Us presidential election 2004

[denoir 0]

Denoir, God forbid I ever end up as jaded as you!    

Another example of greek virtue:

The Citizen Soldier

Here is a guy who abandoned his life despite the obvious benefits of staying put, yet he elected to do his duty to fellow citizen and country anyway.  His choice is honorable.

I'm from a country that after a millenia of constant warfare came to the conclusion that peace is nicer. After endless honorable campaigns to "Keep Poland Swedish" and "Taking Denmark Because it Should Really Belong To Us", not to mention "Burn Down Moscow Because It Is Fun" and "Rape And Pillage Across Germany For King and Fatherland" we've kind of grown tired of it. And that goes for the rest of Europe as well. There is nothing honorable about going to war. There is only death and destruction. Wars are unfortunately sometimes necessary but it is nothing you should value. And sure, you can feel gratitude if it is a defensive war and your soldiers have saved your bacon. But when you start bombing some Asian thrid world country that poses no threat to you then we are in a completely different ballpark. Not to mention that the war was a grand failure, so there were no spoils to be happy about either. If anything Kerry should be ashamed for what he and his country did. Certainly not bragging about it.

Ok, let me put it to you in another way. Say for instance Karadzic, the infamous Serbian war criminal responsible for ethnic cleansing in Bosina. He left his home and his well-paid job to fight for the Serbian nation. And he did his job very well. Over 100,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed because of his efficient genocide. Is he a war hero according to you? Was his choice honorable? He elected to do his 'duty' (i.e what his country wanted from him) to his fellow citizens. IIRC he was a fairly prominent psychologist before the war. But he did his duty and excelled in genocide. So, is that something he should put in his CV when he is running for president. Is he a man of character? Would you vote for him for his obvious military leadership skills? For his sacrefice to his country and people?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]If anything Kerry should be ashamed for what he and his country did. Certainly not bragging about it.

Ummm....he was. Why do you think he came back to lobby AGAINST the war (which you called opportunistic).

Quote[/b] ]Ok, let me put it to you in another way. Say for instance Karadzic, the infamous Serbian war criminal responsible for ethnic cleansing in Bosina. He left his home and his well-paid job to fight for the Serbian nation. And he did his job very well. Over 100,000 Bosnian Muslims were killed because of his efficient genocide. Is he a war hero according to you? Was his choice honorable? He elected to do his 'duty' (i.e what his country wanted from him) to his fellow citizens. IIRC he was a fairly prominent psychologist before the war. But he did his duty and excelled in genocide. So, is that something he should put in his CV when he is running for president. Is he a man of character? Would you vote for him for his obvious military leadership skills? For his sacrefice to his country and people?

lol

I don't think Kerry killed 100K Vietnamese. And whether you want to accept it or ignore it, there are degrees and there is rightly serving your country and wrongly serving yoru country. Himmler thought he was serving his country. Fuck no I wouldn't vote for him for President. Kerry served his country and then fought against the war he witnessed. That does take character despite what spin you put on it.

[GoOB 0]

I love that "Doublespeak" ad! I really, really love how adverts in American politics are mostly about paddling shit at your main opponent. The videos made by the Bush administration make Kerry seem like some evil man set out to destroy the US by raising taxes and wrecking the economy.

And I really like the "I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message" part at the beginning of every advert!

And did anyone see the "Wacky" advert? "Some people have wacky ideas, like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry!"

Why not tax gasoline so that people drive less? From what I understand what happens in the US is that people that drive Hummers get tax cuts, just because they are considered work vehicles. Whilst here, people that actually drive enviromentally friendly cars (enviroment class I) don't have to pay road-tax for X ammount of years.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

It is interesting in your reply you have dodged the question.

The question after all is a comparison of character.

You make no comment what so ever on The Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr.

In the light of your previous statements would you care to discuss the character or lack there of a person who crows for war (including killing babies) but is somewhat reticent to serve him self?

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

How did you completely not understand what I said. It has nothing to do with being "militarily" inclined nor about planning wars. It has to do with LEADERSHIP. The military is by far one of the better indicators of leadership ability. It has nothing to do with shooting people. I would rather have a decorated veteran who was praised by his superiors for his LEADERSHIP than one that never fulfilled his NG duties IN THE STATES, and even failed in an oil company in oil rich Texas.

