• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

John Kerry is considering Swift Boat Veterans

Should Kerry sue Swift Vets?

  • Yes - They were wrong and need to pay!

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • No - Freedom of speech, I think they believed in what they were saying.

    Votes: 10 76.9%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: News Max

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry is considering filing a libel suit against the leader of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill, whose book "Unfit for Command" is credited with capsizing Kerry's Vietnam War-based campaign.

"I don't know if they will actually go forward," a member of Kerry's inner circle told New York Post's Page Six column, edited by Richard Johnson. "But consideration is serious. If Kerry plans on running again in 2008 — and I'm hearing he will — it would make sense that he'd file the suit."
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can jump off a cliff. Sure, you served in the military and I commend you. But shut the hell up. Stop bitching. Hell, maybe they're just jealous. No scratch that, they just are trying to make money by selling slanderous lies during the political season. Secondly, who cares about their military record? You want a bad military record? George Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Their nickname is the CHAMPAGNE DIVISION. Cheney dodged the war. Come on. Stop your bitching old men, thanks for serving in the military, but keep your damn opinions to yourself.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Interesting, what do you think of Clinton that totally evaded vietnam by going to Europe?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
I don't think they "believed" in what they were saying. I think they knew good and well it was a pack of lies. But I think they believe Kerry wronged them back during the war and therefore the ends "justifies the means." But does that mean Kerry should sue? Myself I'm pretty sick and tried of everybody suing everybody. But I could certainly see how he could feel they lied and they should pay. I don't think it would be too difficult for him to prove they lied. But courts are a funny thing, I know I worked in them for 16 years. In fact I would have sworn OJ did it, guess I was wrong.

When the Swift Boat ads came out here in Oregon I got together with some freinds and we came up with a parody bit that went something like:

(Warning: There may have been large amounts of beer consumed during the inception of this parody, OK...and or other alcoholic beverages)

Cue eerie music; post blurrly, unflattering black and white photo of President Bush.

Voice Over: President Bush says he served with honor. President Bush says he served his country with pride. Well here's what other's have to say:

I'm Bob Wilcox and I lived with George W. Bush while he's says he was serving in the Alabama Air National Guard.

George says he served "with honor" But I know that's not true. I know he was out drinking and chasing women. In fact he never even showed up or even flew a plane. He was alway too stoned.

Voice over: George W. Bush- Didn't serve then and shouldn't serve now.


This ad paid for by Veteran Boat Owners for Swift Change. Not afiliated with any canidate or political party. (527's Rock!)

Reporter: Well we've just seen the ad from the 527 group calling itself "Veteran Boat Owners for Swift Change." 527's, as you, know are the unregulated groups that can basically say, well, whatever, um, well whatever thing they want. I have with me Bob Wilcox. Bob, nice to have you here. So Um, what made you decide to get involved with the election.

Bob Wilcox: Well, We're all veterans and we're all boat owners and we'd like to see some swift changes. So it just seem...

Reporter: Yes, but in the ad you claim you know President Bush failed to report for duty. That's a damning allegation. You further state you know he didn't fly planes because as you put it he was "too stoned."

Bob Wilcox: Um, yeah, that's right.

Reporter: And you say you know this because you lived with President Bush at the time?

Bob Wilcox:Yep, yep right again.

Reporter: I'm um, we've- well we've done some research and we can't find any record anywhere of any Bob Wilcox being a resident in any BOQ, BEQ or even enlisted dorm in the Alabama National Guard for the time frame the Presidents records clearly indicate he WAS there.

Bob Wilcox: Oh I wasn't ever in Alabama.

Reporter: I'm Sorry, did, did you just say you "weren't" in Alabama? Ever? Then how in the world... how exactly do you make the claim that you lived with the President?

Bob Wilcox: Well, he lived, I lived- we lived together.

Reporter: CUT!


Which is basically what reporters should have done with the swift boat vets once it turned out that the guy who claimed he knew Kerry was lying about his wounds knew it because he was the doctor who treated him- but his name wasn't anywhere to be found on the treatment forms and he wasn't the doc who signed the forms. Or any of the numerous other obvious lies they told became apparent. But the "Liberal Left Wing Media" ran their story dutifully 24/7 for days on end. Those darn left wing liberal media guys struck again!
 
