Us presidential election 2004

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]don't give me the life begins at conception arguement. Many feel it doesn't.

Well, when do you feel that your life began? When did you cease to be a choice and become a human?

Life began a couple of billion years ago and has been a continuous process since then.

This 'life began at conception' stuff is ridiculous.

[Schoeler 0]

I think life begins when brain activity begins. Until then everything is just a collection of cells.

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

Again, that is like saying I do not support slavery but the people should have the choice to have slaves. It took a long time (and a war/ amendment) to educate people that having slaves were wrong because they were just like you.

if you ever have a daughter, and if by mis-fortune she happens to be raped..u remember that party line when she wants to have an abortion so she doesn't have to have her rapists' child. It baffles me how people who tout about our rights as Americans want to take rights away from a women to decide if and when she wants to be a mother, especially in a tragic case of rape...just baffling

[MilitiaSniper 0]

GO BUSH/CHENNEY 04'

Sincerely, MilitiaSniper

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]if you ever have a daughter, and if by mis-fortune she happens to be raped..u remember that party line when she wants to have an abortion so she doesn't have to have her rapists' child.  It baffles me how people who tout about our rights as Americans want to take rights away from a women to decide if and when she wants to be a mother, especially in a tragic case of rape...just baffling

You are putting words in my mouth. If you cared to look at another post, you will find out that I do not want abortions made illegal. Let me expand it more by stating that it should be limited to special "things" (rape, incest, mother danger, and other things of that nature).

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

someone wanna explain to me why it's ok for Bush to say he will bring home troops but not ok for Kerry to do the same and what it's ok for Bush to say we need to be sensitive and it not for Kerry ahh don't u just love the Republican spin doctors

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]someone wanna explain to me why it's ok for Bush to say he will bring home troops but not ok for Kerry to do the same

Kerry was talking about Iraq and Bush was talking about Europe and Asia (not Iraq or Afghanistan). Furthermore, he (Bush) wants some of them to be re-deploy to eastern Europe.

Quote[/b] ]what it's ok for Bush to say we need to be sensitive and it not for Kerry

Kerry should of explained "sensitive".

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

Kerry should of explained "sensitive".

Well, for anyone who actually saw the speech it was pretty self-explanatory...its a pity Cheney didn't then he'd realize how stupid his "remarks" were concerning the whole thing ...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]if you ever have a daughter, and if by mis-fortune she happens to be raped..u remember that party line when she wants to have an abortion so she doesn't have to have her rapists' child.  It baffles me how people who tout about our rights as Americans want to take rights away from a women to decide if and when she wants to be a mother, especially in the case of rape

Well, I support a different kind of choice as well: If a woman is in genuine danger of being assaulted, then she can make the choice to pull a handgun and kill the worthless little shit who's attacking her. Very effective, no? A remember, the rate of rapes went down after concealed carry laws were enacted, so this does work.

Quote[/b] ]Americans want to take rights away from a women to decide if and when she wants to be a mother

When you're not talking about rape, this is a silly argument. A woman has the right to decide if and when she wants to engage in the only activity that can make her pregnant. If a man tries to rape her, she has the right to respond with lethal force. And no, this is not an argument towards abstinence from consensual sex. You don't have to be Hugh Hefner to know that there are sexual acts that are guaranteed not to result in pregnancy. Or do I have to post examples ?

Quote[/b] ]Life began a couple of billion years ago and has been a continuous process since then.

I directed my question specifically at individual people. Either you're talking about life in general, which is an odd segue and is something I already believe, or you're talking about your own life, in which case I must complement you on whatever dietary habits and living styles helped you live a few billion years.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]don't give me the life begins at conception arguement. Many feel it doesn't.

Well, when do you feel that your life began? When did you cease to be a choice and become a human?

It's not a question of when it is alive - a sperm cell is alive - it's a question of when it is considered to be a human being.

Quote[/b] ]

At conception: One very lucky spermatozoon out of hundreds of millions ejaculated by the man will penetrate the outside layer of the ovum and fertilize it. The surface of the ovum changes its electrical characteristics and prevents additional sperm from entering. A genetically unique entity is formed shortly thereafter, called a zygote. Half of its 46 chromosomes come from the egg and the other half from the spermatozoon. It has a unique DNA structure, different from that of the ovum and the spermatozoon. This is the point that most, or all, pro-life groups and conservative Christians define as the start of pregnancy. They also define this as the transition from human life (in the form of an ovum and sperm containing human DNA) to a human person. The fertilized ovum divides as it passes down the fallopian tubes; it is then called a morula (a.k.a. pre-embryo).  

