TJUNCLE, we are here to discuss our ideas, not someone else's. If Robert Kennedy wants to debate us, get him a ClubHombre id.

For you vets who support Bush, here is a question:

Assuming that Bush did not report for duty in the Alabama National Guard in 1972, what is the penalty for soldiers who desert in time of war?

Yor're right , Kennedy's article doesn't belong here. I just noticed I didn't have anything about the enviromental issue posted. I should have stopped sooner, sorry.

An Excerpt from David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine"

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by David Brock

THE REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE: Right-Wing Media And How it Corrupts Democracy
INTRODUCTION

SINCE DEFECTING FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in the latter half of the 1990s and publishing a confessional memoir in 2002, I’ve discussed my right-wing past with politicians, political activists and strategists, academic scholars, student groups, fellow writers, and hundreds of readers of my book Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. I’m rarely asked anymore why I changed, or about the baroque intricacies of the anti-Clinton movement, which I once participated in and then renounced and exposed. After a presidential election decided by the Supreme Court, the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the war with Iraq, politics has moved to a different place.

Admin: Article removed. Please only include an opening paragraph and then link to the rest of the article.

Whoa ... I usually don't care for cut 'n' paste jobs, but this one's a doozy. I mean, I had my suspicions about the right wing manipulating the media, but I had no idea ...

Thanks for posting!

Wombat88, I hope I haven't gone to far with the posts. I've rightfully been called a name caller and just wanted to site my sources. If you liked Daveid Brock you might want to vist here; http://mediamatters.org/ it's Brocks orginazations and has many great stories in it's archives and right now it's featuring info on the realease of "Unfit for duty" you won't believe some of the stuff the author has said in the past

Since the Bush administration has taken office, there has been a general amalgamation of news services and publishing services across the nation. Indeed, Kerry has made it part of his platform that call for more separation of single corporations owning most of the media outlets in one area. Companies like Clear Channel have benefitted immensly from the relaxation of media acquisition rules.

When you own all the forms of media, TV, radio, newspapers and even billboards, you can effectively restrict what the public hears or sees.

One of the last bastions of free speech is the internet. Here nothing can be "lost" or submerged, discardrd or hidden.

But even internet speech is being suborned. Recent laws like the DMCA have been used to silence critics of corporations and countries alike. The courts have begun setting corporate interests above the freedoms of society. There is even a move afoot to attach coptright claims to public addresses, speeches. etc. in order to control those who want to use them. Most if not all these policies are supported and even encouraged by the Bush administration.

But before we give the Bushies to much credit, an article from the asia times caught my eye.

Maybe the incompetence of the Bush administration will really unravel the Machevellian way they have operated.

From the Asia Times

Surprise,surprise - Bushies caught napping.

By Tom Engelhardt

Among Bush administration opponents - and not just those on the Internet either - there's a deep-seated, Florida-inspired, and not unreasonable fear of an October or even November 2 "surprise". Over the past year, for instance, there have been spasms of Diebold-mania (in honor of one of the Republican-donor firms making the paper-trail-less, touch-screen-computer voting machines, considered quite capable of producing a Florida II). Or what about those "felon lists", endlessly purged in Baby Bush's state (President George W Bush's brother Jeb is governor of Florida) of perfectly un-felonesque African-American Floridians but not of (usually Republican-voting) Hispanics, felonious or otherwise? Michael Moore is heading for the state on election day, camera in hand, but who isn't?

Admin: Article removed. Please only include an opening paragraph and then link to the rest of the article.

Admin: A note to all. Please refrain from posting copyrighted articles word for word on this forum. Common Internet protocol dictates an opening paragraph or two is acceptable and then a link to the article.

The above articles have been edited. Where no link is found, a note has been added.

Thanks.

This quote is even more hilarious if heard spoken rather than being read in print. Bush sounded like Adam Sandler trying to answer the question of the principal in Billy Madison to which the principal responded, "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

"Asked what tribal sovereignty for Native Americans means in the 21st century, Bush started out: "Tribal sovereignty means that – it's sovereign. You've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."

How Bush with his intelligence level and overall public speaking ability could be the most powerful man in the world and the leader of the free world is just absolutely beyond me. I am embarrassed that this man is the face of my country and its leader.

