10-30 02:33 PM


John? why are you perpetuating/highlighting that myth business? I have never ever heard anyone with an ounce of intelligence or understanding say such a thing. Then you go on as IF it had some validity, offering stats and trying to argue some pointless point.
Frankly, I'm annoyed by the constant commando/interrogation techniques, that seem to do nothing to clarify or shed light on truth.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

71 posted 2004-10-30 05:58 PM


It's not just word flak, Kacy. It was the long planned "October Surprise" by Kerry and his friends in the media. It is despicable because it was a deliberate attempt to sway the election, with CBS originally planning to air it tomorrow night, creating a situation of charges being thrown out with no time for the administration to fairly answer the charges before election day. After the Dan Rather scandal, you'd think they'd be a bit more subtle in their propaganda attempts. And I hope enough folks are ticked off by it to have their "surprise" blow up in their faces.

It's dirty politics, plain and simple, and it is disgusting. And people say the Republicans are the dirty players? None of this stuff is coming from the Republicans, it's all been from the Democrats.

Today I received literature in the mail from a Democratic backed organization showing a "Whites Only" sign on a door, and a statement that this is what Republicans want to do to YOUR (Blacks) voting rights. A truly vile piece of propaganda. The literature that I have received from Republican backed organizations have been expositions of policy differences, nothing like this piece of garbage that I received today. I guess desperation and a lack of popular policy positions leads to this type of campaigning.

Requiring ID and/or your voter registration card at the voting booth is not an attempt at supressing the minority vote. Showing up at your designated polling location is not a way of supressing the vote. They are ways of ensuring a fair vote, a one vote per registered voter vote. I heard that 9 out of the 18 hijackers of 911 cast a ballot in the previous election. How did that happen when they weren't even citizens?

I think we should scrap all current registrations and start over from scratch to rid the system, as much as is possible, from fraud. Everyone should have to go, in person, (the only exemption being a bona-fide medical condition) with I.D. to their voter registration office. I think we'd get rid of lots of dead people whose names have been hijacked by others and we'd also get rid of lots of ficticious names and addresses on the rolls that don't belong there. But, by-and-large, the Democrats are against this. Why?

I understand why John brought up the myth and the facts. The myth is the perception of the Vets that had been foisted upon our society after the Vietnam war. The facts tell a different story. I think we need to hear more of them. We're obviously still a nation divided over Vietnam, but I don't think it does any good sweeping it under the rug. We need to talk about it openly.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
72 posted 2004-10-30 06:32 PM


Midnitesun,

“Another consensus also gradually emerged. At first, rather than giving returning veterans of the war welcoming parades, Americans seemed to shun, if not denigrate, the 2 million-plus Americans who went to Vietnam, the 1.6 million who served in combat, the 300,000 physically wounded, the many more who bore psychological scars, the 2,387 listed as "missing in action," and the more than 58,000 who died. Virtually nothing was done to aid veterans and their loved ones who needed assistance in adjusting. Then a torrent of fiction, films, and television programs depicted Vietnam vets as drug-crazed psychotic killers, as vicious executioners in Vietnam and equally vicious menaces at home. Not until after the 1982 dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., did American culture acknowledge their sacrifice and suffering, and concede that most had been good soldiers in a bad war.”

It’s a pretty good summary of how it was.

I’ve been trying to get some here to:
“concede that most had been good soldiers in a bad war.”

and not murderers.


John


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
73 posted 2004-10-30 08:02 PM


I just finished watching the excerpts from "Stolen Honor". Ron, watch it and then let's talk about truth, patriotism and collateral damage.

Hopefully, enough undecided voters will see it to insure this despicable man does not get into office.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
74 posted 2004-10-30 08:54 PM


quote:
Bush hasn't had to do anything well. All he's had to do is point out that he's on your side and that the guy on the other side is a mass-murdering lunatic. For a blissful month and a half, we managed to cut through that shtick and notice how badly Bush has run the country. Now Bin Laden has brought the shtick back. Bush can talk about his values instead of his record. He can stop running against John Kerry and go back to running against people who hate America and murder children.

I remember when Bush addressed Congress after Sept. 11. I thought history had given him a mission he couldn't screw up. Bush had only two virtues--moral clarity and resolve—and a terrorist attack on our country called for both of them. I didn't realize that his judgment was so bad it could turn these virtues into vices, confusing two enemies and letting the more dangerous one get away.


Face it, the only reason to vote for Bush is bin Laden.

And you would still be listening to a foreigner.


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
75 posted 2004-10-30 11:03 PM


"I just finished watching the excerpts from "Stolen Honor". Ron, watch it and then let's talk about truth, patriotism and collateral damage.

Hopefully, enough undecided voters will see it to insure this despicable man does not get into office."


Well, Balladeer, let me say that I have given the nerve to see this controversial film, for I like seeing productions from the other end of the political spectrum to see what they have to say and critique, and all I can say is this is even more discredible than "Fahrenheit 9/11".

This documentary is what's despicable. This "documentary", which is considered "news" according to the biased Sinclair Braodcasting Corporation, not only accuses John Kerry of prolonging the torture of prisoners of war, but EVERYONE IN THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT.

Remember how many Americans there were back then?  Maybe not at the beginning, when most backed the war, but eventually, the "pro-war" folks were in the minority.  In time most Americans grew up, aged, and now they KNOW they were NOT WRONG to have opposed the war, and are VERY PROUD that our actions forced the government to end U.S. involvement.

The reason why this wound has never healed to those like Carlton Sherwood is because they insist on picking it until it bleeds, when one knows the scab will only heal if you just let it go and leave it alone.

Wow, it's truly amazing for these veterans to have the audacity to say John Kerry's actions EXTENDED the war in Vietnam. Not Kissinger, not LBJ, not Nixon, all Kerry. That's like saying Nader or Cobb or Kucinich is why this Iraq war is prolonging now. What a sack of deliberate lies there.

While I'm at it, I'll point out and analyze some parts I found incredible:

*************************************

"Their lurid fantasies of butchery in Vietnam were ceased upon by John Kerry to help him organize the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation - the template he would use to brand all Vietnam veterans."

That's a lie. It wasn't Kerry's idea nor was Kerry one of the main organizers. He participated in the WSI as an observer.

"CORDIER: to, for someone to pass himself off as representing all veterans in Vietnam."

Kerry never passed himself off as representing all veterans in Vietnam.

"THORSNESS: And Kerry is giving the capturers ammunition to treat people like that if they are captured."

The amount of torture didn't increase because of what Kerry said. The POWs were tortured before Kerry spoke out and they were tortured after it, too.

"VAN LOAN:  To say that we were rapists, we were murderers, we were pillagers, is absolutely, is absolutely a lie, there's just no two ways about it."

This claim, repeated over and over again in this documentary that Kerry was accusing the POWs of war crimes is wrong. He was referring to the knowledge gained by 150 honorably discharged and decorated veterans who testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia in Detroit in January of 1971. And beyond that, murdering and pillaging have been well documented. It happens in just about every war where soldiers are in contact with an enemy population.

"WARNER: but the guy Kelly was punished for it."

Uh...it's "Calley".

"SHERWOOD VOICEOVER: Yes, all America cringed earlier, in 1969,  when Lieutenant Kelly's actions at the massacre at My Lai hit the front pages. But wasn't this an isolated incident?"