Civilian and military leaderships are two completely different things. Military leadership is based on the ability to under fire quickly and without confusion distribute orders to those under your command. Civilian leadership is based on the ability to analytically explore the effects of different decisions and through an informed dialogue with various experts and advisors reach the optimal result.

Somehow though, I have the feeling that when you say 'leader' you're looking for a hollywood type 'hero' who can give the cameras a specific look while saying things like "We will prevail!" or "America is the shining beacon of freedom" etc

Incidentally that's how Bush supporters percieve Bush - as a strong, decisive leader.

I don't think we need one of those again, do you?

Quote[/b] ]

So anyone who changes position is opportunistic? I guess I am opportunistic as well due to my great political ambition...

No, but somebody who changes position beacuse he has political ambitions is opportunistic.

Quote[/b] ]Ummm....he was. Why do you think he came back to lobby AGAINST the war (which you called opportunistic).

Which does not stop him from bragging about it today. Which is exactly my point. Now when it fits him he is the Decorated Vietnam Hero. Before that, he was throwning his medals (or other people's medals or whatever).

Quote[/b] ]I don't think Kerry killed 100K Vietnamese. And whether you want to accept it or ignore it, there are degrees and there is rightly serving your country and wrongly serving yoru country.

If the war was a failure (which it was) and you participated (which he did) then bottom line it is nothing to brag about. It is nothing he should be proud of. And what is he doing? Posting his service records on the net. Kerry did not do America a favour by joining the Vietnam war. As everybody involved he did it a disfavour - and that's without going into what the war meant for the Vietnamese. Kerry was part of the military organization that miserably failed in Vietnam. Kerry was part of the military organization that killed a lot of civilians in Vietnam. Now it is quite possible that Kerry did not commit any warcrimes himslef or anything like that. So I'm not saying that he should be defending why he was there in the first place. I am sayng however that it is nothing to be proud of.

Quote[/b] ]That does take character despite what spin you put on it.

Changing your mind at every instance where you can get a direct profit does not mean that you have character. Having character means sticking to your beliefs. You can say Bush has character (not a very good one) becuase he is consistently repeating the same things all over. His whole life has been very consistent - including dodging Vietnam duty.

Kerry on the other hand changes into what currently suits him. That is not character. That is opportunism.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Somehow though, I have the feeling that when you say 'leader' you're looking for a hollywood type 'hero' who can give the cameras a specific look while saying things like "We will prevail!" or "America is the shining beacon of freedom" etc

Then you obviously don't know what I am looking for in a leader. Don't pigeon hole me in your American-stereotypes. You know nothing about me.

Quote[/b] ]Which does not stop him from bragging about it today. Which is exactly my point. Now when it fits him he is the Decorated Vietnam Hero. Before that, he was throwning his medals (or other people's medals or whatever).

Bragging about it? Bush and Co. brought it up first BTW. As an attempt to discredit him I might add.

Quote[/b] ]And what is he doing? Posting his service records on the net.

His records were posted only after Bush and Co. and the media demanded they be posted and made available. Get it straight.

Something that backfired on Bush and Co. BTW.

Quote[/b] ]If the war was a failure (which it was) and you participated (which he did) then bottom line it is nothing to brag about.

What does whether the war was won or lost have anything to do with it. His conduct during the war is far more important. Kerry wasn't fighting the war by himself.

[denoir 0]

In the light of your previous statements would you care to discuss the character or lack there of a person who crows for war (including killing babies) but is somewhat reticent to serve him self?

As I said in my post to Akira, character implies some form of consistency in your actions. Bush has a character, a lousy one. He slipped throuhg school thanks to daddy. He slipped through military service thanks to daddy. He was a mediocre businessman for a while thanks to daddy. And finally he went into politics thanks to daddy. Very consistent. Not very nice.

Kerry on the other hand was interested in a political career from the start. He joined the military because he wanted to have it on his merit list (I've read this in some republican propaganda text, but they had references. I'll see if I can dig it up).