He does go on to mention a few things after his rambling, incoherent start. I am surprised smoke didn’t start smoldering off the top of his head as the wheels were definitely grinding as he tried to formulate a response and his thoughts.

Oh, oh. Never mind. I just found some video of it.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/149259

You've got to watch this video. It is right at the beginning. You can even hear people laughing out loud in the background.

Jesse Jackson poking fun at the President's remarks afterward in a press conference is also pretty funny.

Aaaahhh! RealMedia! Stay away, stay away! Seriously though, I wish these web sites would wise up and dump that dog for something less obtrusive.

Bush's approval rankings have been dropping steadily since 9-11. Some clever fellow has mapped the results from various polls against the alert levels and other key events. The findings are, shall we say, interesting? Every orange alert, his approval rating spikes. Check out the graphic: <http://img70.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img70&image=aproval_vs_alert_chart_new.gif>

Xenono

I was fortunate enough to have been running late for work the morning of that press conference. You are correct that you really did need to hear to believe it. Every time I hear this man speak I just cannot believe he is the President of these United States.

Tonight GW and Laura are on Larry King Live. Could be pretty interesting if Laura lets GW answer any questions.

Wombat88,

Strange how the terror level went up the weekend after the DNC. Sure did move the focus of the media.

Here is one for you Kerryits. During a news conferance Kerry said he would fight a more sensitive war.....What the fuck, how do you fight a "sensitive" war? Suck up to the French? I don't think killing them with kindness will work.

So let me get this straight.

The President says a senstive war needs to be fought = Good!

Kerry says a senstive war needs to be fought = BAD!

"Kerry spokesman Phil Singer told CNN the Democratic candidate was referring to cooperation with allies. President Bush himself, Singer said, used the word "sensitive" in a similar context in March 2001, when he said the United States should be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/cheney.kerry/

I'd love to see one of these 527 groups like Moveon.org splice together a verbal collage of Bushisms.

There are probably plenty of them and they should start with the one above about tribal sovereignty. I would also include the one about him wanting to hurt America just like the terrorists and then the other one about him being a west Texas girl.

The caption at the end should be something like, "Do you really want another four years of this idiot representing, running, and ruining America?”

Sensitive: highly responsive; capable of indicating minute differences; calling for tact, care, or caution in treatment.

Roadglide, yer a smart fella, don't let right wing extremests do your thinking for you.

Xenono-

In March of 2001 there was no War at the time......the terrorist didn't attack until 9/11/2001.

So where are you getting...... the President "says a sensitive war needs to be fought?" When he made his comments....there was no war to be sensitve with!

How the Democrcats get away with such a comparision and you buy into that.....and Wombat accuses Roadglide of letting the right wing extremest do his thinking for him.

Now....Kerry admits knowing that they haven't found WMD he would have still invaded Iraq. The next question they need to ask him is .....even if France, Germany and Russia still wouldn't have committed to the invasion.....how long would he have tried to neogociated with them before he invaded Iraq!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=118-08122004
His a piece of the whole article

CHENEY LAUNCHES DISINGENUOUS ATTACKS

Cheney's Most Recent Disingenuous Attack. "Vice President Dick Cheney is criticizing John Kerry's call for a 'more sensitive' war on terror, saying it won't impress the Sept. 11 terrorists or the Islamic militants who have beheaded U.S. citizens. 'America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,' Cheney said in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday." (AP, 8/12/04)

Cheney Attacks Bush's Own Words. Bush: "We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength." (Bush Remarks at USS Regan Ceremony, 3/4/01)

Bush: "Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that." (Bush Delivers Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/6/04)

Cheney's Own RNC Convention Speakers Think Kerry Is Qualified To Be Commander-In-Chief. "Rudy Giuliani said the fact that Mr. Kerry had been elected to the United States Senate four times and had a war record made him 'absolutely' qualified to be president. 'It would be a terrible mistake for the Republican side to argue he is not qualified.'" And Tommy Franks, who is rumored to be speaking at the GOP convention, said, John Kerry was "absolutely" qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. (ABC, "This Week," 8/8/04; NYT, 8/12/04, "This Week," ABC, 8/7/04)