Uh...no.

"Were not the cruelties of My Li exposed by the soldiers there - American soldiers, who refused to participate - whose revulsion compelled them to tell of the horrors they've witnessed?"

Before Ridenhour went straight to the press, didn't the military attempt to cover that up?

"SHERWOOD: Intended or not, Lieutenant Kerry painted a [..] portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating an image of those who served in combat as deranged drug-addicted psychopaths, baby-killers. And that odious image has endured impressed upon a popular culture for more than 30 years."

Killing babies is something Kerry never mentioned. And that chant was actually "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" When Kerry came back to the US, Nixon was the president. This presents a problem for the theories that assert that Kerry somehow single-handedly destroyed the image of Vietnam veterans.

"JIM WARNER: If he had actually seen these things, would he say that on television, risking the chance that somebody would say "why the hell didn't you stop it?"

Obviously Kerry did say "it" on television. "It" here refers to the things Kerry said he personally witnessed, those things he witnessed on those free fire zones and search and destroy missions. And besides, Kerry did do something to stop it. He talked to his superiors while in Vietnam and talked about his experiences openly when he got home.

"SHERWOOD: Were John Kerry and his fellow anti-war activists responsible for lengthening their imprisonment, and in doing so, causing the deaths of men who may otherwise have survived?"

Actually, again, that would be the opposite!  

****************************************

I'd be happy to talk about truth, patriotism and collateral damage here.



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
76 posted 2004-10-31 12:31 PM


I don't see how anyone could miss the fact that, as in any election, local, state, or national, both sides are lying, slurring, and pulling out the heavy artillery.

A michigan ad has a narrator defending some democratic nominee against the "allegations" that he supports gay marriage. (These "allegations" of something obviously so horrifying, by the way, are untrue. Just listen to that trustworthy voice-over guy.)

Disgusting. And even more disgusting that one side can point a finger and defend their own side. Oh, we don't do that. Bull.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
77 posted 2004-10-31 01:02 AM




I know just what you mean, Hush.

I don't consider myself a Democrat for those exact reasons, that Democrats are also liars and dishonest in many cases and even Clinton, who I still believe is the best of the four presidents we've had since I've been born, did some deliberately dreadful things (such as the Welfare Reform Act and the Telecommunications Act) that have furthered my distance from that party, which I could at least say is better than the current Republican party.

Just because I'm a liberal, it shouldn't mean I have to agree with everything Michael Moore says either. I don't.

I disagree and am disappointed by some of the theories he made in "Bowling For Columbine" for instance, which I still think is an excellent film which its meaning isn't tarnished by a few unfortunate things, such as Moore splicing Heston's words to make it sound like he said "from my cold dead hands" more than once, to the racial theory he made in comparing the violence of America to the lack of violence in Canada.

As far as issues are concerned, I do believe I have a bias there, but I wouldn't call it a "blind bias". I respect what opponents of abortion say, and other sensitive issues like that. I welcome hearing the arguments of others even when my position won't change on some of these issues.

Which is why I think it is important, in response to what Balladeer said earlier, to note out the unilateral edge to "Stolen Honor" by looking at a bulk of the cast of characters behind its production:

********************************************

* Carlton Sherwood (Producer): Producer of Red, White And Blue Productions, who also happens to be the Executive Vice President of the wvc3 group, a firm focusing on homeland security and counterterrorism once tapped by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.

* Paul E. Galanti: A retired U.S Navy commander who served in VA 216, who is benefitting from a Homeland Security contract.

* Kenneth Cordier: A retired United States Air Force pilot who served in the 559th TFS Cam Rahn Bay. Has already been caught working for both the Swift Boat veterans For (Truth) and as a Bush veterans affairs advisor.

* Leo Thorsness: That's Republican Senator Leo Thorsness of Seattle.

* Ronald J. Webb: He has served as an official with the FAA during the Bush Admistration.

* Thomas M. McNish: Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Also the head of a 12-member panel on issues affecting former prisoners of war. Same committee that Cordier resigned from when he was connected to the Swiftees.

********************************************

Is it all just a coincidence, or was this project not so much intended to be a documentary but rather 42 minutes of partisan propaganda and slander disguised in the name of "news"?

The lies are on both sides, and they are far from the levels of the presidency and the senate. They are everywhere, and it is just up to our best of judgement to dish out the fools gold.



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

78 posted 2004-10-31 07:56 AM


Actually, Hush, I was referring only to the national level, Bush and Kerry. Kerry has persistently been running a negative campaign, attacking Bush, spreading lies and disinformation regarding domestic and foreign policy issues, siezing upon every 'latest' headline for fodder in new attacks, before even getting the facts, (just as he slammed Bush for not immediately implementing the proposals of the 911 Commission five minutes after it was released, before either he or Bush had a chance to even read the report!) all with the help of his liberal friends at CBS and the majority of the print media. I've not seen one incidence of the Bush campaign dishing dirt on Kerry for political gain. All they have done is directed people to look at Kerry's 20 year Senate voting record.

And I think it's telling that only Kerry has used the bin Laden tape for political purposes, saying that it is further evidence of Bush's incompetence (after his initial conciliatory, "united America" remarks).

And I'm also not talking about the 527s either, over which the candidates have no control, but even there, Democratic supporters have outspent the Republican supporters by 9-1, so I think it is rediculous for them to complain about 527s.

John, the majority of the Vietnam Vets were not murderers.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
79 posted 2004-10-31 01:09 PM


"Kerry has persistently been running a negative campaign, attacking Bush, spreading lies and disinformation regarding domestic and foreign policy issues..."

Interesting.

While we're on the subject of negative campaign ads, let me remind you that the Campaign Media Analysis Group found that the Bush campaign, from the beginning of the presidential campaign to June 1, 2004,  had run ads saying negative things about Kerry 49,050 times, amounting to 75 percent of Bush's campaign advertising. Kerry, in contrast, in that same time frame, ran negative ads against Bush 13,336 times, or just 27 percent of his total.

As far as campaigns are concerned, Bush is the far more aggressive of the two here. And while Kerry has ran negative ads in this final sprint, Bush is no stranger either, continuing his attempt to turn "liberal" into a black word with all his "wolves" fear-mongering and "Kerry and liberals in Congress..." rhetoric.

You think the liberals get special treatment because of CBS? Fox News is like the 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year campaign advertisement for Bush. According to Fairness in Accuracy and reporting, in the week leading up to the beginning of the war in Iraq, of 393 interviews ran on four major nightly newscasts (CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and of the 393 interviews done around war, only three were with anti-war representatives. That certainly shows me not even Jim Lehrer is that liberal.

By the way, Bush is no stranger to using the bin Laden tape in his campaign rhetoric either and you know that. Both Bush and Kerry have denounced what Osama said and vow to hunt him down.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
80 posted 2004-10-31 06:49 PM


Noah, your response, although very well-presented, is the exact type of response I would have expected and the same response that Democrats have been using throughout the campaign. If something denigrates Bush, it's excellent. If something denigrates Kerry, it's all Bush's fault and the Democrats scream foul and insults. The Stolen Honor documentary presented the exact film clips of Kerry's speeches against the American Forces in Viet-Nam. He does not present it as isolated events but as if the entire American forces were involved. You dare to say the tortures did not increase because of Kerry's words? Where did you get that information? They were there - you weren't even born yet and you're going to call them liars?