When the opposition to the war started to grow, Kerry saw his chance and flipped sides. And indeed that was the move that boosted his political career.

As a congressman he displayed a complete lack of any ideological foundation. All his votes reflect what was on his agenda at that moment. The voting pattern is completely inconsistent with the red thread being that he voted for stuff that would likely give him more power.

And we have a repeat of it with the Iraq war. When it was hip to be an All-American-Patriot and all that, then he fully supported the war against that dangerous Terrorist-Loving, WMD playing Saddam Hussein. Once things turned bad he in the usual manner flipped sides and became an opponent.

Bush is bad. Kerry is a big pile of nothing. In short, a very typical ambitious opportunistic politician. Take a look at his proposed policies. They are nothing but a heap of populistic crap. Take a closer look at his suggestion for various solutions, like Iraq for instance. It's nothing. Just nothing.

And I don't know which is worse. A leader like Bush where you know where you have him and can predict what damage he can do. Or like Kerry who you have no clue what he will do as he has no consistency or ideology.

[denoir 0]

Then you obviously don't know what I am looking for in a leader. Don't pigeon hole me in your American-stereotypes.

I know what you post:

Quote[/b] ]

How did you completely not understand what I said. It has nothing to do with being "militarily" inclined nor about planning wars. It has to do with LEADERSHIP. The military is by far one of the better indicators of leadership ability. It has nothing to do with shooting people. I would rather have a decorated veteran who was praised by his superiors for his LEADERSHIP than one that never fulfilled his NG duties IN THE STATES, and even failed in an oil company in oil rich Texas.

Apparently you equate civilian to military leadership. Which would fit well with my American-stereotypes.

Quote[/b] ]

You know nothing about me.

You know nothing about my American-stereotypes

Quote[/b] ]Bragging about it? Bush and Co. brought it up first BTW. As an attempt to discredit him I might add.

His records were posted only after Bush and Co. and the media demanded they be posted and made available. Get it straight.

Whatever. You can't say that he has not been using it as a card against Bush. He uses it as a merit. And his opponents see it as a merit. And a big portion of the American people sees it as a merit. Which I find worrysome.

Having the military as a fetish seldom ends well. It is not surprising that the American people post-WW2 almost always support going to war. And you go to war quite often. You are glorifying it by glorifying its participants. And if you cross reference it in history you won't be pleased with other societies that had a similar type of fetish.

And as long as you do, you'll be starting pointless wars like Iraq. Every time you'll get a new batch of heroes that you can be proud of. And so the militarism can be proliferated generation to generation.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Something that backfired on Bush and Co. BTW.

Not really because Bush was not saying anything about this issue. Anyway, Kerry needs to show his medical records...

Quote[/b] ]Or like Kerry who you have no clue what he will do as he has no consistency or ideology.

Kerry has a "liberal" ideology. A group looked at his voting record and found out he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (beating about Sen. Kennedy). Furthermore, he is actually pissing off the Vatican because of his abortion views.

Quote[/b] ]As a congressman

He is a senator not a congressman.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Once again you have dodged the question your comparison of character of the two candidates for president.

What about Bush's lack of character?

You accepted the lack of charater in the Vietnam War Dodging George Bush Jnr. but you failed to examine how this lack of character coloured his actions as un-President.

In particular you failed to compare his actions as a war un-Leader; something Vietnam War Dodging George Bush Jnr. tried to make part of his election campaign.

Dogmatism is dangerous

I draw to you attention that changing your opinion when evidence or circumstances dictate is not a bad thing. If we did not do this Sweden would still be invading its neighbours to use your argument. So castigating J. F. Kerry for being able to change his opinion is somewhat inconsistent on your part.

Dogmatism is a sin in politics for which all should be hung; that way lies Hitler, Stalin, Phol Pot and a thousand other evil dictators.

Humanity is complex

Denoir all actions you do make up part of you. Human beings are a complex of drives and ambitions. We are by our very nature as human beings conflicted. Saying and even believing one thing while doing another.

When you add up the sum of a person to characterise them you look at all these things and place them in perspective to your self. Particularly you look at effect their words beliefs and most importantly their actions have on the human environment. Fighting a war even an 'unjust' one and your reaction to it is part of that sum.