I may be wrong but I believe Bush's coments to the Journalists of Color Conference came the very day after John Kerry made his "senitive" comment to the very same group. GW would have a comics timing if he was trying to be funny. You guys notice how the media hasn't really picked up and ran with Swiftboat for truth and Unfit for duty crap, not like they did for Clinton or even a year ago? I'm hoping the honeymoons over and the right wing is strande in the open with all it's lies, nowheere to run and nowhere to hide

"...get away with such a comparision ..." Well Beachman, you are either highly responsive, capable of indicating minute differences, using tact, care, or caution or you're not. That's simple enough. The current president once said that the US needs to be sensitive. Is the current vice president saying that now that there's a war on, the US should be unresponsive and tactless?

Mind you, tactless certainly describes Cheney's behavior.

Newist Bushism;

“Justice is one thing,” he said. “But too much justice is another.” -Santa Fe, N.M campaign speech, August 12, 2004

Our President thinks there is "too much justice", that's understandible, most likely he will continue to see that we have less justice.


OG

Yes, Kerry used the words "sensitive" and "war" in the same sentence, but his point was about being sensitive to possible allies in the war, in other words, don't trample over potential allies and make enemies out of them.

Too much justice? Say, isn't this the same President Bush who came up with "Operation Infinite Justice"?

Man, sometimes it just boggles the mind.

Again the conservative spin machine works its magic with no response from the supposed 'liberal media.' I continue to be amazed how the conservative media can take a statement completely out of context and turn it into fact so quickly.

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror than Bush", he[Kerry] said.

Was sensitive the best word to use at the end of that sentence, probably not. However, in the context of the entire statement he is making a point. When you hear the Fox/Cheney version of,
I can fight...a more sensitive war on terror it comes off sounding a just a tad different. What disgusts me is how difficult it is for anyone to actually find the entire statement.

Also could someone explain this sentence in english,
Now....Kerry admits knowing that they haven't found WMD he would have still invaded Iraq.

I'm not sure if you guys saw this but it would be funny if it wasn't my country

Filmaker Moore Quotes Gross on Lack of CIA Credentials

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Congressman Porter Goss, President Bush's nominee for CIA director, could be his own worst enemy when it comes to making the case that he deserves to lead the U.S. intelligence agency.

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," the Florida Republican told documentary-maker Michael Moore's production company during the filming of the anti-Bush movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

A day after Bush picked Goss for the top U.S. spy job, Moore on Wednesday released an excerpt from a March 3 interview in which the 65-year-old former House of Representatives intelligence chief recounts his lack of qualifications for employment as a modern CIA staffer.

More

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5944517

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5675992/site/newsweek/

And more;

Goss’s Wish List

Bush’s CIA nominee has alarmed civil libertarians with a plan that would authorize the agency to arrest U.S. citizens. Plus, the real threat to the Olympic games
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:39 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2004
Aug. 11 - Rep. Porter Goss, President Bush’s nominee to head the CIA, recently introduced legislation that would give the president new authority to direct CIA agents to conduct law-enforcement operations inside the United States—including arresting American citizens.

advertisement
The legislation, introduced by Goss on June 16 and touted as an “intelligence reform” bill, would  substantially restructure the U.S. intelligence community by giving the director of Central Intelligence (DCI) broad new powers to oversee its various components scattered throughout the government.

But in language that until now has not gotten any  public attention, the Goss bill would also redefine the authority of the DCI in such a way as to substantially alter—if not overturn—a 57-year-old ban on the CIA conducting operations inside the United States.

The language contained in the Goss bill has alarmed civil-liberties advocates. It also today prompted one former top CIA official to describe it as a potentially “dramatic” change in the guidelines that have governed U.S. intelligence operations for more than a half century.

“This language on its face would have allowed President Nixon to authorize the CIA to bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters,”  Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as general counsel of the CIA between 1995 and 1996, told NEWSWEEK. “I can’t imagine what Porter had in mind.”