5 days or so after conception: The morula, now called a blastocyst, has traveled down the fallopian tubes and has started to attach itself to the endometrium, the wall of the uterus (a.k.a. womb). It continues to be referred to as a pre-embryo.

9 or 10 days after conception: The blastocyst has fully attached itself to endometrium. Primitive placental blood circulation has begun.

12 days or so after conception: The blastocyst has started to produce hormones which can be detected in the woman's urine. This is is the event that all (or almost) all pro-choice groups and almost all physicians (who are not conservative Christians) define to be the start of pregnancy. If instructions are followed exactly, a home-pregnancy test may reliably detect pregnancy at this point, or shortly thereafter.

13 or 14 days after conception: A "primitive streak" appears. It will later develop into the fetus' central nervous system. This is the point at which spontaneous division of the blastocyst -- an event that sometimes generates identical twins -- is not longer possible. The pre-embryo is now referred to as an embryo. It is a very small blob of undifferentiated tissue at this stage of development.  

3 weeks: The embryo is now about 1/12" long, the size of a pencil point. It most closely resembles a worm - long and thin and with a segmented end. Its heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception. Before this time, the woman might have noticed that her menstrual period is late; she might suspect that she is pregnant and conduct a pregnancy test. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she might have arranged and carried through with an abortion.

4 weeks: The embryo is now about 1/5" long. It looks something like a tadpole. The structure that will develop into a head is visible, as is a noticeable tail. The embryo has structures like the gills of a fish in the area that will later develop into a throat.

5 weeks: Tiny arm and leg buds have formed. Hands with webs between the fingers have formed at the end of the arm buds. Fingerprints are detectable. The face "has a distinctly reptilian aspect." 1  

6 weeks: The embryo is about 1/2" long. The face has two eyes on the side of its head; the front of the face has "connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be." 1  

7 weeks: The embryo has almost lost its tail. "The face is mammalian but somewhat pig-like."  1 Pain sensors appear. Many conservative Christians believe that the embryo can feel pain. However, the higher functions of the brain have yet to develop, and the pathways to transfer pain signals from the pain sensors to the brain have not developed at this time.  

2 months: The embryo's face resembles that of a primate but is not fully human in appearance. Some of the brain begins to form; this is the "reptilian brain" that will function throughout life. The embryo will respond to prodding, although it has no consciousness at this stage of development. The brain's higher functions do not develop until much later in pregnancy.

10 weeks: The embryo is now called a fetus. Its face looks human; its gender may be detectable.

3 months: The fetus is about 3 inches long and weighs about an ounce. Fingernails and bones can be seen. Over 90% of all abortions are performed before this stage has been reached.

4 months: It is 8" long and weighing a half pound. The fetus' movements may begin to be felt. Its heartbeat can usually be detected.

5 months/21.8 weeks: 12" long and weighing about a pound, the fetus' has hair on its head. Its movements can be felt. An abortion is usually unavailable at this gestational age because of state and province medical society regulations, except under very unusual circumstances. Half-way through this month, the fetus' lungs may be developed to the point where it would have a chance to live on its own.

6 months/26 weeks: 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It will become conscious of its surroundings. State laws and medical association regulations generally outlaw abortions at this stage, except under very unusual circumstances.

7 months: 16" long and weighing about three pounds. Regular brain waves are detectable which are similar to those in adults.

8 months: 18" long and weighing about 5 pounds.

9 months: 20" long and with an average weight of 7 pounds, a full-term fetus' is typically born about this time.

src

IMO a reasonable limit is before 6 months, when the higher brain functions develop and the fetus gets some basic form of brain activity.