This sum of the person is your opinion of them and key to deciding who will make a good president. Of course if you have done the job before we can look at that and when you look at the failures of leadership, political incompetance and economic stupidity of the present un-Encumbant it is no brainer that he must go.

This is the US presidential election 2004 thread

This thread is about a very important thing even to people who live in Sweden. It will decide the future government of the most powerful nation on this planet at the current time. Most importantly it will decide the course of fututre US foreign policy. To judge and debate the two candidates relative merits is the whole reason for this thread. We can only judge those things on their history.

It is a two horse race

The race here is a two horse one; between George Bush Jnr. who has totaly failed to do the job and is a danger to the US and the rest of the world

And one who has proven leadership abilities and can do the Job of future US President like John F. Kerry.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Kerry has a "liberal" ideology. A group looked at his voting record and found out he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (beating about Sen. Kennedy). Furthermore, he is actually pissing off the Vatican because of his abortion views.

Really? I got the impression that he was very inconsistent. And he doesn't seem too liberal to me. AFIK he opposes gay marriages and stuff like that.

Anyway, I have to admit that beyond the Iraq question I have not really taken the time to hear what he has to say.

Quote[/b] ]He is a senator not a congressman.

Sorry, my bad.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Apparently you equate civilian to military leadership. Which would fit well with my American-stereotypes.

I equate leadership to leadership and that is it. I don't care if it was in a Top 50 company or in the rice-paddies of Vietnam. All leadership is fundamentally the same. You're attempt to separate them is laughable.

Quote[/b] ]Civilian leadership is based on the ability to analytically explore the effects of different decisions

So in military leadership I suppose there is none of that. Just charge right ahead. Absolutely no thinking at all. Right.

Quote[/b] ]and through an informed dialogue with various experts and advisors reach the optimal result.

And lord knows you can't do that in the military.

Quote[/b] ]Military leadership is based on the ability to under fire quickly and without confusion distribute orders to those under your command.

Right. Cause you don't have to do that in business or anything.

Military and Civilian leadership are absolutely no different. Both encompass the exact same criteria and properties that you try to separate based on.

Quote[/b] ]Which would fit well with my American-stereotypes.

Then you need to eject the Rambo DVD from your player, because your "stereotypes" are embaressing you.

Quote[/b] ]You know nothing about my American-stereotypes

I know that they cloud everything you say, and think under the guise of European Enlightenment.

Quote[/b] ]Whatever. You can't say that he has not been using it as a card against Bush. He uses it as a merit. And his opponents see it as a merit. And a big portion of the American people sees it as a merit. Which I find worrysome.

Did I say otherwise. If you remember I had already stated taht military service was considered a big factor in American elections as they show LEADERSHIP. Not "military leadership" or "civilian leadership" but just plain old LEADERSHIP. (Since you obviously don't know, any President without military service has used their business ability instead, or their previous public service.....All comes under leadership.)

You are mistaking shooting people for for a basis of leadership which I am not. Try and separate the two.

And you confuse Republican imperilialism for a "military fetish". As I said a hundred times already which you keep ignoring. Military records show ability to LEAD. As does prior public service and prior civilian business service. All show leadership (the very same ability to lead).

And more importantly, compared to Bush I'll take Kerry any day.

[denoir 0]

Once again you have dodged the question your comparison of character of the two candidates for president.

You accepted the lack of charater in the Vietnam War Dodging George Bush Jnr. but you failed to examine how this lack of character coloured his actions as un-President.

In particular you failed to compare his actions as a war un-Leader; something Vietnam War Dodging George Bush Jnr. tried to make part of his election campaign.

Actually, I've answered it twice. I don't quite know how else to put it:

Quote[/b] ]As I said in my post to Akira, character implies some form of consistency in your actions. Bush has a character, a lousy one. He slipped throuhg school thanks to daddy. He slipped through military service thanks to daddy. He was a mediocre businessman for a while thanks to daddy. And finally he went into politics thanks to daddy. Very consistent. Not very nice.