You guys have got to check these adds out
Academy award-winning documentary film director Errol Morris interviewed MoveOn members – Republicans, Democrats and Independents – who voted for George Bush in 2000, but will be voting for Kerry in 2004, and cut seventeen ads that will appeal powerfully to exactly the swing voters we need to reach.
https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/switchad_winners.html

sorry here it is; www.moveonpac.org/donate/switchad_winners.html

Once again, all this propaganda is nice, but what we really need is actual information on voter registration in the key states. Not information on planned "massive voter registration drives" but actual numbers of new registrations. Everything I have heard so far is either plans or Chinese marketing.

One more reason why you shouldn't re-elect Bush:

"Sharon Stone blames US President George W Bush for the absence of a lesbian kissing scene (with Halle Berry) in Catwoman - because of the current conservative climate in America."

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=112965648&p=yyz966354

OG

OK, so now it turns out that one of the Swift Boat Vets who claimed that Kerry wasn't under fire when Kerry earned a medal *himself* earned a medal the same time at the same place, for bravery under fire. The records indicate that this other Swift Boat captain's boat was under fire while Kerry's boat was next to his. Of course, that didn't stop this guy from claiming now "I didn't hear a shot".

Here's what logic tell us about all this. There are three main possibilities:

Kerry is lying, the Swift Boat vets are telling the truth. The problem with this is that none of the records from the time support this.

Kerry is telling the truth, the Swift Boat vets are lying. This is corroborated by the records, and Kerry's crew supports him on this.

Everyone was lying during the war. This cannot be discarded as a possibility, that all five swift boat teams decided to lie as a group to earn medals. Of course, this doesn't explain the shrapnel in Kerry's leg.

These articles are not copyrighted, the authors are private bloggers getting the word out. They both have
some good info
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?id=5411

A supposedly independent group has come out with false claims about John Kerry's Vietnam service.


The Kerry campaign has focused a lot on the Vietnam issue. With good reason, it seems, because it's something W can't hope to match.

Enter Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of about 200 Vietnam veterans who question Kerry's abilities as a commander. In ads set to air in West Virginia, Ohio, and Wisconsin (all swing states), they say, "[w]hen the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Their statements are, no surprise, false. First, not a single one of the veterans in Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" actually served with John Kerry[1]. Somehow, they claim to know better than the people who were actually there. Every single person who actually served with Kerry, even those who didn't personally like him, had nothing but good things to say about him. For example:


October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer: A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.: LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott: In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program. During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively: ... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta.

March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech: ... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.
[2]

Doesn't sound to me like there's much to attack, is there? His former crewmates even came out to support him. The only exception was one who thought Kerry was using his service for political means.[3]

One of Kerry's former commanders, Lt. Cmdr. George Elliot, signed an affidavit saying that Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. This has been used as one of the primary arguments for a book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. Now, however, he says he was wrong: "I still don't think he shot the guy in the back. It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."[4]

It will come as no surprise to the reader, I'm sure, that this group has recieved 2/3 of it's funding from a major Republican contributor. John Perry, who contributed more than $100,000 of the approximately $158,000 that the group has raised since June 30th, was also instrumental in the smear campaign against Sen. John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries.[5]

It's no surprise, really, that this group has some major Republican backers. They're trying to smear Kerry while keeping their own hands clean, and it's up to us not to let them get away with it.

Sources:

* 1. Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry -- New York Times
* 2. Fitness Reports, from the Official Navy Records section of John Kerry's website
* 3. Vietnam Crewmates Steady at Kerry's Side -- USA Today
* 4. Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry -- Boston Globe
* 5. Texan Bankrolls Anti-Kerry Vets Group -- Associated Press, via Yahoo! News

Further reading:
Smear Boat Veterans for Bush -- an in-depth look at the political ties of those behind Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" -- Salon.com.



George Bush's Battleship Hit by the Swift Boat Ad
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_9852.shtml
Commentary by Egbert F. Bhatty
August 19, 2004


There are two reactions in the media to the ad being run by a Republican backed and financed group of Vietnam veterans who call themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
 
There’s Mr. Rupert Murdoch’s media’s reaction and the reaction of the rest of the media.
 
Murdoch owns both the right wing New York Post and the right wing Fox News Channel.  Over the past two weeks Fox News has been relentlessly plugging the SwiftVets claim that Democratic Candidate John Kerry is unfit to be President because of questions about his war record.
 