What in my mind is absolutely criminal on the part of the conservatives is that they oppose abortion while at the same time they oppose the handing out of condoms to teenagers. Teaching abstinence my ass. If they got their wishes through tons of teenagers would be getting unwanted babies.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]if you ever have a daughter, and if by mis-fortune she happens to be raped..u remember that party line when she wants to have an abortion so she doesn't have to have her rapists' child.  It baffles me how people who tout about our rights as Americans want to take rights away from a women to decide if and when she wants to be a mother, especially in the case of rape

Well, I support a different kind of choice: If a woman is in genuine danger of being assaulted, then she can make the choice to pull a handgun and kill the worthless little shit who's attacking her. Very effective, no? A remember, the rate of rapes went down after concealed carry laws were enacted, so this does work.

notice that you said rates went down, not turn zero. there always will be incidents where abortion will be needed, and aborting all abortion will force the rape victim to carry the child which will not be helped by conservative groups since the women asked to be raped by wearing fleamsy clothes or she was 'misbehaving'

i can also go on length of how having a gun does not protect you, but given forum history, i will not go into gun control debate.

Quote[/b] ]If a man tries to rape her, she has the right to respond with lethal force.

the issue is when the lethal force option fails and she is raped.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]i can also go on length of how having a gun does not protect you, but given forum history, i will not go into gun control debate.

The enactment of the concealed carry laws caused most of the violent-crime rates to fall. Seems like they're protecting people ... And with rape, it has been statistically found that a woman's chance of survival during a rape increases when she resists with a gun, but decreases when she resists without a gun. Just an example of how a gun can neutralize any size/strength advantage that the assailant has. Of course, women carrying guns won't stop all rapes, but they will decrease the rape rate, which is part of lowering the amount of abortions.

Quote[/b] ]there always will be incidents where abortion will be needed, and aborting all abortion will force the rape victim to carry the child which will not be helped by conservative groups since the women asked to be raped by wearing fleamsy clothes or she was 'misbehaving'

Correct, but that doesn't mean that abortion should be made available to any woman who gets knocked up. I can agree with situations where the woman's life is in danger or where she is raped, but that doesn't mean that it should be usable by anyone. I do not favor instant illegalization of abortion, but I do believe that society should be weaned off it until it is only used in necessary situations. For instance, I think it would be reasonable to give a rape victim the option for an abortion, having someone adopt the child, or keeping the child (Though I doubt many would choose the last option).

Quote[/b] ]the issue is when the lethal force option fails and she is raped.

Damn, my plan to turn the topic into a gun-control topic has been foiled! Another time ...

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

m21, I'm not even going to give your past couple comments about rape, and lethal force and what other comments you seemed to have pulled out your ass the dignity of a rebutal...how bout meet a couple rape victims then we can have a mature dicussion.. I'm just glad their aren't many women who look at these boards nuff said

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]m21, I'm not even going to give your past couple comments about rape, and lethal force and what other comments you seemed to have pulled out your ass the dignity of a rebutal

What, that a woman should:

1. Be allowed to carry concealed guns as a barrier against rape.

2. Be allowed to use these guns in a lethal manner against a rapist. It's infuriating to hear about a woman who is attacked, pulls a gun, fires until the rapist stops the attack, and then being brought into court for murder/manslaughter because she fired accurately .

3. If she is raped, she should have abortion available as an option.

How unreasonable of me. Or you're just being shrieky. Or you read Edit #72 instead of Edit #75 .

Quote[/b] ]pulled out your ass

On a side note, try not to use this kind of phrase in a post about rape.

Quote[/b] ]if you ever have a daughter, and if by mis-fortune she happens to be raped

Unlikely, considering that any daughter of mine would likely be packing heat. If she was raped, then I wouldn't pressure her any way or another. Like I've said, I support abortion for rape victims as a kind of damage control.

Quote[/b] ]how bout meet a couple rape victims then we can have a mature dicussion..

Now this is an odd statement. I support a woman's right to vociferously defend herself against a rapist, something I'm sure a rape victim would support. And I view abortion as an option in the situation of a rape victim. How will meeting a rape victim change my attitude, except making me feel even less charitable towards rapists? What am I supposed to be advocating, according to your holier-than-thou standards?

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

sorry if I seem over dramatic on the whole rape issue...long story...all I'm saying is people have this mis conception that women can't get pregnant if they are raped which is WRONG...and also a women should always have the right to choose what she does with her body. It just baffles me that people would support someone who doesn't give another human being the right to choose what to do with their body....I just think this whole "pro-life" crap is ridiculous and is just another way of saying "oh we don't think you can make a mature CHOICE yourself so we'll make it for you" thas all...sorry if this got side tracked alittle..kind of a touchy subject..can we just back to bashing Bush now

[ralphwiggum 6]