Kerry on the other hand was interested in a political career from the start. He joined the military because he wanted to have it on his merit list (I've read this in some republican propaganda text, but they had references. I'll see if I can dig it up).

.....

and

Quote[/b] ]Changing your mind at every instance where you can get a direct profit does not mean that you have character. Having character means sticking to your beliefs. You can say Bush has character (not a very good one) becuase he is consistently repeating the same things all over. His whole life has been very consistent - including dodging Vietnam duty.

Kerry on the other hand changes into what currently suits him. That is not character. That is opportunism

.....

Quote[/b] ]I draw to you attention that changing your opinion when evidence or circumstances dictate is not a bad thing. If we did not do this Sweden would still be invading its neighbours to use your argument. So castigating J. F. Kerry for being able to change his opinion is somewhat inconsistent on your part.

The question is why you are changing your opinion. If it is because you realized that you were doing something wrong, then fine. If you are doing it because you want to make political gains, then hardly.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Something that backfired on Bush and Co. BTW.

Not really because Bush was not saying anything about this issue. Anyway, Kerry needs to show his medical records...

Ummm...actually they did. When pressed he released a few records. Then the Bush Camp started asking "Why doesn't he show ALL his records?" The press said "Yeah why doesn't he." So they hounded him and wham.....he released them...and among other things you can see his glowing reports from CO's (can see them on The Smoking Gun).

Kinda wrote that like a children's book!

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I draw to you attention that changing your opinion when evidence or circumstances dictate is not a bad thing. If we did not do this Sweden would still be invading its neighbours to use your argument. So castigating J. F. Kerry for being able to change his opinion is somewhat inconsistent on your part.

The question is why you are changing your opinion. If it is because you realized that you were doing something wrong, then fine. If you are doing it because you want to make political gains, then hardly.

Then please post the sources to your insights into what Kerry's thinking.

[denoir 0]

I equate leadership to leadership and that is it.  I don't care if it was in a Top 50 company or in the rice-paddies of Vietnam. All leadership is fundamentally the same. You're attempt to separate them is laughable.

Quote[/b] ]Civilian leadership is based on the ability to analytically explore the effects of different decisions

So in military leadership I suppose there is none of that. Just charge right ahead. Absolutely no thinking at all. Right.

Your lack of military military experience shines through. Do you wish to see my military records? I've been in charge of a company (~50 men) which is probably more than Kerry in his plastic boat. And I have recieved the highest grades from my commanding officers. Does that give me any sort of qualification to be a political leader?

Hell no. Military and civilian leaderships are two completely different things. Completely.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]and through an informed dialogue with various experts and advisors reach the optimal result.

And lord knows you can't do that in the military.

No, not if you are lieutenant going down the river in a plastic boat.

Quote[/b] ]Right. Cause you don't have to do that in business or anything.

Yeah. In business certainly people shoot at you. Yepp, I'm sure on your average day in the law office you get the guts of a civilian splattered on your face   This pisses me off, but I'll write it off as ignorance.

By your logic then business merits should score just as high as military merits. Yet you don't see that being relevant in a presidential campaign.

Quote[/b] ]Then you need to eject the Rambo DVD from your player, because your "stereotypes" are embaressing you.

I'd don't have Rambo. I watch CNN and I see the president that you elected. And that is probably more embarrasing to you than me :;-):

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You know nothing about my American-stereotypes

I know that they cloud everything you say, and think under the guise of European Enlightenment.

Here's a sterotype for you: I'm getting fairly tired of your typically American inferiority complex towards Europeans. You have equal rights in the debate as I do. Instead of whining about me, defend your position.

Quote[/b] ]And you confuse Republican imperilialism for a "military fetish".

It's Kerry's camp flaunting his military records and describing him as a "Vietnam War Hero" as opposed to Bush who is a "Draft Dodger". So imperialism, yes. Republican. Not so sure.

Quote[/b] ]And more importantly, compared to Bush I'll take Kerry any day.

I'll take Kerry too. But being the lesser of two evils doesn't make him good.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ummm...actually they did. When pressed he released a few records. Then the Bush Camp started asking "Why doesn't he show ALL his records?" The press said "Yeah why doesn't he." So they hounded him and wham.....he released them...and among other things you can see his glowing reports from CO's (can see them on The Smoking Gun).