Last edited:

Argonaut

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Extreme Northern California
heyjoeo said:
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can jump off a cliff. Sure, you served in the military and I commend you. But shut the hell up. Stop bitching. Hell, maybe they're just jealous. No scratch that, they just are trying to make money by selling slanderous lies during the political season. Secondly, who cares about their military record? You want a bad military record? George Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Their nickname is the CHAMPAGNE DIVISION. Cheney dodged the war. Come on. Stop your bitching old men, thanks for serving in the military, but keep your damn opinions to yourself.
Wow! :eek:
shut the hell up
But wait, there's more...
keep your damn opinions to yourself
Jeepers! :eek:

What a truly bizzare sentiment. "Thanks for protecting my freedom of speech, but your opinion is different than mine so SHUT UP"???

Gosh, I sure hope nobody ever says that to you! Especially here on a "debate" forum where people are supposed to be free to discuss opinions in a "civil" manner. ;)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Interesting, what do you think of Clinton that totally evaded vietnam by going to Europe?
Clinton openly opposed the war. Cheney was an ardent supporter. He just wasn't interested in "personally" supporting it. In his words "I had other priorities in the '60s." The Washington Post reported in 1991 that Cheney received five deferments, four 2-S student deferments and one under the 3-A classification -- "registrant with a child or children; or registrant deferred by reason of extreme hardship to dependents." In his Senate confirmation hearing, Cheney said he "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called," which contradicted his earlier statement, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Bush staff members said Cheney received only three deferments, two for school and one for being a new father. [Washington Post, 4/3/91; Des Moines Register, 8/2/00] That's clearly untrue and contradicts what Cheney himself has said. I think when history does finally look back on this administration they're going to be known has the "Excuse Administration."
 

Argonaut

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Extreme Northern California
Pacridge said:
Clinton openly opposed the war. Cheney was an ardent supporter. He just wasn't interested in "personally" supporting it. In his words "I had other priorities in the '60s." The Washington Post reported in 1991 that Cheney received five deferments, four 2-S student deferments and one under the 3-A classification -- "registrant with a child or children; or registrant deferred by reason of extreme hardship to dependents." In his Senate confirmation hearing, Cheney said he "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called," which contradicted his earlier statement, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Bush staff members said Cheney received only three deferments, two for school and one for being a new father. [Washington Post, 4/3/91; Des Moines Register, 8/2/00] That's clearly untrue and contradicts what Cheney himself has said. I think when history does finally look back on this administration they're going to be known has the "Excuse Administration."
Let's say the average american lives 70 years. That's 840 months. 3,640 weeks. 25,200 days. I sure hope people can use at least one of those days to fret on something more profound and exhilarating than to obscess over the world changing, life-altering question...Did Dick Cheney receive three deferments, or five as is contended? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

TS212

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coat, USA
Other - much as I am suspicious of the timing and motives that prompted the Smear Boat, er, excuse me, Swift Boat veterans to make their allegations, they were well within their rights to do what they did.

Further, I think Kerry needs to move the hayel on. He lost the election for numerous reasons, and filing a lawsuit is not going to change that. Besides, I recently heard he is considering running again in '08. If this is the case, he should be focusing on how he can win the next time around and not wasting his time or energy on this BS.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Argonaut said:
Let's say the average american lives 70 years. That's 840 months. 3,640 weeks. 25,200 days. I sure hope people can use at least one of those days to fret on something more profound and exhilarating than to obscess over the world changing, life-altering question...Did Dick Cheney receive three deferments, or five as is contended? :rolleyes:
What does the number of days weeks or years we live have to do with the fact that it is upsetting to some people when the Vice-President of the United States lies? Cheney's lied about everything from these deferments to what he said about the terrorist Mohamed Atta to having never met John Edwards prior to the VP debate.

It's like this, if you watch Fox News one thing you will undoubtably hear, at some point, is something along the lines of "Ladies and Gentleman this is the way it is, like him or love him, George W. Bush is the President of the United States and for that fact alone every American should support him, period. And it is outright un-American to be going around saying these unfounded negative statements regarding him. He's the President for Gods sake and the office itself holds the honor and those who slander him are unpatriotic and are slandering the United States itself." Now be honest if you watch Fox you've heard this, maybe not in these exact words but you've heard this, I know I have. They, the right, make the same type of arguement concerning the VP. Now I don't know about you but I remember watching Fox back when Clinton was President and they had a little different take on the office back in those days. If I remember correctly he was, basically, a miserable, low life, scum sucking pig of a liar who didn't deserve to walk the same ground as good hard working folks like the rest of us. My how times have changed.
 