Correct, but that doesn't mean that abortion should be made available to any woman who gets knocked up. I can agree with situations where the woman's life is in danger or where she is raped, but that doesn't mean that it should be usable by anyone. I do not favor instant illegalization of abortion, but I do believe that society should be weaned off it until it is only used in necessary situations. For instance, I think it would be reasonable to give a rape victim the option for an abortion, having someone adopt the child, or keeping the child (Though I doubt many would choose the last option).

but the republicans are going for all out abortion ban, trying to appeal to fundamentalist nuts. don't let the GOP fool you now it's abortion for only a few selected case, but little by little they will make it harder to get one.(sounds familiar? )

[kerosene 0]

Awesome bush quote on why taxing the rich is a waste of time:

"the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

this prick sohuld know, i'm sure Cheney and half the other people on his staff are familiar with "creative accounting."

[walker 0]

Hi all

It apears to me that Bush is condoning crime when he says

Quote[/b] ]Just be careful -- all I ask you is be careful about all this talk about taxing the rich. You know how that goes. The so-called rich hire accountants and lawyers to maybe not pay as much, and therefore, in order to meets all these promises guess who gets to end up stuck with the bill?

"AUDIENCE MEMBER: We do.

"THE PRESIDENT: The working people."

Well, it turns out that Bush is certainly right about who gets stuck with the bill -- but the credit doesn't go to the accountants and lawyers. It goes to his tax cuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62918-2004Aug13.html

The fact is he and his tax scrounger NeoConMen continue to milk the USA's middle classes to pay for their ultra-rich only tax cuts.

Meanwhile these ultra-rich NeoConMen sponge off the state with big fat government contracts for likes of Halliburton Dodgy Dick Cheney's company.

Geoge Bush Jnr's links to the seamier side of business include his friendship and support from the likes of Keneth Lay and the Con Men at ENRON. George Bush Jnr. recieved money from Enron for his 2000 election campaign.

ENRON conned billions from the citizens of California in their fake power chrisis the chief factor in the recall vote which many believe may have been caused by ENRON's actions.

Quote[/b] ]Schwarzenegger Accused of Involvement in $9B California Swindle with Enron’s Ken Lay

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/06/160254

Anyone in California shocked by their giant power bills and state taxes should be seeking legal advice on getting the money back that ENRON stole from them and if it was given to GOP then from them. If you live in Caifornia remember Arnie has deep pockets.

Quote[/b] ]On May 17, 2001--the day the Bush/Cheney administration unveiled their "national energy policy"--Enron Chairman Ken Lay called a secret meeting at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., in an effort to get some of the state's rich and famous to lobby the California Legislature about getting "deregulation right this time." Those attending included California's current Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and junk-bond king Michael Milken.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/060704Enron.shtml

We then come to the question George Bush Junior supporting rich Tax Dodgers who expect the protections of police, emergency rooms, a millitary, roads, schools etc. but dont want to pay for it many NeoConMen are famous for paying less tax than someone on less than 35,000 a year.

Tax Dodging and Scrounging is something George Bush junior knows all about. Along with his criminal record and his AWOL record Vietnam War Dodger George Bush Junior adds Pro Tax Dodger to his record.

George Bush Junior has got to be the most immoral person with the weekest ethics the US has had in power.The US needs someone without a criminal record in power. The illegality and corruption that so taints the NeoConMen who have conned their way into control of the US republican party needs to be rooted out.

The USA needs somone with strong moral background with a record of fighting that illegality and corruption John Kerry has a strong record for fighting Corruption. John Kerry has the ethics to bring Amerca back to moral government.

Kind Regards Walker

[kerosene 0]

So essentially, you could take this argument one step further and say why enforce any laws that are uneconomical for the state, the rich have money and access to good lawyers, etc so just let it go.

I love the way republicans use the phrase "personal responsibility."

George Bush Jrs life is a monument to avoiding adult responsibility, he is incredibly lucky he was born rich, cause he would be poor, white trash if he had to get through life the way most people do.

"personal responibility" is actually code for "fuck poor people", you cant afford your hospital bills?, youre going to jail for some stupidly long time over a miniscule amount of marajuana? Take some responsibility loser, just like George Bush.

The best trick the right-wing, not just in America, but all over the place ever did, was make poor people think they have their interests at heart, usually by relying on nationalism and tabloid newspapers.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The key Points

George Bush Junior's Duty

On 9/11 George Bush Jnr. was the man on watch.