Did President Bush say anything about this? Also, Kerry did not release all his records.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121809/posts

Quote[/b] ]

John Kerry has just released his "Officer's Fitness Report" from his service in Vietnam. Kerry officials, with no knowledge of military operations, think the report is laudatory. In reality, it is disasterous.

Back in the Vietnam days, officers’ ratings were vastly inflated. To even be considered for promotion or a better assignment, an officer needed top grades in all categories. For example, in his book Colin Powell described how a dispute between his wife and his division commander’s wife led to one mark in one category out of 14 being less than perfect, and how, until it was corrected by a general further up the chain of command, it would have stopped Powell at one star.

Back then, the verbal descriptions of an officer’s service were always laudatory, and virtually meaningless. Many raters used standard paragraphs to describe every subordinate from a future member of the Joint Chiefs to “Beatle Bailey with gold bars†in glowing terms.

The actual rating was effectively “coded†into the comparative section. There a Navy officer was rated in 16 categories such as “Loyalty,†Judgment,†“Courage,†Personal Behavior,†etc. Each officer would receive one of nine rankings, ranging from “Exceptional†to “One of the Top Few,†“Above the Majority,†down to “Unsatisfactory†in each of those 16 categories. Anything less than perfect in any of the 16 categories was a clear indication of an undesirable officer.

Remember, these rankings were highly inflated, with at least 60% of the officers having perfect rankings in all 16 categories. Most of the others would receive one ranking less than perfect in one category…. and their careers were effectively over.

Lt. Kerry received only 6 of 16 rankings in the highest category. The remaining marks for “Judgment†was one step down and 9 of the 16 other marks were two steps down. When ranking these Efficiency Reports arithmetically, when one “down point†could end a career, Kerry had 19 “down points.â€

Is there any wonder why the Navy had no objection to his early return from Vietnam and his subsequent early removal from the service. They wanted him away from the guns, where he couldn’t hurt Americans.

http://www.boston.com/news...._record

Quote[/b] ]

Discrepancies noted in Kerry's record

Ex-skipper says website wrong

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff  |  April 23, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.

On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.

However, Edward Peck, who was the skipper of the 94 before Kerry took over, said combat reports posted by the campaign for January 1969 involve action when he was the skipper, not Kerry. Peck, who was seriously wounded in fighting that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, said he believes Kerry campaign aides made a mistake in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.

On the Kerry website, the report of the combat on that day on the 94 boat is posted as occurring during Kerry's time as skipper of the boat. Peck said Kerry replaced him after the Jan. 29, 1969, event.

Quote[/b] ]

For example, in a summary of action that occurred Jan. 26, 1969, the campaign says Kerry served on boat No. 94 alongside another boat, No. 66. "PCFs 94 and 66 escorted troops up the Ong Doc River early in the morning when they were ambushed by gun and rocket fire from approximately 40 men on both sides of the river," the campaign summary says. "Two B-40 rounds hit close to Kerry's boat, while PCF 66 received 2 B-40 rocket hits. Three men on PCF66 were wounded. A junk containing South Vietnamese troops was also sunk, killing 11 South Vietnamese troops. Intelligence reports after the mission indicated that the Viet Cong troops may have planned the ambush in advance."

Peck said he was the skipper of the 94 at this time and that Kerry was not on the craft. While combat reports show several boats traveling with the 94, the campaign website says only that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 and does not try to place him on the other boats.

Quote[/b] ]

In another report, the campaign summarizes action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: "While Kerry's boat and another [PCF72] were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew -- Forward Gunner David Alston -- suffered shrapnel wounds in his head. His injuries were not considered serious and he was sent to the 29th Evac Hospital at Binh Thuy."

Peck said he was the skipper on this day as well. Peck was also injured in the ambush and was hospitalized.

As a result, Kerry then took over the crew, Peck said. The Navy combat report posted by the Kerry campaign states that Peck and Alston were injured in the same event. There is no mention of Kerry in that report.

Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rc8r.htm

Quote[/b] ]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU APRIL 15, 2004 11:04:27 ET XXXXX

TERESA FIGHTS TO KEEP HER TAX RETURNS PRIVATE

**Exclusive**

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who has called for full-disclosure of rivals' tax returns, now faces growing pressure to release his wife's records.

But in a Tax Day controversy, Teresa Heinz Kerry is personally determined to keep her returns out of public view -- at any cost!

"This is my life, my business, not John's," Mrs. Kerry recently explained to a campaign staffer, a top source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. "I think it is very important to keep the privacy zone. There is a tradition of this."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29230-2004Apr20.html

Quote[/b] ]

Mr. Kerry Revises

Wednesday, April 21, 2004; Page A22

"WE NEED A reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government" in Iraq, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said in December. "That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in the country -- not cutting and running in order to claim a false success." On another occasion, he said: "It would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops."

Contrast that with what Mr. Kerry told reporters last week: "With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy."

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Your lack of military military experience shines through. Do you wish to see my military records? I've been in charge of a company (~50 men) which is probably more than Kerry in his plastic boat. And I have recieved the highest grades from my commanding officers. Does that give me any sort of qualification to be a political leader?

Typical response! lol! I didn't serve so now I know nothing. Spare me.

So basically what you are saying is that there is absolutely no analytical thinking to military leadership.

Man. You were some great leader...

Quote[/b] ]No, not if you are lieutenant going down the river in a plastic boat.

Any I'm ignorant? I'm sure there was absolutely no coordination. No confereing nor preparing for coming missions. No none of that. He just tooled down the river. Puh-lease.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah. In business certainly people shoot at you. Yepp, I'm sure on your average day in the law office you get the guts of a civilian splattered on your face This pisses me off, but I'll write it off as ignorance.

By your logic then business merits should score just as high as military merits. Yet you don't see that being relevant in a presidential campaign.

Keep your personal demons out of this. Since your ability to rationally think right now is impaired I'll spell it out:

As a business man you obviously lead as well, sometimes as many as 1000+ people in your company. You lead them through hard times, high times, and steer your company to what is hopefully a profitable year. The company profits, so do the people under you (presumably).

Once again you continue to equate shooting and death with leadership. Here ya go:

Quote[/b] ]lead·er·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ldr-shp)

n.

1. The position or office of a leader: ascended to the leadership of the party.

2. Capacity or ability to lead: showed strong leadership during her first term in office.

3. A group of leaders: met with the leadership of the nation's top unions.

4. Guidance; direction: The business prospered under the leadership of the new president.

I don't see anywhere in there about ability to lay charges or anything. And funny, I said nothing of the kind either.

Also if you cared to actually read what I write, I did indeed say business and prior political service leadership is just as important:

Quote[/b] ](Since you obviously don't know, any President without military service has used their business ability instead, or their previous public service.....All comes under leadership.)

Quote[/b] ]I'd don't have Rambo. I watch CNN and I see the president that you elected. And that is probably more embarrasing to you than me

Indeed it would be had I voted for him. But he is still an embaressment. Almost as embaressing as admiting you watch Cable "News" Network.

Quote[/b] ]Here's a sterotype for you: I'm getting fairly tired of your typically American inferiority complex towards Europeans. You have equal rights in the debate as I do. Instead of whining about me, defend your position.

Indeed it is. Almost as much as the one where Europeans talk down to Americans....course I don't really believe that.

Quote[/b] ]It's Kerry's camp flaunting his military records and describing him as a "Vietnam War Hero" as opposed to Bush who is a "Draft Dodger". So imperialism, yes. Republican. Not so sure.

Indeed. The records, as I stated, started coming out from media and Bush pressure as I previously stated. And indeed it is Kerry's camp's job to put a spin on it. But my imperialism comment was directed at the fact that every Republican president has had a war. Not so with Democrats.

Quote[/b] ]I'll take Kerry too. But being the lesser of two evils doesn't make him good.

Very true as I was a Dean-ite. But as already stated. I'll take Kerry over Bush. Whether or not he will be good I can't say and neither can you. Time will tell....(hopefully)

[denoir 0]

Typical response! lol! I didn't serve so now I know nothing. Spare me.