Last edited:

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Clinton was President and they had a little different take on the office back in those days. If I remember correctly he was, basically, a miserable, low life, scum sucking pig of a liar who didn't deserve to walk the same ground as good hard working folks like the rest of us.
That about sums up my feelings on Clinton. And I could care less if he got a hummer in the oval office. However had he been a "man" and told the truth my perceptions of him would be completely different. All he had to do was say I ****ed up and I would have some respect for him. Instead he lied " I did not have sexual relations with that girl" to the American people and that is what I have an issue with.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
That about sums up my feelings on Clinton. And I could care less if he got a hummer in the oval office. However had he been a "man" and told the truth my perceptions of him would be completely different. All he had to do was say I ****ed up and I would have some respect for him. Instead he lied " I did not have sexual relations with that girl" to the American people and that is what I have an issue with.
But you're OK with Cheney's lies?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
WOW I have to jump all over that one CSA. How about if Bush admits that the Iraqi War was a mistake, maybe I'd respect him as a "man" also.

OK Fine, maybe "opinion" was a bad choice of diction. How about "slanderous lies." Is that better?

As for Kerry's lawsuit, he is using this FOR his run in '08. He needs to discount this so people will stop using the argument against him. Sadly, people got sucked into the Swift Boat Veterans for Lying. I think its a good idea. I believe we have a thing for that, Defamation of Character.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Bush only knew what his intelligence system told him - how can he lie if he believed it the truth?

Second.

The Swift Boat Veterans - it has not been proven they are lying or Kerry is lying. Unless of course you can proove otherwise. Hint: It currently can't be done. Thier word against his.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Bush only knew what his intelligence system told him - how can he lie if he believed it the truth?

Second.

The Swift Boat Veterans - it has not been proven they are lying or Kerry is lying. Unless of course you can proove otherwise. Hint: It currently can't be done. Thier word against his.
Kerry's been able to back his claims up with US military documents. The Swift boat vet, not so. And if the Swift Boat Vets are telling the truth, there's a whole lot of other people who received medals during the same combat situations as Kerry that now you'd have to admit were adwarded under the same false pretenses. Sorry does add up. I honestly believe if the politics of it were going the other way you'd be less then willing to give these guys the benefit your doing so now. I could be wrong though, I don't know.

As for the Intel. and Bush. More and more the evidence is showing that at a minimum he and Cheney were at least pushing those in the intel. community to arrive at the conculsions they did regarding Iraq. Many in the intel. community disagreed with Bush regarding the Iraq- Al Qaeda connection. This can be documented with many facts including the "yellow cake" Nigar connection. That's the incident that has now lead to the "outing" of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. So it's completely naive to just say well "he didn't know, he was just acting on what them guy's was telling him" But he's fixing that problem now. The guys in the CIA who disagreed with him on the Iraq thing are being systemically removed under the new chief Porter Goss.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Heyjoeo
WOW I have to jump all over that one CSA. How about if Bush admits that the Iraqi War was a mistake, maybe I'd respect him as a "man" also
I don't beleive the Iraq war was or is a mistake. You are probably to young to remeber the first gulf war. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The international community told him to leave he did not so a coalition of the willing just like we have now kicked the shit out of the Iraqi military and drove them back over the border. The cease fire araingment that was put into place so Saddam could stay in power had a few rules. A no fly zone area above and below bagdad that was patrolled daily by US and British airplaines. These planes were shot at and engaged quite a lot. He also had to open up for inspections free access to all places and documentation regarding his WMD program. He reniged on his end of the deal. HE had his troops shoot at our planes that were enforcing a UN treaty. He did not fully disclose his WMD documents or open up access completely to inspectors.
Saddam choose his and his countrys fate by not doing what he said he would do. We screwed up only in not taking him out the first time.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pacridge said:
I honestly believe if the politics of it were going the other way you'd be less then willing to give these guys the benefit your doing so now. I could be wrong though, I don't know.
I hope your wrong, but you might be right. I am partisan and it's honestly hard to look at things another way. I tend to agree with over 300 people than just 8 or 9. Plus, I saw "Stolen Honor" it showed people that had never been in the military telling stories of how they raised villiages - to help prepare Kerry for the congressional hearing.