The claim that Kerry is unfit to be President is made by men who did not serve directly with Kerry in Vietnam but were bystanders and onlookers in the area.  Their claims are clearly contradicted by Kerry’s “band of brothers” – the crewmen who were there in the Swift boat with Kerry.
 
Given this fact, the rest of the media has seen the SwiftVets effort as a dirty trick by President George Bush’s supporters and not paid much attention to it.  And, this lack of attention to what the Republican mouthpiece, the Fox News, sees as a very important story has left Fox News anchors tearing their hair out.
 
The mainstream media is ignoring this story, intoned Brit Hume, the less-than-fair-and-balanced Managing Editor of Fox News and anchor of Fox News’s signature program Special Report.
 
"Why are they not being heard," wailed Mr Sean Hannity, the rabid co-anchor of Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes.
 
To make sure that the story is heard, Fox News has been running SwiftVets stories almost every hour.  Once, it even visited the story thrice in an hour -- such is the anti-Kerry frenzy over at Fox News!
 
Having seen most of the SwiftVets coverage on Fox News, and elsewhere, it is clear that there is an element of distortion in the SwiftVets questioning of Kerry’s war record.  But distortion is what the Bush camp is good at.  Just ask Senator John McCain.
 
Bush has spent well-nigh $150 million since Spring running negative ads distorting Kerry’s positions, but it has all been for naught.
 
Bush is either tied with or behind Kerry in the polls.  Worse, Bush’s “certain” vote is 2 points behind that for Kerry.
 
Fox News and the New York Post, the stars in Murdoch’s right wing media empire, have striven mightily these past two weeks to discredit Kerry.  Taking the lead from the Republican Party, both Fox News and the New York Post have distorted Kerry’s record.
 
The attempt, of course, is to sway the 5-6% of voters who are still undecided.
 
Even in this attempt, the New York Post distorted the story.  On August 18 it’s headline read: “Anti-Kerry Ad A Hit.”
 
It really was a miss, but the New York Post was not going to let the facts get in the way.
 
The fact is that 62% of undecided voters in a Muhlenberg College survey were suspicious, even skeptical of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth advertisement.  The New York Post chose not to report that fact.
 
Instead, its headline supported this finding – that the SwiftVets ad did plant doubt into the minds of 27% of the undecided voters.  A doubt, mind you – nothing more.  And, that, for the New York Post, is “a hit.”
 
This distortion of the Muhlenberg survey in the New York Post reflects the depths of the right wing’s anguish.  At this point, just before Labor Day, there is apparently nothing is too base that they will not do in their campaign against Kerry.
 
But, it all appears to be in a losing cause.  Mr Bill O’Reilly, the anchor of the top-rated Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor, and who is now in despair, said recently that if Bush did not come out of the Republican Convention (August 30-September 2) in New York City with an 8-10% bounce, all would be lost.
 
All, in fact is lost, already.
 
The undecided voters, that critical block of voters that Bush is trying to woo to victory, are overwhelmingly suspicious, even skeptical of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad.
 
Nearly two-thirds of them see the SwiftVets ad as clearly misrepresenting the truth.  And, being largely a fair-minded people they can tell when they are being manipulated.  Such feelings among the undecided bode ill for Bush.
 
If he wants at all to win in November, Bush should quickly and clearly and unequivocally denounce the mendacity of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their nefarious advertisement.
 
If he does not denounce the ad, Bush faces the unpleasant prospect of his campaign battleship being sunk by a smear campaign.

Tjuncle, as much as I appreciate you finding this information, I'd appreciate it even more if you'd just summarize it, include the link and give us your comments. I fear our right-wing brethren will start posting whole articles when they return from their current adventures.

Until then, have you read/heard Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"? I think you'll enjoy it.

