Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2 Arabic men caught on train headed to Mexico with $$$ and box cutters. I think an implication was made they were part of #1.

Anyone hear anything about either of these?

I thought the story was that they were Italians planning to hijack the train and ram it into the White House.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you stop and recall that Cheney apparently issued an order to shoot down Flight 93, and only later checked with Bush, and that Bush spent the day flying from Air Force base to Air Force base before returning to Washington, what you get is a picture of less-than-decisive leadership under fire. Since Bush wants to be re-elected on the basis of his handling of 9/11, all of this is fair play, to say the least.

You can't link the two. Communications were a bit awkward, and Clarke in the Situation Room was urging that a decision had to be made on the flight immediately. Cheney in the WH bunker sez OK, and then calls to the President to inform and confirm. That's no negative reflection on Bush -- just a function of where he was at the time.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is from one of articles out there on this, by Ron Fournier of the AP:

• 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. 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.
  
  Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

And I think those points are relevant too. But it is my understanding that in addition to being on the other swiftboats, some of these guys were his commanding officers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You can't link the two. Communications were a bit awkward, and Clarke in the Situation Room was urging that a decision had to be made on the flight immediately. Cheney in the WH bunker sez OK, and then calls to the President to inform and confirm. That's no negative reflection on Bush -- just a function of where he was at the time.

S_A_M

According to Cheney, the President gave him the go-ahead to give the order before he (Cheney) gave it. The problem is, no one logged the purported call. Cheney gave the order, and then someone suggested that he "confirm" this with the President, and he did. Your account may be the correct one, but Cheney disagrees with it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It's more than "poor form" Burger, its a federal crime (I think).

S_A_M

Fair enough. One was purportedly a cover-up; the other was improper disclosure that the press likely would say is "information the public has a right to".

Why do you think the press coverage might differ?

And, regardless of press coverage, which concerns you more--compromising intelligence, or compromising intelligence in an effort to cover something up?

(again, assuming the allegations about Berger are true).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I think those points are relevant too. But it is my understanding that in addition to being on the other swiftboats, some of these guys were his commanding officers.

Whatever. My two points:

(1) Misleading information is not relevant.

(2) Republicans should keep talking about Kerry's Vietnam service a lot.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Play along with me for a minute. Assuming the allegations are true, do you not think it is relevant?

I suppose it would be relevant to character.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think Kerry's war service is relevant to establish character. I commend and admire that he volunteered to serve. But I think his service is not relevant to whether he is qualified to be CiC. He has made that argument, so if there are competing views on his service, I think they are relevant.

So, did you think all the stuff about Bush's service was relevant to character? Including the near certainty that his family connections were key to getting him the pilot slot in the Texas Air Guard ("Please move to the head of the line Mr. Minimally Qualified.")? What about the competing views on whether or not he ever completed his service ? Or the drunk driving? Or Cheney's drunk driving? Or Cheney taking every deferment known to man to avoid service? What does that say about his character? Where does it end?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough. One was purportedly a cover-up; the other was improper disclosure that the press likely would say is "information the public has a right to".

Why do you think the press coverage might differ?

And, regardless of press coverage, which concerns you more--compromising intelligence, or compromising intelligence in an effort to cover something up?

(again, assuming the allegations about Berger are true).

The press coverage surely differs because there was a concerted effort by conservatives to smear Berger. E.g., Republican lawmakers make statements about how important it was that we get to the bottom of the allegations against Berger. I don't see Democrats doing this to Shelby -- even though investigators have concluded that the allegations are correct in his case -- because they don't need to distract anyone from the 9/11 report this week.

And what Shelby did was surely much, much worse than what Berger is alleged to have done. What Berger did is far less likely to aid the enemy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, did you think all the stuff about Bush's service was relevant to character? Including the near certainty that his family connections were key to getting him the pilot slot in the Texas Air Guard ("Please move to the head of the line Mr. Minimally Qualified.")? What about the competing views on whether or not he ever completed his service ? Or the drunk driving? Or Cheney's drunk driving? Or Cheney taking every deferment known to man to avoid service? What does that say about his character? Where does it end?

