Unfit for Command
 

So exactly how is this scandalous rag of a book ANY different form M.Moore's scandalous ficticious,attacks on the president. Seems like there are low-life creeps on both sides. I am shocked!

You need to say "I am shocked" with a more suprised tone. I would suggest studying Claude Rains' Capt Louis Renault (see there was a car tie-in here) in Casablanca

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"


http://www.sulinet.hu/media/images/0971.jpg

I am equal to the task on not reading that book as I am also equal to the task of not seeing Moore's movie for much the same reason. I think they're both opportunistic propaganda unworthy of my time and treasure.

I don't give a rat's ass about somebody's military record forty f**king years ago, especially when they have a public record before my very eyes that is a heck of a lot more meaningful.

OTOH, Jane Fonda can kiss my a$$.

Well, is it just hanging out exposed all the time, waiting for Jane to come by and kiss it? Is this a public announcement she is supposed to read and possibly take you up on your offer, if that is what it was? How exactly is it that you know she can kiss your a$$, or would kiss your a$$? Would she need an appointment, would it be a public a$$ kissing, or would this be something you would share with us on the forum here?

Jim

re: Captain Renault.
next line, afer the " Shocked! Shocked..." line,
" Here are your roulette winnings, sir"

Bot,
You mean Kerry HAS a voting record? I haven't heard him mention any of his votes over the last 20 years. Why might that be?

However you can arrange it would be fine with me.

How do I know she can kiss my a$$? Well, its my a$$, pal. It follows me around everywhere I go and when I'm not sitting on it, she can stand in line.

Right behind you.

You should try increasing your reading level above the propaganda point. It might actually do you some good.

So on one hand, the Republicans declare Kerry has the most liberal voting record in Congress. On the other, they claim he has no record at all. In the meantime during this multi-million dollar corporate financed double-speak negative attack, we are all distracted from Bush's record of economic failure and military disaster. Bush's legislative accomplishments consist of bribing the Congress with as much pork as they can choke on, ruining the nation with debt. He calls Kerry a socialist, while pushing thru a Prescription Drug bill that would do any socialist proud, compromising his own principles so he can bribe some more votes using the public treasury. We have a choice between a man who has served his constituents well, and a craven corrupt opportunist who will compromise any of the principles he actually has left, if any, to buy your vote. Take your pick.

Wow, when you put in so clearly and objectively, how could anybody be confused?

Thanks.

In 20 years (or so) in the senate Kerry passed 57 bills. Care to guess how many bills Cheney passed in his 11 years in the house?

Sure he is. You think Bush is in charge ???? :confused:

Really? Please direct me to one post on Cheney's productivity in Congress.

Actually, a voter is suppose to consider whether the VP is fit for the office of the Presidency. His own record is important. I shudder to think.

If anyone examined Bush's record as governor of Texas, they would find the same corrupt acts he has done as president - selling out public resources cheap to corporations, making the right of corporations to poison air and water more important than the right of children to breath and drink it, and kissing the ass of bigots, gay-haters and religous fascists. Of course, our currently cowed press will never give you a look. Guess what! Somebody around here is gonna!

Let's look a George Bush, the Governor:


http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Environment.htm


Here's an excerpt:

Bush’s environmental record in Texas is notably poor, and he has never suggested he cares. On his watch, the air in Houston has become so foul that the city has recently displaced Los Angeles as the city with the worst smog in America. Bush says he wants to:
Tackle the brownfield problem by replacing the “old system of mandate/regulate/litigate” with decentralized state-led efforts
Conserve wilderness areas by encouraging states and even private citizens to take up wildlife management, rather than leaving everything to the federal government
Tackle global warming, which he acknowledges may be a real threat. However, he pours scorn on the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (which Gore is proud of) and says he favors market-friendly alternatives instead.
Keep energy prices low, in part by encouraging further exploration on federal lands. He blamed the summer gasoline crisis on new laws mandating cleaner gas; precisely the sort of initiative Gore would love.

Well since no one wants to guess the answer is

Two, eleven years and two pieces of legislation.

Despite all these shortcomings prior to being elected, the man is now president. I would say that pretty much renders your point, pointless.

Despite all these shortcomings prior to being elected, the man is now vice president. I would say that pretty much renders your point, pointless.

You do mean selected, right?


Flame shield : I'm just joking around.

Waaah!!! George you started it. Now the nuts are gonna fall outta the trees!

Well, since he is not "Vice President for Life Dick Cheney" and coincidentely is running for office right now I would say his past is somewhat relevent. Especially when he has called into question his opponants congressional records.

But thanks for playing.

Since taking office, isn't VPODUS on his 4th or 5th press secretary? Must be a rough job fielding the press from a secure undisclosed location.

I really wish you dems could get past this "elected" vs " selected". In ALL the recounts by the various new media, NO RECOUNT EVER CAME OUT WITH GORE AS THE WINNER.
The whole court battle was started by democrats, in the corrupt Florida courts. And NO ONE KNOWS who actually won the popular vote because so many are not counted i.e. absentee votes ( which generally favor republicans) are not counted when they cannot affect the outcome. Besides our system is the electoral college is the vote that counts; not the popular vote. Get over it already. I am sick of your whinning!!