No if buts or maybes he was the Commander in Chief on September 11th nobody else.

It was his duty to order the aircraft into the air to the nations defense.

He was trained and expected to get Nuclear Football to a new and safe location away from his known itinerary and make the decision for America's defense in 10 minutes. This because that is the shortest flight time for Russian sub launched nukes.

The Clock was ticking

No Matter what form the attack took; the minute Andrew Card walks up to Bush while he is listening to a Goat Story with 16 second graders in Sandra Kay Daniels’s class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Card whispers in his ear "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." the clock is ticking and it is a time for executive decisions.

He must assess if the attack is a prelude to a nuclear strike he must be getting up to the second intel on which to make command decisions.

George Bush Junior froze in fear

When it came to the crunch he failed he 'combat froze' it is there on record and on Film he froze in abject terror when America needed a strong leader and Commander in Chief he was not there. He fell into the classic rabbit in the snakes glare freeze his only activities are displacement activities. No Action, no command decision no gathering of intel. Nothing. Naught. Nada.

Nobody Else is to Blame

George Bush Jnr. can not say oh well Clinton should of done this and Clinton should have done that Clinton was not the Commander in Chief on 9/11 George Bush Jnr. was. George Bush Jnr. can not say oh well John F. Kerry should have should of done this and John F. Kerry should have done that John F. Kerry was not the Commander in Chief on 9/11 George Bush Jnr. was. George Bush Jnr can not say oh well the Michael Moore should of done this and Michael Moore should have done that Michael Moore was not Commander in Chief on 9/11 George Bush Jnr. was.

George Bush Jnr. is no good in an emergency he is not a leader he has to be told what to do. He sits there reading a book about goats as America is under attack.

He is so frozen with terror an aid has to come and tell him to get off his butt, while the time limit he is trained expected to to act under has been quietly slipping away.

It is his job to react to an attack on US soil but he does not do it.

Quote[/b] ]9:01 a.m.: Bush later makes the following statement. "And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off from there -- I didn't have much time to think about it." Bush could not have possibly seen the first plane (American Airlines Flight 11) hit the WTC, because the only video showing this was not shown on television till later in the day. So how could he have possibly seen and said this?

9:05 a.m.: Andrew Card walks up to Bush while he is listening to a Goat Story with 16 second graders in Sandra Kay Daniels’s class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Card whispers in his ear "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Bush (commander-and-chief?) keeps listening to this Goat Story

9:23 a.m.: Bush talks privately with Cheney, his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller and Governor George Pataki of New York. Why does Bush wait from 9:05 (when Andrew Card tells him of United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the WTC) till 9:23 to finally call? He still does not give the authority to the fighters to shoot down any hostile airliners. What is he waiting for?

83) 9:30 a m.: Bush, speaking to the nation from Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack" and "a national tragedy." He would chase down, "those folks who committed this act." Bush also said, "Terrorism against our nation will not stand." It was an echo of "This will not stand," the words his father, George H. W. Bush, had used a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990-in Bush's opinion, one of his father's finest moments.

http://www.911timeline.net/

Quote[/b] ]Now the only airliner left in the sky with its IFF transponder signal off which has just made a 180 degree turn over southern Ohio / northeastern Kentucky and has been heading directly back to Washington D.C. and The Pentagon since 8:59 a.m. -- is American Airlines Flight 77. Why didn’t these two F-15’s that were 71 miles from NYC and the WTC, immediately redirect to intercept the only dangerous airliner in the sky, American Airlines Flight 77?

These two F-15’s had 34 minutes to reach Washington D.C. before American Airlines Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. The mission of these two F-15’s from the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base is to protect the skies from Washington D.C. to the north. The F-15 has a top speed of 1875+ MPH, so they could have closed the 300 or so miles from their current position to Washington D.C. in just about 10 minutes. At top speed they could have been at the Pentagon 24 minutes before American Airlines Flight 77 hits it.

9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 is lost from radar screens and impacts the western side of the Pentagon.

The Failure of George Bush Junior in Command

In all those 34 minutes not once did the commander in chief issue an order for aircraft to defend the nations capitol and the central command of the nations defense.

A Commander in Chief must be able to act. One who freezes and cannot think for himself or issue any orders in the nations defense is not a Commander and is a danger to the nation.

It is the president who authorizes the nations defense no one else is legally entitled too.