Point taken Wombat, I was called out on where I got my facts not long ago and thought I would lead with something other than opinion, also it allows just a bit of distance from the topic as I can get worked up over politics these days. Explorer you asked about actual" get out the vote" efforts a few days ago and personally I've had three different people come to my door in the last month and I've heard alot of women, minorities and youth groups talk about there orginazations efforts to get people registered. I did find these sites you might find interesting,
http://www.truemajority.org/actionregister/toolkit_html.cfm
http://actforvictory.org/
http://www.americavotes.org/

And I love Chomsky, I heard him on Air America Radio not long ago. I wish people like him, Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn were getting more air time. I guess it's a sign of the time that we as a country don't feel that men like these represent modern America. To be fair as a country of "poor huddled masses" we may never have felt particularly warm to men of letters. I remember once over twenty years ago I came across a letter from an American poet to his friend, a Soviet poet. I was amused by one line in particular "You don't know how lucky you are, they care enough about your work to jail you"

Last post for now, I found these poll sites the and first one is very cool.

www.electoral-vote.com/

www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

http://www.spacerad.com/electoral/

I see that while I was on vacation that this thread has become a shoutdown for any one who does not love John Kerry. I almost suspect that some of you guys may be working for the Kerry campaign.

I want to thank, I think it was Organgrinder, for the list of Bushisms. That was funny stuff. His dad said some Hilarious stuff also.

Almost as funny was the list of Kerry campaign promises. Living in Mexico since 98 I am used to far fetched campaign promises, but that list takes it to new heights. Its real long on promises and real short on specifics and some of it is just downright pandering BS.

I especially liked the promise " To free America from dependence on mideast oil". We will be dependent on oil for at least the next 25 years. Because for at least that amount of time there will not be any economically viable alternative. Sure you can develop Solar, Wind, Hydrogen etc. But to make it economically viable, at a price that makes sense to the consumer, will be impossible without huge government subsidies. And someone has to pay for that.

I personally like the idea of pushing the alternate technologies. For years my family has used wind, solar, and hydraulically generated power on their ranch, But its not cheaper than hooking up to the power line that runs across it. In some months they actually sell power back to the power company, but even then it will take awhile to repay the investment. So why do it? Because my father is a tinkering engineer who has always been drawn to that kind of stuff. But as an engineer who spent 30 years working for Chevron( yes he is a rape and plunder man), he knows the economic realities of the energy business.

In the meantime, Kerrys party is absoultely against developing any of our own oil resources,
Forcing us to rely more heavily on imported oil.

But enough about energy......

His campaign promise is pure bulshit. It may sound nice but its still bullshit.

And its just one of a bunch of Bullshit promises. It made for entertaining reading.

Explorer, do you really believe that Kerry is going to convince other countries to pick up the slack in Iraq to free up our troops to go after Bin Laden?

I just wish bot parties could field a better cnadidate. Well I have to get back to work. You all take care and Kerry on.

Batster

Batster, Batster, Batster, this thread is hardly "a shoutdown for any one who does not love John Kerry". I don't love Kerry. I don't even particularly like him. No, this thread is more to slam the current idiot in office. Did you really not know that, or were you just trying to score a point?

As for oil, yeah, we depend on middle-east oil and that's a real drag. The Saudis own us. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to drive a Toyota gas-electric hybrid car. I went a couple hundred miles on ten bucks worth of gas. Why didn't American manufacturers come up with that solution? (We could pursue this thread, but you can well imagine where it would go.) Why aren't those little European SmartCars on our roads. They use about as much gas as some butane lighters I've seen. An oil-man in office -- an oil-man owned by the Saudis -- will make us more dependent on Saudi oil. No thanks, Mr. Bush.

Will Kerry convince other countries to help us out in Iraq? Yeah, that's a tough row to hoe after the total distain our current government displayed toward our European allies. I pity Kerry that task.

Tjuncle, "Manufacturing Consent" explains why Chomsky (and company) are rarely seen on TV. It goes like this: if you say something that everyone knows is true (e.g. Saddam is a bad guy), everyone nods in agreement and little more needs be said. However, if you say something that goes against the popular beliefs (e.g. the United States government supports terrorism), you need to back up your statements. Unfortunately, on TV you are given only between five and ten minutes to back up your claims (between comercials). That's hardly enough time to introduce the topic.

TV, and radio, and newspapers for that matter, are much too concerned with telling us what we already know or believe, or are too busy distracting us. I know far too many guys who are filled with obscure statistics about their favorite sports teams who know virtually nothing about the history of the troubles in the middle east or our the state of our health care system. I mean, why the hell do you (anyone) care if a particular team wins?