Agreed, the election has long been certified and over, move on. With that said, you'd have to agree that the new administration could hardly claim that it was armed with any mandate by the good citizens and that it was more a call for moderate action by the White House.

I thought we were talking about their "records" or is that pointless as weel. Perhaps we should just have a coronation.

Your accusation of corruption by the Florida Supreme Court is disrespectful and misinformed, but you are right about Bush being elected. Two of the foundational elements of our system are the electoral college and the U.S. Supreme Court as the final arbiter of federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court said that the Florida recounts violated federal law. So, unless someone can show us a picture of a gun being held to the Justices' heads, that is the end of the discussion. The most unfortunate thing about the court case called Bush v. Gore, aside from W becoming President, is that it is a blatantly political decision. Because the Supreme Court has the final say, our system relies on the integrity of the individual justices. Fortunately, it is rare for the justices to act in such a partisan political manner as they did in Bush v. Gore. They probably reached the correct legal result, but the concurring opinion written by Rehnquist is shameful in its reasoning. History will not treat that case well.

I hated that the Supreme's got involved. I think elections are a political process and the courts should stay out as much as possible. In that case, it was entirely possible.

The constitution has a plan in-place for contested elections and the constitution should have been allowed to work as designed rather than having the Supremes usurp a state prerogative.

It burns my undies that the Republicans wear the clothing of federalism except when it is inconvenient, then they toss them aside and pull on the suit of centralized power over states rights.

It was wrong and a shame.

Bot

Agreed. The part that seems really stupid about it is that the Supremes might have been able to let the Florida process perk along a while longer before pulling the rug. That way, I bet they could have gotten the Republican president they wanted without staining the Court's reputation. I think panic set in.

Speaking of partisan Supreme Court justices, why haven't a few of the Republicans on the Court retired during Bush's first term? Didn't it occur to them that his first term might be his last? I'll bet a couple of them thought that 9/11 guaranteed four more years for W. Now they might have Kerry nominating their replacements.

THEY DISQUALIFIED THE BALLOTS OF 50,000 BLACK PEOPLE AND NO ONE EVER WENT TO JAIL FOR IT.

All ballots are counted, its the law. Gore won by 500,000 votes. If Bush had been an ethical ,man, he would have bowed to the will of the people and withdrawn.

McCain condemns anti-Kerry ad
Calls on White House to follow suit
Thursday, August 5, 2004 Posted: 1:35 PM EDT (1735 GMT)
event in Columbus, Ohio.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad.

Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts.

Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.

The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.

"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."

The White House and Bush-Cheney campaign did not address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot, though a Bush spokesman said the campaign does not question Kerry's highly decorated war service. McCain is co-chair of Bush's campaign in Arizona.

'Old wounds'
In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.

McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."

"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts.

They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."

The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.

"What we have is a fabrication that led to Kerry getting his Bronze Star and his last Purple Heart," said Thurlow, who said he commanded a swiftboat near Kerry's.

Not sure I understand your premise. Who would you suspect would retire? Scalia, Thomas? During the next four years it might be Stevens or O'Connor, perhaps Ginsberg, which would make getting Bush out of office even more urgent for liberals and moderates.

Well first off, he said he was kidding, there was no whinning.

Second, as Botnst alluded to, it's not what the count ended up being, it was the process. The US Supremes stepped in and said that a state supreme court couldn't interprete state election laws.

Had the count gone on and Bush had won, no problem, had the FLA Supremes been allowed to rule on state election laws, no problem, but the way it was done was pretty shakey and not the court's proudest moment.

I thought, based on nothing in particular, that Rehnquist and O'Connor have been ready to retire for a while. They are both strong Republicans. I thought they would take W's election in 2000 as an opportunity to exit stage right ;) and get a couple of nice, young right-wingers to take their place for the next generation or so.

dculkin, and koop, I leave the battle to you for a week, as I am off to fight mankind's eternal battle with the our oldest adversary, the fish. Battle on, you serve our cause well, and all you others who despise or are disgusted with what the right is doing to this country, keep it up!

See you all next week.

tight lines and cold beer

Rehnquist, certainly had liberals running for cover when Regan appointed him as CJ, has actually not been as much of a conservative idealogue as feared. O'Connor is presently popularly though of as the "swing" vote on the panel.

Kirk, I wish you good fishing.
However, you are wrong in contending that all votes are counted. In the case of absentees, they are NOT counted unless they could potentially affect the outcome. For example, if candidate "A" has a 30,000 vote plurality, and there are 10,000 absentess ballots. The absentees ballots are not counted becaause they could not have any possible affect on the outcome. If the plurality lead by candidate "A" were 5,000 votes, then the absentees ballots would be counted as they would obviously have an impact. Therefore I repeat that NO ONE KNOWS WHO WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN 2000.