About military leadership. Yes, I am fairly confident you know nothing. Just as little as I know what it means to be a good lawyer or what qualities a good judge should have.

Quote[/b] ]So basically what you are saying is that there is absolutely no analytical thinking to military leadership.

No that is not what I am saying, as you very well know. Debating some issue for years is not the same thing as making an operational or tactical decision in minutes.

Quote[/b] ]Any I'm ignorant? I'm sure there was absolutely no coordination. No confereing nor preparing for coming missions.

Getting orders is not what constitutes military leadership. Handing out orders is. And considering his low rank and position, the only place he might have done it is in the field.

Quote[/b] ]As a business man you obviously lead as well, sometimes as many as 1000+ people in your company. You lead them through hard times, high times, and steer your company to what is hopefully a profitable year. The company profits, so do the people under you (presumably).

...and yet presidential candidates who have business experience seldom use it as a merit. Bush's dad for instance. They are however very quick to pull out their war records.

And let me ask you this: if we take a successful business man that leads a large company, give him a military education - do you think that he will automatically be a great military leader?

Quote[/b] ]

Once again you continue to equate shooting and death with leadership.

Not leadership. Military leadership.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Hate to rain on your parade but the president of the US is the Military leader.

Or did you miss Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. leading the US military into the mire of Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi Denoir

Hate to rain on your parade but the president of the US is the Military leader.

Or did you miss Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Jnr. leading the US military into the mire of Iraq?

Kind Regards Walker

Walker,

What would you do if President Bush beat Kerry?

Quote[/b] ]

The records, as I stated, started coming out from media and Bush pressure as I previously stated.

Can you find me quote that President Bush directly pressured Kerry to release his records.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Akira @ April 23 2004,20:56)

Typical response! lol! I didn't serve so now I know nothing. Spare me.

About military leadership. Yes, I am fairly confident you know nothing. Just as little as I know what it means to be a good lawyer or what qualities a good judge should have.

Then why vote? In that rational you have no idea what would make a good PM or Minister or anything for that matter.

So I know thats not true. We all have ideas of what they should be and that is what we go on.

I may not have been in service, but its not hard to imagine what I want in a good military leader.

(I'm not sure if it so in Norway, but some local judges are elected like every other official here...state and federal are appointed).

Quote[/b] ]No that is not what I am saying, as you very well know. Debating some issue for years is not the same thing as making an operational or tactical decision in minutes.

That is true. But in business and military leadership you have to have that ability. Not all businesses work over years. Do some business reading, particularly airlines after de-regulation. Decisions were made quite often in less than 5 minutes. Thats why there is a CEO. Just as equally, there are some military situations where events unfold over hours, or days. That's why leadership is leadership, no matter in what context it is.

Quote[/b] ]Getting orders is not what constitutes military leadership. Handing out orders is. And considering his low rank and position, the only place he might have done it is in the field.

Indeed. Which is where it counts don't you agree? (refer to the previously posted example of Kerry's quick decision to ram hostiles when under fire).

Quote[/b] ]...and yet presidential candidates who have business experience seldom use it as a merit. Bush's dad for instance. They are however very quick to pull out their war records.

And let me ask you this: if we take a successful business man that leads a large company, give him a military education - do you think that he will automatically be a great military leader?

Indeed. I never said differently. But leaders HAVE used business and public service leadership as campaign examples before. They are all forms of leadership (Perot, Forbes, etc...all were taken seriously for the issues they raised and policy's they campaigned on....was only later Perot became a laughing stock....though some of the things he warned against eventually came true...ie economy)

And no I don't think a business leader will automatically be a good military leader and vice versa. Same with long time political leaders. But it certainly is possible is it not? Why? They may be a good leader, but just not have aptitude for the military or business or politics. It certainly depends on the person. But leadership in any form is leadership.

And given what we are working with, which do you prefer? Kerry or Bush?

(damn I hate the two party crap)

[walker 0]

Walker,

What would you do if President Bush beat Kerry?

Puke

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]What would you do if President Bush beat Kerry?

Be very sad.

And beat feet outta the country. Wife and I are already discussing it.