The power Vaccum of the Psychologically AWOL Commander in Chief

On 9/11 as the aircraft flew steadily on to the Pentagon no orders came this left a visible dangerous power vacuum.

Afterwards indications are that people lower down or even outside the chain of command started making unauthorized and uncoordinated orders in defense of the nation out of shear frustration that there were no orders coming from the top. There is a rumour that Dick Cheney ordered aircraft in to the air after the pentagon was hit.

What we are talking about is at least as dangerous as no orders coming from the commander in chief and in any case is a result of the power vacuum from the George Bush Jnr. suffering 'combat freeze'.

Suppose the person who usurped the chain of command had interpreted 9/11 as a hostile act by say Russia and attacked a Russian nuclear sub. Remember Only the President has the full story on what is happening, or at least that is what is supposed to happen.

George Bush Jnr. is just not up to the job of Commander in Chief. And in this time of danger for every family in the USA the nation needs a resolute leader proven under fire to be able to act in an emergency

The Danger of George Bush Junior

The issue is having a Commander in Chief who is proven to be able act in the Nations Defense in an emergency.

At a time of chrisis there is no second place.

It is your wives, daughters, husbands, sons, sisters, brothers moms and dads who are put in danger by a commander in chief who is not psychologically able to act in an emergency. Supose the next attack is North Korean missiles would you risk their life and yours on someone who the video evidense and record shows will freeze in fear unable to give the give the orders for the nations defense.

When the test Came George Bush Jnr. failed; he could not act.

When the test Came John F. Kerry's military record has proven he will act.

American families need a Leader who will act in the Nation's Defense America will elect John F. Kerry in November.

Kind Regards Ian Walker

[Badassdom 0]

I am ashamed of my prime-minister, but this guy

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

I am ashamed of my prime-minister, but this guy

hey, we'll(Americans) take your prime minister anyday over our guy

[billybob2002 0]

Editorial time...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2740155

Quote[/b] ]Where's my colleagues' interest in Kerry's war records?

Even when he's caught in a lie, media aren't scrutinizing him same way they did Bush

By LEE CEARNAL

The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records — and went over them with a microscope — have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kerry has made his four months and 11 days in Vietnam the central theme of his presidential campaign. This is entirely understandable given his 20 years as the Senate's leading dove. He needs the cover that Vietnam can give him.

Just last week, one of his more fatuous claims came a cropper. Beginning in 1979, with an op-ed for the Boston Herald, Kerry has claimed repeatedly that he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 on a secret — and illegal — mission in Cambodia aboard his swift boat.

"On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. But nowhere in Apocalypse Now did I sense that kind of absurdity."

He repeated the story again in 1986, on the Senate floor: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

He added a fantastic detail in a 2003 Washington Post profile: "A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

" 'Who told you?' he demanded as he reached inside. 'My friends don't know about this.'

"The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

" 'My good luck hat,' Kerry said, happy to see it. 'Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.'

"Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.

"He smiled and aimed his finger: 'Pow.' "

This story was repeated early this year, in the fawning biography written by a Boston Globe reporter. Problem is, it's not true. His own crewmates say they were not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Even Kerry's own diary entry for that day says he was at his base in Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border. In his biography of Kerry, Douglas Brinkly quoted the relevant passage: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."

With their man caught in a lie, Kerry's handlers last week floated a new version — he was near Cambodia.

"During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien.

"On Dec. 24, 1968, Lt. John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire. . . .

"Kerry's was not the only United States riverboat to respond and inadvertently or responsibly cross the border. In fact, it was this reality that led President Nixon to later invade Cambodia itself in 1970."

This won't fly either.

"Watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia?" The Mekong River does not form a border between Vietnam and Cambodia.

"Inadvertently?" Strange, considering that his memory of that Christmas Eve 1968 was "seared" into his memory — including the fact that Nixon was lying about U.S. forces' presence there, even though Nixon didn't even take office until mid-January.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Kerry ventured into Cambodia during his abbreviated tour in Vietnam. No orders, no after-action reports, no confirmation from others, nothing.

To have been caught in Cambodia would have been an international embarrassment and a court-martial offense. The border was clearly marked with warnings signs and patrolled by a PT boat to ensure that no allied boats crossed it. (Yes, allied special-ops forces were operating in Cambodia. But they were not inserted there by something as obvious and slow-moving as a swift boat. They were ferried in by helicopter.)

