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 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.
shut the hell up
Jeepers!keep your damn opinions to yourself
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."vauge said:Interesting, what do you think of Clinton that totally evaded vietnam by going to Europe?
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."
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.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?
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.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.
But you're OK with Cheney's lies?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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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 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.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.
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.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 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: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?
[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.
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.
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.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 hope that you are wrong. (respectfully of course)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.
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.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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?