Damn, I'd better stop 'cause I'm going to go off on a rant.

(Oh, welcome back Batster!)

Batster sez:

"Explorer, do you really believe that Kerry is going to convince other countries to pick up the slack in Iraq to free up our troops to go after Bin Laden? "

Oh, yes, that will Job #1. There is an easy solution: give up the Iraqi oil rights to the other countries in exchange for their help. Bush can't do this, 'cause the oil companies will cut off his balls if he takes away the oil reserves from them, Kerry can because he is not supported by the oil companies.

Trust me, the French, Russians etc will jump to stabilize Iraq if they get oil rights. They may not send troops themselves, but they will send proxies. *Our* troops are dying to protect the oil for Bush's crowd, one of the most disloyal things that a President can do. That's what this war is about. Unfortunately, the Bush camp is distracting everyone with the Smear Du Jour, which is what they do.

Exploder; That's a lousy solution. The main reason that the Frogs and the Germans along with the Russians were against the war was for purely economic reasons. They were the ones doing back door deals with Saddam. We put an end to that and thats why they are pissed off.

Kerry will SELL out our national intrests to make points with France and the rest of Europe. That's one reason I don't trust the fucker.

I would rather SELL Iraqi oil interests to save US soldier's lives in Iraq. I suspect that you believe its worth those lives to save that oil.

I can see it clearly. John Kerry gets elected. Now, when any country in the world commits any kind of human rights violations or atrocities and the United States speaks against it....they will be playing the television footage of John Kerry admitting on American televion that he committed war atrocities and violated provisions the Geneva and Hague Conventions. John Kerry is a self admitted War criminal.....granted he has not been convicted by a court....but he admitted to atrocities and he claims he was a great leader in Vietnam.

Your leadership can not be judged just on the good and right things you do in life. This man has admitted to committing war atrocities and if he is elected....it is going to come back to haunt the United States in international affairs for years to come. The rest of the world can't wait for Kerry to be elected resident of the United States!

I understand there is going to be an anti-Bush ad sponsored by "Frat-boys for Truth." The ad will include the statements of a large number of frat-boys who "served" with Bush:

(1) while he was performing as a college cheerleader there was no enemy fire; his performances, however, were often applauded as "sensitive"; (as to his tenure as a cheerleader at Phillips Andover, we will have to wait for the ad from "Preppies for Truth.");

(2) when he was arrested for stealing a large Christmas wreath from a hotel, he did not do so in the face of enemy fire;

(3) when he was arrested for ripping down one of the Princeton goal posts at the Princeton-Yale game, he did not do so in the face of enemy fire;

(4) when he was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol, in Kennebunkport, ME, he did not run his car into a ditch because of enemy fire.

I, for one, am happy the frat-boys are finally revealing the truth.

Beachman,

Since George Bush has zero credibility around most of the world, I can't imagine that Kerry would be worse. I would not bank much on the argument that Kerry will have less respect than Bush, who is despised in places where it matters.

Beachman,

Dig a little deeper and you'll find out in what context John Kerry admitted to being a war criminal.

to wit:

John Kerry and Al Hubbard appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 1971 to allege widespread atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Hubbard is introduced as a former Air Force captain who had spent two years in Vietnam and was wounded in action. Kerry seems to admit to that all or most soldiers are committing war crimes under orders, saying, "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."

What you don't say is that John Kerry was under orders to carry out those assignments. He did, and also became a wounded war hero. His conscience is, and what separates him, from George W. Bush.

When Kerry returned to the United States he took a stand and joined several hundred thousand veterans who spoke out against the war in Vietnam and the atrocities being commited there under the guise of a legitimate war.

Remember there were no email and camera phones to document atrocities then. Whistle-blowers were often the targets of political attacks. John Kerry himself was put on Nixon's hit (dirty tricks)list.

But like many soldiers he waited until he left the service to to voice his opinions. Then as now, as a soldier you are ordered NOT to oppose any current actions that the miltary is currently undertaking.