As to the truth of this tale, there is only Kerry's word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.

And that's not the only issue that reporters are curiously incurious about. At least one of Kerry's Purple Hearts has been challenged by his unit's medical officer, who notes that the wound was barely visible and was treated with a Band-Aid. Some questions should also be asked about his Silver Star: Should shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back — as justifiable as it was as an act of war — be worthy of the nation's third-highest award for courage?

To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records — all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released — and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.

Cearnal is the special projects editor at the Chronicle. A former Marine helicopter pilot, he served in Vietnam from mid-1968 through mid-1969. Readers may e-mail him at lee.cearnal@chron.com

Do you think somebody time in Vietnam should looked at heavily if they use in their campaign a lot?

[DB-ERAUPilot 0]

they've been there, done that..it's time for them to move on..Bush is still a coward no matter how you cut it..Kerry isn't..PERIOD

[Schoeler 0]

Editorial time...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2740155

Quote[/b] ]Where's my colleagues' interest in Kerry's war records?

Even when he's caught in a lie, media aren't scrutinizing him same way they did Bush

By LEE CEARNAL

The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records — and went over them with a microscope — have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kerry has made his four months and 11 days in Vietnam the central theme of his presidential campaign. This is entirely understandable given his 20 years as the Senate's leading dove. He needs the cover that Vietnam can give him.

Just last week, one of his more fatuous claims came a cropper. Beginning in 1979, with an op-ed for the Boston Herald, Kerry has claimed repeatedly that he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 on a secret — and illegal — mission in Cambodia aboard his swift boat.

"On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. But nowhere in Apocalypse Now did I sense that kind of absurdity."

He repeated the story again in 1986, on the Senate floor: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

He added a fantastic detail in a 2003 Washington Post profile: "A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

" 'Who told you?' he demanded as he reached inside. 'My friends don't know about this.'

"The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

" 'My good luck hat,' Kerry said, happy to see it. 'Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.'

"Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.

"He smiled and aimed his finger: 'Pow.' "

This story was repeated early this year, in the fawning biography written by a Boston Globe reporter. Problem is, it's not true. His own crewmates say they were not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Even Kerry's own diary entry for that day says he was at his base in Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border. In his biography of Kerry, Douglas Brinkly quoted the relevant passage: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."

With their man caught in a lie, Kerry's handlers last week floated a new version — he was near Cambodia.

"During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien.

"On Dec. 24, 1968, Lt. John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire. . . .

"Kerry's was not the only United States riverboat to respond and inadvertently or responsibly cross the border. In fact, it was this reality that led President Nixon to later invade Cambodia itself in 1970."

This won't fly either.

"Watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia?" The Mekong River does not form a border between Vietnam and Cambodia.

"Inadvertently?" Strange, considering that his memory of that Christmas Eve 1968 was "seared" into his memory — including the fact that Nixon was lying about U.S. forces' presence there, even though Nixon didn't even take office until mid-January.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Kerry ventured into Cambodia during his abbreviated tour in Vietnam. No orders, no after-action reports, no confirmation from others, nothing.

To have been caught in Cambodia would have been an international embarrassment and a court-martial offense. The border was clearly marked with warnings signs and patrolled by a PT boat to ensure that no allied boats crossed it. (Yes, allied special-ops forces were operating in Cambodia. But they were not inserted there by something as obvious and slow-moving as a swift boat. They were ferried in by helicopter.)

As to the truth of this tale, there is only Kerry's word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.

And that's not the only issue that reporters are curiously incurious about. At least one of Kerry's Purple Hearts has been challenged by his unit's medical officer, who notes that the wound was barely visible and was treated with a Band-Aid. Some questions should also be asked about his Silver Star: Should shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back — as justifiable as it was as an act of war — be worthy of the nation's third-highest award for courage?

To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records — all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released — and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.

Cearnal is the special projects editor at the Chronicle. A former Marine helicopter pilot, he served in Vietnam from mid-1968 through mid-1969. Readers may e-mail him at lee.cearnal@chron.com

Do you think somebody time in Vietnam should looked at heavily if they use in their campaign a lot?  

You can get Kerry's complete military records on his website. They have been there since March when they were first requested.

I guess if you keep demanding something enough times, even long after you've gotten what you've asked for, stupid people will buy into the idea that you haven't been given what you requested.

Bush, has yet to "find" all his records though. Funny isn't it?