As for the courts getting involved... It was regrettable. However, remember who started the process. For those with a sense of history, Nixon, showed more class than the dems in the 2000 election--he was encouraged to protest the votes in Cooke County, and Chicago Ill in the 1960 election. There were many irregularities, and his case might have won. However, he chose not to put the country thru that mess. Imagine, Nixon showing more class than.....anyone.

Contesting elections is not a matter who has class and who doesn't. If the second-place finisher has reason to believe the count was wrong, he or she has a duty to seriously consider calling for a re-count. The alternative might be disenfranchisement.

Kirk, have fun drowning those worms.

Recall that the state legislature must certify the election as valid. No matter what the count is, if the state legislature doesn't sanction it, then all electors are still up for grabs and the U.S. House of Representatives decides who is valid.

So lets say the FL Supreme's cherry picking had been allowed to go forward. The legislature could vote that the method was wrong and thus, invalid. That woul dhave sent the contested election to the Houe of Representatives.

Now recall that he FL legislature is dominated by Repos and the same with the House of Reps. The chances are probably about even that the FL legislature would not have validated the election. The Repo dominated House would then probably have voted to seat the Rep Electors, resulting in the same outcome.

It sounds messy, but it would have been strictly consitutional.

But I think that the Repos were cowards and didn't want to face the political fairestorm of not validating an election that the state Supreme Court said was fair. So they took the cowards way out and dumped it on US Supremes.

The US Supreme Court is not comprised of a single class of partisan. Yeah the Repo-leaners abdicated their traditional states-rights perspective. But recall that the Demo-leaners abandoned their own traditional centralized power position and discovered the hidden virtue of states rights. Amazing shifts from both sides and each of them self-righteously harrumphing about the other's lack of consistency.

They're all F-d up.

I disagree with your "military disaster" opinion, and Kerry IS a socialist....

.......but with the excerpt I quoted above, you've expressed quite eloquently one of the big reasons why I will probably end up voting Libertarian again, in spite of the fact that I'm not doing cartwheels over the candidate my favorite party is offering this time.

Mike

I could be wrong, but I bet you have absolutely no facts to back up that statement.

Well, the fact that he is in favor of raising taxes, while also being in favor of continuing and/or expanding existing social programs that have been nothing but downward-spiraling failures....that's a great place to start....

Redistribution of wealth. If that is not "socialist", I don't know what is....

Mike

Are you saying that Bush's tax cut didn't redistribute wealth?

By that definition, Bush is the bigger socialist here. Of course his re-distribution of wealth is upward rather than downward - does that make him a fascist instead?

i dont know if i buy this unfit for command stuff. on cnn this morning, they had the guy who wrote the nasty book and they showed their campaingn commericial. they also had one guy who was actually on kerrys boat. he called the other guys a bunch of liars. the anti-kerry guys just looked like a bunch of angry old white dudes to me. angry old white dudes are starting to get to me. they just seem to attack everything and say nothing about what they are going to do, on both sides.

I saw the same interview. I wonder whethre the anti-Kerry guys are still so pissed at his anti-war stuff that they are making up stuff. I don't no what other explanation there would be. The former Green Beret that introduced Max Cleland at the Dem Convention seems highly credible when he talks about Kerry pulling him from the water while under enemy fire. Have these anti-Kerry guys called that guy a liar?

It is a shame that it comes to this, but if they want to compare Vietnam service records then, in the words of our CinC, "Bring 'em on."

Is there a way that they can all be telling the truth?

I think so.

I mean, in a traffic accident or crime eyewitnesses often honestly report conflicting observations. So can these guys.

B

as timely as today's headlines

"I knew it was wrong"



John Kerry's former commanding officer now retracts a statement he signed onto at the prodding of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans that said Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star. It was a "terrible mistake," and he felt "time pressure" from those involved in the book, the officer says. The Drudge Report, at least partly responsible for the hype around the anti-Kerry ad and book -- and which yesterday bore this blaring headline: "VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL..." is linking to the Boston Globe piece with the understated headline "One Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry..."

Yes, one veteran, who happened to be Kerry's commanding officer. Since none of the other veterans who appear in the anti-Kerry ad actually served with Kerry, this retraction delivers a mighty blow to their claims. As the Globe points out: "All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star."

From the Globe: "A key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book."

"Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.'"

"The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives."

"Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. 'I still don't think he shot the guy in the back,' Elliott said. 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here.'"

"Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure' from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse,' Elliott said. 'I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.'"

"The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. The book, 'Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,' is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report."

Salon 8-6

Koop, I think you inadvertently left off the part where he stood by the remainder of the Swift Boat comments except for the Silver Star portion. Isn't that right?

B

I googled this:


Anti-Kerry Vietnam Veterans Hold Strong


The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is in response to an article appearing in the morning edition of the Boston Globe (“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry”) which implies that one Vietnam Veteran wishes to retract an affidavit he signed regarding John Kerry’s actions during and after Kerry’s time in Vietnam. The signed affidavit can be seen below.
"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit [see below] in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow. “The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

“Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam.”