S_A_M

I don't kid myself about Bush's history. However, to his credit, he appears to be a different man since he quit drinking and became born again.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I suppose it would be relevant to character.



So, did you think all the stuff about Bush's service was relevant to character? Including the near certainty that his family connections were key to getting him the pilot slot in the Texas Air Guard ("Please move to the head of the line Mr. Minimally Qualified.")? What about the competing views on whether or not he ever completed his service ? Or the drunk driving? Or Cheney's drunk driving? Or Cheney taking every deferment known to man to avoid service? What does that say about his character? Where does it end?

S_A_M

Did you leave out the alleged crackheadedness on purpose, or did you just forget about that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Did you leave out the alleged crackheadedness on purpose, or did you just forget about that?

So Kerry's boys have moved on beyond keeping Nader off ballots. now they are threatening TV stations if they run the Swift Boat ads. Fun Perkins Coie letter!

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesui...unfit_pdf.html

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I think those points are relevant too. But it is my understanding that in addition to being on the other swiftboats, some of these guys were his commanding officers.

Maybe we should find out whom McNamara is endorsing. Then we'll really know whether John Kerry is fit to serve as CiC!*

*Now that Johnson and Nixon are dead.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whatever. My two points:

(1) Misleading information is not relevant.

(2) Republicans should keep talking about Kerry's Vietnam service a lot.

(1) How do you know it's misleading? Were you there? It's o.k. for some veterans to stand with Kerry and support him because they are being "patriotic", yet others in the same unit, on the same missions and who treated his injuries (including retired admirals) who disagree are liars. All right...

If I served in his unit, was concerned by his actions over there, and then 30 years later was forced to listen to him wrapping himself in the flag after calling me and my brothers in arms baby killers and war criminals, I'd be pissed off too. As the leader of the group just responded to McCain -- they paid for their right to speak in blood.

(2) I'd love to continue the public discourse on this, but Kerry's campaign and the DNC are now threatening to sue every media outlet that runs the ads from this group. Were these strongarm tactics employed by the RNC against ads run for Moore's movie or for MoveOn.org ads? I don't think so...

I may have to pick this 256 page "misleading" book up just for kicks. If I can get a copy -- it's now #1 at Amazon. At least LawTalkers will get the commission.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
(1) How do you know it's misleading? Were you there? It's o.k. for some veterans to stand with Kerry and support him because they are being "patriotic", yet others in the same unit, on the same missions and who treated his injuries (including retired admirals) who disagree are liars. All right...

If I served in his unit, was concerned by his actions over there, and then 30 years later was forced to listen to him wrapping himself in the flag after calling me and my brothers in arms baby killers and war criminals, I'd be pissed off too. As the leader of the group just responded to McCain -- they paid for their right to speak in blood.

I don't know that it's misleading, but I tend to believe that what Kerry and McCain are saying is the truth, and to dismiss the attacks on him as partisan hackery. Maybe that's wrong. If so, odd that it took Kerry running for President to piss these people off.

(2) I'd love to continue the public discourse on this, but Kerry's campaign and the DNC are now threatening to sue every media outlet that runs the ads from this group. Were these strongarm tactics employed by the RNC against ads run for Moore's movie or for MoveOn.org ads? I don't think so...

I may have to pick this 256 page "misleading" book up just for kicks. If I can get a copy -- it's now #1 at Amazon. At least LawTalkers will get the commission.

Go nuts. I suspect that the Perkins Coie letter is an effort to frame the debate, and that no one will sue (and for that matter that the suit against FOX by Moveon is frivolous), but maybe I'm wrong about this.

I'm waiting for Slave to complain about how all y'all keep talking about Kerry and Vietnam. Apparently it irritates him when Kerry points out that he was there, but not so much when conservatives want to dwell on it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
the Perkins Coie letter

Had someone else posted the letter earlier? If so, please excuse this rant. I am about sick and tired of having my posts bypassed with people responding to another's yet making reference to the substance of my posts. It's simply Ty being afraid of me, I know, but still he should be a man. He's raising a son for goodness sakes. He needs to be a better example.