In case the documentaries didn't impress you enough let me display an excerpt from Kerry at the 1971 Senate hearings, published  by Crosby Noyes from the Washington Evening Star..

  (Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

KERRY: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions........"


What's that all about, Noah? You have a strong belief in honesty and integrity I know. Well, there is your hero claiming to have willingly participated in the murder of innocents and razing of villages. The man is confessing to murder and even acknowledging that his actions were contrary to the laws of warfare. He admitted he committed acts which were punishable by law. He was no private - he was an officer.The group that marched in defense of the innocents of the world you belong to? Kerry helped shoot them. The man should have been put in jail. Instead he serves in the Senate for two decades and now runs for president. Only in America....

Enjoy your hero, Noah. He should be everything you are against and instead you want him to run the country....I wish you luck.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
81 posted 2004-10-31 10:09 PM


Well Balladeer, considering we are opposite sides of the political spectrum, I guess it also provides differing perspectives on what honesty and integrity is.

It's true I didn't even live during the Vietnam era, as I was born in 1983, twelve years after the 1971 Winter Soldier hearing. Nevertheless, no matter when you're born, you can learn these ethics and grow and understand exactly what was so wrong about Vietnam and, now, Iraq.

Because I am greatly influenced by the activist heroes of the Vietnam era, from the musicians to the poets to the whistleblowers, I have taken great time and effort researching the dark truth behind this war. I'd say I lack the experience aspect of the situation, having not lived it and may not have the fullest psychological aesthetic reaction to it, but the world also needs perceivers and the intuitive, those who witness patterns of this behavior and anthropology, etc.

I've read many Vietnam-related books and watched many Vietnam-related films. Noam Chomsky's "The Manufacturing of Consent", "Hearts And Minds" by Peter Davis is an excellent film that portrays deeply the conflicted opinions of that war, and Gabriel Kolko's "Vietnam: Anatomy of a Peace" to name a few. I also always attend public peace rallies where many Vietnam veterans attend and they tell me their experiences, for I find you shouldn't only have facts, but listen to experiences as well because you never know where another piece of the story could come up. Democracy Now! provides some good historical data, etc.

And ever since Kerry won the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, I already knew he'd inevitably win the nomination because of the Anybody But Bush fever and so I began finding out more about him and learned he was the same Kerry who spoke out at the Vietnam war. So I read transcripts, heard an audio recording of his testimony, etc. and relating to fellow veteran friends who have lived the experiences themselves and interviewing them or asking them questions, it gave some added needed detail.

I've been very opinionated since I was 12, though it wasn't until September 11th when I recognized there is a major conflict in the world and not until Bush declared war that I really got involved deeply in activism, so I'm pretty new to this. I've been researching like a mad scientist almost ever since Iraq first began, and relate my studies to those of my activist friends and loved ones to see how accurate they are, etc.

As for the Evening Star snippet you've provided, I definitely wouldn't say I'm proud of anyone performing such an action like burning a village or firing machine guns on mission, but Kerry at least had the courage to say he did take part in it at one point and was honest about it. He obviously regrets this ever so much, just as much as he regrets ever serving in a war like that, and he took his emotion and channeled it into seeing to it this war be ended. What he said there is honest.

Can you still not see the whole purpose of the Winter Soldier hearings? Those like Kerry knew the American public had to know the dark, disturbing truths of what happened there. They knew they just couldn't bury their silence, they had to confess and speak of these crimes that threaten the heart of America. Expose the psychological warfare monster, and hope through listening and breaking the silence, the nation could turn away from that "monster" and say "Never again!".

According to what you say and believe about Kerry and his infamous acts in the war, shouldn't you also agree with the Noam Chomsky philosophy that "if the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged"?

You consider Kerry despicable and Bush not, someone who won't admit a single mistake or take responsibility for anything? I think personally Bush should be put behind bars for life for him and his administration largely responsible for the deaths of over eleven hundred of our young men and women and approximately 100,000 innocent Iraqis. It's HIS decisions that have made this all possible, and by the day more and more die, the tallies higher each month, yet Bush still says "we're not turning back!".

But besides his lies and exaggerations and euphemisms he frequently exhibits in his policies and decision-making, yeah, I guess Bush is pretty honest personally.

After all, when he was on Air Force One on the Fourth of July of last year, he said, "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things!"

That certainly explains a lot.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
82 posted 2004-10-31 10:23 PM


"I'd say I lack the experience aspect of the situation, having not lived it and may not have the fullest psychological aesthetic reaction to it.."
Thank God for that, Noah, and ya know? you DON'T have to be part of any war to know it is a horrible horible experience.
I don't have to be in Iraq to know it is a total hell hole, for virtually everyone, not just American soldiers.
I voted for Kerry, and I'm damn proud of it, even though he isn't the perfect choice for me. The perfect choices don't seem to have the political clout and financial backing that the majority party reps have.
As for those missing explosives? That is really just one of many things that have gone wrong with this wretched war.
Damn, I sure do want a change in leadership in this country.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
83 posted 2004-10-31 10:56 PM




Fear not, Kacy, fear not, for I am optimistic a fresh new start is coming, change will come!



I'll tell you this. In case there really is a draft intended in the minds of some top politicians and in case it really does happen (I choose not to jump to conclusions but judging by the sneakiness of this administration already, it won't be all too suprising if this happens) I will choose a prison sentence, for I am vowing on my life not to serve under a corrupt administration or government.

It's a bold and brave move to make, but I'm not going to do the dirty laundry of a reckless administration. I work and live for building communities and peacemongering, and at least behind bars you could have the silence to harness peace with yourself, and the minute you are released you can once again share peace among others.



Even Bush said May 7th of last year in Washington D.C, "I think war is a dangerous place." We don't need to keep punishing ourselves like this, it shouldn't take much to understand war is not the answer. To those who have really lived the traumatizing experiences, war could sure feel like a place you're trapped in, but we could be free from it. We really can.

I've voted Kerry too and defend my vote.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
84 posted 2004-11-01 12:29 PM


WEll, Noah, let me say in all sincerity that I salute your dedication to your beliefs and the thoroughness in which you immerse yourself in what you consider important.

As far as Viet Nam is concerned with respect to the pows I don't think you can know any more than I what they endured there and what was used against them.

As far as your comparison between Kerry's actions and Bush's actions, I had no doubt that would be your answer and I'm disappointed you used it. Believe me there is a difference between a politician sending troops to war and a man with a gun in his hand shooting innocent people. Why don't we say then that Al Capone was no worse than FDR? You say in justification that at least Kerry admitted it. Does that mean that if Al Capone admitted it his actions would be pardonable, too? John Kerry is a self-confessed hands-on murderer and your comparisons simply show you cannot, or refuse to, accept his own words because then you would have to acknowledge you support that type of individual. Obviously you are not willing to do that.

Best to you....

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
85 posted 2004-11-01 12:54 PM




Balladeer, I understand you yourself served there and I do respect your opinion, I really do.

All the same, you just can't speak for all your fellow veterans there. Indeed there are many who still believe going there was right, but there are also so many who know Vietnam was a disaster and it was wrong and they also know it was right to return and protest the nation's involvement in that war.