"What about the xxxx villiage" asked another person helping this guy write about the 'atrocities'.
"Oh, yeah...hahaha... I was there and almost forgot. hahaha"
That was a good one. Thanks"

As for the Intel. and Bush. More and more the evidence is showing that at a minimum he and Cheney were at least pushing those in the intel. community to arrive at the conculsions they did regarding Iraq. Many in the intel. community disagreed with Bush regarding the Iraq- Al Qaeda connection. This can be documented with many facts including the "yellow cake" Nigar connection. That's the incident that has now lead to the "outing" of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. So it's completely naive to just say well "he didn't know, he was just acting on what them guy's was telling him" But he's fixing that problem now. The guys in the CIA who disagreed with him on the Iraq thing are being systemically removed under the new chief Porter Goss.
I think you are looking at it from a biased perspective as well. Many many countries believed the intel or had the SAME intel from different sources. Again, how can 27 other countries ALL be wrong at the same time and from different souces? We might have the best Intel in the world, but we are not the ONLY country that spied on Iraq.

We could just as easily say that the guys in the CIA that have an alternative agenda are being systemically removed. Could we not?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
Heyjoeo

I don't beleive the Iraq war was or is a mistake. You are probably to young to remeber the first gulf war. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The international community told him to leave he did not so a coalition of the willing just like we have now kicked the shit out of the Iraqi military and drove them back over the border. The cease fire araingment that was put into place so Saddam could stay in power had a few rules. A no fly zone area above and below bagdad that was patrolled daily by US and British airplaines. These planes were shot at and engaged quite a lot. He also had to open up for inspections free access to all places and documentation regarding his WMD program. He reniged on his end of the deal. HE had his troops shoot at our planes that were enforcing a UN treaty. He did not fully disclose his WMD documents or open up access completely to inspectors.
Saddam choose his and his countrys fate by not doing what he said he would do. We screwed up only in not taking him out the first time.
Maybe Iraq wasn't a mistake. I completely and honestly think you're wrong. But as an American I just as completely and honestly hope, with all my heart, you're not.

Back during the during the first Gulf War H.W. Bush pulled out short, as you know, and didn't, as many have now put it, go finish the job. When asked later why he didn't just keep going the few hundred more miles and finish the bastard off, he gave a laundry list of reasons that included "if you do that you're going to create complete instability in the region and you're going to be there forever." He basically said it will be a never ending war. But I hope, against all hope, for the young men and women we have over there trying to do this thing that you're right and I'm wrong. I've never wanted to be wrong about anything more in my life. And to be honest I really thought this was a good idea. But turning a blind eye to the facts and wanting it to be right it turns out doesn't make it right.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
I think you are looking at it from a biased perspective as well. Many many countries believed the intel or had the SAME intel from different sources. Again, how can 27 other countries ALL be wrong at the same time and from different souces? We might have the best Intel in the world, but we are not the ONLY country that spied on Iraq.

We could just as easily say that the guys in the CIA that have an alternative agenda are being systemically removed. Could we not?
Maybe I am looking at it from a biased point of view. If so I certainly have come full circle. I again point to the "Nigar Yellow Cake." Here's part of a Time article regarding this debacle:

"CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. If those prove true, it kicks the jams out from under the administration's claim that the presence of a falsehood in the President's case against Iraq was simply the product of ignorance. And it may be expected that the CIA will more and more sharply signal that it passed its findings up the food chain, because on the basis of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, they'd be left to take the blame if they didn't. Then again, the media may turn its attention to the role of the Vice President's office: After all, Ambassador Wilson claims his inquiry was initiated by a request from Dick Cheney's office to check out the allegation. So presumably, Wilson's findings will have been reported back there. If so, the former ambassador is not the only one who will want to know what they, and other top officials, made of, and more importantly did with his information."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html

Right after these people came forward with this info. that Bush and his people knew Niger Cake info was BS the Bush Admin. outed Valerie Plame which I just find to be completely outrageous. I also find it completely outrageous that that whole outting has for the most part been swept under the carpet. Though since the election many on the left have began to call for a REAL INVESTIGATION, one that might actually produce results. Personally I've come to believe the trail of the outting leads directly to Karl Rove and he in fact is bulletproof. So I think they're wasting thier time. But at least while they're doing this they're not throwing eggs at Bush's motorcade, so I'm happy.

All this being said, I honestly believe that if any of this were to have happend during a Deb's Presidency you and all your friends would be going completely nuts.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Just found this and thought it interesting....

Dr Rice:

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Now, the sentence in question comes from the notion the Iraqis were seeking yellow cake. And, remember, it [Bush's speech] says, "seeking yellow cake in Africa" is there in the National Intelligence Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate is the document the that Director of Central Intelligence publishes as the collective view of the intelligence agencies about the status of any particular issue. [/font] [font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] That was relied on to, like many other things in the National Intelligence Estimate, relied on to write the President's speech. The CIA cleared on it. There was even some discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought. And the speech was cleared. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without question. What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

Purhaps because of this type of crap we were getting from Intelligence is the reason why it is being corrected now.

