America's New UN Ambassador?

[Morgeruat]

not sure, you could check out www.snopes.com (a search for jane fonda will reveal why she is almost universally despised by US servicemen) I haven't heard of the Winter Soldiers Investigations, sounds interesting.

I still think Vezini in the "Princess Bride" was correct, "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia..."

[shamrock_uk]

Jane Fonda...where do I know that name from?...

Actually, according to this testimony of John Kerry we're actually talking about the same thing - he seems to have been referring to the Winter Soldier Investigations when he branded soldiers as war criminals.

The testimonial contains some background, and I've actually just stumbled across a very thorough Wikipedia Article which contains excerpts if you want to read more.

The full account is linked to in the Wikipedia article, but be warned that some may find it disturbing.

Looks like Jane Fonda had her fingers in that too actually.

[ 03-10-2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Magness]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The campaign was dirtier than the democrats were prepared for too IMO - the 'chickenhawks' managing to portray Kerry, who by all accounts should be considered a national hero, as anti-military was both impressive and something that proved too hard to counter.

IMHO, anyone running for public office should be required to release their military records. I refuse to accept Kerry's word on anything that he did in the military. Furthermore, I have seen many examples in my life (in both parties) of candidates who inflated their military records while campaigning. (People who said that they were officers when they were really only enlisted; people who were "in" Vietnam, but only may have passed thru its airspace or whose plane was on the tarmac at an airfield for a few minutes; and so on...)
While I have the utmost respect for the military, I will not blindly accept the word of any veteran running for office regarding his service.

IMHO, signing the papers to officially run for any significant public office should also include releasing the person's military record (with appropriate concern for security issues, of course) to the public.

The fact that Kerry would not release his military record in the face of all of the previous contraversy makes me seriously wonder what was in them. IMHO, a candidate who had nothing to hide would have released them in a heartbeat to silence his critics. So I have to wonder... why didn't Kerry do so? What did he have to hide?

If Kerry was such a great hero, he should have released his records and put an end to the contraversy. But he didn't. So, right now, the only things that I can say about Kerry with certainty is that he was in the military and that he was fought in Vietnam.

Re. the amnesty programme - is not 'wiping the slate clean' a good way to start anew? As long as new tougher border controls are brought in alongside it, potentially this will lead to the legal recognisation of many workers who would otherwise be 'outside the system'. I think the benefits from less crime and exploitation probably outweigh the costs. And its not like there aren't jobs enough for them to do.

Amnesty programs are nothing more than invitations for massive increases in illegal immigration. It's been tried before and the result is the same every time.

[ 03-10-2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Magness ]

[shamrock_uk]

I didn't realise he hadn't released his records - that is quite crazy of him!

Having said that, you can't deny his medal haul...


This is a very biased source, but still a mildly amusing comparison of the two candidates military records.

[ 03-10-2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Lucern]

I had to check up on that, but it's true that Kerry never released them. He did say that it was all a matter of public record already, but of course that won't silence anyone.

For a homogenous, reductionist, alternate reality sort of reminder of how much better the commentary is on this site:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341323/posts

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: I still think Vezini in the "Princess Bride" was correct, "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia..."

Never a truer word spoken [img]smile.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

Nice link Lucern [img]smile.gif[/img]

In the interests of balance:

To: Fan_Of_Ingraham Bush’s National Guard years Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard? That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in? News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years. Not two years of weekends. Two years. After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee). Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.” So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement. Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently. In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service. During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.” A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.” Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November. The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons. And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s. In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.” Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. That’s fine. We should know as much as we can. And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well. Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com

So....which side is the right one?! Have the Dems been pulling the wool over our eyes or is this account farcical... Why is it so hard to get at the truth in politics!

[Lucern]

I dunno Shamrock...but if it's claiming to have facts but doesn't give a source... [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'd question any account of Kerry's that mentions the word Hero, and any account of Bush's that doesn't mention the word cocaine

[shamrock_uk]

Cocaine?! Tell all...

[Lucern]

Oops. I didn't think anyone would take that seriously lol. I had assumed everyone had heard enough about Bush and coke enough to know it's not really substantiated, yet persistent.

To be entirely sure that he used coke you'd have to take any of a number of questionable sources as credible. To be entirely sure that he never touched the stuff you'd have to ignore several sources of allegations from several points in time that keep resurfacing.

Best I can tell (particularly from leaked tapes - see the first link below), he probably at least tried pot and coke, and it was probably in or around 1972, when records are hazy (if the use of that word is not too inappropriate lol). All I can know beyond any doubt is that if you attend a college halloween party with a Bush mask and a shirt with "Coke Head" written on it, you'll get quite a few laughs.

And in any case, it doesn't matter much to me. Politics of personal destruction are shameful, in my opinion - too often the main event rather than the sideline show they should be. While I'd rather know about someone's past than remain ignorant, it inevitably comes out from sources with their own agenda's coloration on the matter. In this case, I knew enough about his politics to form an opinion last November. Would it change anything if you could prove it?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/s...=516740&page=1

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id478/pg1/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1057331

[ 03-12-2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]