If you felt the tone in my previous responses insinuated to you that I was speaking for all veterans, I righteously apologize. You're right, I can't possibly know any more than you do or anyone in that manner. The fact is, it takes all kinds to understand such sensitive events like this, as would Iraq.

Now I wasn't alive then, I didn't serve then, nor will I ever serve in any war. But, like Kacy said, you don't have to go to war to understand just how wrong or immoral it is, just by the pictures and video caps and heartwrenching anecdotes you hear.

Let it be known that I don't trust Kerry. I don't think you can expect to trust any politician. You could believe or be obedient to one, but politicians are the least likely people you can ever trust.

There is much that seperates me from Kerry. I am not convinced he is all anti-war, as I've already specified before many times. I do believe he is morally superior to Bush, for he had the courage to admit his wrongs, Bush doesn't. Kerry had the courage to call Iraq the wrong war, Bush thinks it's the right war despite the increasing and accelerating violence there.

Perhaps there's a physical difference in what you've said, but tangibly one who sits in the background allowing such atrocities to happen and does nothing to stop them is just as guilty as someone who actually commits the atrocities.

It's this administration's fault and responsibility we have sunk into this war we cannot win, it's largely this administration's fault hundreds of our young men and women have died and approximately a hundred thousand Iraqis have been murdered, and it's all this adminstration's fault that because of their recklessness and impatience, we don't even have a clear exit strategy, and in result many more will die until one is in final planning stages.

Bush sure has a lot of penitence to make for these massive atrocities, and he hasn't even gotten through step one of the forgiveness process; admitting his wrongs. We'll see if he can be as human as Kerry and wisen up.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
86 posted 2004-11-01 01:34 AM


Allow me to clarify, Noah. I DO NOT feel that going to Viet Nam was right...and I certainly have no ill will against those who protested against it. Portesting against what one believes is injustice is a right this country allows.

My complaint with Kerry was not that he protested the war - it was the way he portrayed the AMerican soldier over there. He made his accusations sound as if every soldier there were involved in selseless killings, butchery and lawlessness. I can sssure you it was not so. Why would he do it? Simple - to get attention and further his own career. He would brand tens of thousands of soldiers as criminals to further his career...and he did it knowing that it was largely a lie. Now he comes out and says perhaps he exaggerated and was a little over-zealous. THAT is what I despise about John Kerry. He was after the sensationalism of it and because of comments like his, soldiers returning from duty there were treated like lepers...you saw no parades or acknowledgement for them. We had to sneak in the back door like thieves in the night and wear our service as a badge of shame. That is the legacy of people like John Kerry - and that's why I despise him most of all.

Imagine, if you will, Noah, you being a father back in that time with a son serving in Viet Nam. How would you feel about a man calling your son, by inclusion, a murderous, out of control, drug-addicted freak gone amok? How would you feel if your son were treated that way after returning home from simply doing the duty his government called on him to do? How would you feel about the man making those allegations? Right now there are still thousands of Viet Nam vets alive. Take my word for it that those who vote for Kerry, if any, will comprise a microscopic percentage.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
87 posted 2004-11-01 02:26 AM


A President John Kerry, as Commander In Chief,
would be devastating to troop morale
in all the services.  So much so, I think
should he be elected, any soldier requesting it should
be released immediately from his enlistment.
Further I would support any soldier refusing to serve
in Iraq after his election.


And it’s one two three
what are we fightin’ for
Oh I don’t much give a crap
Next stop is old Iraq
And it’s five six seven
Kerry said it's a big mistake
Oh there ain’t no time to wonder why
My kid ain’t goin’ to die.


John

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
88 posted 2004-11-01 04:20 AM


Noah,

“But, like Kacy said, you don't have to go to war to understand just how wrong or immoral it is, just by the pictures and video caps and heartwrenching anecdotes you hear.”

Did you hear this one:

“The Massacre at Hue
Time Magazine October 31, 1969
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At first the men did not dare step into the stream," one of the searchers recalled. "But the sun was going down and we finally entered the water, praying to the dead to pardon us." The men who were probing the shallow creek in a gorge south of Hue prayed for pardon because the dead had lain unburied for l9 months; according to Vietnamese belief, their souls are condemned to wander the earth as a result. In the creek, the search team found what it had been looking for--some 250 skulls and piles of bones. "The eyeholes were deep and black, and the water flowed over the ribs," said an American who was at the scene.

The gruesome discovery late last month brought to some 2,300 the number of bodies of South Vietnamese men, women and children unearthed around Hue. All were executed by the Communists at the time of the savage 25-day battle for the city during the Tet offensive of 1968. The dead in the creek in Nam Hoa district belonged to a group of 398 men from the Hue suburb of Phu Cam. On the fifth day of the battle, Communist soldiers appeared at Phu Cam cathedral, where the men had sought refuge with their families, and marched them off. The soldiers said that the men would be indoctrinated and then allowed to return, but their families never heard of them again. At the foot of the Nam Hoa mountains, ten miles from the cathedral, the captives were shot or bludgeoned to death.

Shallow Graves. When the battle for Hue ended Feb. 24, 1968, some 3,500 civilians were missing. A number had obviously died in the fighting and lay buried under the rubble. But as residents and government troops began to clean up, they came across a series of shallow mass graves just east of the Citadel, the walled city that shelters Hue's old imperial palace. About 150 corpses were exhumed from the first mass grave, many tied together with wire and bamboo strips. Some had been shot, others had apparently been buried alive. Most had been either government officials or employees of the Americans, picked up during a door-to-door hunt by Viet Cong cadres who carried detailed blacklists. Similar graves were found inside the city and to the southwest near the tombs where Viet Nam's emperors lie buried. Among those dug out were the bodies of three German doctors who had worked at the University of Hue.

Search Operation. Throughout that first post-Tet year, there were persistent rumors that something terrible had happened on the sand flats southeast of the city. Last March, a farmer stumbled on a piece of wire; when he tugged at it, a skeletal hand rose from the dirt. The government immediately launched a search operation. "There were certain stretches of land where the grass grew abnormally long and green," Time Correspondent Wllllam Mormon reported last week from Hue. "Beneath this ominously healthy flora were mass graves, 20 to 40 bodies to a grave. As the magnitude of the finds became apparent, business came to a halt and scores flocked out to Phu Thu to look for long-missing relatives, sifting through the remains of clothes, shoes and personal effects. "They seemed to be hoping they would find someone and at the same time hoping they wouldn't," said an American official. Eventually, about 24 sites were unearthed and the remains of 809 bodies were found.

The discovery at the creek in Nam Boa district did not come until last month--after a tip from three Communist soldiers who had defected to the government. The creek and its grisly secret were hidden under such heavy jungle canopy that landing zones had to be blasted out before helicopters could fly in with the search team. For three weeks, the remains were arranged on long shelves at a nearby school, and hundreds of Hue citizens came to identify their missing relatives. "They had no reason to kill these people," said Mrs. Le Thi Bich Phe, who lost her husband.

Negligible Propaganda. What triggered the Communist slaughter? Many Hue citizens believe that the execution orders came directly from Ho Chi Minh. More likely, however, the Communists simply lost their nerve. They had been led to expect that many South Vietnamese would rally to their cause during the Tet onslaught. That did not happen, and when the battle for Hue began turning in the allies' favor, the Communists apparently panicked and killed off their prisoners.