You seem to be swallowing a lot of right wing FUD, who seem to take pleasure in twisting news items out of context as they try vainly to sling as much dirt and mud towards Kerry. Like Nixon before him the Bush administration seems to be following the same tactics.

Rather than stand on it's own record, be it the economy, foreign policy, or it's "war on terror", the Bush campaign have instead, chosen to take the low road. Using proxies,such as the "swift boat veterans" the Bush campaign is trying to discredit a genuine war hero, much like they did to Sen. John McCain. If it worked before, hey, it should work again.

Having no real accomplishments in the last 4 years, the Bush campaign is trying to refocus the public by fabricating news and issues. Much like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush administration this time, cannot even seem to find any class.


OG

Hopefully the swift Boats liars org is falling apart. There are new participants with no agenda coming forward to refute their politically motivated attack.
Willian Rood who is an editor for the Chicago Tribune - certainly no liberal newspaper who wqs there that day and says the Swift Boat Vets are distorting the truth. See below:


The Swift Boat group also was being challenged by a Chicago Tribune editor who was on the Feb. 28, 1969, mission for which Kerry received the Silver Star. William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the mission because recent reports of Kerry's actions in that battle are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.


"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's edition of the Tribune. "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."


Rood said the allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue and that Kerry came up with an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. According to the Tribune, Rood's recollection of what happened that day in South Vietnam was backed by military documents.


Rood wrote that Kerry recently contacted him and other crew members, requesting that they go public with their accounts of what happened.


"I can't pretend those calls (from Kerry) had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."





Also Wayne Langhofer who was a machine gunner on the boat behind Kerry's contacted the Washington Post to relate his version of what happened that day.



" Kerry also picked up support from Wayne D. Langhofer, who told The Washington Post he was manning a machine gun in a boat behind Kerry's and saw firing from both banks of a river as Kerry dived in to rescue Special Forces soldier James Rassmann, the basis for Kerry's Bronze Star.

Until now, the Post noted on its Web site, Kerry's version of acting under fire had come from crewmen on his own boat. It quoted Langhofer as saying he was approached by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth several months ago but declined to join them in speaking against Kerry. "



These are people not being paid by anyone to tell " their story " and coming forward only to refute what they know is a lie.
The Swift Boat Veterans are about as believable as John Ashcroft swearing to uphold the Constitution.

On Friday, the Iraqi Interior Ministry stated that Iraqi government soldiers had entered the mosque at Najaf and arrested 40 Mehti army militiamen. Unfortunately, the Mehti army was actually still inside the mosque and were rather derisive of the claim.

I had no idea that we had hired Bagdad Bob to work for us.

Orgngrndr-

War atrocities and violating the Geneva and Hague Conventions are not LEGAL orders and a great leader such as John Kerry himself with a "conscience" as you say he has...... would have stood up in Vietnam a pointed out these wrongs then..... instead of writing up his own recomendations that he be awarded medals in spite of carrying out what you say were orders.

The polls now show that 77% of veterans favor Bush...which is amazing considering that of the 33% favoring Kerry... they would probaly favor Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore or any Democrat running against Bush.

Here's the full text of William Rood's account of the events that GW would love to forget or prove wrong. So much so that he is resorting to outright lies and hiding behind others to do his dirty work. Of course hiding has been his MO for every danger he has ever faced.



Officer Recalls Boat Mission With Kerry

Sun Aug 22, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!


By William B. Rood Chicago Tribune

There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.


For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of Swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.


Many of us wanted to put it all behind us — the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service — even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.


But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.


Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.


I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.


I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.


But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three Swift boats — including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43 — that carried Vietnamese Regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area.


The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.


Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.


The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.


We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.


The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.


The first time we took fire — the usual rockets and automatic weapons — Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army advisor, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half-dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.


Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.


It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.





We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch — a thatched hut — maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager in a loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three Swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other Swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. The name of the river where the main action occurred is wrong, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste, authored for their signers by staffers. It's a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago — not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine gun as we charged the riverbank; Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-caliber gun tub atop our boat; and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank.

Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child, Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his backyard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living that war another time.

*



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rood is night city editor at the Chicago Tribune; previously, he was a reporter and an editor at the Los Angeles Times. Both publications are owned by Tribune Co.