Again, whomever outsed Plume needs to go to jail for a long long time.

Are you a consiracy theorist?
[/font]
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
I hope your wrong, but you might be right. I am partisan and it's honestly hard to look at things another way. I tend to agree with over 300 people than just 8 or 9. Plus, I saw "Stolen Honor" it showed people that had never been in the military telling stories of how they raised villiages - to help prepare Kerry for the congressional hearing.
QUOTE]

But the 8 or 9 you're talking about were ACTUALLY on John Kerry's boat. With these Swift boat vets you've got guy's making claims like "I know John Kerry's lying because I served with him." And by "served with" they mean they were in the same war at the same time. Or I heard from a freind... Here in Oregon we had a county DA, an ATTORNEY, who went onone of these ads and made that claim. He said "I served with John Kerry and know he's lying." When questioned about it he said "Well I never served actually served with him personally but I knew men who did and one of them told me..." Well thats proof! Some guy told me, nice. And did Kerry, as they put it, lie and there never was any hostile fire coming from the beach that day? So all the other men who were awarded medals are lying bastards too? They too have been living a lie all these years? Another one I love to hear the radio heads go on about is the fact that Kerry shot a guy in the back.

Rush: "He, He, shot the poor guy in the back. In the back. In the back. The guy was running away. Wearing a loin cloth and Kerry shoots him in the back, disgraceful, just disgraceful folks."

No mention that the guy had just been, by all reports, aiming a rocket launcher at Kerry and his men. And since when did the rules of war change to include: "no shooting in the back, if the enemy turns it's back to you, carying a weapon or not, you must not shoot them." Who cares if they run into the jungle and return moments later to blow you and your guys away. No shooting in the back. Boy sure would have been nice if these rules had existed back on D-Day, We could have just backed up to the beach walked backwards up the beach and there's nothing the Nazi's could have done. No shooting in the back!

Tell you what. I haven't seen the DVD you cited, but I will. I'm sure I can find a copy and I will do so this week. I like to keep an open mind, as much as possible. And maybe I'll see this and it will enlighten me.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Just found this and thought it interesting....

Dr Rice:


Purhaps because of this type of crap we were getting from Intelligence is the reason why it is being corrected now.

Again, whomever outsed Plume needs to go to jail for a long long time.

Are you a consiracy theorist?
[/size][/font]
I remember when Dr. Rice said this and maybe it's an honest assesment. At this point I really don't know. But just like the outing of Plume. The people being outsed from the intel. community now are the ones that tried to tell the admin. that the intel they were relying on was wrong. Joe Wilson told them that early on then told everybody he told them that- next day his wife was outed. I truely believe it would be completely naive to think the two are not related. But I'm sure if the left gets the investigation they want that, indeed, will be the "spin" at some point.

"Are you a consiracy theorist?" God, I hope not. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to believe everything my government say (don't dis-believe everything either.) Especially not at this point.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
6,014
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Joe Wilson told them that early on then told everybody he told them that- next day his wife was outed. I truely believe it would be completely naive to think the two are not related.
I hope that you are wrong. (respectfully of course)

Maybe it's just so scary of a thought that I just can't fathom it!
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
I hope that you are wrong. (respectfully of course)

Maybe it's just so scary of a thought that I just can't fathom it!
You have no idea how much I hope I'm wrong. But I again must assert that if the party lines were switched and these types of events were happening under a left run admin. I don't think you'd see it with the same clarity.

I have located a copy of "Stolen Honor" I was amazed that, where I live, somebody owned a copy:rolleyes: . As I have said, I will watch it this week. Geez this guy's even offered to bring the "study guide." There's a "study guide?" Vauge there damn well better not be a test involved in this or I'm never again agreeing to anything. Remember I was Never Again Volunteer Youself.
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
And as former Navy, you should know that purple hearts and silver stars don't make you a leader. I will salute a Medal of Honor winner with pride and respect, but I'm not going to let him run my country unless I feel comfortable that he is up to the task.

Some sailors thought that he was brilliant in the Mekong, others found him to be a blithering idiot. That's going to be true for anyone in any occupation. The Swift Boat Vets made me look at the records released by the Kerry Camp and I wasn't impressed.

Coupling his military record with his performance at the congressional hearings proved to be a large mark in the "Con" side of voting for him.
 
Top Bottom