The Saigon government, which claims that the Communists have killed 25,000 civilians since 1967 and abducted another 46,000, has made negligible propaganda use of the massacre. In Hue it has not had to. Says Colonel Le Van Than, the local province chief: "After Tet, the people realized that the Viet Cong would kill them, regardless of political belief." That fearful thought haunts many South Vietnamese, particularly those who work for their government or for the Americans. With the U.S. withdrawal under way, the massacre of Hue might prove a chilling example of what could lie ahead. “

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CTcv


?

John


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
89 posted 2004-11-01 05:23 AM


Noah,

"Noahs raped women, killed men, sexually tortured and murdered children."

Now, how many Noahs are needed to make that statement accurate,
and how many would a reader think were meant?

If you say it's wrong; one could respond that you can’t speak for all Noahs.

See how it’s done?

John

P.S. Instead of Noahs, you can substitute your favorite other name, race, creed, or religion.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
90 posted 2004-11-01 09:33 AM


No, you can only substitute a name.

Be very careful, you are walking on very think ice right now.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
91 posted 2004-11-01 09:35 AM


I'm confused now. The apostrophe was left off in the quote?"

Can somebody elaborate here?

Where's the original quote?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
92 posted 2004-11-01 07:23 PM


Brad,

The statement is obviously absurd,
and yet with “American soldiers” substituted
similar statements were made
and even now defended.

It’s a taste of how vets feel.

In a conversation with Mom,
I said “It’s like when they said Poles
were stupid and dirty.” which sent her
reminiscing down DP Hunkie Lane.
Only it was worst.

Maybe some old “Babykillers”
can illustrate further.


John
http://www.iwvpa.net/o_donnellmd/remember.htm

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-01-2004 08:14 PM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
93 posted 2004-11-01 08:35 PM


Balladeer, thank you for clarifying. I apologize if you thought I was painting you as someone who still thought going to Vietnam was right and defend that war, which I wasn't intentionally trying to do by the way, for I was just trying to make the point there are veterans for Bush, veterans for Kerry, veterans for the war in Iraq, veterans against the war in Iraq, and we can't just speak for them all.

I was also trying to illustrate that in Vietnam, at first, a clear majority did defend the war, but in time as more and more bad news and news of losses piled up, approval ratings went down and disapproval ratings went up, and in time, those against the war were the majority, those still in defense the minority.

The case is the same for Iraq. Though it wouldn't be fair to say the anti-war group is the majority quite yet (it's consistently been split-even for months now) the approval ratings were much higher when it began last year. Now it is a polarized opinion. And despite a majority believing by a 2 to 1 margin usually that Bush could be a better fighter on the war on terror, Bush's approval ratings struggles to reach 50% now, a bad sign for any incumbent historically.

Again, I've heard and analyzed Kerry's testimony and I am certain he clearly referred to the administrations, and the chief commanders and the superiors who left many of their young boys behind. I am one who believes (and there are many who believe) that Kerry's testimony did not portray the average American soldier as senseless, lawless butchers. I find he didn't generalize the atrocities to the typical soldier in Vietnam. Indeed he was speaking fiercely of the 150 who confessed their crimes in Detroit of January 1971, and Kerry was just trying to get the dark truth across to the American people. At the time, many conspired to keep potential whistleblowers and activists from making their case and what Kerry brought the American public was essential by all means, to offer a refrain, "Never again!"

I'm sorry to hear of that experience you went through you've just shared, going out the back door, etc. It saddens me too to know of the reactions to veterans upon returning home, being spit at, boots being stomped on, cold emotionless faces of contempt staring at them. I think so many forgot then that soldiers are human beings, they are our own siblings and flesh and blood.

But, once again, I believe it's unfair to just generalize that it is because of comments like Kerry's that inspired this disgruntled, antagonist behavior of contempt to them. My veteran friend Richard at the PPRC believes it was rather that America had this reputation for never losing a war, and the purpose of America in war is to win the war, and the many who booed them upon arrival back antagonized those like himself because they were losers.

If I was in that very scenario you speak of, there's no question it would be difficult and so many emotions would be enshrouding me and my son. But first, I'd recognize how immoral and frightening war is, and how it seems the make the worst out of us and turn us into monsters out there on the fields, so it would be painful to imagine my son under that description, but I wouldn't take my frustration out on him, because I know he's still my little boy and know growing up, he was never under that same description and believe because I wasn't there myself and can't ever begin to imagine psychologically what he went through, the conditions and events he encountered, the people he had been with, etc. it couldn't have been him that was so rambunctious. And if anyone shrieked out accusing my son of such things, I would do what any father would do and hear the words but defend my flesh and blood, even taking flung beer bottles or stones or tomatoes if I had to.

Now, if I was living in this time and I heard Kerry's same words, I imagine it would indeed leave me frozen in contemplation for quite a while, it would indeed be heavy, and maybe the first time hearing it I may miss something and would have to hear it several more times to understand exactly what he said, and I guess I could understand how many may have took Kerry the wrong way after hearing it once because there was so much substance it's hard to take the whole and analyze it all at once and perhaps many hadn't heard the speech again since that April day, but hearing how he enunciated his statements pretty clearly, I would believe he was specifically lashing out at Agnew, Kissinger, LBJ, Nixon, and top military officials, NOT the young men, our very sons, my son, who were drafted and forced there under rigid orders.

Now, had Kerry or someone like him said everything otherwise and it obviously and bluntly was referring to ALL troops, I would resent that, and don't you think if that were the case Kerry or others who followed his lead would never have had a chance at a political career?

*******************************************

Huan Yi, you will win some and you will lose some. I think if Kerry elected, and am pretty confident he will be November 3rd or whenever everything is tallied up, those troops and military families who still believe going to Iraq was the right thing to do and that we can win this war could be demoralized, but about half the nation believes the war was wrong and I think their moral will increase.

All I can say in this impasse situation is, perhaps, "you'll thank him later!"

And Huan Yi, I absolutely agree with you that every soldier who refuses to serve in Iraq should have the right not to have to. Shouldn't that be the right under ANY administration, during any course of action?

Yes, just like that article you've shared, it shows just how terrible and horrifying war is, period.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton



"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
94 posted 2004-11-01 08:38 PM


quote:
It’s a taste of how vets feel.

I hope you're speaking only for yourself, John.

You're certainly not speaking for me.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
95 posted 2004-11-01 09:14 PM


Ron,

No,

I was very lucky.

In this case, I’m speaking for Monk
who went crazy,
and Mike,
who years later did to himself
what the VC and NVA had tried to do
to him while he was there.

And that’s as far I as I will go about them.

I will say this.  I will support any soldier
who now refuses to submit himself to the risk
of being characterized and treated as they were.


John


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
96 posted 2004-11-01 10:37 PM


Noah, again I thank you for the way you conduct yourself and respond. I have also learned never to get you mad at me because being pelted by tomatoes from you would be too much to bear!!!

