csua.org/u/92h -> csua.com/Politics/Domestic/Election/?page=1#32665
This smear is contradicted by Mr Kerry's crew mates, undercut by the previous statements of some of those now making the charges and tainted by the chief source of its funding: Republican activists dedicated to defeating Mr Kerry in November."
html \_ Well lets see, he has stated he was in Cambodia dozens of times throughout his career, further indicating he was on secret CIA / Seal missions and fought the Khmer Rouge. He has repeated this story dozens of times, including on the Senate floor. He has stated this was a 'transformative' moment that defines who he is, repeatedly. Do you believe what he has said DOZENS of times or don't you? Do you believe he went into Cambodia on CIA/ SEAl missions? I just posted what Kerry's people have said: Kerry has said on the record that he was not in Cambodia on Christmas Day. We know that the US was doing this as part of Operation Pheonix during the early part of 1969 and that swift boats were sometimes used for the insertion. I don't think he fought the Khmer Rouge, but it is a little hard to tell exactly which un-uniformed guerilla army someone belongs to when they are shooting at you from 500 yards away.
org/u/8l9 \_ You've got your "background", and you've got Operation Phoenix. I would want a better boat if I were there, but you take what the Army/Navy gives you. It proves that you can get lost and end up in Cambodia by mistake, at least. The CIA doesn't always tell The State Dept what they are up to, especially if they know that State might not approve. How do *you* think the CIA and SEALs did their Cambodia insertions? Do you think the guys walked all the way from Saigon or something? I already suggested that he may have confused Tet with Christmas in his mind. I would have to think pretty hard to tell you which year it was even. In Kerry's story, the fact that it's Christmas day is CENTRAL to the story. It's kinda like if you couldn't remember if your first blowjob was done to your penis or your finger. The more appropriate analogy is remembering you lost your virginity on your birthday or your SO's birthday, which happened to be one month apart: You know you "moored" your "boat" in the "delta" and you "completed your mission" on one of your birthdays (depositing your "seamen" under the "moon") and there were a lot of other "missions" where you traveled "closer to the target" before and after that. "Mission accomplished", but for some reason your wife is pissed you got the wrong birthday, and she doesn't believe you anymore when you said she was the first girl you slept with. He was defending Kerry in 1996 against a false statement, and mentioned it in the May 4 press conference. Steve Gardner *was* a crewmate of Kerry and is opposed to Kerry. Elliot has specifically made chargest against Kerry which are not conflicted by his previous statements. The crew mates are quoted in the article in support of Kerry's rescue of another crew member. he has just said he thinks Kerry is an indecisive leader, putting his crew members in jeopardy. You should quote what Elliot has said that does not conflict with his previous statements.
html \_ OH NO HE'S TOTALLY UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT \_ True, all sarcasm aside. Sensitive to our allies & potential allies, also a good thing. Saved more lives and won more conflicts throughout history than all guns & bombs combined. Please enumerate the number of lives saved and which conflicts were won through diplomacy throughout history. Like how post-WWI and pre-WWII diplomacy resulted in a lasting peace in our time with honor and all that? Lives saved: 5 billion \_ Do you want me to post the quote from Bush saying the same thing? Anyone who cares can dig through the archives of either the wall or motd for your previous quotes. I don't care that much and I doubt anyone else does either. The rantings and out of context quotes are neither interesting nor useful but they don't ruin the rest of it.
htm<DEAD> "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." After reading John Kerry's entire quote, when it comes to differences between the Republican and Democratic tickets on the Iraq war, Kerry's "more sensitive" remark wraps it all up in a bow!
That was you trying to defend the undefendable Kerry again. He said only a few days ago that knowing what we know now he would have invaded Iraq. The only difference is he would have sent 25x as many troops and they would have been more 'sensitive'. And oh yeah, our pseudo allies would have magically joined up and freely given up the billions of dollars they were making off Iraq just because John is a thoughtful, nuanced and sensitive guy. And then here's his wife, Lynne Cheney: "With all due respect to the senator, it just sounded so foolish ... This is the kind of left-wing foolishness that certainly isn't appropriate for someone who would seek to be commander-in-chief." you can't apply context to right wing talking point sound bites. Please name an era in our's or anyone's history where a "thoughtful and sensitive" foreign policy existed. The "Intelligence Community's" findings, which Powell presented, were clearly not supported by the available intelligence, as concluded by the 9/11 Commission. Powell's presentation was treated coldly, and for good reason! I strongly urge you to refrain from labeling people naive or stupid on this point, as it makes you look naive and/or stupid. Point 2: "Thoughtful and sensitive" is Cheney's, or perhaps your quote. Don't quote out of context, and even worse, DON'T REARRANGE WORDS AND PUT DOUBLE QUOTES AROUND THE REARRANGED PHRASE. Continuing on, the entire, unmodified statement means what I said it meant: sensitive to our allies (not alienating them), and not damaging our credibility by sexually abusing those under our authority. You should be very glad you are not signing your name, since what you said would stick with you in a lot of people's memories. No matter how you want to arrange the words, they still mean the same thing. Stop defending the undefendable and you'll be less stressed out. Bush has fucked up a number of things and that's unfortunate and he's not the greatest President the country has had but he's doing ok and he's doing a hell of a lot better than a psycho like Gore or a man with no vision like Kerry would do. Your characterization ("stop defending the undefendable") is inaccurate. Finally, the last few posts by me indicate that I have read the whole quote, and it is clear to me it does not mean the same as your three-word phrase which Kerry never spoke, and in my opinion Cheney and you wish to mislead with. I do approve of your not signing your name, and I say that without sarcasm. I think it's terribly funny that one anonymous person would insult another anonymous person for being anonymous. I don't care at all either way usually but since you brought it up.... Real men, like Bush, Cheney and Clinton made sure they didn't have to go serve there. And Bush doesn't have any "flip-flops", unless it's about gay marriage, or Department of Homeland Security, or nation building, or the assualt weapons ban, or steel tariffs, or tax credits for hybrid cars, or creation of the 9/11 commission ... Bush is guaranteed to stick to his ideologically driven positions unless reality forces him to change his position. Since you won't accept Bush having any nuance and they both change positions, they must both be flip floppers.
I don't remember anyone so nutty when I was involved in the CSUA (97-01). My theory is that as the posters to the motd grew older, they became more interested in politics. As to why they are so nutty, your theory is as good as mine.
Reducing people to abstractions doesn't teach you anything about them. The computer science solution to problems is not always the correct one. i think the average "red state" or "blue state" person would be horrified by most of the socialist/communist lefists and ayn rand rightwingers that prevail on both sides of the political spectrum among geeks. Of course there are a lot of non-wingnut...
|
http://csua.com/feed/