One of the most difficult things I find to understand about Kerry supporters is...the terrorists support Kerry! The same people who have made attacks on the United States for over a decade, the ones who have killed Americans want Kerry to win. To me, in a rational world, that would automatically mean don't vote for Kerry! Osama wants Kerry to win. In his last video he states that any state that votes for Bush will face sever consequences. The same man who engineered the WTC attack supports Kerry! Doesn't that tell you something? Why would anyone want to vote for the man the terrorists want in power? The only reason I can think of is that the terrorist groups are used to attacking American embassies, ships, even America itself and not have any specific retalitory consequences. Now thay are dealing with the madman Bush who has them hiding in caves, uniting countries in a war against terrorism, and basically taking away their ability to move around freely. Their "safe" zones are not safe any more. They want someone like Kerry. Of course they want Bush out of power....but why would you?? When you vote for Kerry you are voting for the terrorist's choice and ,if he wins, you will raise your voices along with them in celebration. Do you like that picture?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
97 posted 2004-11-01 11:07 PM


"In his last video he states that any state that votes for Bush will face sever consequences."

What is the exact quote?
As I understood it, he said it made no
difference; it was the policies that
had to change.

John

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
98 posted 2004-11-01 11:16 PM


It was on the news today that that was a part that had not been translated yet when presented to the public. I would expect it to                              show up soon.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
99 posted 2004-11-01 11:20 PM


Noah,

“Again, I've heard and analyzed Kerry's testimony and I am certain he clearly referred to the administrations, and the chief commanders and the superiors who left many of their young boys behind. I am one who believes (and there are many who believe) that Kerry's testimony did not portray the average American soldier as senseless, lawless butchers. I find he didn't generalize the atrocities to the typical soldier in Vietnam. Indeed he was speaking fiercely of the 150 who confessed their crimes in Detroit of January 1971, and Kerry was just trying to get the dark truth across to the American people”


"The Fraud of the Winter Soldier

THAT is the crux of my problem with John Kerry’s dissent. For the most part it was based on fraud. His dissent was NOT based in truth. His dissent was not conducted responsibly. It was, in my opinion, based on mischaracterization, outright lies, and fraud....

To reveal the depth of dishonesty present, Al Hubbard, one of the founders of the VVAW and its Executive Secretary, claimed to be an Air Force pilot, wounded in Viet Nam. In fact, Hubbard was never an officer, never wounded and never in Viet Nam. VVAW members Elton Mazione, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz and Kenneth Van Lesser all claimed to have been a part of the Phoenix program in Viet Nam where they routinely killed children and removed body parts as a part of their duty. They were shown to have never been in the Phoenix program nor had they ever been in Viet Nam. And the list of more frauds later found within the organization is mind-boggling.

So this is the organization with which Kerry was associated when he used the “horrible stories” generated by Mark Lane and the VVAW’s “Winter Soldier investigation” as the basis of his Congressional “testimony” later that year, saying at one point:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” [emphasis added]

Not content with this outright lie, he stated further on in his “testimony”:

”It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country: the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions; also the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free-fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners - accepted policy in many units in South Vietnam.”

This too is a complete and utter lie.”

http://qando.net/archives/002160.htm


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
100 posted 2004-11-01 11:26 PM


Mike, you are incorrect about that Osama video. Obviously you didn't read the available translations. He DID NOT say any such thing. He actually says it doesn't really matter who the president is. To the American public, he says
"your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush, or Al Queda. Your security is in your own hands. Any (presidential) mandate which does not play havoc with our (ie Muslim) security ensures its own security."
Nowhere does he say what you claim he says about Bush.
There are many sources on the net where you can read the transcripts.
Let's stick to the truth and not hype, please, on both sides. The truth is, what he tells us and what he says to his followers will not be the same. This video was toned down, for American public consumption, but to remind us that (1) he is well and alive (2) he is still a threat (3) we still didn't understand the ultimate message we were supposed to from 9/11
He doesn't give a rat's ass who the President is. As long as our American foreign policy supports Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, he will come after us every chance he gets. And he is a patient man when it comes to achieving his goals. A methodical strategist, and a yes, the current number one terrorist the world needs to eliminate.
    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
101 posted 2004-11-01 11:33 PM


Believe me, Kacy, I'm not trying to deviate from the truth as you seem to be trying to insinuate. I only stated what I had heard on the news and stated that. The only thing I can find is this..

"He also accuses Mr Bush of incompetence, saying the attacks on the US would have been less severe if the president had been more alert, and suggests Mr Bush abandoned his people in a time of crisis.

He ridicules the president for continuing to read a story to schoolchildren despite having just been informed of the attacks.

The video is Bin Laden's clearest claim of responsibility yet for the attacks.

The al-Qaeda leader likens the Bush administration to Arab regimes, saying both are characterised by "hubris, arrogance, greed and unlawful acquisition of money".

He tries to appropriate the language of the Bush administration, dismissing Mr Bush's regular claims that al-Qaeda militants "hate freedom".

"We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice," he says.

He adds: "Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush, or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security."

Perhaps, since Bush is the one who will continue "tampering" with their security, that is how the inference was made in the newscast.

Since you commented on that, Kacy, how about the rest of what I said, and you ignored, in that post. I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint...

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
102 posted 2004-11-01 11:47 PM


Would it matter, Mike?

My oldest daughter was about eight when she first saw through reverse psychology. I don't know what bin Landen meant or what he intended (not necessarily the same things), but I do know if I allow him in any way to influence my vote, al Qaeda has won.

Their weapon is not death, which we can't ever control, but fear, which we can and must control. The only power terrorism has is the power we give it.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
103 posted 2004-11-01 11:50 PM


I'll come back to this again, but find it difficult sometimes to sit and address point for point, as I'm a single mom and do have other things I actually focus on, such as  actively researching/promoting peaceful solutions. some of what I've read in here is just replay of the news hypes and misinterpretations couple with personal beliefs. I don't have the luxury of going through pages and pages of archives going back to the day I was born to see who did what, I mostly go from memories of what I remember happening.
when I demonstrated against the Viet Nam war, it was with full agreement and encouragement from my ex, who was in Nam
but did not agree with the war at all, just didn't want to go to Canada or to jail. When he returned, he was never mistreated by anyone, never spit at or cursed, not denied assistance vets are entitled to...none of the things I've heard about that happened to some others. So your experiences and a few others don't match what I remember, and don't match for a dozen or so others I know persoanlly who served in Nam. So it's difficult to give much credence to what I'm hearing, and I WAS there listening to Kerry in those days, and DO NOT consider him a traitor in any way shape or form.
Also, I don't feel I have any requirement to address every single thing you or anyone else writes here.
Since when does anyone have that obligation?
I'm sorry if this sounds curt, but this has been the nastiest most contentious election I can remember, and its time to stop all the spitting and name calling, and focus on the issues.
HELLO? It seems to me the real issues are getting lost in all this rhetoric.
Let's look together for some solutions, some ways to mend this world, not push people further apart.
Damn, I hate politics, it is so divisive.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
104 posted 2004-11-01 11:52 PM


Mike,

I’m with Kacy on this, (I’m going to Hell).
Bin Laden made no comment about severe consequences
should people vote for Bush.  If he did, the Bush people
would be dancing in the streets around Kerry people
who had jumped out the windows.

John

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
105 posted 2004-11-02 12:09 PM


Mike, where in the world did you get the idea that Osama supports Kerry? I think that is just more political hogwash.
I'll return to this forum later tonight or tomorrow as time permits, meanwhile have a safe evening.
namaste, peace to all

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
106 posted 2004-11-02 12:20 PM


Fri., Oct. 29/04 http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?articleID=1753292&pageID=cbc/top_archive

Kacy I am not sure if this link will work to get you to an article about the Osama bin Laden's tape in Canadian news, but it is easy to see why some people are thinking that he was speaking directly against and about Bush. (Read towards the bottom references to Bush.) It doesn't state he support Kerry but it states he condemns Bush.  A lot of Canadians just assumed he was using scare tactics as the media presented it that way.  My son even informed me it might even be the opposition up to no good right before the election and he would not believe the tape until they could actually prove it was even him speaking.  (The computer geekies know ways to make things appear other than they really are he assured me.)             What this type of hype will do is create fear which is the last thing that people should have on their minds going to the pole to vote, because it would not matter who was President when it comes to this maniac, I think you might agree?

This is the report where he supposedly speaks about Bush as well for your reference.
Sat., Oct. 30/04
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?articleID=1753685&pageID=cbc/top_archive

In any event, I am sure praying big time that tomorrow morning Americans will get up and go to vote, speak up for what they think is best for the American people in the next four year period, and vote for the right "person for that job" in their mind and not this nonsense.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

107 posted 2004-11-02 12:50 PM


I saw the same thing on the news tonight, the rest of the tape that hadn't been translated yet, and Michael is correct. And an Arab translator stated that bin Laden was actually referring to individual states in the statement due to a modifer used with the word states, indicating our individual states, not states as used in the national sense, and that they would suffer the consequences of how their states voted.

I don't see the tape as good or bad for either candidate.

While some could say it could be good for Bush since bin Laden doesn't want Bush, (and I've heard the talk about it being a Republican propaganda plot, as Sharon referenced) it could also be seen as bad for Bush if folks give in to the threat and vote for Kerry.

Ron is right too. We shouldn't allow anything that bin Laden says influence us either way, out of fear. It's our election process, not his.

I won't vote for someone, though, who has the support of the terrorists, the Communist Party, France, China, North Korea, Iran, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and the Hollywood elites, MoveOn.org, and the imbeciles who spread racially devisive lies to garner votes, even if the candidate himself were not such a colossal, shameful and pathological liar and panderer. And fear has nothing to do with it.  


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
108 posted 2004-11-02 12:59 PM


"My son even informed me it might even be the opposition up to no good right before the election and he would not believe the tape until they could actually prove it was even him speaking.  (The computer geekies know ways to make things appear other than they really are he assured me.)"


If only we could shave Bush's
head to assure ourselves there
aren't three sixes.


  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
109 posted 2004-11-02 12:59 PM


No, Kacy, you don't have an obligation to adress anything I say at all...but you did and did by zeroing in one one point and ignoring the rest. No problem...I wasn't really expecting an answer anyway. How can I possibly imagine that bin laden would be against Bush? How could any intelligent human being think otherwise?

Ron, I have no idea at all what you mean. I said nothing about bin laden influencing your vote. I had simply asked what it felt like being on the same side of the fence with him on this issue, along with Arafat, Castro and others of that ilk who have come out in support of Kerry.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
110 posted 2004-11-02 01:04 AM


Thank you, Denise....I was afraid I was having hallucinations there for a minute!
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
111 posted 2004-11-02 01:08 AM


Balladeer, first of all let me say you don't have to worry about me ever throwing tomatoes at you or any troop in that case.

Seriously, however, that's funny you mentioned the terrorist component to this argument.

After all, what's up with Iran endorsing Bush? (I don't know where denise got Iran endorsing Kerry). Didn't Bush declare them part of the so-called "Axis of Evil"?

On October 20th, according to the Associated Press, "The head of Iran's security council said that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's 'axis of evil' label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions for the country's nuclear ambitions."

Now, Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body, explained it was because, in their view, Democrats have hurt them more than Republicans. But, then again, they could have just endorsed Nader or Cobb, eh? Eh?

And in response to that video, you need to follow the advice of Kacy here and read the whole transcript, for you were critical of Kerry for rushing to conclusions or seizing each story like with the 380 missing tons of explosives, yet now you rush into this without studying the whole transcript and say the terrorists want Kerry to win when Osama clearly says the security is in our own hands, not under either Bush or Kerry.

I can understand how you're on edge and so full of nervous energy about tomorrow just as I am and everyone here is, but it gives you no right to make such far-fetched conclusions and accusations like this.

I'll be happy to provide a link to the full transcript:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

The fact is, no matter if Bush or Kerry is elected, terrorism will not cease to exist, and it is something we'll be struggling with in the years to come. The real decision is how we go about resolving the conflict. Either we let it dominate our lives and invade our lives with fear and panic, or we treat it like an issue, but not an all-governing issue and accept it's something it'll take time to see dissolve through community building, public outreach and understanding.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
112 posted 2004-11-02 01:19 AM


Noah, I refer you to Denise's post which states that there is still part of the tape which has not been released yet because that is the same newscast I saw. As far as my being on edge - really? I don't feel that. I admit I feel a bit frustrated at some of the things I read here but that's normal.

How can I make accusations that the terrorists are against Bush? What is the weather like in that world of denial, Noah? How can they not want him out? Arafat and Castro have said so publicly. Bush is the one who has bin laden hiding in a cave with a large part of his organization gone, Afghanistan lost to him as a safe haven,...you really think he would want Bush to stay in power????

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

113 posted 2004-11-02 01:25 AM


Yes, Noah, bin Laden said our security is in our own hands. The newly transcribed information clarifies how our security is in our own hands...depending on how each state votes...their lies our security...according to him.

About Iran, I had heard that the Ayatolla gave his support to Kerry a couple of weeks ago. I guess Iran is as divided as we are!

Michael, I guess you just have to watch FOX news to get the whole story sometimes. I didn't hear it on the network news.  I'll bet you're not surprised either!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
114 posted 2004-11-02 01:27 AM


Noah,

Osama does Bush bash excessively,
but that’s probably because like everyone else
he doesn’t have any clear idea of what Kerry now
stands for.

John


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

115 posted 2004-11-02 01:52 AM



Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
116 posted 2004-11-02 02:14 AM


I will say one thing - Saturday Night Live's Election Bash 2004 was absolutely hilarious tonight!  It's over now, but I am still laughing at what was really all too true I am afraid.  Somehow my wishing Clinton was back doesn't seem all that strange anymore.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
117 posted 2004-11-02 10:33 AM


I'll return later today, am swamped with critical personal issues this morning.
As I've said many times before, don't let ANYONE influence your vote. If you've been following the world's issues all along, you already know who you trust/don't trust.
And Osama doesn't really give a rat's ass who holds the throne in the US at this point in time as long as some of our (and those of other countries) major policies and international actions remain the same.
Let the games begin, I know who I'm placing my bets and hopes on.
namaste, peace to all, have a safe and sane day, please

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
118 posted 2004-11-02 01:13 PM


I absolutely agree with Kacy.

And I also believe both Bush and Kerry's parties would agree with that, for having a tape released just four days before the election could very well have invaded all the major headlines and be seized as a keynote argument to the campaigns. But it's been treated quietly on both sides, with hints of the release in their stump speeches but not as a banner.

Osama's not going to tell me who to vote for, no politician is going to tell me who to vote for, I'M going to tell ME who to vote for. I've heard both sides, I've researched, I've taken the time to compare and contrast, but in the end, no one should tell you who to vote for but YOURSELF.

They say "Fear is only as deep as the mind allows." Some may have fear influence their vote, but it is passion that has influenced mine, and those who are influenced by fear like this I find saddening. This should be about the issues, about the character, not about the sole voice of an infamous bin Laden.

Frankly, I am encouraging all of you to go out there and vote, and more importantly vote your conscience, not your fear.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
119 posted 2004-11-02 01:19 PM


Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.

(wasn't that one of Kerry's accusations..."it's all about the oil", etc...)

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers,

(wasn't that a point Kerry tried to make on how the President waited for 7 minutes before springing into action whereas Kerry would have responded immediately?)

....anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind

Wasn't that a point of Kerry's, who has used every opportunity to throw the name Halliburton in every conversation? Osama used the specifil name? Amazing....

And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House

No, of course Osama doesn't care who gets into the white house....pure coincidence that he picked up on several of Kerry's talking points to include into his speech...Kerry could have written the thing himself with all of those similarities!

Anyway, the talk is over for now and we will vote, wait for and abide by the results...which we will get in 5 or 6 months after the lawyers have gone through all of the lawsuits they can create.

Have a good day and do so peacefully...

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
120 posted 2004-11-02 02:40 PM


Those accusations you are making are just incredible, Michael.

Of course, like I've said, I understand how Election Day can put anyone on edge so far as to want to say anything.

It didn't take Osama for me to figure out the crimes Bush has committed in this war. I've witnessed them since March of last year. It didn't take Osama for me to figure out the war profiteering from Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, etc. I figured that all out over a year ago. It didn't take Osama for me to figure out Bush has squandered over $140 billion dollars to fight a senseless war we cannot win, and him and his administration lying, exaggerating, and misguiding us on all the details. I figured this out ever since the $87 billion was approved and watching the numbers grow $7 million each hour.

Look at the Bush campaign. Not even they have come out and made these sorts of accusations you are making now. Just when I feared they'd say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to get re-elected, they had enough class to distance themselves from this sensitive tape as a political tool, along with the Kerry campaign, and focus on what really matters; the issues, the character.

Getting to know you and discuss these politics with you for months now, I've figured all along who you'd vote for, but by golly I hope that Osama tape didn't influence your vote, but rather solely your support on Bush's issues and his character.

I'm optimistic about today and tomorrow, I'm feeling confident, and I am hopeful we will find out the results within the next 48-72 hours!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
121 posted 2004-11-02 06:07 PM


LOL! Noah, old pal, you have read my entries for months here in the alley. Do you really think my mind might not have been made up until I saw the bin laden tape? You can't be serious!!

The tape means nothing to me and I don't think it will to most voters....as is right. I only made my comment because it was said that bin laden has no preference when one can see clearly from his words that he despises George Bush and the tape made it clear that his preference is to replace Bush....that's all. I expect the tape to make no difference. Actually, it was a childish piece of writing..

May the best of the worst men win....

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
122 posted 2004-11-02 06:21 PM


Noah,

‘They say "Fear is only as deep as the mind allows."’

I wish you could have listened to my parents as they talked
about life and death under the Nazis.  Then you would know
how naïve that is.

“It didn't take Osama for me to figure out the crimes Bush has committed in this war.”

It’s not much of a step from that to our soldiers being murderers again.

“It didn't take Osama for me to figure out Bush has squandered over $140 billion dollars to fight a senseless war...”

On behalf of millions of Iraqis, I would like to thank Bush for his kind
of evil.

John

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
123 posted 2004-11-02 09:31 PM


quote:
On behalf of millions of Iraqis, I would like to thank Bush for his kind of evil.

Millions? If you could find five willing to let you speak for them, John, I'd be suitably surprised.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
124 posted 2004-11-02 10:26 PM


How about the thousands who are not laying in the mass graves they would have been? Do they count, Ron? If you don't think any Iraquis are pleased that Hussein is not in power any longer then I would think your prejudices are clouding your vision...just a guess.

If you only need 5 to satisfy you I present the Iraqi soccer team which did not win the gold in the olympics and were not subjected to torture by Hussein's son when they arrived home....

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
125 posted 2004-11-03 08:06 AM


Mike, the guy with the lobotomy is probably happy he doesn't have a headache any longer, too. It's just REAL hard to tell.

My point wasn't that none of the Iraqis aren't pleased Hussein is gone. I wasn't even making the point that saving people is a poor reason to kill their brothers and sons. The good that is done can't easily be separated from the how or from the why, except perhaps by those who need to justify the how or the why.

My point, rather, was that neither you nor John nor CBS get to make those calls. The tradeoffs, what was won versus what was lost, can only be weighed by an unoccupied Iraq. I'm not sure that's something we'll ever see again, at least not in our lifetimes, but I am sure we can't arrive at an answer for them.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
126 posted 2004-11-03 07:47 PM


Ron,

There was an interview by a correspondent of the father
of a ten year old boy who had been killed in a terrorist
bombing of a ceremony opening a water treatment
facility.  In it, the father criticized American soldiers
for giving candy to children which drew and thereby made
them  vulnerable  to attack.  When asked for his opinion
on those who had planted the bomb killing his own son
he was silent, for as the correspondent remarked Iraq
remained a country where it was not safe to voice opinion.
The correspondent was not talking about what Americans
might do.  The Iraqi people are not sure we will see it
through, and they have long memories of what it was
like before and what the Bathists and their allies
are trying to bring back.  Meanwhile, Iraqi new
government officials, soldiers, civilians, are dying
almost every day in attacks directed at them.

Americans will not stay one day longer than they
have too.  On that you can rely.

John

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
127 posted 2004-11-03 10:48 PM


Gentle Men...and Ladies...

I have watched with interest, public admiration, and some concern, over the comments in this particular thread.

While I do not fear for myself in saying that I, for one, try very hard to see BOTH sides, the fact is...

the election is over, and we need to get on with getting TOGETHER.

Ron, you may very well dismiss my point and poof my comment...and Noah, and Mike, Denise, and Kacy... and all the others...

you may very well dismiss my Pollyanna viewpoint.

However...

Concessions have been made, we're not in a month's worth of wonder, we are at a new beginning of whatever it is the people elected would be.

We have to Go On.

And this, from a conservative Democrat...one of those Mixed Individuals Who Didn't Stop From Voting a Mixed Ticket to Try To Keep All Things Equal....

sigh.

I DO appreciate you and love all of you in my own way...

and it seems every time I enter one of these threads, it seems to die here.

LOL...

but now and then, it lives again.

People...start a new thread.  Deal with the new issues...

we have to go ON...

and I DO love you all...


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
128 posted 2004-11-03 10:53 PM


Sunshine,

It’s a lot better than what happened
within the walls of Jerusalem while
the Romans were outside trying to get in.

John


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
129 posted 2004-11-03 11:31 PM


Well, Sunshine, I don't dismiss your Pollyanna view but I dismiss your accuracy. If you want to aim your suggestion at those who have commented here AFTER election day then be my guest but to name names of people who have NOT and beseech them not to continue seems a little strange to me....and disappointing.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
130 posted 2004-11-04 04:03 PM


Karilea i admire your intentions but the fact of the matter is no one should 'move on'. Healing the differences between us, the personal relationships,yes. But no one should accept this debacle of an administration and the things it has done.
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Missing Explosives, anyone???

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary